|
Guavanaut posted:I like the thing about becoming the seed of revolutionary movements, we could try that instead. One of the problems of future unemployement is that some of the unemployeed will be __very smart and hard working people with nothing to do__. That smell like revolution 300%. It could be a good thing or it could be a bad thing, because what exist after that? do you ban "thinking machines" and people have a medieval-lite life?
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Wealth doesn't need capitalist economics. Actual wealth, e.g. owning the means of production, has value irrespective of the economic system it exists under. That's the problem with UBI. This is a interesting point. Maybe instead countries printing money, we can use "participations in public companies" has money.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
The problem with any AI system is false positives. You can make a medical system with the experience of 800 medics and 50.000.000 illness, but it will only be slighly better than a newbie medic with two days of experience, because without context computers are dumb, lack any common sense, make mistakes that a 8 years old would not make. In problems like "solve this boardgame problem" like chess, that is hard to see or is not present, the context don't exist or is too simple, so a chess program with the experience 800 medics and 50.000.000 games can end winning against a chess master, but in the real world the levels of complexity are a problem several orders of magnitude more complex than a computer can cope for. Fortunately, we have humans, so a expert system can advice and the human decide on it. What the system can't do is replace the human.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:From what I understand, the reason why deep learning systems are so effective is because they enable the matching and categorization of data in a contextual manner. 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. Owlofcreamcheese posted:What are you basing any of this on? I am software developer. Don't trust me. If you think something I say is wrong, probably is wrong, go find your own answer online reading technical articles, the algorithms that uses this type of software, etc. Just avoid take the word of a journalist of a blogger, go read the details themselves. Tei fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yes, clearly the farthest computers have come is being able to manage 8 bits of binary data. The 1990s are gonna be wild though I bet when they get wilson running on an SNES and he can fake context with 32768 yeses and nos. Humans are both good at generalist problems and expert problems. So when you have a expert human he can look at the details of a problem and can also look at the big picture. This helps ignore solutions that seems to make sense when you ignore the context.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
I don't understand the discussion but I will add my 2 cents anyway: Computers are programable and they are also re-programable. So you make a mediocre AI that drive cars, you fine tunned it, and each version gets better. v9.0 would be a more than decent driver, while 1.0 would be bad. And you can copy this software to millions, so it may take you personally 10 years to train 800 people to drive, but if you write a ai program that drive cars, it can empower 80.000.000 vehicles. Then humans die, and their experiences are gone with them. This is good. But software have this too. Instead of making Windows 99 and Windows 2001, you makes Windows XP, and it breaks with the existing code in a number of things, but it use everything that you have learn from old versions. So new software usually have a better start than a new human. You can write a program, then when its finished you can delete all source code. When you write it again, it will be a better program than the original. But if you have a children, kill it, the next children will not be better. Software have history and progression, but every new human is a blank slate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
flashman posted:That is suitable it doesn't matter which of the partners is the earner. In the roman empire the head of the family was a single person, and the idea of "family" was bigger, including slaves working in the house. So maybe thats another solution. Have a group of maybe 10 persons living in a house, with familiar relations, with the person with a job (women or men, don't matter) being the head of the family. While everyone else watch TV / play videogames all day. Paterfamilias / Motherfamilias. http://www.ducksters.com/history/ancient_rome/family_life.php
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Maybe we can have wars, lots of wars, to kill unemployed people. If wars aren not automatized themselves... Or more futuristic, sent people to colonize mars.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Teal posted:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage Is social diamond cutting. Algorithms that tell you exactly what variables to ignore and what one to attack if you want to influence a big group of people. Amazon, Google, Microsoft everyone have services to run the computing power required to run the algorithm that provide this feature. Apparently the world is filled with creepy millionaires using everything in their power to make the world worse for everyone with retarded conservative ideas that slow or even undo progress for humanity. And datamining / bigdata is simply one of the tools that they can use. gently caress these people with a hot iron bar.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Where is the wealth anyway? more wealth are created, why that don't make governements more wealthy too?, maybe the problem is that a lot of wealth is created and change hands withouth proper taxation. Is having participations in a company like apple taxed like other properties? If I have a house, I have to pay tax, but If I own 100.000$ of apple, do I pay taxes for this?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
Another solution can be to create more criminal jobs. Thiefs, prostitutes, drug dealers, ... maybe even groups of paramilitar forces to round up immigrants, university students and leftist. Maybe police can stop the enforcement of laws between cities and in international waters, to give some room for people to live.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's interesting that you as a person in modern times can talk about this retrospectively as being so odvious that it'd increase labor demands. What the gently caress?! http://www.luddites200.org.uk/LordByronspeech.html Lord Byron was the one talking for it. Lord loving Byron, the dad of Ada Lovelace, Mother of Machines and Computer Minds. Forget about Sara Connor, to stop the machines urprising, the time travelers have to kill Lord Byron before he have the Ada kid. Tei fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Going on from this, how is automation affecting the counter-economy? Thiefs can be screwed with more protection on things, like the ability to remotelly disable a car. But I think can still exist, if only to sell the metal has scrap. Prostitution I think will still exist, sexrobots no mater how good will always be inferior to the human version. Drugdealing may face problems if something like the silkroad growns and reduce the power of the drug mafias, but you will have people scared of going there, so some people will still sell small quantities. Is hard to say. Nobody predicted most of the changes we are seing, like the dead of journalism. So who knows. Tei fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Mar 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
This is a reply to a post that has not been made yet: - Sorry. Computers are more creative than humans. Creativity is not only not unique to humans, but machines are better. You can actually program a factory that build cars so each car is different, with different byzarro gothic painting and weird forms added. It would only need a procedural algorithm. Every car would end looking like a space ship in warhammer 40.000. Or if you want, it can make cars looks like something made by aliens or that has been born, instead of create. What computers are not good at, is originality, but creativity is easy to turn into a algorithm.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Even there, automation drastically reduces labor needs, though. Back during the days of the New Deal, digging a ditch required a team of people with shovels and picks. These days, all you need is one guy with a ditch-digging machine. Today, one person operating a tree-planting machine can plant trees as quickly as ten people doing it by hand. A lot of construction and infrastructure work doesn't require nearly as much manpower as it did in the CCC era. 30 years ago construction would use a lot of people moving around materials by hand. Where now they use machines to move materials has much has possible. Today, when some professional build something, he use many specialized machines, like lasers to control levels, or electric screwdrivers. They may not make the same job with less people, but they can do more work in a single day, so the effect can be the same. ( 4 people doing the work in a week, that would have required 8 people, 30 years ago).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
quote:https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/26/15432280/security-robot-knocked-over-drunk-man-knightscope-k5-mountain-view This one is easy. People will install car alarms on the robots. So if you start beating one, it will trigger a loud sound.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
The important thing here is that we are at a point where machines can be both creative and original. That computers can be good artist. Is a important milestone. A secondary aspect of this is AI can be our funny best friend. Machines will be likeable, not ominous black box, but gentle fun to have has friend guys. Tei fucked around with this message at 08:51 on May 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I mean, when you think about it, of course a bunch of programmers can program a computer to play go well. but can you make a computer that can play go and chess? what about backgammon on top of that? how about charades? It isn't an AI thing, it is a computer programming thing (which I know is what AI is a part of). It just means some programmers made a really nice Go solver. Painters and musicians practice. They ask people their opinion of their art. They visit museums and look at old artist art. They just don't independently invent their skills, they learn it from society. Most modern AI software involve some type of self-learning where nobody knows really what the software is learning. What lessons the software pay attention. Good programmers that are really bad at chess can make good software that is very good at chess. The software is doing the learning required to beat grand champions, not the programmers. We write this algorithm that after watching 20 paintings from artist X, can take a photo and apply a filter that turn the photo into a painting with exactly the same style as X, as if X painted it. m So we "solved" every know painter. 20 years ago maybe we could have made a algorithm that paint things in Van Goth style, so we 1 artist is solved. The algorithm that has solved all painters can't do anything with music .... yet. Maybe the same principles can be applied. These algorithms are all partial in that they solve 1 problem of inteligente, they don't solve all problems like how a "hard ai" would solve them. They also don't write itself. If you want a algorithm that would predict cars shapes for the next 20 years (is probably doable) you have to write it. So going back to your words and what they imply. Yea we are still in the part of AI story where humans have to write algorithms. But where you are wrong is where you attribute all the creativity to the Go programmers. No, the Go programmers all they did is to put the algorithm next to the door of the problem, with enough tools to be able to solve it, but the go programmers did not solved it. Like a dad that drive their soccer daughter to a game, but don't play he the game, he only drives the car to move the daughter to the game. Edit: Sorry for the broken english. Phoneposting. Tei fucked around with this message at 07:08 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:This is reminding me of the robot specialization posts; someone took a stance that automation wouldn't be a threat until we had Android's who replicated human activities. Because how else could they replace human workers? Sometimes revolution happens... and nothings change. In the 90's everyone got a printer. So technically everyone can write their own books. You can get Office Word and write a book. WOA, everyoene can turn into a writter. It was the autoedition revolution and it changed absolutely nothing. Something like that could happen with 3D printers. Once everyone have a 3D printer at home, maybe nothing will change. The internet did change many things, but even the things the internet killed are sorta alive. The press is still alive, the music world are still alive. TV was sell has a amazing education tool. Put a teacher in front a camera and he will be able to teach every american children at the same time!!. Instead of having a personal teacher for every kid, a TV for every family. It changed...... other stuff, but not this. It helped education in adults more than in childrens, but it was much more a double edge sword than a education tool. So yea. Maybe we would get full automation. Whole production chains automatized to the last job. And nothing changing. All I say is it has happened before (I don't think will happen with this).
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Are you joking? Desktop publishing absolutely was a revolution in the 90s, and still is to an extent. All of a sudden people had the ability to print professional-looking flyers, pamphlets, and company presentations from their home or office. The shift was huge, and all but killed the traditional commercial printing operations that required experienced operators, replacing them with minimum wage employees running Xerox machines. Sorry, I am not informed about that. So home printers killed jobs? I still see people writing notes manually or using comic sans. People don't seems to care about the printer, they replace by a pen if they need to. I was not aware it had a effect that big.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
The Rules For a space that is 'populated': - Each cell with one or no neighbors dies, as if by solitude. - Each cell with four or more neighbors dies, as if by overpopulation. - Each cell with two or three neighbors survives. For a space that is 'empty' or 'unpopulated' - Each cell with three neighbors becomes populated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8 Edit: It need more words to explain the above video than the rules that direct it. another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE Tei fucked around with this message at 22:42 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
This website is retard poo poo, useless crud, but this is the right thread to post it. https://willrobotstakemyjob.com/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
I a religious-ish matter, I believe. Some people is never going to accept that intelligence is a body function and like a muscle, some day we can make a machine that fulfill that body function, perhaps better. These people appear in threads like this one and they spread their special skepticism, and is okay. I sometimes engage because is fun. Anyway this thread (fortunately) is not about AI, many jobs can be killed with simple rule based algorithms. Trying to convince (or not) these people is the problem of other thread, not this one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Like I'm totally on board with auto ordering since queuing behind 20 people to get my 2am nuggz is real bad but its a) not new b) not going to result in humanlesa restaurants Is not about a humanless restaurant. Is about saving 1 job in every shop. With 10 shops it means 10 less dudes. Maybe 1 less HR dude. Si it may end killing 100+10+1 jobs. Every unemployed person is one more person you pay to do nothing. Enought of these and our system dies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Hmm yea just like the automobile destroyed civilization when it put the buggy whip makers out of work I look forward to mad max but every thing is done by kiosk ordering The new era of automatization destroy more jobs that it create. And the new jobs created required high specialization.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:We didn't run out of jobs a hundred years ago how could we run out now! : woot: I don't have a useful answer for you, but I offer you this approximate of my opinion: Society them: A lot of jobs where created, because society changed. Society did not had has much theachers, doctors and other people. Machines where a lineal enhancement o(n). The more work you wanted to do, the more machines you need. The more machines you have, the more maintenance jobs you need. versus society now: Our society is not changing. Machines are near a o(1) enhancement. A single program can infinitely copied to different machines. Write Once, use Infinite times.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:My point is that something like home healthcare work is lovely as hell and yet we pay the people who do it peanuts. The only "moralizing" in my post is that maybe we should pay people decent wages for work that's unpleasant yet socially necessary rather than expecting people to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Seems a problem that unions can fix. I think if this job sucks, but is poorly paid, is because is easy for anyone to do it without extensive training, or other type of energy barrier. So you compete with everyone, and that dump salaries. Unions can create a artificial barrier, to give people inside the barrier some sort of bargaining power to get good salaries. In a capitalist system: - A lot of bargaining power = good salary - Not bargaining power = bad salary Is not how hard you work, people farming tomatoes work hard, is what you can leverage. (How much people need you / How much you need the job) = your salary Pushing it too far is a thing that exist. Air traffic controllers have a lot of leverage. But that can test the patience of a lot of people with a lot of effective power that can choose to replace workers with unpaid soldiers. Soldiers can't ask for a raise and do what they are asked for. Tei fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"A few arbitrarily selected people get good jobs and everyone else gets gently caress-all" is exactly the problem automation is creating. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of organized labor, but as the increasing population continues to outstrip the shrinking number of jobs, that's exactly the end game you're describing. A union is a tool, and like all tools exist to solve one problem and only one. Unions give bargaining power to workers, so they can get a just salary for their hard work. Unions don't do gently caress all to help fix the end of capitalism caused by automatization.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I mean sometimes unions do stand in the way of automation to preserve jobs, and while it's somewhat understandable, it's not a great thing. True that. But I think is a fragile balance, and would only slow down a path that has only one direction. I like capitalism, I hope we can patch it and continue with it. And I would hate to live a hellish apocalypse where 60% is unemployeed and people murder people for food. Not my favorite thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:yes, these are the only two options. capitalism of murderscape. The other option is?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Software developing is about talking with people. Theres a writing software part, but thats the easy part. Tei fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Maybe, but most of the time and manpower is in writing software. If all you had to do was punch customer requirements into a magic coding machine and let it do the rest, then you could replace five developers working for three weeks with a single sales engineer putting in a day or two worth of work. I think in large teams a lot of time is wasted in coordination too. But I have never been a peon in a large team, so I dunno. Maybe I am wrong here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Can programming get 100% automatized? No. 60% sure. Heres why: Programming is already automatized to the Nth level. Programmers don't write the blocks of data in the disc. Or schedule how to distribute then around the surface, or the order that they need to be load in memory. Programmers don't write the machine language code that the CPU can understand. Programmers write their programs in a different language that are easier for humans but impossible to understand by machines, then that language is translated (on the fly or offline) to what the machines can actually understand. Many programmers expend a lot of time and energy to automatize task for other programmers. Compiler writers. IDE writers. Unit testing libraries. gulp. make. Automatizing programming don't actually create free time for programmers, it only change what programmers do. They turn to solve more interesting problems in higher abstraction levels. They come to build bigger and more complicated programs, because the user demands have grown and people have come to expect more complex programs. If you are game developer and you wrote a open map sandbox zombie survival game. For version 2.0 the users will want the vehicles to be driveable. The zombies to be able to open some doors (or break them) and navigate buildings. Expectations from users grown. Business software developers expend a lot of time talking with future users, or the boss of these users, about what they want or how they want it. Business logic need to be processed, extracted, examined, discussed, understood. To replace a human doing this you would need a system that can sit with humans and discuss stuff in a normal human conversation. Sometimes paying attention that users may not be a reliable party. That you are talking with a boss of the users, and no the final users. That "it looking good" is a very important feature, critical, because this dude is going to show the program to his boss and if the app is ugly, lose points, but if the app is cool, he gain points. And he is the dude that is paying you, so you want him to gain points. So a software developer critical skill is understanding humans. And humans are several orders of magnitude more complicated than computers. Computers are the easy part of programming. Of course, maybe theres some change how software is made, and maybe a single bob of binary code take over the world, and people stop using custom made software but use instead pre-made poo poo. Or other unexpected huge change. Then all bets are off. -- I am going to defend the actual writing code part here. a) It can be a creative thing. It can be dried a lot to not be much a creative thing, but it will still be somewhat a creative thing. b) There are better programmers than other. Really bad ones, even ones that are worth a negative amount. c) Because is a creative thing. You can't achieve with 10 programmers what a programmer that is x10 times better can achieve. 10 bad singers don't make 1 good singer. But they may make a coral, and thats a nice thing to have. d) Theres a element of creation on programming that is hard to compare to other endeavors. Programmers create, invent, without running to the patent office to plant a flag in their creation. In a hour a single programmer could be inventing 10 or 100 new things. This is the normal. That app that track the trains in your local city may use a cache system that is a novelty idea that the world has not seen before. And maybe it will be reinvented again in the app you use to track BMI factors. Yes this is dumb, and programmers want to solve this, but by the nature of programming, because is a creative thing, this is a drat hard problem to solve. We continue inventing the wheel in every car we create. e) Theres some poetry in code. Some beauty. Some solutions are just amazing. f) Theres more than one level in software design, and most programmers think in the basic one. But every decision have long term consequences, because software growns and "small" decisions in the beginning cant affect future grown, limit it, maybe even kill it. The people that can predict the effects of these decisions and build systems to avoid or take into account that are the system architects. Programming have deeper levels of abstraction that are important, and invisible even for some programmers. Tei fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Jun 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Of course, the catch here is that you don't need an actual programmer to answer the question "what problem do I want solved". There's plenty of laymen around to hash that out, including the project manager, customer relations, the UX designer, and various management folks to hash out. The job of the programmer in any sane organization (which, admittedly, tends to be the exception rather than the rule) is to take what that group comes up with and turn it into code. This ignore that software is a machine. Sure, all programmers can build anything to the spec. Like you can get car engineers and build a car. But if you want something that will last 15 years, that will need repairs rarely, that will not create extra work, that will be easy to expand and so on you need somebody that can think about the side effects on the long term of every decision, small and big, and take decisions on architecture that other people will follow. That in most companies I suspect is what the senior developers do. I make this comment, but is a bit offtopic in this thread. Sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's what the senior developers do, yes (at least in theory). But not every developer is a senior developer. What happens to the programming workforce when the only developer a company needs is that one senior developer, who can feed the plans and designs they come up with to a suite of tools and maybe a temporary intern instead of a team of professional developers? Senior developers are sort of optional. You can build software just by pure brute force. A lot of software is build this way. Is not something worth discussing in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:All that pressure on labor changes the answer to: Does it make sense for business X to automate X? So there would be a balancing loop, a damping term basically. Automation is good in itself. - Is easier to take measures when something is done automatically and in the same way. If you use a machine to paint a wall. You can try different paint mix. If you use humans, they will add a random element making this optimization very hard. - Is easier to forget how it works, to turn into a black box. It free the mind for other stuff. - Is something is wrong, you run it again. If you ask 4 people to stay we whole weekend because something screwed something. You will have a group of very angry people. Machines feel nothing if they have to repeat a task. If is wrong again, because some mistake you made, you don't have a group of angry people that think you are stupid. Machines don't judge us. - Machines don't make mistakes, or the ratio they make mistakes is several orders of magnitude smaller. So even if a automated task cost exactly the same than a manual one, I would still automatize it. Smart business will probably end automatizing everything, not matter the cost, except public facing roles. Humans have a error ratio of about 1%. That will cost you customers. What is the cost of a lost customer? The cost of 1 lost customer is infinite. Tei fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Instead of automating it, companies will just shift programming chores to anonymous teams in India and Pakistan with an American front man who will take the fall if they gently caress up. Since programmers produce nothing but code, they are ripe for offshoring. The secret here few people talk about is that most code have a negative value. You are probably ordering a herd of white elephants that will demand water and food and produce very littel. Most written code have the value of a graffty in some backstreet. If you want it fixed, it will probably cost you money!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Hardware makers are awful. You don't want people like Sony or lesser companies making anything with a OS in it. You want somebody like Apple or Microsoft or Google, a software company. Waiting 30 minutes for a TV to update is stupid. Theres no reason to do that, except programmed by people that consider software a unimportant thing and that only hardware is important. Thats why Apple make phones now. Because you can't expect hardware companies to make a good phone with a OS in it. Thats why Google make phones now. Is not that hardware companies can't make good software. But they dont think software is central to the experience, so they make some token effort and ship the product. They don't think about things like these 30 minutes, so they produce things that work, but have UI and defects like these old VHS players that had a permanent "12:00" blinking because they would lost the date every time they had not energy.  IBM quickly found a solution to that when they invented the PC, a small battery. If only the people making VHS machines had access to this incredible technology from the future. Oh, I forgot to mention that companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google also suck and that software also suck. But suck less. Tei fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jul 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cyberiad One of the tales in this book is about a automated bard. A automatic artist, everyone hate it when its bad, but it gets progressive better, on the point it become better than humans, everyone hate it. And love it, and hate it. Is a interesting take. What if machines become better artist than any human?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Maybe by 2085 we will have full employement, if all these IoT devices get somebody to update them so they dont have know holes. Thats a lot of sysop jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 11:10
|
|