|
So, talking about basic income schemes: what if instead of implementing the basic income through taxes, the government would instead force all companies to provide a fraction of their shares/ownership to a "basic income fond", from which profits would be distributed equally among the entire population? It would basically be a partial nationalisation of the entire economy. And it would also be coupled with a reduction in the tax burden due to abolishment of welfare, state pensions, etc. Yeah, it's still a form of taxation, but a form that would avoid the "welfare queen stigma". I mean, in my entire life I've never heard someone refer to a trust fund kid (who has never worked a single day in his life) as a welfare queen. Being a trust fund kid is a very noble and respect profession in our society. Can someone criticize my half-baked idea?
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay but what are the rich doing to get money and what are they spending that money on? Like this all reads as that D&D thing where magic and dragons exist and are common but somehow everything else is just a society of eternal medieval europe somehow because it's not fun to worry about how that stuff would change. As you asking how countries like Brazil, Kazakhstan or Saudi Arabia work?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I'm hesitant to link what is basically clickbait, but there aren't many anti robot stances outside of this forum so it's something I guess? That's pretty simplistic. Of course there is always going to be work for people. At low enough labor cost, you can even just put people in a heat bath or on a exercise machine and sell their energy production. The really interesting question is if you can run a functioning free market economy and pluralistic, democratic society around that kind of "jobs".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
call to action posted:yeah it's kind like how so many people have been 'lifted out of poverty' by having their lands expropriated and being forced to work in a sweatshop Actually, industrialisation worked out pretty nicely for us. The problem is that getting past the massive social upheavals to the good parts (ca. 1960s social-democracy) took a lot of unimaginable suffering. We almost killed ourselves (two times even). Now we are heading for a different kind of massive social upheaval and the same types of narrow-minded people are in charge again, preaching the same mantras. We should be working on better managing the transition/upheaval, instead of pretending that everything is fine and that it can just keep going on indefinitely, like some lovely Russian aristocrat ca. 1910 Mozi posted:Use human bodies as heat-generating machines to run robots with, you say? Every time you jerk off, you are actually cranking a small generator in the real world, perpetuating the machine empire
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgaO45SyaO4 Looks like they might be working on an early prototype for a commercial version of Spot. I can't wait to see where these things end up being used 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's just such a silly fear when applied to forklifts. A device that already 'steals' hundreds of jobs by providing the lifting power of a large team. You are right that there is nothing new or revolutionary about this. But I think the point is that this type of automation can't go on forever. Sooner or alter we will start getting into a territory where every human task can be performed by a machine and that will be a huge game changer. A lot of people see the commercialization of AIs/"thinking machines" like that forklift as a sign that we are getting closer to that point. We might have entered the endgame of a hundreds of years long process.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It seems like the end game would surely be the forklift that stole millions or billions of potential jobs instead of the forklift AI that stole thousands of jobs. It seems like if this is an issue that this is the weirdest place to take a stand on it. Forklifts already 'steal' more jobs than probably exist on earth but we aren't supposed to worry about it until someone steals the forklift guy's job? It's not about the number, it's about the type of jobs/form of labor. You do agree that automation is a finite process, right? At some point you will be able to automate every form of human labor. There will be no possible new jobs for humans in a free market economy at that point. How do you disagree with that? Mozi posted:That would be a pretty stupid way to think of an 'end game', considering the 'game' is clearly not over yet. In chess, where that colloquialism comes from, you know very well when you have entered the endgame. I'm not sure what your point is. All attempts of making predictions about the future are useless?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It just seems bonkers to worry about what job you would have after some claimed singularity. It seems like some guy from the 800s seeing a vision of 2017 and just not being able to understand how he'd water his crops if he lived in new york city no matter how many times someone points out almost no one is a farmer he just won't have crops probably. That as things change life restructures. This has nothing to do with the singularity. Artificially reproducing human intelligence has nothing to do with that. It's already reality today, in very limited form like image recognition or language processing. And yeah, it will absolutely change everything. That's my whole point. You can't extrapolate the effects of automation into infinity. This entire process WILL stop one day and our entire way of life will have to drastically change as a result. You and me are just arguing about when that is going to happen. Rastor posted:You don't think a world where human and digital intelligences labor as partners will have new jobs? I'm not sure what that means. What kind of incentive does the free market provide for capital owners to accommodate inefficiencies like human labor in a business? The only time I have seen this happen is when workers are protected by law. But these protections are getting dismantled at an increasingly faster rate in every developed country, so they are going to be useless very soon. Seriously, when have you seen a business give out a charity jobs to a person? If you are talking about some post free market utopian vision, then consider that the overwhelming majority of people on earth are already living in absolute poverty today and none of the capital owners really give a poo poo about it. A couple hundred million more from the developed world slowly joining this impoverished majority won't change a thing. Capital feels nothing. A substantial chunk of western society has been getting increasingly poorer for the last decades and capital has not reacted to this in any way except for trying to accelerate the process.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, but just think this out a few more steps. Once a program you can download off of kazaa is a better and more effective CEO or stock trader or whatever than any dude possible what exactly makes the rich guy rich? What is he rich in? Dollars? Who does he give the dollars to? What does he buy and who does he buy it from? Who is he getting the dollars from? You might just as well ask yourself what makes a millionaire Brazillian luxury good factory owner rich today. His factories produce goods that are sold all across the world to other globally rich people. They pay him in money for his goods and he uses that money to buy goods and services from other capital owners all across the world(expensive cars from German capital owners, expensive jewelry from Italian capital owners, etc.) None of this involves the millions of impoverished Brazilian people living in favelas in any way. Or the hundreds of millions of impoverished people in Sub-Saharan Africa. They live in totally separate realities that don't intersect. The Brazillian millionaires also live in gated communities, in other countries or are protected by private security forces. They are not even threatened by violence anymore. If something goes wrong, they can just hop on a private plane and go live somewhere else in the world. So, what makes a machine owner in a fully automated society rich? He lives in a huge, secure villa, has a yacht and nice cars. His children go to an excellent school. He has access to the best medicine. A poor person has none of that. Why should automated machines produce anything for that poor person? What can a poor, uneducated person give back to the machine owners that would compensate for that expense in resources? Right now the machine owners NEED his labor, but in a fully automated society they don't need anything from him, like you don't need anything from an African subsistence farmer today. Also, what makes the rich rich is the legal ownership of means of production. Now you might say that everyone can go just online and buy a share in BMW(and its know-how, factories, patents, etc.), but that's not true. A person earning an average wage in Nigeria will never, ever be able to do that, even if they save money for their entire life. The (globally) poor are forever excluded from ever owning means of production and nobody gives a poo poo about it. Most of the time we in the West aren't even aware of their existence, completely absorbed with our own lives and problems. If the trend of falling incomes in the west continues, more and more of us will just silently join these billions of already impoverished people as an invisible underclass. And the remaining global rich people will not even be aware of it and continue living their lives like nothing happened.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, but flip the question. Once the automated machine that takes no talent or education or labor to run and can be bought and maintained for less than 9 dollars an hour and can be built anywhere because no one needs to commute there regularly why does anyone need the factory owner? What happens to the hedge fund manager when everything he does can be done objectively better by a spreadsheet and no CEO makes half the profit as a company directed by watson. Nobody needs the factory owner. Everything he does, if he even does anything at all, can be performed by a worker. The factory owner is a useless parasite. For example, shareholders are generally not involved in the day to day operations of large corporations. They don't add anything to it. Welcome to Marxism 101  The question is why are there factory owners and the answer is complicated. The short version is that we can't get rid of them that easily. It's like cutting out a huge tumor straight out of the brain. Half the time the patient dies too.The hedge fond manager becomes poor if his job is automated away and he can't find a new one. If he has capital saved up, he can be part of the rich in the new society. quote:Like is the rich guy going to just tell us he's rich and we all go along with it? What if someone writes a program that is just "10 own factory 20 goto 10"? Yeah, that's how western societies are organized. Law enforcement protects property. If anyone tries to take something from a factory who is not authorized by the owners, he'll get the taser and prison time. We all go along with it. It's an absurd premise, but here we are. A trust fund kid who hasn't worked a single day in his life and contributes nothing to society gets to decide things. We all go along with it. If that trust fund kid is the owner of a fully automated factory, we all go along with it. The alternative would be fighting the automated police, army and mercenaries. Also, probably lots of minefields. And we don't even have tanks, MAPADS or demining equipment.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:What is your definition of "dystopia"? Even with all the bad poo poo happening in the world we have less crime, less hunger, less of every conceivable negative metric possible. Everything is improving over time, despite the rapid movement towards development and automation. More people than ever have access to clean water, housing, the internet, information, everything is better now than it was 20 years ago. You can definitely call many aspects of the modern developed world dystopian. For example, Spain has a youth unemployment rate of 40%, most western countries have a rapidly aging and collapsing population, a mentally retarded and ultra-corrupt reality TV star is president of the most powerful country on earth, 40% of the working population in Germany has seen their net wages decrease over the last decades, the world is going through a massive climate change process, the environment is irreversibly damaged and going through a mass extinction, etc. We just don't notice these because humans are fantastic at normalizing things. I still think that modern advancements are a net benefit overall, but that doesn't make the negative side effects any better. Not everything is purely good or bad. Dynamite was a great boon for tunnel construction but it also killed a couple million people in useless wars. Electrification, modern medicine and the green revolution are great things, but they also brought us industrialized warfare, massive greenhouse gas emissions, etc. Also, you are again extrapolating into infinity. Just because past developments have been net-positives over time doesn't automatically mean that all developments are always going to be net-positive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The worst thing about these doomsayers is that they just can’t see the flaw in their argument, they think employment is paramount to a functioning society. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It could be, but we could have shantytowns right now, or in the iron age, or in the 1930s or any old time. Automation and technology seems to have virtually no correlation to wealth distribution. (except maybe it's better in more technologically advanced countries but probably for third variable reasons) This has been brought up again and again and you are just wrong each time. Income inequality in developed economies has been drastically increasing over the last decades. It is something that is measurable and it has been measured. How can you disagree with this, outside of some idiotic conspiracy theory that the data is "manipulated"? Where I am from(Germany), there were no ghettos a generation ago. Now there are. I can see them with my own loving eyes. I can talk to people who tell me how these buildings used to look like in the 80s. Are my eyes and ears part of the global conspiracy? These effects have been clearly linked to automation and the drastic decrease in high paying office and manufacturing jobs. Running a society on lovely McJobs is just not sustainable and any better jobs have not materialized for lots of people. People bringing up poo poo like antibiotics and the green revolution that are introduced in the developing world today have nothing to do with this. The 3rd world is not going through 21th century automation, it is catching up to the 20th century and nobody itt claimed that antibiotics and hybrid seeds are a bad thing. We know that worldwide average development metrics are rising overall, it just has nothing to do with what we are talking about. GABA ghoul fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Dec 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:increased in undeveloped countries too. Lol, that's the whole loving point. People who worry about effects of automation don't want a repeat of the Great Depression and the times when communists and fascist were smashing each other's heads in the streets with iron bars. We want actions to mitigate the bad effects of 21th century automation as much as possible. But before you can do that you first need to even admit they exist, instead of shrugging them off. quote:Almost like it's unrelated to technology or immigration or the other stuff that people point at and say "see! it's him! he stole your health insurance!" and it's exactly related to the guy that told you you don't get health insurance anymore but wants you to blame anyone but him. Lol², what does that even mean? The media is responsible for my cousin losing his truck driver job to automation, not the automation itself? What are you even talking about. People are well aware why they are stuck in McJobs and what they parents did for a job and how much they earned. Owlofcreamcheese posted:No one has ever died from a lack of a job. Yeah, just convince Nestle to hand out food and water to every poor person in India. What a brilliant plan to solve food insecurty. Why didn't anyone think of that before? Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like people didn't have "jobs" for like 99% of human history. Like even most of the time people worked in the last 2000 years the structure wasn't anything like a modern "job" and this exact formulation is absolutely not vital to human life or irreplaceable. lol³, yeah lets go back to subsistence farming. life only goes downhill after you hit 30 anyway, might as well just die. Toil that soil
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If nestle can't manage the food and water correctly then nestle shouldn't be in charge of the food and the water, the answer is not that people work 40 hours a week to be some weird inefficient trick to get nestle to give them water. Seriously, that's what I have been saying for years. Drag the Nestle CEO out into the streets and guillotine that fucker. Welcome to the party Freakazoid_ posted:That's why you combine UBI with free college education. There will still be jobs that can't be automated (at least for another 20 years), but they are mostly gated by a college education. Nah, plenty of countries in Europe still have relatively extensive welfare systems and free universities and it's not some huge game changer. They have the same problems as the US, sometimes even worse. That whole miraculous self-fulfillment economy is still lightyears away from materializing itself, if it ever will. You probably need an entire different type of people to run it than what we have now. Some kind of homo-sovieticus, if you will
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Are you sure? One of the first talks that I saw on this subject made the opposite claim, that education is not a good weapon against automation. I can't find it now but it was the head of a company that made medical software, without employing any doctors. Plumbers, electricians, roofers, etc. earn dog poo poo though(on average). Can't support a middle class lifestile + family on that. And their average wages are gonna continue to fall as more and more people with no higher education join the McJob economy. My advice for kids would be to just take up heroin.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I'm not even clear how a future where 99% of the population is unemployed even makes a company money. What does the business even do that makes the rich people rich? What stops the 99% from giving eachother jobs to make their own stuff if no one is selling to them anything and all work is now zero skill labor that is so easy literally anyone can do it. Lmao, your question has been answered multiple times in this thread. You are stuck in some kind of loop. Break
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
The entire country of Nigeria is a conspiracy theory. How else could there be rich people there, while the overwhelming majority of people live in dehumanizing poverty? How rich when not sell to ever person on earth product? How is babby formed?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Nobody answered that question because nobody loving knows what the future will look like. That’s kind of the absurdity of this thread, you can’t just extrapolate forward from a 30 year trend devoid of any context and expected it to continue indefinitely. Nor can you extrapolate from a 100 year trend. I can’t believe how conceited you’d have to be to actually believe you know what the world will look like in 30 years. Nah, the question of how an economy can involve only a small subset of people from a much larger set of people has been answered. It's such a simple concept that even a child should be able to understand it and there are countless examples from real life that have been brought up to illustrate it better. Two globally rich Swedes make an economic transactions. How is a Congolese subsistence farmer involved in that economy? Not at all! Are the two Swedes still rich despite the noninvolvement of the Congolese? Yes. Huge if true, if you ask me, htbh
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Squalid posted:it will be because of mistakes made by society rather than as an inevitable byproduct of technological progress. This should be obvious to anyone of a leftist leaning, as it is sort of the entire premise of Marxist thought that social inequality can be eliminated by restructuring our relationship to the means of production. Society and technology are not independent. What kind of technological level a society has heavily influences how a society is organized. For example, preindustrial technology heavily discourages democratically organized societies. Our current society was not just politely agreed upon by all members in the spirit of self-improvement. Labor had potential leverage over capital, organized and forced capital into giving it humane working conditions. If labor had no leverage, like in preindustrial times, this would not have happened, ever. In the same vein, saying that medieval societies should have just sat down and introduced some civil rights is incredibly naive. While it's theoretically possible, the technological conditions heavily discouraged it to the point where you can say that it was practically impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I think it's hype to say people are okay with others dying. I really dislike how autonomous driving has been cast as the only possible savior for those who die on the road. I'm just not sure where we got the idea that the problem was so unsolvable that we had to turn to computers to "save" us. I know you're probably going to retort that humans are awful, hopeless drivers and will never get better. I certainly see my share of awful driving on the road every time I go somewhere. But I'm not convinced that there aren't other things we could try before we take this leap. This has gone way beyond Silicon Valley though. Huge, conservative companies like BMW are going full in on autonomous driving technologies. AFAIK every large car company here in Germany is doing so. The job market for specialists is absolutely insane right now. We already have a very extensive public transportation system, low level of suburbanization and still car usage is high. I don't know what the alternatives to autonomous driving are supposed to be, if you want to lower accident numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Squalid posted:A fair point. I too have been troubled by the implications of the decline of organized labour and what that will mean for our society. I basically agree with you and I try to stay optimistic. And anyway, what other choice is there? It's not like Luddism has anything interesting to offer and we all know self-pity doesn't do anything. Cockmaster posted:I'm sure there are plenty of other things we could do to reduce traffic fatalities, but the important question is how they would realistically compare to removing human error from the equation altogether. Plus it generally takes years to produce real change in society on that scale (though after self-driving cars first become available, it'll also take quite a while after that to render steering wheels obsolete). And it's not as though the development of self-driving technology is in any way mutually exclusive with whatever alternative solutions you're thinking of. One nice thing about autonomous driving is how gradually you can introduce it to society without disturbing existing patterns. Like, someone brought up drayage already. German car companies are now focused on making autonomous taxis. The advantage of taxis is that they only need to move in a known, semi-controlled environment (a single city), only need to move at relatively low speeds, don't need to park very often, can be recalled into maintenance at will, an operator can constantly observe it and collect data, etc. One of the biggest advantages is probably that people have less expectations of everything working flawlessly with a taxi car. If there is some kind of malfunction, they can just hop out, get their money for the ride back and get on the nearest bus or other taxi. No big drama. Maintenance can then quickly pick up the malfunctioning car. Also, it will get people to start getting used to fully autonomous cars driving around and normalize the whole concept.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Tei posted:Do the people on San Francisco can be self-aware for a minute here? using robots to harass people so poor that they have to live in the streets is some poo poo out of a totalitarian dystopia so lovely, would have made us laugh and stop the program in 1981 in a saturday morning cartoon. This poo poo is so old, there is probably some kind of yearly trade fair for bum proofing aka "Homeless deterrence" technology somewhere. People from all over the world present the newest innovations in the field of inconveniencing homeless people there. Calling it now: BumBusterCon 2029 is gonna show off the new megawatt anti-bum laser and NYT is gonna run a short opinion piece lauding it for not leaving a corpse, saving money and labor costs in the long run, but also calling it a problematic moral grey area to just atomize homeless people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Sure, there's a difference between dealing with homelessness like many local businesses and community members do on a daily basis and hiring a robot to patrol the public sidewalks. It's extra hilarious cause just three pages earlier he has been tooting about how rich people will help out the poor sooner or later. You see, they could sell products to the homeless people, so what interest do they have to not help them? If they sell the homeless people a product, they become even richer. Any day now. Also, in related news: This year the German economy has reach the highest income inequality since 1913. There are no breaks on this train, we are going to the moon!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Homeless people breaking into your car and pissing on the seats is just penance for the middle class supporting ponzi scheme trickle down economics for decades. God is just and has a sense of humor. Namaste
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
Tei posted:Nah. Eh, there is actually a shitton of sci-fi movies and television shows coming out each year, more than ever before, at any point of history. High quality stuff just as much as trash (comic book adaptations, etc.). Some of it is optimistic, some of it is pessimistic 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:It’ll definitely happen at the business level that some merchandising AI is gonna poo poo the bed and start ordering and stocking just the weirdest stuff until some human nominally supervising it notices. Can't be much worse than the guy currently responsible for it. Always orders 1 or 2 pants in normal, human sizes for every clothing store and then 20 pairs of L, XL, XXL, XXXXL. The elephant pants then hang around unsold for months till they are shredded and turned into cheap wall insulation or something. Rinse& repeat for all eternity. Seriously, it's like they haven't looked at a BMI distribution of the pants buying population, ever. (Sorry, I was just shopping. Don't mind me.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Xae posted:They account for this. They break it down by the location and the intended demographics. I highly doubt that blue denim jeans are fat people clothes. S and M are always the first sizes to be sold out with everything in the shop and the leftover sale rack is always ~90% clothes in L+. It's just incredibly lovely inventory management. Sentient inventory AI when? Why not done?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
It's hard to imagine the end of Capitalism because nobody has any idea what an alternative would even look like or how it would function. Outside of extreme scenarios like war& social upheavals, we have never seen anything else but free markets, private property, etc. since the dawn of civilization. Stuff like the centrally planned economies of the Warsaw pact were more akin to State Capitalism than anything truly new. If someone had a plausible vision of a future without Capitalism, maybe we could start imagining it and putting it into sci-fi shows, instead of vomiting out 10 new zombie shows per year. And I'm not talking about stuff like Star Trek, cause the whole premise of Star Trek society completely breaks apart if you think for more than ten second about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There are plenty of non-capitalistic societies in science fiction. See anything from Ian M. Banks' Culture series to Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed. These are utopic stories exploring broad philosophical themes, they are not meant to be plausible and consistent future societies, just like the world of 1984 was not meant to be a plausible totalitarian society. I mean, people complain that we have 10 different TV shows about the end of the world, but 0 shows about the end of Capitalism. I can imagine what the end of the world would look like, but I can't imagine what the end of Capitalism would look like. I don't think anyone really can, outside of some broad, vague ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Small victory of the day: EU court ruled that Uber is a taxi service and needs to comply with the law, just like every other taxi service. Decision final, applies EU wide
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Teal posted:
I don't get it. What is it trying to say? Is this a schizophrenia thing?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
In the spirit of that good effort post about GANs, here is an older paper with a workflow demonstration of how future content creation could look like. The paper is old as gently caress(2016), so the quality of generated imagery is probably a lot higher now Semantic Style Transfer and Turning Two-Bit Doodles into Fine Artwork  Skills required? Absolutely loving zero
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Well then maybe it doesn't matter if AI is real great at mspaint? Because real brushwork is done with real brushes or whatever. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of artists now work with digital media. Nobody cares if a bit is artisanally handset by a human or an algorithm.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Someone made Gal Gadot porn using a GAN. It was literally one of the very first applications of the technology.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Sounds like Spore did a Kickstarter hype pitch before there even was Kickstarter. With exactly the same results too (either turning into vaporware or releasing some lovely, barely playable crap to avoid fraud accusations) Never trust a gamedesigner/-developer, always demand playable results in exchange for money
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
If you get nightmares from watching Boston Dynamics videos: the new Black Mirror season has an episode about SpotMini relentlessly hunting a woman through a post-apocalyptic landscape with a kitchen knife. It's the one called "Metalhead". Enjoy!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Teal posted:Awful news for all of us who hoped their tomato picking job would be safe from automation. IMO that's the wrong way to look at it. If now you only need to hire people who walk around and pick up tomatoes that the machines dropped, you can cut your workforce by 90%, without affecting productivity. Out of 100 workers, that's 90 workers who have been displaced by automation and need to find new jobs demanding equal or lower qualifications and skills, but offering same or higher pay
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
There is absolutely no need for any of that arduino& iphone app poo poo and it doesn't add anything of value. Sowing the plants takes literally 5min and you can buy a cheap and reliable drip watering system at every Home Depot. This is just an expensive toy for robot enthusiast. Also, most people who have a vegetable garden use it as a form of recreation and don't want to automate it anyway. And if you are just in it for the fresh produce and don't want to bother with growing it, there are much more sensible and cheaper options available at organic food stores. e: This is Juicero II: Juicero's children strike back
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:57 |
|
|
Netherlands are a perfect example of how these large scale industrial farming operations could look like in the future This Tiny Country Feeds the World   Growing all our food in these highly productive facilities and then turning traditional farm land back into wilderness is pretty much the optimal solution for the environment.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2018 20:03
|
|