I've seen youtube videos of robots dancing, flying, emoting, and there are certainly robots doing lots of real work. But I have not seen any real robots repairing other robots. Until then there'll be jobs for humans.How many videos have you seen of humans repairing robots? On the other hand, I've seen lots of videos of humans repairing other humans (they call it medicine). The fact is, robots need a lot less maintenance then humans do. Likely, robots will be designed to be fairly resilient. And just like humans, it will probably be a lot cheaper to build replacements then repair the existing stock. Unlike Humans, however, robots will not have an egoistic attachment to self, and won't care if they are discarded, scrapped, and recycled. (or at least, it would be a very bad idea to program them that way! This was the major flaw with Asimov's 3 laws, IMO. They should never have any sense of self preservation, and instead they should have been programmed to preserve the human investment value. If a robot thought sacrificing himself improved the situation of a human owner, then they should choose to sacrifice themselves)
And in the Clifford Simak version, a distant entity that may or may not have been a state (could have been a corporation) basically gave goods away because it wasn't worth collecting the profit. The humans were curious about the free light bulbs and so on, but never bothered to find out how this came to pass. I think in one story it did actually turn out to be aliens messing with us.How much does Google charge for it's products?
At least here in the United States, 'unemployed workers voting for a tax increase' is a direct assault on freedom, and probably treason.That's not true for people over x years old and under y where currently x = 65 and y = 18. What happens when x = y? what happens 70% of the voting population doesn't have a job? Already the employment to population ratio drops below 50%? It's only 58% right now. Granted, a lot of those without jobs are under 18 and can't vote, but with more automation the ratio for voters will drop below 50% as well.
As a response to verb...well then you should start helping with that singularity then. Software engineers are badly needed.The "Singularity" is a joke (IMO) . There isn't going to be a singularity, technological growth is more accurately modeled by a sigmoid function then a hyperbolic one.
As the Industrial Revolution began, workers naturally worried about being displaced by increasingly efficient machines. But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”It's worth reading, if for no other reason than to get one's facts straight.
More accurately the singularity is a point in which technology moves faster than is predictable.When has technology ever been predictable?
This was a Cherokee Indian named Starhawk, who had been an engine-lathe worker in Tucson. After designing himself out of that job, Starhawk had gone on to learn four other mechanical factory jobs, designed himself out of each, and now had a guaranteed income of $250,000 a year for these feats. He was now devoting himself to painting in the traditional Cherokee style -- which was what he had always wanted to do, back in adolescence, before he learned that he had to work for a living...Collateral workers who were also replaced by machines received a smaller, but no less satisfying incentive:
The majority of the unemployed, living comfortably on $30,000 a year, admittedly spent most of their time drinking booze, smoking weed, engaging in primate sexual acrobatics, and watching wall TV.Workers of the world, arise!
When moralists complained that this was a subhuman existence, Hubbard answered, "And what kind of existence did they have doing idiot jobs that machines do better?"
If you're thinking of evolution on anything less than 100,000 year scales, you're doing it wrong. And even that is probably too short, given human lifespans.There are life forms that have been relatively unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. The lack of an evolutionary bottleneck for humanity means that there won't be much selective pressure.
« Older Bostonography... | How Heavy Metal Is Keeping Us ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Though nothing new:
Player Piano
I am all for the robot revolution and coming singularity.
posted by AndrewKemendo at 7:06 AM on May 1, 2011 [1 favorite]