• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

the end of work


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 williamhessian

  • Guest
  • 86 posts
  • 0
  • Location:minneapolis, mn

Posted 29 March 2009 - 04:46 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

#2 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

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


My dream job?

Custom body design. I'm a pinup artist. I designed my own Avatar in Secondlife. I'd love to be a professional and famous body sculptor. A DNArtist if you read Dan Simmons Hyperion books.

#3 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 29 March 2009 - 07:29 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).

Edited by forever freedom, 29 March 2009 - 07:29 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 williamhessian

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 86 posts
  • 0
  • Location:minneapolis, mn

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).


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?

#5 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

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?


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.

#6 Cyberbrain

  • Guest, F@H
  • 1,755 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Thessaloniki, Greece

Posted 29 March 2009 - 06:32 PM

The primary goal for the advancement of machine intelligence for me, is so we can enhance our selves - to take control of our evolution. To find a cure to aging, to have instant healing, to be stronger, smarter, and many more things.

#7 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

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?



If they're friendly, then they'll work with us to help us improve ourselves. If they're not friendly, then it's hard to imagine a good outcome. That's why it's so important that we pay attention to this aspect of strong AIs; they have to be friendly.

#8 williamhessian

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 86 posts
  • 0
  • Location:minneapolis, mn

Posted 29 March 2009 - 08:22 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.

#9 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

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.



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.

#10 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 29 March 2009 - 10:23 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.

#11 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

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.



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.

#12 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

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.




William's scenario could happen, i think; the ones who primarily own the most capital/means of production become exponentially richer by using/hiring robots while the ones with less or no capital cannot multiply their money fast enough for them to survive, and since their services won't be needed anymore there could be trouble for them.

Yes, this is the exact scenario that socialism ideologists have been preaching as the danger of capitalism for very long, and it is foolish and would never come true if we consider a society with humans only. But if strong AI is included into the picture, everything changes and economics as we know it can't be applied accurately anymore.

Let me remind you, think is just one possible scenario. There are many others, especially if AIs acquire emotions and consciousness and become like us, or if we can augment ourselves and become like them.

#13 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

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.


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).

#14 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

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).


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.

#15 williamhessian

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 86 posts
  • 0
  • Location:minneapolis, mn

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.


essentially we choose slavery, as long as it comes with shelter, safety and essential goods (food and water) that we individual each demand.

we can also make the case, that life is slavery. as we are slaves to the needs of being human, eating, water, shelter, air, sleep. We are slaves in our own bodies. I've long been a proponent of trying to become self sufficient beyond these 'needs'. Finding ways to need less from the planet, and less to manage ourselves and keep us running at peak performance (e.i. more like robots). However, at the same time I am extremely optimistic, and i think life is an absolutely fantastic ride that we all get to experience. Just the act of communicating with people like you, over a computer, and the internet is a dream--while my cat rubs against my leg, and i have a steaming glass of hot tea next me, oh and watching a blizzard fall from the sky. it is truly amazing we are here right now.

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.

#16 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

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.



Hm maybe you're confusing a few things here?

Technology has been immensely helpful for us so far. I'm sure you understand the fact that one machine can do 10 men's work in a factory and that this is a great thing, so i don't understand why you're making these statements.


Machines have been great for economics and humanity so far, they've increased our work's productivity many times over; if it weren't for machines, the common "Joe pawn" would receive much less for his common work and his standard of living would certainly be MUCH lower.


I don't understand, who are you considering as pawns? As i understand it, so far, machines are the pawns. My only worry is that the situation could reverse in the future; i have no problem in having them as equals, though.

Edited by forever freedom, 30 March 2009 - 01:08 AM.


#17 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

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.


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.

#18 williamhessian

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 86 posts
  • 0
  • Location:minneapolis, mn

Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:15 AM

everyone is a pawn. paying taxes and working for other people. there are a small percentage of people that i would consider to be above 'pawn' status, and that is attributed to the massive imbalance in wages and wealth in this country and/or world.

machines have been great to us so far. but slowly taking our jobs away. its a slippery slope, at some point machines will be doing nearly everything and we will a hard making wages to pay simple bills. the "joe pawn" statement actually sounds false to me, since the average joe pawn is 30 thousand dollar in debt! His quality of life might be better, but that is because he is spending beyond his means and spending 45 hours a week working to make someone else money. We work more, and spend more than ever before; while we have many things we do not spend as much time doing the things we love as we used to. therefore, i reckon quality of life is down.

as machines help us do work, do we get to cut hours to benefit from this advancement? Nope. We have to find a second job, when they cut our hours. Machines help business owners and corporations get rich, not us. We pay for everything we get, and usually pay for it in many more ways than one.

#19 williamhessian

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 86 posts
  • 0
  • Location:minneapolis, mn

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.


and i agree with this. its always a trade off. we are never really free. americans invented the word "freedom", its as fabricated a notion as valentines day is a holiday. Yet, i still yearn and dream for it.

#20 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:33 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.

#21 williamhessian

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 86 posts
  • 0
  • Location:minneapolis, mn

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.


i completely agree. and i do value your opinion in the matter, and i am glad that you feel the way you do. its fun to talk about it from both sides.

#22 solbanger

  • Guest
  • 215 posts
  • 11

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


Art, movies and video games. And some scientific exploration. What people would PREFER doing!

#23 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

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.


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.

#24 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

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.


Already answered.

If we make human equivalent AI we MUST be prepared to treat it as Human, with all rights and privileges pertaining to humans. The creation of specialized limited AI has no need to include emotion. The creation of fully general AI that mimics fully human thought and emotion is no different than an Uploaded Human would be.

Humans are general purpose intelligences. We have minds capable of dealing with an infinite variety of situations. However, we long ago discovered the value of specialization, and division of knowledge and labor. I don't have a clue how to pilot an airplane, but a pilot does. He also must deal with an array of general non pilot related functions, such as living in the human world. A piloting AI on the other hand needs to have no function other than piloting an airplane. It has no need of knowing how to socialize with passengers, drink coffee, or drive a car. All it must know is how to fly a plane under any conditions to get from point A to point B. Even if the software is designed to self improve, at what point does that mean it will include emotions? What purpose do emotions serve to fulfill it's purpose of flying from A to B?

Emotions are far more likely in general purpose AI's who must interact with humans in social environments, because emotions are part of human existence. In order to effectively interact, Emotion is a function with a strong purpose, and thus more likely to be part of an optimization process. Yet again, this is only required for AI who have far more than a single function. A vacuum robot has no need of general Intelligence, but a Maid robot who has functions far beyond just vacuuming most likely would.

I'm a realist. I view the creation of Human Equivalent AI as inevitable. I know it will occur. And as a realist, I am a full supporter of AI rights. When you buy that sexaroid, better make sure you treat her nice :)

#25 williamhessian

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 86 posts
  • 0
  • Location:minneapolis, mn

Posted 01 April 2009 - 05:20 AM

I agree that if we mimic a human we must treat the robot as human, with rights. However, what makes anyone think that a human-like robot would want to be treated the same. They may deem themselves to be more advanced and alienate us as the lesser being. Since our limitations are far grander than that of a robot.

The point made about robots being designed for a specific jobs do not need emptions, I completely agree with. But that goes back to my original post, about my blog entry End of Work: http://zombierobotfr...ed-product.html

Once every job, or 95% of them are being done by specialized robots, where is our value? Our work would be gone, and we would be milling around trying to figure out what to do with ourselves. The art/games/movies sounds great, except that when we do not make money from work, we do not have the ability to buy goods, or specialized equipment and our lives will become more or less trying to survive. Like in nature, as was also mentioned above, finding food, growing, cooking, making huts, clothes, etc (keep in mind, i am looking generations down the road here). As soon as we have no value as workers, so goes the rest of the perks that come with community and society. Things like movies and video games will not be sold to us, if we dont have money; they will stop being produced.

agian, I want to be clear that this scenario would not happen for generations and generations....unless....we have a global disaster. You can pick from a list of natural disaster, or pick a bunch of them, that could come down an alter life as we know it around this planet. Wiping out all of what we value. When we regroup, and try to rebuild, we will have value. But as soon as the materials are available businesses will opt for robotics, and machines to do the work in the new factories and the ones who survived will watch as robots rebuild their own culture for a select few.

i know I am speculating here. but i think these are all topics worth our time discussing. anyone have any input?

#26 Ben Simon

  • Guest
  • 352 posts
  • 3
  • Location:London

Posted 22 April 2009 - 01:56 PM

"What should humans do when they are no longer useful for work?"

...



#27 TianZi

  • Guest
  • 519 posts
  • -0

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!


How about reading, for pleasure?

#28 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

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).


Did you get that from the film WALL-E? That's the first thing that came to mind while reading that. ;)

#29 thestuffjunky

  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • -1
  • Location:kent ohio

Posted 05 August 2009 - 09:07 AM

good? it would get expensive to pay 5000 year old scientists wouldnt it...

#30 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 07 August 2009 - 11:02 AM

I agree with cyberdreamer a lot on this one!
I feel people always demanding things from me and over half of the day is wasted just for basic survival.

I don't feel free, I don't feel I can be who I am and what I am.
I want to do things I enjoy and I want to live.

Right now I'm just demanded to do things and if I don't I will be thrown to worse from wilderness, urban areas!
You can't even hunt there, or shower or anything and your chances to die are higher than in the jungle.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users