|
B B posted:I am about to become an automation engineer at a software company. How long will it be until my job is automated? 90% safe, I say. I don't think we will see software writting software. Not if the humans are the ones writting the specs. 90% of the jobs of software people is to understand paradoxical, contradictory, chaotic and ambiguous staments. If management roles are replaced by algorithms, then these AI-management algorithms will standardize on existing software, so if you job is "rewrite the wheel", it will be at risk. Only these writing the standarized software will have a job. ---- My solution to this is to create a new type of money. "Softmoney". With Softmoney you would be able to buy garantee by society housing and food. Then if we choose to give people a minimal income, pay them in softmoney. If they want to buy stuff that can't be paid with softmoney, they will need a job or somebody that take their softmoney. Capitalism is too rooted on what we know, and what we are, how we imagine the world, etcetera, etcetera... so only a solution that copy how capitalism works may solve the problem. Softmoney is not real money, and things that are now free would require it. Life for people with a job will have them exchanging periodically some hardmoney for a bunch of softmoney. This will be a society of haves and haves-not, but I don't think we can avoid that. Since we can't avoid that,at least we can try to create a system that Works and is has humane has possible and still continue to be Capitalist. Tei fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Dec 2, 2016 |
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:and yeah, don't take that literal, I do understand that our jobs aren't being replaced by a single android that I could just have in my home, I'm trying to say that if a job gets replaced by automation that makes that job cost an extremely low amount it seems hard to imagine a realistic situation where I am forever locked out of being able to acquire that good or service for a low price. I am not sure If I understand your logic. The way our societies work now if you are unemployed you have expenses but not income. You may have some money saved but it will not last forever. Once your bank account is empty, you will have expenses that you can't pay, and thats the problem. If everything is cheap, thats something that will benefit people with money, you will be money-less. Things like a flat TV or a phone will be easy to buy, but buying a house will be a imposible dream. Living in a house will be too expensive. One way or another you will live out of wellfare. I say having a smartphone will be doable because you may get (1) paycheck somewhere one. So instant buys are possible, is maintenance cost like food or rent that will be imposible. Tei fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I guess I just don't get this sci-fi story where everyone is unemployed because of machines but the machines can only be owned by a few people and those people are somehow using the machines to sell stuff to unemployed people? I think you understand it very well: Is broken, thats why need fixing. If we want capitalism to continue forward we need a patch in the event most jobs are destroyed. The OP post explain it better than I could possibly do. Automation use to create more jobs than it destroy, now it destroy more jobs than it produce. quote:Like how is the guy making cellphones for 8 dollars each in a very cheap factory making money if no one has money? Once most people is unemployeed, goods consumation has to die with our current system. So this dude too get fired because the industry close. We want to stop that. Is a system crash. quote:Why does he even need money if everything is made in factories that cost so little above raw material costs anyway? Even if a cellphone is 1$, you still need 1$ to buy, if you don't even have 1$ you can't buy it. Cheap to make don't mean cheap to buy, anyway. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-30/daraprim-nsw-students-create-drug-martin-shkreli-sold/8078892 quote:If the machines are actually expensive and actually cost a lot to run why isn't some sneaky capitalist getting rich hiring everyone to work in his factory and undercut everything? Humans are always expensive. Will not get cheaper than people need to live. Machines may get cheaper, but can also be a one time expense where you ask 1 million to the bank, and from that point you only pay for maintenance. Care to explain your point better? I fear I may misunderstood it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Yikes. This sounds kinda dystopic. Sounds like mismanagement to me. Last minute changes also means poorly tested changes that may result on exploding phones down the road. Anyway, yea. Management are "Peoples people", management are like marketing, they like to talk to humans more than robots. You cant shout to robots, you can't put the blame on the robots (only on yourself). It make sense for management to want humans, if they make some economic sense. Until you replace management by a algorithm: instead of having a factory to produce FOO, you have a algorithm that order the production of FOO based on delivery date and quality index to other industries. (Foto: last human with a job on earth) 
Tei fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I guess I am questioning the assumption that once automation happens the rich will have everything and the poor unemployed will not. If everything is truely so cheap to manufacture that everything costs less than minimum wage to make then why are the poor without? If everyone is poor who are the rich and what are they buying and selling? The whole story makes no sense. The poor are withouth a job, so they can't buy stuff. How the system works them? It don't work, it crash. What part of "Not having money, so they can't buy stuff" you don't understand? (I am honestly asking, not ill feels here).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
BobTheJanitor posted:That's a nice idea. Which republican senators, congresspeople, or presidential candidates are going to support it? They can continue doing what they do. Instead of giving the money to workers in the form of wellfare, they can give the money to industries in the form of wellfare. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Half-wit posted:And then a bug in the software wildly appears. Software bugs happens and sometimes cost companies millions. After the third repeat command, you will probably reporting a bug to the company. The bug will be fixed and a new code will be uploaded to the server. Maybe theres a reward campaing, and reporting bugs in the software gives a bonus.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Robots don't need to be clumsy imitations of humans. They can look like a single arm, or a roomba, or a tiny truck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quWFjS3Ci7A
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Humans can do some white collar jobs better than a program. But the program don't need to sleep or take vacations. Even if the human would have made some things much better, quantity trumps quality. A thing would be entering orders in a RP, if you have people entering these orders manually, is okay if theres few orders, but if you can automatize orders, maybe you can deliver 1 day sooner than the competition. Then people will start ordering you first, because they know you will deliver faster.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
INH5 posted:The single biggest argument against the automation scare mongering is that autopilot systems fully capable of taking off, flying, and landing a plane without any human intervention were invented decades ago and yet today we have a shortage of airplane pilots. Until someone can explain to me why this happened and why it won't happen in other jobs (especially in the favorite topic of truck drivers and self-driving trucks), I'm going to take all of these claims with a large bucket of salt. The cost of a seat in a airship is dynamic. Based on the number of available seats, the date of the flight, the date of the year, and even current events (like revolts in $destination) and demand. You can have a group of dudes updating manually the price of each seat for each flight. But thats unmantainable, you will have empty seat because you failed to make a seat cheaper when that would have result on filling it. Or you can have a seat sell a much cheaper price people would have paid for it. So you create a automatic tool that allow 2 person to update the prices of seats for the whole company, by setting price ranges and dates. Is still a lot of job, and is unflexible, from day 1 to day 12 of december this seat is 40$ and from day 12 to day 25 is 70$ and from day 25 to day 29 is 20$. So now you create a dynamic algorithm that instead of stages from prices, create a smooth curve for the price of the seats. This curve is dynamic and demand, current events, price of oil, etc.. update the price dynamically. This result in less empty seats and asking more money for seats when people is willing to pay for them. So this company make more money from each seat. Since now this system is automated, you don't need 2 people. 1 single dude with other tasks (so this is not his main task) can check it if how is working. Where there use to be 8 people full time updating prices, now theres 1/5 of one. And the company is much more profitable, because less empty seats, and more aggressive prices. Tei fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Shows a picture of a drone: this thing can flight to iran capital and destroy a target the size of a car, then flight back. But so much is science fiction, for now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:That's very different than commercial passenger flights--the military likes drones and was highly motivated to develop them because having no human being sitting in the aircraft means that they can totally change their war strategies. In addition, for the military, cost is less of a concern than for commercial airlines. Finally, drones aren't self-flying, they have guys remote controlling them. I totally agree. If you are successful, a lot of people die in each flight.  Anyway it was to counter the dudes going "Flying? No way a non-pilot machine would do it". I personally doubt piloting commercial jets will be something on risk at the moment, but is on the cards in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:When we get to artificial general intelligence (a kind of medium between current weak AI and strong AI), piloting as a profession is out the window, alongside a poo poo tonne of other jobs that are otherwise 'safe' in current projections. I say stupid poo poo all day, I finish the day with dumb ideas, and sometimes I am wrong more than 50% of the time. So I tried to avoid talking about a topic that I know almost nothing. But, why would flyiing be a thing limited to humans? The same savings that you can have removing the pilot in military environments you can get in commercial. Maybe not for transporation of people, but to transport goods. I can totally imagine a fully automated airport where drones the size of a airbus, full of packages, automatically land and take of. We probably have the technology to do something like this since 1941. If the economics start to make sense... I just don't believe air is a good place for automatization, theres other areas where automatization may be much easier... or is more interesting. Yet another reason why I don't know why are we even talking about air automatization, of all topics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0EE5ZGKJyE
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
It sounds the opposite of interesting to me. Sounds like a place that is hard to automate, so others places will be automated before air is successfully automated. Automation makes more sense with repetitive task that are easy to codify and are currently done by a group of humans, or that require a lot of human work. It don't seems the case of piloting a civil airship.... is not that is imposible, more like is hard when theres other low hanging fruits.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
turn it up TURN ME ON posted:It's interesting in the sense that a lot of work has been done there to automate it, and it makes sense to bring up as a comparison to automotive automation, but there's a lot more complexity. Well, theres two options, they will lose the job soon, or they will lose their job later. These that argue that turning trucks into automated self driving machines is very hard, if they are right, that means that truckers will still have a job in 20 years. But also something that can happend is that some trucking jobs do disappear and others don't. Maybe new trucks are made that when they are inside a airport or a port are automated self-drived, and they turn manual outside. Maybe trucker wait in a station, and pick the truck when it park, after crossing half the country self driving. So instead of 20 hours piloting trough the country, is only 3 hours, but are the hard 3 hours, these that have the trucker fighting with humans, or the city trafic, conflicting address. Some people still have horses and work with them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCcwXX5WWuo
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
You guys are critizing UBI, and is not a good idea to critize something that you don't have a alternative too. (If you don't have a alternative to something, you have to accept it even if is really bad). I will help by offering a alternative: *TRUMPETS* Equalized Income System Capitalism! *TADA* Everyone pay with a special card. This card knows the economic wealth of the individual, and is set on ranges A, B,C,D,E,F. If you are using public transportation and you are unemployeed, you pay with this card, and is free. If you have a entry level job position, it cost 1 dollar. If you are billionarie, it cost 100.000 dollars. Every day, transportation, food, rent, cost the same % of the wealth of the individual. A nice feature of this system is that we can start small. We create the card, and we make it compatible with transporation system, then we expand it to work in food shops. We can start making it work exactly like a discount card. So if you are unemployeed and take a bus, is a 100% discount. If you are retired and have a small pension, the discount is a 90% (but still cost something). If you have a job, the discount is 0%. Every dollar a shop lose because one of these discount can be saves from taxes. So if you hare a shop owner and you offered 100.000$ in discounts, then you have to pay 100.000 less in taxes, or maybe the governement will give you the difference. Tei fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
I am software developers and some of the software I have made have helped do more work with less people. And let me tell you something: - It take time to turn a task into something that computers can do. Humans like complex-for-no-reason workflows and a billion of probably-unnecesary exceptions. Withouth these complex workflows and exceptions, making some task automatic would take very littel time. But with these it may take many years. Is like the absorption of blue-collar jobs into automatic process in a server will be slower than most people predict, because these task as unnecesary barroque, and that slow down the process. No doubt most blue-collar are going to be extinct in the long term, but I believe is going to be a very slow and smooth process that will take maybe more than 50 years. Creating new process that are 100% computer driven from the beginning will be much faster. So I expect that we will see a startup where the boss is a algorithm in less than 5 years, But it will take these 50 years for having software that can do most blue collar jobs in a medium size company. I think people will have enough time to adapt, and ample warning to plan ahead their life. I don't think AI is all that relevant here. AI is a way to create software that learn to do a simple task that can't be described only in rules. It don't make computers more powerful, but more flexible. Is only a tool in the toolbox, and not even a important one. What I am tryiing to say is that most jobs can already be described by a set of rules, so they don't need anything more advanced that a perl script.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
I believe humans need humans for some task because preference. But preference can change over time. Like, I usually do my bank transactions using the ATM machine or some website. Probably many calls to call centers will stop when people start enjoing interacting more with websites. Provided that the websites are well made. Personally, If I can, I want to talk to a machine, not have to interact with a human that will judge me If I want to take 30 minutes to think about some concept that is new to me, or ask the same question 8 times, because I can't still understand the answer. My point is... when more people is like me, there will be a smaller need for people in places like call centers. I dunno if the future will be more people like me, or less. But I have grown with computers in my face 24 hours each day, and I think thats will be more the norm with each future generation. Owlofcreamcheese, my friend. Nobody here is talking about any robotapocalypse. You are fighting strawmans. Everyone replying to you is telling you has much.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I'm your typical introverted goony rear end in a top hat and although I do enjoy having face to face business meetings or even just hanging out with friends, I don't really see how the type of human interaction that you get at a grocery check out or drive through is in any way enjoyable for anyone. People pay lip service to things like living in a small town and knowing the name of the people that sell you the meat. It may be for ideological reasons, but some people say that they value these interactions more because are with humans. Theres two ways to win at chess: a) - Playing better than the other guy. b) - Kicking the game board away, Changing the game from a chess game into a boxing contest. I don't see people interacting with people being happy with changing that to interacting with a program to do the same thing (case A). But if the game change completely (case B) it could be smooth.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Well if you goons are looking for long term job security from the singularity, may I recommend getting into a skilled mechanical construction trade? Skilled plumbers, electricians, HVAC, and fire protection installers are facing significant labor shortages in the coming years. Furthermore they are pretty much automation proof for the foreseeable future due to a combination of needing both organic problem solving abilities, and physical dexterity in complex and ever changing 3D environments. I dunno. Theres this idea of building homes using standard blocks. So building a house would be like putting together lego pieces. Has not succeeded yet (the cost probably are higher than the saving and the tradeoffs puts everyone off) but if finnaly works for some people, it will reeduce the need of humans building homes. Then theres the problem of immigration. Some skilled plumber from argentina can move to los angeles and he will not have to be retrain much or really "go to plumber school" for a diploma or anything. A plumber from argentina will face much less problems competing for your job than (maybe) a argentinian doctor. Anyway maybe plumber is a good choice because people understand that paying for a good plumber is worth it (for whatever reason), while theres many other jobs where people look at you like a crazy con men if you ask for anything like that (I think is because a plumber may have to deal with literal poo poo). Tei fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Blockade posted:I develop machine learning tools professionally. Something thats starting to get some traction is 'meta learning' that is, using machine learning to develop new machine learning models. It's starting to get some industry use, especially in data mining. What can possibly go wrong? That camera that was racist. It detected white people faces, but not black people faces. It detected asians has people blinking. http://www.jozjozjoz.com/2009/05/13/racist-camera-no-i-did-not-blink-im-just-asian/
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Just has a joke: Imagine a market where instead of the products, you walk trough walls of flat TV monitors and press a button on the screen showing the ad for the product you want to buy. Then you get to the exit, what you have buy is already paid and packaged in nice bags. I don't mean this is the future, this is only a joke. heres another joke.  (I don't necessarily agree with it) Tei fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:You don't need to be hooked up to a power grid in order to use a smartphone and the market is utterly swamped with low cost, lovely but functional handsets. That comic was made quite a few years ago, at the time many still weren't convinced as to just how popular and affordable mobile computing would become, particularly in developing countries. True that. I heard mobile computing is very popular in places like Africa, where maybe building a cable grid would be to complex and pointless, while setting the antena in some places and selling cheap phones make more sense for everyone involved. Anyway people have a computer in their pants but all they do is look at cat photos and reply to their aunt about a baby photo.  What has really changed on the world with people having all that computing power in their pockets?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
BedBuglet posted:One of the things that I think often gets overlooked when talking about autonomous systems is the necessity of changing the environment to facilitate the change. Boston Robotics seems to put QR codes printed on stuff like doors and boxes, probably with a label so the vision algorithm can read the "name" of the object. But seems cheap to print a bunch of QR codes and glue them to poo poo. Current version of autonomous cars seems to drive (in perfect conditions) without any of that stuff. So is not a requirement. Only something that will be helpful. HELL, even for humans, having the name of roads encoded in the road so your car display in a hud the name of the road would be incredible helpfull. If that connect with the automatic navigation system and each road have a unique id, it would make the whole navigation systems more robust. I think the problem with automatic cars will be thieves and vandalism. People tricking automatic cars to take a detour to a river, with the hilarious effect of 80 unoccupied automated cars forming a pile in a river after a pair of teenagers found a hilarious trick. Automatic cars seems supereasy to trick. If cars are programmed to stop after every "accident with possible wounded people", it will be trivial to do highway robbery. Force automatic cars to stop to rob them. But these are problems for the people of the future. We don't have to solve all the problems of the people of the future, only make sure they get to live and have cool poo poo to play. We are climbing a mountain and we can't see the valley on the other side of the mountain. Tei fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Jan 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
BedBuglet posted:Perfect conditions being the key words. Most of the robots have real issues with inclement weather. My old AI professor specializes in vision processing and consults for Lexus on their self driving car. I think the changes required will be implemented and somebody will pay for them, but will not be hard to apply or expensive or ever slow to implement. If automatic cars can only be useable in perfect conditions, then will be used there until they are better at other task. Then society will provide the means to facilitate that autocars to run in any other condition. I don't see a problem here. Time and time again society change slightly to allow for the new technological advancements. Cars require asphalt, and people pay for that asphalt to be placed and is placed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I think my biggest concern about autonomous cars (and drones for that matter) isn't the technology but rather the culture of the companies making them. A good movie to see in theaters just now is "Passengers". All of the ship is automated to the Nth level and the interfaces are sweet, but everything is scripted machines so even these very good interfaces have obvious limitations. I believe is a well made movie about Automation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BWWWQzTpNU The movie is science fiction. What we will probably get is autonomous vehicles made by the people that design interfaces for routers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUlNXEQWCI8 Hardware companies *hate* software. For them software is a expense and they underbudget it. They have all the wrong ideas and wrong opinions. They make hard to use, very limited and weak interfaces with dumb limitations. So if automatic cars are made by companies with a hardware philosophy, the car interface will more like your router than anything in the Passengers movie. Tei fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Jan 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Yautja posted:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/11/robots-jobs-employees-artificial-intelligence But we have talked about this before, in this thread. Is not about robots. Is about "Productivity Tools". Any productivity tool that saves 60% work in a team of 100, can get 60 people fired. The tool don't need to do everything, it can be a very specialized tool that do only one thing but save so much work that 40 people can do the work that before required 100 people. Increasing productivity without increasing demand.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Less people will die in car accidents, but they will fall in the fault of the car manufacturer. In a way, the driver of automated car is the car manufacturer. This is going to be a problem for automated vehicles. First generation automatic cars will pilot like your grandmother, but after 10 or 20 years, even the worst automatic car will be able to save people from accidents that no human beings whould have prevented. Humans have a very slow reaction speed, vehicles move very fast. In the long term the idea of allowing humans to drive will be consider crazy. Tei fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Animals have been put on trial for crimes such as criminal damage and murder in Europe. The Fourth Circuit in the US used heard an in rem case against a 1985 Nissan, 300ZX, as did the United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile. The solution for them is to have a different company making the software. So company A make the car, and company B make the software. Then in a accident you will be against A, then they deflect it to B, and B will find reasons to deflect it to A. Until they have the right framework, they will be much more exposed than they are now. But who cares? we are talking here about the dissolution of the capitalism system itself, the whole building will be on fire at that point. \/ \/ Guavanaut posted:How 'smart' or 'aware' or 'self learning' or whatever does something have to be before we can charge it directly instead of its creator? I don't think is about how smart are. Childrens are smart but you sue the parents if the children break a window. Is about dependency. Tei fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:This doesn't make logical sense - there can be more than one path to being locked out of the ability to repair goods. I think the real right that is getting attacked is the right to own things. When you buy a car but part of the car are really only licenses, selling the car is gray area, repairing (by opening and debugging it) is gray area, and so on. Topic is interesting, but a bit off-topic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Automatic cars maybe can solve congestion in cities. Routing can be done using a weighted algorithm, like A*, that take into account the congestion of a route, and dinamically select the route with less traffic. Better than that. If we have automatic cars talk with the city server. The city may virtually close streets, so if you car id number ends in a odd number, you can use green streets, and if you number is not odd, you can use the blue streets. The city mayor personal car and services like cops, ambulances, could use yellow streets. This can be done digitally, so in a fraction of a second the blue and yellow streets change. I have a hard time thinking about something that can't be possible with this. Redirecting trafic around in a city, you can probably make the whole city play the Zelda theme... Tei fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
What the future could look like in 100 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrxyr1CjiSM
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Some guy from Salesforce was bragging about their advanced new Einstein AI, turns out it's basically automated lead scoring Some powerful AI algorithm are really simple. You can get natural behavior, like how birds fly in flocks with a few lines of code, applying 3 simple rules. That some AI algorithm is simple should not surprise us all that much, maybe the most complicate poo poo is artificial vision, but everything else can be made very simple. You can track back AI to the first steam engines pressure regulators, a simple mechanism that would take the decision to allow pressure to escape when over limit (and not below that limit).  (this is a image of the first AI system in steam engines)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:I'm having a hard time conflating pressure relief valves as AI, though the rest of your point is accurate. Because humans are complicate and humans are one application of AI, we generally believe AI to be necessarily a complicate thing. Sometimes even made of magic. A pressure valve is basically this: code:I believe is a good thing that we dispel myths about the complexity and... errrh.... magic of AI's.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:For a lay person, AI means intelligent agents and intentionality. Basically whether Dennett's intentional stance can be said to apply. The problem is that you can take the intentional stance on simple systems like a thermostat. The thermostat wants to keep the temperature at 72 degrees so it achieves that goal by turning on the AC. In practice, AI has more to do with dealing with combinatorial explosion. And "Combinatorial explosions" sounds too scary. A way to demystify it would be to say: You are a detective and you find somebody in a apartment building is a murdered. You open each room, you find one person (potential murderer), but some rooms have more than one people. So for 4 rooms, theres a potential of 12 murderers. Now if the detective find that the murdered was a grown woman, he can strike out the names of children and men. It leave 4 potential murderers. If room 3 was empy when the murder happened, you can strike all the names of that room without checking them further (saving the detective some time). 1) Check all rooms 2) Put all the names in the notebook 3) Remove the names of the innocent (people with a alibi) 4) (optional) Remove names of people without a motivation 5) The name left is the murderer (or if you did 4, a very suspicious looking person) Tei fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Would you say that a pocket calculator is an AI device? Yes. It does additions and subtractions and even more complex task. We use to have young womens doing that job, when it was called "Computers". To be honest, a calculator do these operations much faster and reliable than me. Possibly if we do one of these "How smart you are?" internet quizs, the calculator will win with a score of 100 over 100, and I will not even get a 20.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
I hate AI discussion. This is the part where somebody comes and write "But a calculator can't write poetry!". And I reply. "A calculator can write poetry if you program the calculator to write it" And I get the reply "But a calculator can't *feel* poetry". And I reply "You feel emotions because you are programmed that way". Lets not go this route. Ok, I have horrible opinions. Lets avoid starting this discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Rastor posted:.. I am not a expert, but I believe few people are voluntary organ donors. If more people get that route it would make the availability greater. On top of that advancements in quick transportations will help organ donations, since the organs will meet the receiver faster. Is possibly a matter to do some propaganda to get more people to enroll in voluntary organ donor. Then science may find ways to grown tissues and maybe even full organs, so taking the organ from other human body is not more neccesary. 
Tei fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jan 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
I don't think "selling bread and milk" will be automatized soon. Part of the reason people buy to people is because we don't trust the people selling us milk and bread. We have the technology to have the refrigerator order more milk when the milk bottle is empty. People don't want to lose control over these things. I imagine that people want to take the food products in their hands before they take the decision to take these products home. Maybe is some instinct and how our brain is wired. Having the refrigerator automatically refill the milk bottle is against some of our instincts. You will not eat or drink something without looking at it at least once. Is a miracle that people trust soda companies like Coca Cola, but I think is because every coca cola taste exactly the same and you have not heard of anybody finding a dead rat inside his cola bottle and dying for that. So these automatic machines that deliver food. They can deliver soda bottles. That works. Milk, no so much (you have to trust the machine to not mix water or served outdated milk). Bread, need to be fresh too, but the way these machines work, the product may wait months before is sell. So anything you buy from one of these machines is usually filled with chemical products to delay corruption. We have the technology to automatise buying and selling food, but I don't think is what people want at the moment. The exception can be made for "standarized food". Usually trash food. So you know what (poo poo) you are buying without looking at it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
A solution for the "unemployable" group of people is to create something like "orphanages for adults": Buildings where these people live. Individually these people can't survive, but if they put all the money in the same pocket, they can buy food (cheap food), maybe even internet and games. They would be able to do some jobs. Government can help the group instead of helping them individually. The building can have a retrain school, so people in the building can learn new jobs / task, in the hours they are not playing videogames. These buildings can be distributed around cities, with the distance to each other limited, to avoid they creating a ghetto or becoming the seed of revolutionary movements.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 11:30
|
|