Speculation: what happens when robots obsolete us?

[Kafriel]

^ I'd go for the latter. Machines don't need a sense of freedom, especially when it's false...unless someone created biotech hybrids with the capacity for emotions via hormone flow. Now that's scary, an army of emotionally-starved robots!

[monster]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

^ I'd go for the latter. Machines don't need a sense of freedom, especially when it's false

It would be easier if people would just agree to limit the intelligence/anthropomorphization of these machines and have laws and government enforcement to prevent the issue from potentially surfacing.

Of course, such laws would most likely anger those who are anti-government interference/restriction, and/or people who would say that progress is being held back by such artificial limitations.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

biotech hybrids with the capacity for emotions via hormone flow. Now that's scary, an army of emotionally-starved robots!

we have them now, they are call wives.

*gets smack on the back of the head.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

Fun topics always seem to sprout when I'm away

Hmm, if robots could get a good 90% of manual labor done:

Not just the manual labor. The postulate is that they'll be able to do almost all the work. That only the best humans will still outperform the machines.

1) We'd hire engineers for maintenance; even if robots could do it by themselves, complex frames would require improved software for pinpoint accuracy and measurements.

Robots would do that. Why not?

2) Could also hire programmers to further improve the ever successful robotic industries.

Robots would also do a lot of that.

3) Probably still advertise a lot, since ads can't be conceived by robots, since human behavior is rather complex in ways that definite algorithms can't cover.

Maybe... that depends on how much we come to understand advertisement.

Also, do you really need to advertise if everything's free?

4) What keeps the world moving is new discoveries and inventions, things that robots will never be able to do on their own - even if they could, it would take a mind far superior to theirs in order to conceive of such an A.I. With researchers and scientists in the spotlight of any kind of breakthrough, people would still have enough to talk about.

A very small handful of humans would be needed to do that. The best of us. (I mean, how many people do you know with the sheer brainpower to be scientists? To be not just good but great at it?)

5) A large part of the world would probably live the same way they do today. Even with an enormous leap in mechatronic technology, nobody would just give it away for the good of mankind...and durable materials (casually lab-produced at steep costs) would deter the mass production of such modules, leaving them available to a lesser part of the world's population (think exoskeletal suits, high-efficiency fuel, superconductors, graphene/carbon nanotubes etc.)

Robots again. Robots to produce energy, mine material, do it all in space where there's plenty of those...

6) Some people would faithfully refuse or ban such technology in order to maintain the balance of the current system, or because machines are the devil's spawn, your pick. Lots of unreasonable excuses with millions of followers would just wait to burst out.

And they'll be left in the dust by those who don't.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The more interesting question is this:

Would we consider the artificial intelligences as legitimate people, or would we enslave them simply because they wouldn't be human?

Hopefully we'll dodge the question by not making pseudo-humans (we already have the real thing, after all). But...

Originally Posted by Kafriel

^ I'd go for the latter. Machines don't need a sense of freedom, especially when it's false...unless someone created biotech hybrids with the capacity for emotions via hormone flow. Now that's scary, an army of emotionally-starved robots!

We'll no doubt make robots imitating human behavior. We already have prototype robot receptionists. And then have to ask what's the difference between a convincing imitation and the real thing?

[Kafriel]

Robots would do that. Why not?

You'd have to develop different software and hardware for micro-operations, create and adjust various sensors for a total factor check, insert an optimizing formula, etc...having humans do it would come off as cheaper, since the maintenance robots would also require maintenance. It really comes down to the cost of the whole thing.

I mean, how many people do you know with the sheer brainpower to be scientists? To be not just good but great at it?

Honestly, you'd be surprised

Also, do you really need to advertise if everything's free?

The postulate is that they'll be able to do almost all the work. That only the best humans will still outperform the machines.

I didn't take these two points into account in my previous post. Assuming that robots can do almost anything and that everything is free, the only thing that would keep people going would be their needs for entertainment and socialization...maybe people would abandon their robotic slaves, since people need work as an activity - creating something that does not tend to such needs would be like taking a step back in "evolution".

Hopefully we'll dodge the question by not making pseudo-humans (we already have the real thing, after all). But...

A more realistic approach would be genetically engineering humans with preferred traits, but that would lead to an entirely different discussion...

[AnimeFan188]

Bill Gates-approved historian says AI will make
some people totally useless:

"Technically Incorrect: Yuval Harari's latest book offers a very dark view
of the future, one in which some people will have no reason to get out of
bed."

See:

http://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-...tally-useless/

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

Bill Gates-approved historian says AI will make
some people totally useless:

"Technically Incorrect: Yuval Harari's latest book offers a very dark view
of the future, one in which some people will have no reason to get out of
bed."

See:

http://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-...tally-useless/

However: "What might be far more difficult is to provide people with meaning, a reason to get up in the morning."

That's easy: just set an AI to convincing us we have meaning.

[Ithekro]

Social reform? If the humans don't have to work, than they have to come up with something else to do. "Better themselves" would get drilled into them from a young age, and they would still find something to do that is work, but it would be more like a hobby than a job.

That would be the Star Trek (The Next Generation/Deep Space Nine/Voyager) timeline version of humanity in the 24th century. Sort of.

[Kafriel]

Even after a few years, I'd still go with entertainment, Korean bands are mass-produced and even in my country, we have more artists than necessary. Then again, vocaloid would be the bane of that idea...

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Social reform? If the humans don't have to work, than they have to come up with something else to do. "Better themselves" would get drilled into them from a young age, and they would still find something to do that is work, but it would be more like a hobby than a job.

That would be the Star Trek (The Next Generation/Deep Space Nine/Voyager) timeline version of humanity in the 24th century. Sort of.

Star Trek looks like it still has a lot of shit jobs. I wonder why people want to do them?

Originally Posted by Kafriel

Even after a few years, I'd still go with entertainment, Korean bands are mass-produced and even in my country, we have more artists than necessary. Then again, vocaloid would be the bane of that idea...

There's only so much we can do to entertain each other. (Plus, how long till AIs are better at not just performing, but writing songs, movies and the like?)

[AnimeFan188]

How being replaced by a machine turned this graphic
artist into an activist:

"The Twitter feed @HumanVSMachine is a haunting collection of images and videos
showing the automation of work around the world. The videos place footage of people
doing a job side-by-side with footage of robots doing the same thing. The overall
impression is of human obsolescence—at least in certain professions.

Philippe Chabot, a French Canadian from Montreal, is the force behind
@HumanVSMachine, and he knows something about being replaced. He used to be a
graphic artist, first in the video industry and then as a freelancer. At one point, he had
plenty of contracts and plenty of work. But increasing competition for fewer
assignments made this an unstable profession. Eventually, Chabot was bidding against
people who would churn out a logo for $5, and he found that game studios were
increasingly outsourcing their artwork. Software and chatbots were created that could
automatically design avatars and websites. So Chabot left the field and now works in a
kitchen.

He’s not the only one of his friends and family whose work has been outsourced,
whether to people in other countries or to non-humans."

See:

https://arstechnica.com/business/201...o-an-activist/

[AnimeFan188]

The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet. It’s the End of the Middle Class:

"Machines aren’t just taking the place of humans on the assembly line. They’re doing a
better job. And all this before the coming wave of AI upends so many other sectors of the
economy. “I am less concerned with Terminator scenarios,” MIT economist Andrew
McAfee said on the first day at Asilomar. “If current trends continue, people are going to
rise up well before the machines do.”"


"In the end, no one left Asilomar with a sure way of preventing economic upheaval.
“Anyone making confident predictions about anything having to do with the future of
artificial intelligence is either kidding you or kidding themselves,” McAfee says. "

See:

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/ai-thr...-middle-class/

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

The issue with Robots, is because of Capitalism. Robots are not the problem, robots are the result of Capitalism's unrelenting desire for efficiency.

In Capitalism the goal is to do as much as possible with as few people as possible.

But the flaw is that Capitalism doesn't work without consumers. The reality is that rich people don't actually spend that much money. A rich man might have the same income as a factory, but that same man doesn't consume as much goods as that factory could produce.

Really though, there is already a solution. Robots should be taxed as if they are human slaves. Historically slaves are taxed as a percentage of their market value. If it is how it works for human slaves, it should work for robot slaves too. It is an asset that produces wealth.

The taxes is then used to keep the human consumers alive and buying.

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

Bill Gates-approved historian says AI will make
some people totally useless:

"Technically Incorrect: Yuval Harari's latest book offers a very dark view
of the future, one in which some people will have no reason to get out of
bed."

See:

http://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-...tally-useless/

So your occupation defines your meaning in life? That's damn sad....

There's only so much we can do to entertain each other. (Plus, how long till AIs are better at not just performing, but writing songs, movies and the like?)

Define "better" for something that is purely subjective

[IceHism]

So when this does happen, do we like turn into a communist(the Marx/Engel way) society or will the majority of people just become jobless and can't make any income and thus suffer in despair in capitalism.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

So your occupation defines your meaning in life? That's damn sad....

Your occupation is what you do for others that they want enough to pay you for. That sounds pretty meaningful to me. Sure, it's not everything. But adjusting isn't going to be trivial.

Define "better" for something that is purely subjective

They're the ones making money off art, while humans fail to become famous even after they're dead.

Originally Posted by IceHism

So when this does happen, do we like turn into a communist(the Marx/Engel way) society or will the majority of people just become jobless and can't make any income and thus suffer in despair in capitalism.

Something in-between where we're given enough bread and circus to not turn society into a post apocalyptic wasteland?

[Cosmic Eagle]

It's what society sees (or rather, cares about) when it assess you for "worth" but it shouldn't be what you, yourself see when you decide "does my life have any point" else it truly is sad if that's the standard by which you hold yourself to account



AI making money? More like the AI's owners you mean? And in the end, there will still be people who subscribe to different preferences...otherwise those arguments over tastes in music would long have ceased

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by IceHism

So when this does happen, do we like turn into a communist(the Marx/Engel way) society or will the majority of people just become jobless and can't make any income and thus suffer in despair in capitalism.

It will take a lot of time and probably some kind of economic revolution will happen in between but if we theoretically reach the point where machines can replace humans in absolutely everything, and where humans cannot offer absolutely anything to anyone that a robot wouldn't be able to and more efficiently, then you'll find out that there won't be any single person who can buy all those mass produced products and pay for all those automated services.

Free Market simply cannot work in a fully automated society, because it all comes down to various humans providing services to each others using money as a more efficient mean for the exchanges. If there's nothing a human can give to another human, then Free Market will simply cease to exist.


It's very difficult to understand or imagine a society of that kind for us. But if you think about it, there's a good that is absolutely vital for our survival that we consume constantly and that it needs to be produced and distributed to all of us.
This good is processed by an astronomical amount of self-replicating organisms which do not need to be tended nor supervised by humans and that are powered by a completely renewable kind of energy.

This good is Oxygen.

Maybe one day, everything will be like Oxygen.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

It's what society sees (or rather, cares about) when it assess you for "worth" but it shouldn't be what you, yourself see when you decide "does my life have any point" else it truly is sad if that's the standard by which you hold yourself to account

I'm not saying those who make more money are necessarily worth more than those who make less. But not everyone is capable of the selfishness involved in having high self-worth while being unable to do anything for anyone.

AI making money? More like the AI's owners you mean?

Sure. The point is, humans won't be paid to create art. Whatever they do will be purely for self-satisfaction, rather than for an audience. I'm not saying it'll definitely happen, but that's the answer to your question of how to judge whether AIs are better than us at such activities.

And in the end, there will still be people who subscribe to different preferences...otherwise those arguments over tastes in music would long have ceased

So they'll be fans of different AIs.

Or maybe there'll still be people wanting to see human made art, just like there are people who want to see bears riding a bicycle. It's not like the bear is good at bicycle riding. But the fact it's a bear doing it makes it special.

[Kafriel]

On the topic of singing, acting, etc: just think Korean pop bands, but with robots. HUNDREDS OF THEM!!!

Something in-between where we're given enough bread and circus to not turn society into a post apocalyptic wasteland?

Pretty much.

maybe there'll still be people wanting to see human made art, just like there are people who want to see bears riding a bicycle. It's not like the bear is good at bicycle riding. But the fact it's a bear doing it makes it special.

The point is, what if robots could measure what people actually like and focus on that? What if they could predict/steer upcoming trends, leaving human artists in the dust?