If Machines Produce Everything...

Forums › Off topic › If Machines Produce Everything...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1405988 14-Oct-2015 22:26

sleemanj:
sir1963:
As for driverless taxis and the like, again a huge hurdle to get people to trust them.

Freight will be the first casualty, for reasons already stated.

As for passenger trust... we are not talking about this happening tomorrow, we are talking maybe 30 years.

30 years ago people didn't trust "jap junk" cars.
30 years ago people had only just started to understand and trust desktop computers.
30 years from today do you think that people still won't trust an automated passenger transport vehicle?

We can stick our head in the sand and "cross that bridge if we come to it".

Or we can start thinking about ways in which to prevent this probable (or even just "potential" if you prefer) unsustainable socio-economic situation.

First car I owned was a 1978 Toyota Corona a brilliant car , you need to go back 40-50 years
Computers, again go back 40 + years, CPM, Apple II, TRS-80 , Xenix

I would expect rail to come first, its a more controlled situation.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1407021 15-Oct-2015 07:00

If machines provide everything then humans need to upskill themselves.

Machines need maintenance, programming, cleaning, redesign, building monitoring.

Yes life should get easier, and lefts face it, life has gotten easier but work moves on.

As for wealth distribution, the lazy don't deserve wealth, the risk takers do.

I am not a risk taker so I will never be rich.

But I will (hopefully) never be on the bones of my butt either, as I wont risk everything to make it rich.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1407024 15-Oct-2015 07:21

dickytim: If machines provide everything then humans need to upskill themselves.

Machines need maintenance, programming, cleaning, redesign, building monitoring.

Yes life should get easier, and lefts face it, life has gotten easier but work moves on.

As for wealth distribution, the lazy don't deserve wealth, the risk takers do.

I am not a risk taker so I will never be rich.

But I will (hopefully) never be on the bones of my butt either, as I wont risk everything to make it rich.

If wealth were based on how hard you work, then things would look very different to what they are.
Lots of extremely hard workers are on or near minimum wage

Lots of people in high risks jobs are also not paid that well compared to those that sit safely in an office.

If you mean financial risk takers, they mostly risk other peoples money.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1407051 15-Oct-2015 08:06

sir1963:
dickytim: If machines provide everything then humans need to upskill themselves.

Machines need maintenance, programming, cleaning, redesign, building monitoring.

Yes life should get easier, and lefts face it, life has gotten easier but work moves on.

As for wealth distribution, the lazy don't deserve wealth, the risk takers do.

I am not a risk taker so I will never be rich.

But I will (hopefully) never be on the bones of my butt either, as I wont risk everything to make it rich.

If wealth were based on how hard you work, then things would look very different to what they are.
Lots of extremely hard workers are on or near minimum wage

Lots of people in high risks jobs are also not paid that well compared to those that sit safely in an office.

If you mean financial risk takers, they mostly risk other peoples money.

You mean those that play golf 99% of the time.

I looked at a house for sale and the real estate agent pointed out that the neighbours were elites of society. The fella next door is a professional Director. He sits on multiple boards none of which are in the town. Of course his now passed away dad was extremely famous.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1407089 15-Oct-2015 10:11

dickytim: If machines provide everything then humans need to upskill themselves.

Machines need maintenance, programming, cleaning, redesign, building monitoring.

Yes life should get easier, and lefts face it, life has gotten easier but work moves on.

As for wealth distribution, the lazy don't deserve wealth, the risk takers do.

I am not a risk taker so I will never be rich.

But I will (hopefully) never be on the bones of my butt either, as I wont risk everything to make it rich.

I suspect the nuimbers required are a fraction of the hundreds that are unemployed as a result of that one factory automating. The issue is where do they work?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1407109 15-Oct-2015 10:48

joker97:

Jeremy Clarkson has a question for you.

Your self drive car is going at 70, suddenly a car decides to overtake an oncoming car and is in your lane. There are some kids on the left side of the road somewhere ahead, running erratically. What will your car do?

This needs to be extended a little beyond just that hypothetical motoring situation.
With AI, there's an obvious need for a "do no evil" (to humans) moral override, because if they're (or "it" presuming that the devices are networked) going to make rational choices (rather than what we'd call moral choices) then they'll simply choose to wipe us out.

In biological terms it'll be a form of symbiosis. The ultimate goal would be commensalism (mutual benefit/dependence), but that won't happen - it's inevitable that we would end up in a parasite:host relationship, and we'd be the parasites, protected only by what we'd put in place to stop them from turning on us - like parasites do to protect themselves from their hosts by defeating the immune system so the hosts can't rid themselves of a burden.

If they're going to make "moral choices" what's that going to be based on? If it's based on survival of "humanity" then your robot might make a reasoned moral choice to sacrifice you. That might not be pleasant.
However, if the moral choice is biased towards saving it's owner or extended to preserving your "selfish gene", then there's a big problem, as even if that "do no harm to humans" override remains solid and they don't turn around and kill us, perhaps they're going to end up coming to the conclusion that in order to best protect their owners, they'll have to behave exactly like us and start killing each other. A planet full of xenophobic robots distrusting each other's morality and fighting for "advantage" for their parasitic owners.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1407116 15-Oct-2015 11:07

dickytim:

Machines need maintenance, programming, cleaning, redesign, building monitoring.

AI machines won't "need" us to do that all all.
Our place (if we're lucky) might be as pampered pets.

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1407531 15-Oct-2015 22:45

dickytim: If machines provide everything then humans need to upskill themselves.

Machines need maintenance, programming, cleaning, redesign, building monitoring.

Yes life should get easier, and lefts face it, life has gotten easier but work moves on.

As for wealth distribution, the lazy don't deserve wealth, the risk takers do.

I am not a risk taker so I will never be rich.

But I will (hopefully) never be on the bones of my butt either, as I wont risk everything to make it rich.

Seriously....The machines will do their own maintenance, programming, cleaning, re-design (eventually) and building (already make cars) and monitoring (dead easy - do-able now).

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1407555 16-Oct-2015 07:37

Ah easy. if machines are capable of doing that, the answer to the meaning of life will be revealed, and humans will become extinct. The best case scenario for homo sapiens is being slaves to machines, or being displayed in zoos.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1407558 16-Oct-2015 07:45

joker97: Ah easy. if machines are capable of doing that, the answer to the meaning of life will be revealed, and humans will become extinct. The best case scenario for homo sapiens is being slaves to machines, or being displayed in zoos.

I have a 1000 times more positive view of our future

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1407599 16-Oct-2015 09:06

If machines and humans are both making decisions but machines were superior there's only one outcome. Think humans and tigers/chimps / insert any conscious animal.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1407606 16-Oct-2015 09:24

joker97: Ah easy. if machines are capable of doing that, the answer to the meaning of life will be revealed, and humans will become extinct. The best case scenario for homo sapiens is being slaves to machines, or being displayed in zoos.

Don't know if that's the *best* case scenario.

It may be that the machines would keep us as pets, in a manner that we actually enjoyed. Perhaps *we* might want to move to this scenario... allow the machines to do all the hard work and make the difficult decisions, whilst we recline in luxury? And presumably (otherwise there's no rational reason for the machines to keep us) supply the machines with something they need... A reason to exist, motivation?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1407634 16-Oct-2015 09:55

frankv:
joker97: Ah easy. if machines are capable of doing that, the answer to the meaning of life will be revealed, and humans will become extinct. The best case scenario for homo sapiens is being slaves to machines, or being displayed in zoos.

Don't know if that's the *best* case scenario.

It may be that the machines would keep us as pets, in a manner that we actually enjoyed. Perhaps *we* might want to move to this scenario... allow the machines to do all the hard work and make the difficult decisions, whilst we recline in luxury? And presumably (otherwise there's no rational reason for the machines to keep us) supply the machines with something they need... A reason to exist, motivation?

Self-replicating AI machines won't be constrained by (slow) biological reproduction between generations, nor will their evolution be based on natural selection through random mutation - at least in the early stages. Once the cat's out of the bag, they'll advance very rapidly.

At some stage though, random mutation and natural selection of machine-life is probably inevitable. Then we could be in very big trouble indeed.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1407644 16-Oct-2015 10:07

frankv:
joker97: Ah easy. if machines are capable of doing that, the answer to the meaning of life will be revealed, and humans will become extinct. The best case scenario for homo sapiens is being slaves to machines, or being displayed in zoos.

Don't know if that's the *best* case scenario.

It may be that the machines would keep us as pets, in a manner that we actually enjoyed. Perhaps *we* might want to move to this scenario... allow the machines to do all the hard work and make the difficult decisions, whilst we recline in luxury? And presumably (otherwise there's no rational reason for the machines to keep us) supply the machines with something they need... A reason to exist, motivation?

Humans aren't good for anything else. We need cows to make milk and sheep to eat. We need dogs to keep company and cats to please. Humans hog resources and destroy everything they touch. Machines won't need humans for anything. We will go the way of the Moa in no time.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1407664 16-Oct-2015 10:24

joker97:
frankv:
joker97: Ah easy. if machines are capable of doing that, the answer to the meaning of life will be revealed, and humans will become extinct. The best case scenario for homo sapiens is being slaves to machines, or being displayed in zoos.

Don't know if that's the *best* case scenario.

It may be that the machines would keep us as pets, in a manner that we actually enjoyed. Perhaps *we* might want to move to this scenario... allow the machines to do all the hard work and make the difficult decisions, whilst we recline in luxury? And presumably (otherwise there's no rational reason for the machines to keep us) supply the machines with something they need... A reason to exist, motivation?

Humans aren't good for anything else. We need cows to make milk and sheep to eat. We need dogs to keep company and cats to please. Humans hog resources and destroy everything they touch. Machines won't need humans for anything. We will go the way of the Moa in no time.

We created.......

How many sheep have built computers?
How many Gorillas built cars?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7