>>52599400 As long as there is private enterprise, Schlomo Goldbergsteinberg is going to keep investing in cheap robots rather than expensive employees, so I'm not exactly afraid of that.
I mean, outsourcing became a thing a decade ago. Hiring cheap Indians and Chinese people to do simple drone work. Making babby Chinese people make clothes happened 30 years ago... This is just the next logical step.
>>52599268 >If we have self coding robots then I'm out of a job
We do. This is literally what higher-level programming is all about. Just imagine how many more coders it would take to write something like Windows 10 in assembly. As soon as a computer is able to parse natural language, coding as a profession will go the way of horsepower.
>Mr. Roboto will take jobs that require no education or special training first (aka manual labour)
Interaction with the real world is difficult. It's what a significant chunk of our brainpower is devoted to, and the best hardware/software we've designed is lightyears away from what our nervous systems can pull off. Machines will take over white-collar work long before they can navigate a building site.
There are a lot more problems to all of this though. As you said the unskilled labor goes first but robots/computer's great skill is math, they are more primed to take jobs in engineering, programming and even more in the science fields than they already have than they are with something like plumbing or some other skilled labour.
>>52599400 That's another major point. Robots primary benefit company owners and investors. And the more people you put out of work the less people you have to buy things and tax, at some point it becomes a self defeating endeavor unless there is major social restructuring.
>>52599528 >doing calculations = having an understanding of abstract mathematics Pick one
Just because they can do arithmetics, doesn't mean that they're going to engineer themselves anon. Fully autonomous self-replicating, self-programming adaptive robots are still at least a century away.
>>52599519 >Interaction with the real world is difficult. It's what a significant chunk of our brainpower is devoted to, and the best hardware/software we've designed is lightyears away from what our nervous systems can pull off. Machines will take over white-collar work long before they can navigate a building site. We already have self-driving cars and aircrafts.
>>52599571 Roads are more structured and predictable than a construction site even with all the moving things on them and fairly well mapped. You get to just follow a path while watching out for obstacles. Flight has the benefit of dealing with mostly empty sky right now.
Yeah well having an understanding of abstract anything is their major shortcoming, which is why for now they are primarily only useful in strictly controlled environments like assembly lines. If they can't do things like self replicate they aren't going to be replacing many jobs that require any skill whatsoever any time soon.
>>52599664 Yeah, traffic can be dealt with in a fairly simple sense and react manner though while following your simple path. Finding your way around a construction site that has piles of materials, tools, uneven surfaces, and half built objects is not as easy.
>>52599744 Big Dog/S3 is retarded as all hell, he plays follow the leader or can be manually driven by remote. All he has going for him is being fairly difficult to trip up compared to some bots but a lot of that has to do with being a quadruped and not extra intelligent.
>>52599757 >Robots historically have not killed jobs. That's wrong though. Look at the car manufacturing industry. When they started using robots instead, hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone became unemployed.
>>52599278 >Mr. Roboto will take jobs that require no education or special training first A computer does work that would require education and special training. You couldn't hand-encode a H.264 file without significant training. x264 does man-years worth of encoding work in seconds.
A car is simplicity itself to drive, once you've decided where you're driving. Compare this to the massively convoluted mess of feedback loops that is our body, even when we're just doing something like staying upright. It would (probably) be pretty trivial to modify the self-driving system, attach it to a human and have the code work out exactly where to go as they navigated a building site. But for an actual robot to physically make the journey? Not happening. It's not like a car, where you only have to worry about pedals and the steering wheel.
>>52599866 >You couldn't hand-encode a H.264 file without significant training Actually you could. It's just a matter of reading the specs. It would take an insane amount of time, but it's totally doable. And because anyone can do it, it is also possible to automate.
Fun fact: I actually implemented a H.264 parser to extract closed caption data
>>52599900 >Not happening. It's not like a car, where you only have to worry about pedals and the steering wheel. And the surface, and the grip, and the torque and the differential of the wheels, and the current speed, and the speed of obstacles in your path (so you adapt your own speed), and the weight of the car and so on
>>52599974 It's simple RELATIVE TO 'DRIVING' A HUMAN BODY. As in, we have self-driving cars, but we do not have self-driving bodies, because bodies are far more complex to move and balance. How is this even up for debate?
PS - nothing you just described would be amiss on a first-year mechanics paper. If you were trying to get across the difficulty of creating a car AI, you failed miserably.
>>52600024 >"Although nearly any work can potentially have skill and intelligence applied to it, many jobs that mostly comprise manual labour—such as fruit and vegetable picking, manual materials handling (for example, shelf stocking), manual digging, or manual assembly of parts—often may be done successfully (if not masterfully) by unskilled or semiskilled workers"
It's not wrong to imply that manual labour is typically unskilled.
>>52600092 So, an automated crane? You realise the vast majority of building is done by workers inside the building, where they constantly need to move about? One 'giant builder bot' is not going to be putting office blocks up solo.
>>52600142 >construction = building buildings You know that that's not the only form of constructions. There are railway robots that construct railways (almost) by themselves, huge tunnel digging robots that construct tunnels,etc.
Yes, humans won't be completely eliminated, but a lot of stuff done by humans today will be done by robots in near future.
The best thing unskilled people could do is to learn a skill. Otherwise they best prepare to learn how to maintain the robots that replaced them.
>>52600118 >>first year mechanics students are able to make self-driving cars >/g/ everyone...
Jesus Christ, at this point I think you're deliberately missing the point. You tried to put across the difficulty of AI driving like so:
>the surface, and the grip, and the torque and the differential of the wheels, and the current speed, and the speed of obstacles in your path (so you adapt your own speed), and the weight of the car and so on
Frankly, you failed miserably. Factoring in the weight of a car? w = mg? Or calculating torque? These are not difficult. I'm not saying AI is easy, I'm saying your attempt to describe the challenges AI faces was pisspoor.
>With cheaper cars they spend money on other things You know that buying stuff isn't a profession, right? You're still unemployed even though cars are cheaper.
>or save money which they can start a business with. Yeah, because people with little to no skill at all are completely able to start their own successful businesses, right?
It's just a coincidence that they were working as janitors, assembly line workers and other low-income jobs before. They can now just save their unemployment money (because cars are so cheap now!) and start their own business.
>>52599908 >Actually you could. It's just a matter of reading the specs Read again, I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said it would require education and training. x264's workflow is not trivial. To perform each step, knowing which setting modifies which algorithm to which degree, is not a small thing. The crunching could be farmed out, but this entire system is nowhere near "a job that would require no education and training." It would likely be one of the most complex businesses to ever exist.
>>52599908 >Fun fact: I actually implemented a H.264 parser to extract closed caption data
Wow, so you extracted data from where the data was placed according to spec. I extracted cereal from my cupboard and milk from my refrigerator.
>>52600537 >Read again, I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said it would require education and training. It requires MINIMAL training and minimal education.
>x264's workflow is not trivial. To perform each step, knowing which setting modifies which algorithm to which degree, is not a small thing. It is, all you need to do is have a premade state diagram and then manually mark where you are.
>he crunching could be farmed out, but this entire system is nowhere near "a job that would require no education and training." It really is, all you would need to do is premake a bunch of state charts that the person doing the job could follow.
>Wow, so you extracted data from where the data was placed according to spec. Yes
>>52600374 >making a car AI is easy, it's just pedals and steering wheel >actually making a car AI is more difficult than that, you need to keep in mind X and Y and Z too among other things >HURR DURR X AND Y AND Z ARE EASY MODE!!!!! THAT'S NOT EVEN THE HARDEST PARTS, THOSE ARE R, W AND V
>>52600537 >I said it would require education and training >you extracted data from where the data was placed according to spec. I extracted cereal from my cupboard and milk from my refrigerator. Why are you contradicting yourself in the same fucking post?
>say that X is hard and requires education and training >say that X is easy and compare it to something that requires no training and education at all
>>52600716 Technically, I decoded the closed caption data.
>What's the filename of this jpeg? It's not even a JPEG...
>Now reencode it 4:4:4 , IEEE, quality 90. By hand. No, just because it's doable doesn't mean it's worth it in time. There's a reason why we let computers do trivial/mundane stuff, because they do it several million times faster than humans.
>>52599278 >People who can only do manual labour will be forced to teach themselves how to be of use to society or they will starve to death They will turn to crime and make society worse before they starve to death.
This is a good thing, though. As robots take over menial jobs, it drives down the cost of providing those services. Fast food becomes cheaper, fuel becomes cheaper, transportation becomes cheaper, etc. What this actually allows for is people being able to spend less time working to exist and more time working on what they want. There will be some... Adaption periods where lazy people will do less and get fat but realistically this is paving the way for a future where we advance mankind for the sake of advancing mankind.
>>52602779 >shits cheap to manufacture >sell shit on huge markup like a good little Goldbergstein would >someone does the math on what the things we sell costs to produce >realize were ripping of all the goys >starts making the same shit and selling them for cheaper >either lose all customers or lower prices >customers get cheaper products either way
>>52599241 >Buy a robot >He does my job for me >I earn money for doing nothing >I buy more robots to do more jobs so I earn more money Ive won And dont say 'Oh well the companies will just cut out the middle man and get their own robots', no, cause my robots will kill the other robots. They'll need me.
Thread replies: 91 Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 475500
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.