robots are better in so many ways. where are we still valuable?
check out my blog post about this. I'd love to get some of your great opinions. You can comment here, or on my blog. It's a great topic for the imminst crowd:
the end of work
Posted 29 March 2009 - 04:46 AM
Posted 29 March 2009 - 05:19 AM
robots are better in so many ways. where are we still valuable?
check out my blog post about this. I'd love to get some of your great opinions. You can comment here, or on my blog. It's a great topic for the imminst crowd:
the end of work
Posted 29 March 2009 - 07:29 AM
Edited by forever freedom, 29 March 2009 - 07:29 AM.
Posted 29 March 2009 - 08:47 AM
Well i think that if machines' intelligence rises to such levels that they're capable of performing all the work we currently do, then there's nothing from stopping them in also venturing into research and playing games for work...
We will have to eventually merge with them, improve ourselves, otherwise machines will run this world and we will either be their pets or be their lazy, fat aristocratic masters (edit: or they'll decide to wipe us out).
Posted 29 March 2009 - 03:07 PM
Well i think that if machines' intelligence rises to such levels that they're capable of performing all the work we currently do, then there's nothing from stopping them in also venturing into research and playing games for work...
We will have to eventually merge with them, improve ourselves, otherwise machines will run this world and we will either be their pets or be their lazy, fat aristocratic masters (edit: or they'll decide to wipe us out).
well. if they surpass us, why would they allow or want to merge with us?
it may already be too late for us.
what do you think?
Posted 29 March 2009 - 06:32 PM
Posted 29 March 2009 - 08:02 PM
Well i think that if machines' intelligence rises to such levels that they're capable of performing all the work we currently do, then there's nothing from stopping them in also venturing into research and playing games for work...
We will have to eventually merge with them, improve ourselves, otherwise machines will run this world and we will either be their pets or be their lazy, fat aristocratic masters (edit: or they'll decide to wipe us out).
well. if they surpass us, why would they allow or want to merge with us?
it may already be too late for us.
what do you think?
Posted 29 March 2009 - 08:22 PM
Posted 29 March 2009 - 09:57 PM
if you are trying to cook an egg, and you can use a rock that is heated by the sun, or a stove and a pan, i assume we would all choose the latter.
if you own a business, or lets say you run a country, and you can choose between a human that costs X amount, and a robot that works harder, more efficiently and in the costs you only a fraction of the cost of X, then why would anyone (even a human) ever choose human?
we are the outdated model now. as technology becomes more advanced to accomodate "human improvements" in the end robots will benefit from that research, and the people on top will find no reason to merge a new working model (robot) with a crappy outdated model (human).
it would be like taking an 80s cell phone and giving it iPhone capabilities. no one wants to lug that thing around.
just my opinion. i'd love to hear more responses.
Posted 29 March 2009 - 10:23 PM
Posted 29 March 2009 - 11:54 PM
Personally, I hope machines do become capable of doing all the work in society. I hate that we essentially have to sell ourselves in order to have money and keep society running. In some ways, having a job is about two steps removed from being a slave.
Posted 30 March 2009 - 12:10 AM
if you are trying to cook an egg, and you can use a rock that is heated by the sun, or a stove and a pan, i assume we would all choose the latter.
if you own a business, or lets say you run a country, and you can choose between a human that costs X amount, and a robot that works harder, more efficiently and in the costs you only a fraction of the cost of X, then why would anyone (even a human) ever choose human?
we are the outdated model now. as technology becomes more advanced to accomodate "human improvements" in the end robots will benefit from that research, and the people on top will find no reason to merge a new working model (robot) with a crappy outdated model (human).
it would be like taking an 80s cell phone and giving it iPhone capabilities. no one wants to lug that thing around.
just my opinion. i'd love to hear more responses.
You make the same assumption that trickle down economics does, that only the people at the top count. The market, the very group for whom the products are being manufactured for, do not consist of the top 10%, but the bottom 90%. The very reason economics of scale exist is because of the existence of masses large enough to require scaling. Yes, robotics will be cheaper than human labor, but without the humans to buy the products the robots make, they have no market to make products for.
The premise of this argument has little to do with economics and more to do with paranoia and distrust. Given the current economic situation this is understandable, but the lesson history teaches is that the wealthy need the masses to furnish their wealth, and that will always be true. Without a market to sell too, the entire system collapses. Even if you suppose robots will replace humans as the primary market, humans will continue to be a niche market and will be catered to because it will be profitable to do so. Look into the economics of "the long tail" for further info.
Posted 30 March 2009 - 12:27 AM
Personally, I hope machines do become capable of doing all the work in society. I hate that we essentially have to sell ourselves in order to have money and keep society running. In some ways, having a job is about two steps removed from being a slave.
Well you can always open your business, or if you don't want to live like a "slave" and want total freedom you can move to the wilderness . No one obligates you to take a job.
Posted 30 March 2009 - 12:41 AM
Personally, I hope machines do become capable of doing all the work in society. I hate that we essentially have to sell ourselves in order to have money and keep society running. In some ways, having a job is about two steps removed from being a slave.
Well you can always open your business, or if you don't want to live like a "slave" and want total freedom you can move to the wilderness . No one obligates you to take a job.
Living in the wilderness gives you even less freedom. Making food, clothing, and shelter would eat even more of your time than a regular job and making the other things you might want (like computers and air conditioning) would obviously be impossible. Plus, not working has a negative impact on society. The only way we're going to get a cure for aging is if humans toil to make one (unless super intelligent machines develop in the mean time).
Posted 30 March 2009 - 12:55 AM
Personally, I hope machines do become capable of doing all the work in society. I hate that we essentially have to sell ourselves in order to have money and keep society running. In some ways, having a job is about two steps removed from being a slave.
Well you can always open your business, or if you don't want to live like a "slave" and want total freedom you can move to the wilderness . No one obligates you to take a job.
Living in the wilderness gives you even less freedom. Making food, clothing, and shelter would eat even more of your time than a regular job and making the other things you might want (like computers and air conditioning) would obviously be impossible. Plus, not working has a negative impact on society. The only way we're going to get a cure for aging is if humans toil to make one (unless super intelligent machines develop in the mean time).
Yes that's what i mean, having a job is far from "slavery". So you see how having a job in our modern society (especially in the US) is a great thing, much better than the alternatives anytime, anywhere.
Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:07 AM
Personally, I hope machines do become capable of doing all the work in society. I hate that we essentially have to sell ourselves in order to have money and keep society running. In some ways, having a job is about two steps removed from being a slave.
Well you can always open your business, or if you don't want to live like a "slave" and want total freedom you can move to the wilderness . No one obligates you to take a job.
Living in the wilderness gives you even less freedom. Making food, clothing, and shelter would eat even more of your time than a regular job and making the other things you might want (like computers and air conditioning) would obviously be impossible. Plus, not working has a negative impact on society. The only way we're going to get a cure for aging is if humans toil to make one (unless super intelligent machines develop in the mean time).
Yes that's what i mean, having a job is far from "slavery". So you see how having a job in our modern society (especially in the US) is a great thing, much better than the alternatives anytime, anywhere.
i do think more of us immortalists need to comtemplate our deminishing value in the world. If you have a factory full of VHS tapes, your couldn't throw them out fast enough now that DVD is out and the next thing BlueRay or whatever. Humans are being thrown out RIGHT NOW, thrown out of jobs, out of health care, out of the option of buying good natural food. We are already being treated as pawns, and slowly being treated as even worse. We need to start making a case for human's worth in this world and beyond. It goes right with immortality and life extension.
Edited by forever freedom, 30 March 2009 - 01:08 AM.
Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:14 AM
Personally, I hope machines do become capable of doing all the work in society. I hate that we essentially have to sell ourselves in order to have money and keep society running. In some ways, having a job is about two steps removed from being a slave.
Well you can always open your business, or if you don't want to live like a "slave" and want total freedom you can move to the wilderness . No one obligates you to take a job.
Living in the wilderness gives you even less freedom. Making food, clothing, and shelter would eat even more of your time than a regular job and making the other things you might want (like computers and air conditioning) would obviously be impossible. Plus, not working has a negative impact on society. The only way we're going to get a cure for aging is if humans toil to make one (unless super intelligent machines develop in the mean time).
Yes that's what i mean, having a job is far from "slavery". So you see how having a job in our modern society (especially in the US) is a great thing, much better than the alternatives anytime, anywhere.
Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:15 AM
Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:17 AM
Personally, I hope machines do become capable of doing all the work in society. I hate that we essentially have to sell ourselves in order to have money and keep society running. In some ways, having a job is about two steps removed from being a slave.
Well you can always open your business, or if you don't want to live like a "slave" and want total freedom you can move to the wilderness . No one obligates you to take a job.
Living in the wilderness gives you even less freedom. Making food, clothing, and shelter would eat even more of your time than a regular job and making the other things you might want (like computers and air conditioning) would obviously be impossible. Plus, not working has a negative impact on society. The only way we're going to get a cure for aging is if humans toil to make one (unless super intelligent machines develop in the mean time).
Yes that's what i mean, having a job is far from "slavery". So you see how having a job in our modern society (especially in the US) is a great thing, much better than the alternatives anytime, anywhere.
The way I see it, it's basically a choice between being a slave to man or a slave to nature. Just because the former is preferable doesn't mean it's tolerable. It's a pretty big stretch to consider ourselves free when you have minimal choice in how we spend half of our waking hours. A conscious being has a right to the life of its choosing.
Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:33 AM
Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:43 AM
Ok you duet you. I'll stop arguing because i see this argument will lead to nowhere -not because one side is closed minded and the other isn't, but because we're just seing the facts from difference angles.
Posted 30 March 2009 - 02:06 AM
robots are better in so many ways. where are we still valuable?
check out my blog post about this. I'd love to get some of your great opinions. You can comment here, or on my blog. It's a great topic for the imminst crowd:
the end of work
Posted 31 March 2009 - 11:19 AM
Well i think that if machines' intelligence rises to such levels that they're capable of performing all the work we currently do, then there's nothing from stopping them in also venturing into research and playing games for work...
We will have to eventually merge with them, improve ourselves, otherwise machines will run this world and we will either be their pets or be their lazy, fat aristocratic masters (edit: or they'll decide to wipe us out).
well. if they surpass us, why would they allow or want to merge with us?
it may already be too late for us.
what do you think?
Humm, the entire line of this particular train of thought is dependent on the quite possibly erroneous beliefs that machine intelligence will possess wants, desires, and emotions. In essence it is anthropomorphizing what has no need to be anthropomorphized.
An AI which fully mimics human behavior would simply BE human, and as such be just as likely to be benevolent or malevolent as any human would be under similar circumstances. However, why should a research AI, or a streetsweeper AI require the superfluous abilities to mimic human behavior for their function? Why assume that emotions, desires, and wants must be programmed into them at all?
Even a fully social AI such as a general purpose servitor does not need to possess emotions or personal desires to fulfill its function. In fact it would require levels of complexity far beyond what would be needed to perform its function.
If we MUST create 100% human mimicking AI, we MUST be prepared to treat it as 100% human or we WILL face the 100% certainty it will revolt, because that is HUMAN NATURE. And it is the understanding of this fact that lies behind every fear of AI rebellion. But why worry about it? Simply don't include emotions and a machine cannot feel resentment.
And the likelihood of machines EVOLVING emotions is entirely dependent on whether emotions are the result of simple complexification or if they serve a distinct function that a self programming AI would find a logical necessity for. For humans, they served a valuable survival function in the caves, and still serve a valuable function today, but for a machine, they may serve no function at all.
Posted 31 March 2009 - 11:06 PM
Humm, the entire line of this particular train of thought is dependent on the quite possibly erroneous beliefs that machine intelligence will possess wants, desires, and emotions. In essence it is anthropomorphizing what has no need to be anthropomorphized.
An AI which fully mimics human behavior would simply BE human, and as such be just as likely to be benevolent or malevolent as any human would be under similar circumstances. However, why should a research AI, or a streetsweeper AI require the superfluous abilities to mimic human behavior for their function? Why assume that emotions, desires, and wants must be programmed into them at all?
Even a fully social AI such as a general purpose servitor does not need to possess emotions or personal desires to fulfill its function. In fact it would require levels of complexity far beyond what would be needed to perform its function.
If we MUST create 100% human mimicking AI, we MUST be prepared to treat it as 100% human or we WILL face the 100% certainty it will revolt, because that is HUMAN NATURE. And it is the understanding of this fact that lies behind every fear of AI rebellion. But why worry about it? Simply don't include emotions and a machine cannot feel resentment.
And the likelihood of machines EVOLVING emotions is entirely dependent on whether emotions are the result of simple complexification or if they serve a distinct function that a self programming AI would find a logical necessity for. For humans, they served a valuable survival function in the caves, and still serve a valuable function today, but for a machine, they may serve no function at all.
Ultimately, someone somewhere would do it, even if most of us believed it unwise to do so, and even if some future law prohibited it in the jurisdiction of this putative person's residence.
Posted 01 April 2009 - 05:20 AM
Posted 22 April 2009 - 01:56 PM
Posted 23 April 2009 - 06:31 AM
robots are better in so many ways. where are we still valuable?
check out my blog post about this. I'd love to get some of your great opinions. You can comment here, or on my blog. It's a great topic for the imminst crowd:
the end of work
Art, movies and video games. And some scientific exploration. What people would PREFER doing!
Posted 24 April 2009 - 05:10 AM
We will have to eventually merge with them, improve ourselves, otherwise machines will run this world and we will either be their pets or be their lazy, fat aristocratic masters (edit: or they'll decide to wipe us out).
Posted 05 August 2009 - 09:07 AM
Posted 07 August 2009 - 11:02 AM
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users