Author Topic: Humans Need Not Apply  (Read 7877 times)

I don't believe such an economic system is possible since our economy is based on the buying and selling of things that we use every day. It would have to take some Star Trek voodoo to achieve that.

Holodecks plz

A Society such as that would probably be borderline Utopia and we all know that isnt possible.
I think with the robot revolution we will hit the apex of efficiency, allowing for everyone on earth to live comfortably

We can teach the robots to build more robots!


I think with the robot revolution we will hit the apex of efficiency, allowing for everyone on earth to live comfortably

But who will manage the robots? We cant put a robot in charge of robots we know how that works out.

But who will manage the robots? We cant put a robot in charge of robots we know how that works out.
"Beep boop. World domination!"

But who will manage the robots? We cant put a robot in charge of robots we know how that works out.
Illuminati.

Just to groove that a classical computer AI will never be able to reach human level intelligence, is because it cannot do anything it was programmed to do, when the brain in turn can find things to do when faced with an unknown situation.

Also i would quote this entire thread and say that computers would not be capable of a discussion like this.
There you go.

We can teach the robots to build more robots!

Imagine if a grey goo thing happened when the nanobots were programmed with Asimov's three laws or something similar. We'd all be buried under, suspended within, or floating on top of a sea of nanites that couldn't kill us!

I've already got the lazyness down. Can't wait for the robotic revolution.

Just to groove that a classical computer AI will never be able to reach human level intelligence, is because it cannot do anything it was programmed to do, when the brain in turn can find things to do when faced with an unknown situation.

Also i would quote this entire thread and say that computers would not be capable of a discussion like this.
There you go.
I really don't understand why you're taking the current limits of AI & computers and extrapolating them to "forever." Who's not to say that in the future there will be computers that can properly react to new phenomena?

Same goes for your second point.

First of all, gotta love how half of you are predicting the future and acting like what you're saying is a sure thing. Second of all, artificial intelligence is permanently stuck behind the human brain at the moment due to several reasons; here's one of them, for example. Speed. Currently, none of the computer chips and storage option currently in production are close to being as fast as the human brain. This is one of the biggest factors contributing to a successful AI, especially one in the field. It needs a reasonable reaction time. Until we figure out how to easily manufacture graphene or something with similar properties, we'll most likely be stuck behind humans in terms of speed. Sure, we're still getting faster, but there's a limit to how fast we can get with our current tech.

Here's another reason. We cannot replicate what we do not understand. Example: someone gives you metal, various other materials, and professional grade tools. You have recieved no training of any sort, and you don't even know what a car is. However, you're shown a diagram of a car cutaway, given a chance to drive it, and even look at some of its workings up close. And then you're told to replicate it.

Now how do you think that's gonna turn out? Even if you were a genius, the probability that you'd be able to figure out how to replicate that car is incredibly small. How do you expect that we can do just that with the human brain, which is thousands of times more complex? By now, we've made quite a few breakthroughs in how the brain works, I know. But there's still an incredible amount that we don't know about. Therefore, I say cut the speculation and let what happens happen.

Oh, and one very important point. If everyone is so worried about robots taking our jobs, don't you think that they'll make it pretty difficult to do that? After all, it'd be pretty hard fighting a point like that against most of the workforce, which, mind you, is gigantic.

First of all, gotta love how half of you are predicting the future and acting like what you're saying is a sure thing. Second of all, artificial intelligence is permanently stuck behind the human brain at the moment due to several reasons; here's one of them, for example. Speed. Currently, none of the computer chips and storage option currently in production are close to being as fast as the human brain. This is one of the biggest factors contributing to a successful AI, especially one in the field. It needs a reasonable reaction time. Until we figure out how to easily manufacture graphene or something with similar properties, we'll most likely be stuck behind humans in terms of speed. Sure, we're still getting faster, but there's a limit to how fast we can get with our current tech.

Here's another reason. We cannot replicate what we do not understand. Example: someone gives you metal, various other materials, and professional grade tools. You have recieved no training of any sort, and you don't even know what a car is. However, you're shown a diagram of a car cutaway, given a chance to drive it, and even look at some of its workings up close. And then you're told to replicate it.

Now how do you think that's gonna turn out? Even if you were a genius, the probability that you'd be able to figure out how to replicate that car is incredibly small. How do you expect that we can do just that with the human brain, which is thousands of times more complex? By now, we've made quite a few breakthroughs in how the brain works, I know. But there's still an incredible amount that we don't know about. Therefore, I say cut the speculation and let what happens happen.
yet again, i'm baffled by how much of a hard-on everyone has for the limits of current technology. Same goes for the "we'll never be able to figure out how to build a brain!" stuff. Your example of the man and the car is so strawman it hurts. We're not talking about some doofus with some random medical books and a PET scanner, we're talking about the entire field of neuroscience (to a certain degree.)
Oh, and one very important point. If everyone is so worried about robots taking our jobs, don't you think that they'll make it pretty difficult to do that? After all, it'd be pretty hard fighting a point like that against most of the workforce, which, mind you, is gigantic.
why wouldn't you want to let robots take all the jobs?

why wouldn't you want to let robots take all the jobs?
how would everyone make their money?

how would everyone make their money?
What if they didn't need to make money?