|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:welfare in capitalist economies is workforce maintenance; it is there to keep people mothballed and able to eventually return to productivity in situations where temporary incapacity, unemployment, or life-consuming responsibilities like supporting family would otherwise mean a permanent end to their contribution to capital. the logic of the modern welfare state assumes close to everybody is either productively contributing to the economy, or will be soon, and in order to qualify for it you typically have to fill out a whole bunch of forms to confirm that you do, in fact, fit into that rubric. it's not just free money for the hell of it. That's not true at all. It's about maintaining order and prosperity in a society, if you leave a portion of people in the dust eventually you will have extensive social unrest and possibly revolts. There are many forms of welfare even in the US that are indefinite and not aimed at returning people to the workforce after a rough patch.
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Tei posted:A algorithm don't understand context. They can forge a context but it look something like this "a)Yes, b)No c)Yes d)Yes e)Yes f)Yes e)Yes g)No" where they choose between 256 precreated answers. "a)Yes, b)No c)Yes d)Yes e)Yes f)Yes e)Yes g)No" is a laughable context if you ask a human. You are describing basic algorithmic software which is typically written by a human. This is not how neural networks work. Take image processing for example, if you have a network built to detect fruit, you don't define the attributes of apples and bananas and use detection algorithms like edge finding and blob finders to narrow down the possibilities and classify the results, Instead you simply feed it data, tons of data. Let's say, 500 images each of a variety of fruits. Then, when you feed it a new image of a fruit, it will be able to narrow down the possibilities by using only data it has received as not an array of complex but ultimately dumb algorithms. It works similarly to the human mind, albeit not as sophisticated, requiring significantly larger amounts of data than a human to make a determination.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Has anyone written about my gut feeling that amounts to "not all automation"? I don't think automation is inherently zero sum. Many automated systems give rise to new industries, creating more jobs than destroyed. Naturally most such positive knock-on effects are less invisible or more obfuscated than the negatives, but... Automation has always destroyed more jobs than it has created, it has to by definition - If it didn't bring down costs then there would be no incentive to develop the automation in the first place. What's happened in the past is that other sectors of employment have opened up due to a sudden growth in available labor forces. Automation didn't create new work, but the fact that more workers were now available let other industries spring up to utilize them. The conventional wisdom that this process will repeat itself is probably wrong, because things are different this time. The past ~250 years of automation have for the most part just been putting a simple task into a large mechanical machine, and scaling it. The machines got more efficient and more sophisticated but they still just replaced simple tasks, e.g., tractors or textile factors replacing very simple but very labor intensive work. Then computers came along. The massive efficiency boons from computers extends to every imaginable corner of the workforce, from sophisticated robot arms that manufacture vehicles, to barcode scanners at a grocery store, to a basic spreadsheet that helps runs a small business. It was our luck that the computer explosion also brought with it a huge number of grunt-level white-collar jobs that involved sitting behind a keyboard, but they've been getting automated far faster than they've been created since then. But now in the last decade or so we've hit another explosion of software capability, and now automation of tasks is gobbling up even what could be considered relatively advanced work. Driving vehicles, recognizing images, writing news, figuring out patient treatments - the list goes on forever. There's no gap of new simple labor here that a bulk of the labor force can jump into. Everything simple is already automated or about to be. Any new basic work that needs to be done will be automated before the general public even knows it exists. Probably the best the unskilled labor market can hope for as far as new jobs go is an explosion of work in labeling data sets for neural network training (spoiler: this isn't going to happen)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It's a seething nest of MRAs, Mr. "Fe-males could just get divorced and live on alimony." I think you'd like it. Calm the gently caress down and stop using strawmen to insult people. If someone is making a flawed argument, counter it by pointing out the flaw, not calling them an MRA. Your prolific D&D posts in every single thread are so toxic with this crap.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Dont believe the robot hype. Artificial intelligence hasnt advanced since the 1980s. Yes, it has, extremely far. We have cars that drive themselves now, we have robots that learn how to perform complex tasks just by watching people. A lot of shifting of goalposts has happened around AI, where several decades ago it was "when they can beat a master at chess, it's true AI", then when that happened the reaction was "well it's just a program". Then it happened again with a variety of increasingly complex tasks, culminating right now with something as complex as a machine that drives a car, and already does it better than most humans. Just because we don't have androids that are behaviorally indistinguishable from humans does not mean that we haven't made progress. The point about a scifi future is a separate one, and meaningless. We don't know what advancements in automation and AI are going to have down the road, but just because we aren't "there" yet doesn't mean the advancements haven't been enormous.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I dont think so. Cars still cant drive themselves and robots still fall over all the time. In order to automate jobs, we need to create robots that can be as flexible as humans and thats at least 50 years away, probably a lot longer. Maybe in 30 years we'll have cars that can drive in the rain but thats it. In the meantime, climate is getting worse and we're running out of valuable resources. Technology cant save us. We're going to take a huge step back this century, best case scenario. If your definition of "AI" is robots as flexible as humans, well... I don't know what to tell you. AI doesn't mean "human intelligence". It just means something that can perform beyond basic algorithms written by hand by humans. It's a thing that's been around for decades and it's advancing at an incredible pace. We already have cars that can drive in the rain, we already have robots that can learn, and we even already have robots that can walk around, but not a lot of investment is put in them because... well they're usually impractical. We could make human-like robots to work in warehouses, but that's pointless. We make little robots that drive around and pick up crates instead. Or vast networks of conveyor belts driven by massively complex software that manages an entire warehouse by itself. We could make a robot that sits at a computer and does clerical work, but that's stupid too. We make software that's highly advanced and targeted at a specific kind of task. This is not about climate change or scarce resources. Those are extremely important areas that humanity needs to put a ton of resources into, but they're tangential to automation. Automation can be applied to them in a variety of ways but mostly its just used for efficiency. It's cheaper, faster, and more reliable to automate tasks instead of hiring humans to do it. That's why we automate. You seem to be seriously depressed about climate change and resource scarcity. There are other threads for that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Rime posted:At the moment I think it's too hard to say, as we're nearing the end of the technological path we've been following for the past sixty years or so and transistors aren't going to get much smaller. There are multiple alternatives to traditional silicon transistors. They're not advanced to the point of widespread deployment but it's not like we're about to hit some wall that will halt advancement. Besides that, there is an absolute wealth of different paths of technological progress that don't hinge on smaller and faster processing power.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:For the edification of the thread, could you perhaps explain what the difference is between AI and plain old programming? A system capable of learning something that it was not given explicit instructions for. The ability to adapt to changes, even small ones. A robot arm that can move its grabber based on input from a camera could be classified as AI, there's a lot of overlap between AI and machine learning. Automation is just... Doing something with less labor. A robot arm that requires specific instructions for an order of operations and exact positions to make a weld would be Plain Old Programming applied to automation. Algorithms that churn through data way faster than a person could but still apply no self-adapting mechanisms would be plain old programming.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What would it be? wizards? I think you misread that. I meant a system that never adapts to anything and runs predefined algorithms based on predetermined conditions would NOT be AI, it would just be a normal program.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's all algorithms! algorithms is all there is! They are all normal programs. There isn't algorithms then also some super special spark of life other thing we can use. It's just some other algorithms. You can say "it's all algorithms" but that's splitting hairs to miss a point. Yes, it's all algorithms, but it's not all human-written algorithms for human-written conditions. AI isn't some grand leap to human cognition. It's a blurry transition from high-level programming to higher-level programming.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I don't think there will ever be a lack of things to do, I know the "everyone will be vloggers" thing was a joke but I honestly believe more people will move to the arts or research as traditional jobs become less popular. Those things require popularity to generate even a pittance of an income, and it's fundamentally impossible to have an economy based on arts and entertainment popularity, because even in an ideal scenario only a tiny fraction will succeed. It would be great to have a society where people were able to pursue those kinds of interests freely, but that could only be possible with something like UBI where they wouldn't have to generate a livable income from it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Guys stop responding to OOCC. He always starts stupid arguments and never posts in good faith, as you can easily see by him ignoring every counterpoint and repeating himself with his fingers in his ears.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:In other news, I would already prefer a google doctor to a human one, but alas, no such option exists. This actually is done in some cases, albeit in a far-less-sophisticated form. It's consistently better than humans. I'm too occupied to find the source atm but I'll try to post it later if no one else does
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:How long before we end up with two barrister bots arguing in court using arguments/speech patterns algorithmically honed to exploit the human judge or jury's biases? Pfff, we'll have robot juries programmed to have no bias. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You'd think it would be obvious yet every time this issue comes up here or elsewhere folks come crawling out of the woodwork with half-baked ideas without any consideration for how changes can lead to increased danger. This is the issue in this conversation. You are expecting people to come up with thorough, robust, and informed proposals detailing how automation should be implemented. You're having this argument on a dead gay comedy forum. Nobody is qualified or interested enough to come up with those proposals. They are half-baked because why the hell would anyone here try to make a full-baked idea? Someone says "hey this thing could be automated, we should be doing that" and you say "THATS DANGEROUS" because you can't grasp that it was never meant to be a complete proposal. Yes, airplanes can be automated. They already are to a massive extent. Your claims that automation are impossible or too dangerous are short-sighted and ignore basically every example of automation of an industry. People inside bloated industries with a vested interest in the status quo always say that change is not possible, until someone ignores their whining and does it. AI can easily do all of the things that have been discussed in this thread, despite your silly assertions that humans are able to intuit and work around serious technical failures even when they don't understand what they are (this is absurd). First it was chess, then it was cars, then it was medicine, surgery, airflight, go, you name it. There is nothing special about airplanes that says they can't be automated. And OF COURSE the process towards automation should and absolutely WILL take every possible safety precaution into account. Nobody even once in this thread has said otherwise and you are acting like every person doesn't care about safety.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Actually, I'd just be happy if people accepted that the systems that allow commercial aviation to exist are complicated. I don't think that's too much to ask. Literally everyone knows this and nobody has said otherwise a single time. You're arguing against nothing, simply because people aren't making huge detailed breakdowns of how it would work.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I don't think the Juicero invalidates the entire industry. I just think it's an example of how SV can be subject to hubris, and why we shouldn't necessarily always trust their hype. Just because SV is pumped about something doesn't necessarily mean it's the "right" thing. This is the straw-est of strawmen, this is like your grandma on facebook level of arguing, please stop. I'm really tempted to unpack this and describe how stupid every single word is but it's not worth the effort, do some introspection.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Industrial robotic arms have been around a good while, they don’t have any special name they’re used in all sorts of applications. They’re good for any precision movement that requires multiple axis of movement, they’re so ubiquitous nowadays they span pretty much every industry. I've heard some work is happening on using them in clothing production too, an industry very ripe for automation since it still rests on mostly manual labor, which is unfortunately also has rampant exploitation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yes? like, clearly yes? The problem is that 1 in 20 people in SF are homeless and extremely unwell and it's hugely taxing on all public infrastructure that isn't designed to handle it. Hmm yes so the solution is to harass them and push them even further to the fringes of society That'll fix things
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Someone made Gal Gadot porn using a GAN. It was literally one of the very first applications of the technology. If a technology can conceivably be applied to porn, it will be. In fact, its application to porn is often what drives it so fiercely forward.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
That's not exactly an impressive example considering there's no basis in any realism and any vivid color at all will work. It just needs a not-terrible color palette and it can put pretty much any color anywhere for an acceptable final result. Please don't post anime.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don't think it's going to totally change everything or anything like that but I bet all the various farm assist technology are gonna lead to some really cool stuff. Like big giant factory farms are going to still dominate everything but the more a single person and a bunch of low cost helper robots can do the more democratized small scale farming can be. Like I don't know anyone that would go off the grid and truly change their lifestyle all around being a yard farmer or anything but I absolutely know a ton of people that already garden on a small scale and would absolutely be down with scaling up if someone sold some sort of farming roomba that automated some portion of the day to day tasks. Like a drone that flew around every day and chopped up a few weeds the best it could or picked bugs off leaves or kept stuff watered or whatever. The boring parts of gardening. I'm in favor of automating farming further, but you are woefully unaware of the state of that industry if you think it democratizes it. These are not "farming roombas", they're gigantic industrial machines made to work in enormous volumes. To start a farming operation even for a single crop you're looking at several million dollars in equipment if you want state-of-the-art automation, which this is. And that's not even counting land requirements. It very effectively pushes out small players and ensures that only the big players with mountains of capital can stay competitive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:
That will start to change pretty rapidly. The technology is improving really quickly, energy costs are dropping (not as quick as they could, but still) and open field farming will become more and more difficult. Global warming is already causing extremes in weather and the aquifers that a huge portion of the world farming relies on (mostly NA) are rapidly depleting. It's not economic now.... But it will be. And more environmentally friendly, which capitalism is happy to ignore right now, but will hopefully be more significant in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:We need an app to track how many threads owl of cream cheese has ruined We already do, just look at every thread he's posted in
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2018 06:24
|
|
|
Surprise Giraffe posted:Seems relevant. Skip to the end for the main event. If that's really what it says it is, and given Boston Dynamics latest vids, the building blocks of smarter-than-people AI are already there, right? I mean if you define "building blocks" as something super basic, maybe. But otherwise no, We're still a very very long way from anything approaching human intelligence, much less something smarter. It's way too vague to make accurate predictions, but maybe we'll see it in our lifetimes. But it's not around the corner, it's definitely decades away at best.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:So GA is going to build a truck only highway between Macon and Atlanta. They plan to have automated trucks on it too. Uh.... why not build a railroad? You know, things that are specifically designed and extremely good at bulk transport between set locations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Hey guys I have a hot take: what if both Uber (the car) and the driver are at fault.  Really though, this is a tragic accident and an important wake-up call for tech companies that you can't play fast and loose with things that can easily kill people. I don't think it's a condemnation of autonomous cars (more a condemnation of Uber and their universally terrible practices), but it is and should be a cautionary tale and a way for oversight to get into the thick of things instead of letting all the tech companies just do whatever they want. But having said all that it shouldn't slam on the brakes (ha ha ha) on the tech because I do strongly believe it has the potential to save thousands of lives in the very near future.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Agreed, its good that we finally found a way to get people who can't drive to the hospital, which we've been struggling with for years Yes, actually it would be nice to solve that problem. If you are familiar with US healthcare you should know what a big problem it is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Admit that if it was anyone other than musk if you heard someone said their dad did "the most evil thing you can imagine" that you would know exactly what they meant and wouldn't be spinning yarns about how maybe they meant something else. Stop making stupid assumptions and acting like they are fact. This is why everyone called you a bad poster. The only thing that article tells us is that Musk thinks his dad is a bad person and a criminal. Nothing more.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:people are literally posting an iphone video and saying "why doesn't their camera look as nice as this!???" and saying they intentionally darkened the camera or something. This is Uber, the company that constantly engages in unethical and illegal activities and cuts corners and lies about it. It's completely plausible that they altered the video.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2018 20:35
|
|