One is faccism the other is communism.

When this robot uprising happens, I will make my new job - farming and defending my newly appropriated land. I guess they could make robots to solve that problem too.

No, it's just like a rubik cube solving program, but fancier. It's just solving puzzle through brute force data. Realistically the rate of progress will already boom with just machine learning and human imaginatin. Real AI doesn't add as much to the equation as you think OR machine learning adds much MUCH more than you realize without sentience being even remotely important.

It's like we really just need machine problem solvers, not machines that can argue with us. Humans have more good ideas than we know what to do with, things like automating labor and getting costs down so more ideas become viable is a lot more important to progress than AI will be.

AI modeling us the most likely big bang sequence or figure out the true origin of life really isn't super important. Like those could be mysterious forever and we will be fine, it's the resource management and cost of living that humans need help with and you need more than brains to fix that.. you need LABOR.

It's not like AI is really going to be so smart that it like just starts casting spells from inside it's datacenter and re-writes the fabric of the universe. You're letting your imagination get the best of you.. which is part of the reason our need for AI is somewhat limited.

With an imagination like that all we have to do is have humans bang out ever crazy idea they have and non sentient machine learning can puzzle solve all out bullshit until it eventually makes sense.

We are the AI! The machine learning brute forces complex puzzles to produce probable answers WITHOUT self awareness. What more do you need and good luck investing all that effort into AI just to have it imagine stuff and then use machine learning to brute force the problem.

AI is when humans get so lazy they don't even want to imagine anymore. Everything else is just robotic automating and better programming. right now we call better programming machine learning, but at it's core it's just better programming that can allow for the inconsistent nature of input in the real world.. it can adapt to variations in the data.

When you do that billions of times per second cool stuff happens.. like video games or machine that solve puzzles. It's not alive, but it is amazing AT FIRST. Ater 10-20 years you will think machines that solve puzzles are old news and DUH that was always going to happen.. just like the computer and the internet are just obvious progressions of tech.

Funny, I was thinking that 39% of domestic jobs are already being done by robots.

I don't hand wash dishes very often. My machine does it

Same with clothes.

I don't sweep my floors, my vacuum sucks the dirt up into a nice little bag. Not to mention the actual robot vac.

I don't hang my clothes out to dry and collect them later, the machine dries them for me.

My coffee is ready before I get up in the morning, and toat is a lever press away.

I could go on. But are these "robots" depends on you definition. But you could make a pretty good case I think.

Point is, automation has been with us for a long time now and will continue to become more functional. But it will be over time, not a one machine "robot" solution

I agree with you here, there is a delicate balance in capitalist societies.

If you automate all of the workers and there are none left, then you have no-one to sell products to and companies go under. Doesn't matter how many robots you have making your products, if you have no customers.

The issues I expect to see from Automation are similar to the sort of problems we're seeing through our current iteration of capitalism - inequality. Automation and robots may speed up the process, but at some point the people that have no money and no prospects will find a way to get by, it may even involve violence.

Seems the NSA was listening and thought, you know what, this is a brilliant idea, lets break out the slush funds!

It only took 2 hours and 45 minutes to go from "We should all agree on a common ethic for peace" to "we should kill everyone who disagrees."
Honestly, I expected it to come faster.

No, because democracy is dumb. Literally. Over 50% of the US read at a 6th grade level and you want them to decide how to innovate? That's fucking crazy if you ask me. Which you didn't but there it is anyway. YMMV.

Idea - a robot that uses whatever you have in your pantry to come up with a meal. Basically just a private chef. We all want private chefs it’s the only thing I covet from the rich.

Time to bust out some German Expressionist makeup as dazzle camouflage

The truth is that we don't have enough unity among even the 'developed' world to establish such standards right now. And global capitalism doesn't really want any framework for which it would be forced to conform to.

How can the 'free world' call for certain rights when they are not even being protected in its leading members. A large section of Americans believe that racism doesn't exist, 38% of Japan's LGBT community has been harassed or assaulted at some point, Italy has a quasi-Fascist Prime Minister.

As far as collapse is concerned, I recommend the podcast Breaking Down: Collapse. It's a really interesting level-headed one that explains with nuance the possibilities of there being collapse. Chances are if there are one it won't be a big singular event but an accumulation of many things drawn out over decades. They are very data driven as far as what they look at. I recommend starting from episode 1 to get eased into the topic.

That's... yeah. Jesus.

[deleted]

Thought experiment - If we can accept endless brutal violence against us by the anti-social for no reason, can we not accept limited brutal violence against the anti-social, by us, for the purpose of making a more peaceful and sustainable society?

I'm doubling it! But if 60% is true, then I would like to know the cost of the cell and other "pitfalls". Because 60% is a breakthrough in energy.

I don't think there's so much of a chance for the kind of eradication a lot of people seem to fear, but the fear exposes the truth.

The problem boils down to how scarce resources really are. If there’s only so much stuff we can mine without destabilizing or ruining our own homes, then robots become competition for resources rather than expansion.

Except one person saying something irrational about medical science isn't an argument against scientists pushing flawed calculations that end up not coming true.

Hence why, rather than addressing the scientific flaws that produced the false predictions, he starts making up excuses about the anecdotal experience of his uncle.

It's not a scientific argument at all. It's an excuse to not have one.

Exactly, I just wait until A.I. reads the phrase online that "Humans are a virus" and then agrees, and finds a way to purge the planet of the virus.

Laws are only as effective as the ability to enforce them. I do not support a global government with any means to enforce even these "basic" laws.

[removed]

Thank you!

[removed]

[removed]