Robots want your job.

same

>>52599241
If we have self coding robots then I'm out of a job. That might be a while though

same

>>52599241
Mr. Roboto will take jobs that require no education or special training first (aka manual labour).

This is the way it should be. 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. It's Darwinism, simple as that.

>>52599241
why would a robot want to be a full time NEET?

>>52599295
What if robot has social anxiety?

Every job that has "auxiliar" in its name will be done by robots.

File: mr-pepe.png (558KB, 850x1269px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 850x1269px

>>52599340

>>52599278
Too bad they make up the majority of the population and thus hold the voting power.

>>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.

>>52599455
So the robots will be in China too?

>>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.

File: wealth.jpg (24KB, 571x226px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 571x226px

>>52599278
>will starve to death

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.

>>52599488
Most likely

>>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.

File: 1444816978860.jpg (45KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 409x409px

>implying I am a wagecuck
>tfw I can afford all the best tech due the generous welfare system here

>>52599571
Because roads and airspace are relatively simple environments. Something like walking through a house, on the other hand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P9geWwi9e0

>>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.

>>52599241
They have to fight the aliens first

>>52599561
>having an understanding of abstract

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.

>>52599627
>>52599639
Roads might be predictable you idiots, but HUMAN CONTROLLED TRAFFIC isn't.

It includes everything from people wandering in the road in front of cars to insane female drivers hitting the gas pedal instead of the breaks.

>>52599627
>DARPA Challenge
That's a bunch of amateur robots, anon. Do you judge field of software programming based on the shitty code you see on /g/ too?

>>52599648
>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.

That was my original point, they will replace jobs that require no skill, like working in a storage or stacking shelves or cooking burgers and stuff like that.

File: das it data.jpg (80KB, 522x593px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 522x593px

>>52599627
ROBOSIMIAN HYPE

>>52599639
>>52599627
Another example: The military is already using robot dogs to offload equipment off soldiers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

>>52599519
I heavily doubt we'll be coding in natural language in the future since it's unwieldy to describe exactly what you want a computer to do using it.

>>52599241
neo-luddites.

Robots historically have not killed jobs.

>>52599744
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w

>>52599241
Good.

Robots won't be able to do my job, hopefully.

>>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.

>>52599744
No, they're not. Their contract was scrapped becaue the robots were too slow, too noisy and too much hassle to maintain. Don't you read WiB?

>>52599757
We're not talking about the history. We're talking about the future.

>>52599746
Most people don't even manage that using a dedicated programming language.

>>52599241
what job

>>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.

File: just fuck my shit up.webm (2MB, 698x662px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 698x662px

>>52599627

>>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.

File: I can't.webm (3MB, 956x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 956x720px

>>52599846

>>52599664
>missing the point

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

File: TEAM VIAGRA HYPE.webm (2MB, 706x680px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 706x680px

>>52599893
Team Viagra ;_;7

>>52599746
But every step towards natural language is another wave of code monkey layoffs.

>>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

ITT: People who think creating a car AI is simple

>>52599241
Rise of the robo-losers

>ITT:: anons who think manual labor takes no skill.
>anons who think any behavior thats not a pure thought isn't manual.

>>52600024
>ITT:: anons who think manual labor takes no skill.
It doesn't, hence why it's called "manual labour" in contrast to SKILLED labour

>>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.

>>52599937
Then I bet you think FIM++ is going to wreck coding.
Seriously, look it up

>>52599815
Ok, so your theory has no precedent. There. Fixed.

>>52599845
And those jobs went other places. It displaces jobs, but doesn't net-kill jobs. It makes cars cheaper which helps in other ways.

>>52600058
>autonomous robots will look and act like humans
Why the fuck do you keep on assuming this?

A giant builder bot will not look like a human, it will look like a giant machine building buildings.

>>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.

>>52600058
Manual labor is work that involves the hands. Glass blowing is definitely manual labor and also definitely requires a lot of skill.

>>52600094
It would be more correct to specify "unskilled labor" though.

>>52600058
>first year mechanics students are able to make self-driving cars
/g/ everyone...

>>52600088
>And those jobs went other places.
Like?

>>52599834
True, in that case they just need to improve their code.

>>52599937
There'll still be dedicated coders, and the complexity of programs will most likely increase as programming becomes easier.

>>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.

>>52600113
Okay, robots will replace unskilled labour.

Happy now?

>Glass blowing is definitely manual labor and also definitely requires a lot of skill.
Ironically, there are robots that do this far better than humans.

>>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
Every other industry. With cheaper cars they spend money on other things, or save money which they can start a business with.

>>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.

>>52600142
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNBbK0wZmUQ

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDFuQkhlz8M

>>52600202
>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

It's gonna be the world's harshest game of musical chairs. There won't be nearly enough jobs for even a fraction of the now-unemployed population.

>>52600219

>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.

>>52599241
as long as it gets rid of all the indians im fine with this

>>52600227
Are you just dense or are you legitimately autistic? Just wondering...

>>52600219
Where is this magic bloc of industry which will be a)completely untouched by automation and b) capable of swallowing up the masses of people who find themselves redundant?

>>52600335
>miss the point twice
>need it painstakingly explained to you
>proceed to call the other person autistic

Ever heard that saying about glass houses?

>>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.

>>52599768
These guys are so cute. I'd buy one if they were less than 10k.

>>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

I ask again, are you autistic or just dense?

>>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

Robot will not take my job, people hate receiving over the phone tech support from robots.

>>52600637
People hate receiving over the phone tech support in general, anon.

File: 794.png (77KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x500px

>>52600635
Encoding is not parsing, moron.

What's the filename of this jpeg?
Now reencode it 4:4:4 , IEEE, quality 90. By hand.

>>52600716
*this png.

>>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.

>>52600716
>Encoding is not parsing,
Encoding according to a spec is literally just following the spec step by step.

>>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.

>>52602282
We can still find them jobs.

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.

When people talk about this, I always tend to bring up this vid
http://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU

But not gonna lie, it makes me kinda depressed that the majority of jobs aren't safe from bots and we will all soon be unemployable through no fault of our own.

>>52602730
For industry maybe but why would anything become cheaper for the consumer?

>>52599241
>half of /g/
>having a job

>tfw communist heaven where all jobs are done by robots and the state pay's everyone equal neetbux from robot earnings

>>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
So how'd we do it? How did we get robots to want things. Getting robots to want things would be a major development

>>52600841
Technically every effect happens by the causes occurring in the order they did. This doesn't mean everything is of equal complexity and achieved with equal effort, moron.

>>52599519
But by that point the robots will improve technology so much from automatic coding.

Could help open source too.

>>52599528
When we reach this point, society has succeeded. Basic income is implemented so the plebs can get by, and for those who work to live better lives get taxed a flat 20%

>>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.