What will human bois do once robots, AI and machine learning

>>61863424
(Race)War, than whoever wins gets a ticket to the Brave New World, but with robots instead of betas

>>61863424
Depends on how civilization progresses.

I think a smarter more progressed civilization would focus on the advancement of the human species.

we fuck them

This is actually a really good question because this an actual problem with capitalism. If you fully automate the economy, the working classes will no longer have any capital to spend, thus causing a market crash. If we are to progress, this issue must be addressed, whether you are a socialist or a liberal (I'm using the term "liberal" to refer to those that support capitalism, as capitalist can also just refer to a class.).

>>61863424
Mostly transition into traps and seek out the biggest BBC they can find. Imagine getting your boipucci creamed by a throbbing BBC. It's gonna be great.

>>61863524
Everyone will make money by speculating cryptocurrencies then.

>>61863524
In other words, we need to transition to a system in which goods must be distributed according to use instead of profit.

>>61863554
Honestly, I think that we would need to transition to socialism. We won't be able to achieve this kind of society with liberalism, conservativism, or right-wing libertarianism.

>>61863557
A static system cannot account for different levels of automation.

>>61863424
Die.
Since the creation of society, people exist to fulfill economic roles. Economic upturns and downturns directly affect birth rates.
We can see this in countries with advanced economies, birth rate is very low compared to nations that are still developing.
With all economic roles filled by robots, what need is there to reproduce? Eventually the population will reach some low equilibrium, as there will always be a need for people to direct robots (who's going spend a billion dollars developing AI and robots that aren't working for them? no one).
Some people believe our economic systems will change, and while change is inevitable, I don't think it's going to be to a society which freely feeds, clothes, and generally takes care of it's people. Even societies which proclaim themselves to be "socialist" don't really do this, there are always stipulations and requirements to being on the dole.

>>61863588
Socialism isn't static. Socialism isn't just central planning. There is also decentralised planning, and even market socialism.

First world countries: everyone gets universal basic income.
Third world countries: endless bloodbath of civil wars.

File: How can humnbois even compete?.png (2MB, 1080x1660px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1660px

>>61863424
Watch as all human women get the BRC and give birth to the new race of human-robot hybrids.

>>61863424
We create jobs involving the maintenance and creation of AI, robots and so forth. I honestly think robots will become a thing in more labor-intensive fields like manufacturing of certain goods really. I just don't see them doing any higher level jobs that involve many degrees of abstraction.

>>61863617
What I mean is the workforce will be automated at separate times. It would be more efficient to not redistribute to everyone, but only to those who have qualifications in a field that suffered from automation. People with no skills or stakes should get be the last who get anything.

Even Hawaii is working on universal basic income. It'd most likely be the go-to think next to interstellar travel. Gotta have humans to take to new planets and make them hospitable or mine the fuck outta asteroids.

>>61863744
But people with no skills will be the first to be replaced.

>>61863761
>Gotta have humans to take to new planets and make them hospitable or mine the fuck outta asteroids.
this assumes that the population of humanity cannot grow and shrink

>>61863424
Will use my negotiation and persuation power to convince them that I'm Jesus reincarnated so they will let me live to control the rest of humans.

As I can't fuck because of the saint shit I would ask them to get me an Ariel rebel realistic android.

>>61863744
You misunderstand socialism. Socialism isn't redistribution of goods, that's social democracy. The point of socialism is to take away the need of redistribution by putting ownership of the means of production into the hands of society as a whole, making it so that you don't have people who don't actually do any work in the factory they own making most of the profit. I agree with you to an extent, and so would most socialists. "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

>>61863819
So we would have the robots have control over the goods? Wouldn't that be worse than the capitalists?
The robots would only want to spend money to be maintained, whereas a wealthy capitalist could consume luxury goods, like hand-made clothes, in addition to paying for his robot works to be maintained. He might even invest in a new venture!

>>61863870
No, society as a whole should have control of the means of production through democracy, and goods should be distributed from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.

>>61863886
>society as a whole should have control of the means of production
I thought we were taking away profits from people who don't work in the factories.
>goods should be distributed from each according to their ability to each according to their needs
Isn't that how capitalism works? The ability of each is measured by your income, as that is how an economic system determines worth.
And if we are assigning goods based on need, then we will have no luxury goods like computers or televisions.

manbots and fembots will work while meatbags adopt the roles housewives have now.
Both men and women will stay at home and instead of usual chores there responsibilities will be to maintain their robotic life partner and give them sex.
The robots will be the providers for their households.

>>61863898
>I thought we were taking away profits from people who don't work in the factories.
Sorry, I didn't elaborate on this as much as I should have. The means of production should be owned and controlled by those who work them through democracy.
>Isn't that how capitalism works? The ability of each is measured by your income, as that is how an economic system determines worth.
No, capitalism distributes according to what is profitable. For instance, you aren't going to sell food to a beggar, as the beggar does not have enough capital for you to make a profit off of.
>And if we are assigning goods based on need, then we will have no luxury goods like computers or televisions.
Not really. Luxury goods like these will of course be produced, as there are going to be those that want these goods can setup factories to produce them, and they can be distributed according to those that need, or in this case, want them.

>>61863898
>>61863969
I'd explain my position further, but it is 4:00 in the morning here, and I really need to sleep.

>>61863969
>The means of production should be owned and controlled by those who work them through democracy.
>through democracy
So basically, vote to get free stuff? I suppose that's how it would work, although I don't know of any method to more quickly drive skilled labor out of a country.
>No, capitalism distributes according to what is profitable
Well, that's exactly what I said, just in different words.
Why does a doctor get money to buy food and a beggar does not? The doctor provides work other people (society) find valuable, the beggar does not.
Who has this undefined "ability?" By all but the most altruistic and equality-driven measures, the doctor.

>>61863987
Good night.

>>61863969
>>61863898

I would argue that the statement that distribution by ability is technically correct, however the most able in society today are those with the most capital, because if you find someone more skilled, more technically able, you can always buy them if you have enough money.

And if you're fronting the capital you're reaping the rewards.
You think the stupid VC money running through tech doesn't ever see returns? We're in an era of stupid corporate investment because we're in an era of inconceivable corporate profit.

>>61864097
>We're in an era of stupid corporate investment because we're in an era of inconceivable corporate profit.
Partially true, one of the other reasons we see so many stupid tech companies getting these investments is because it's the only industry showing signs of growth. The opportunity for further profits is drying up.

>>61863424
Shove myself in some VR.

>>61864088

I believe there's a middle ground we should be exploring. Increased tax rates to reinforce things like public education. NHS, shit like that. Don't go full communism unless it becomes the natural progression to avoid food and water riots.

People often argue that businesses would flee if tax rates went up, but businesses operate where ever there is a profit. Their profits in modern first world capitalist society are so high we could cut into them and they would bitch and complain, but would essentially see a diminishing growth, not a sudden lack of profit.

Not to mention profits and growth can only exist in a society that is investing in itself. Countries that have given away to absolute corruption and money'd interests, where barely any of the country's GDP is actually going to solve social woes, are the ones that end up collapsing without proper maintenance or infrastructure.

Businesses would do well to look after the populations that support them, but they're short sighted because they assume they can flee with the money they garner, but in a global economy where will they go.


New zealand apparently,I hear the rich are building bolt holes there and estates that are bunker sized panic rooms.

>>61864106

It's so strange, we're pushing the envelope and hyper-optimizing so much. It's going to be those in control of the machines vs those who are controlled by the machines, with no middle class.

I wonder what side I'll fall on.

>>61863424
Well first the areas that get these automated jobs might get fucked because the people no longer produce, the areas that don't are probably better off even if they purchase these robo-goods to a certain degree because they still produce themselves and have a turnover in the economy.

>>61864146
>I believe there's a middle ground we should be exploring.
While this is a popular idea, I don't see it working well in Europe, economically.
Taxing businesses enough to fund a universal healthcare program is either going to kill a lot of businesses operating with small profit margins (reminder than the vast majority of businesses and employers in the US are small businesses), or it's going to require gigantic cost cutting for all hospitals and healthcare providers which will probably reduce quality of care.

>>61864162
Hopefully you'll fall on the side of history that exists before machines cut out the middle-man workers between capitalists and profit.
We're heading for a new feudalism, only the landowners don't need the peasants to plow fields or do anything else really.

>>61864190

Disagree with the cost cutting aspect. Under the current model emergency and critical care are far more profitable than preventative care.

In some counties in the states, because of lack of resources, they're forced to take on fixed budgets. In order to cope with this there are sweeping changes being made by hospital administration to open up preventative care clinics in these areas and start programs in order to actually take care of people in those communities to protect their profits.

Throug the current health care for profit a lot of companies have found a way to profit directly off of human suffering, and if reform means they shut down, then I don't have any problems with that.

>>61864266

What scares me the most is that by the time even the middle class and close-to-the-top-but-not-in-control folks realize what's going on, the lucky few will have automated weapons platforms protecting the borders to their sanctums and other interests, and it will be too late.

And before anyone makes arguments for "won't automation mean everyone can have that standard of living".

That standard of living runs on things that are of finite amounts on earth: rare earth metals, energy, etc. Until we get solid cargo running between planets we'll be boned.

Funnily enough wasn't colonization what ended the last feudal period, allowed commoners to earn money free ( to a degree ) of the oppression of sovereign landowners.

>>61864266

Doesn't look good. Look at the current trends. We're already eating away at that middle class, more and more every year.

I wonder if there's a moore's law type burn graph for automation.

>>61864347

You know what I'm getting really fucking sick of hearing.

Factory owners and startup are regurgitating this line like the fucking tobacco industry denied links to cancer:

"We don't see automation as replacing our workers, but rather as a force to augment our workforce / as a force multiplier"

Makes me sick to see people say that through their shit eating grins.

The AI will figure this out, don't worry guys

>>61864331
>the lucky few will have automated weapons platforms protecting the borders to their sanctums and other interests, and it will be too late.
They don't even need to be automated, under feudalism, there existed more than two tiers of people, those who pledge fealty to a lord will be knights and protect their lord.
>wasn't colonization what ended the last feudal period, allowed commoners to earn money free ( to a degree ) of the oppression of sovereign landowners.
The commoners simply became the sovereign landowners.

>>61863906
So *bots will have to be hardwired to seek out human partners? That would have to be part of legislature and any *bot outside of this would have to be disposed and those who created one sentenced. What about children? Maybe the *bots will have to seek out living pairs?

>>61864331
Black death came and made peasants more of a valuable resource.

>>61864382
I believe it took the labor shock of the Black Plague to get pay up enough for them to do so.

>>61864347
The large middle class was a historical anomaly.
Any society that respects property rights and allows for money to be invested in new ventures will eventually end up top-heavy with wealth.
Compounding interest is proof of this.
Infinite growth is impossible, there are only so many resources on the planet.

>>61864398
>>61864383

jesus...

>>61864397
>>61864421
replied to the wrong post

>>61864418
That's crazy to think about.
The only way the middle class existed the way it did at all was a combination of factors, belief in idea of personal freedom, and post war boom.

>>61864440
>post war boom.
Which came at the expense of Europe, who had to take on large debts to rebuild following the war.
Yet another reminder that it's a zero-sum game, so if a large number of people are playing, there have to be some losers.

>>61863465
If think more like The Time Machine, but I only saw the post 2000 movie.

>>61864418
>respects property rights
Recognizes.
>Compounding interest
Was actually forbidden until fairly recently.

>>61864459
>a large number of people are playing, there have to be some losers.
Not at all. Seriously, if you hang all the usurers and liars, everyone can have a decent standard of living.

>>61864470

There is one thing to note though, historically concentration of wealth seems to serve technological and academic advancement.

Good example of this is how a whole bunch of intellectuals got offed during the french revolution and arguably put science back a good bit through their deaths. And that was absolutely due to terrible income inequality.

>>61864470
>Seriously, if you hang all the usurers and liars, everyone can have a decent standard of living.
Depends on what you mean by decent and also who "everyone" is.
Decent for everyone living in America? Absolutely.
Decent for everyone living on Earth?
Absolutely not.

And there is something to be said about designing social systems around people rather than trying to make an ideal-sounding social system that won't work with non-ideal people.
People are inevitably going to lie and steal, a good system will do it's best to mitigate the damage.

>Was actually forbidden until fairly recently
Where exactly was investing using returns from other investments forbidden? Because that is effectively compound interest.

File: FUTURE.webm (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

We'll be fucking our robo-waifus

>>61864548
>Decent for everyone living in America? Absolutely.
>Decent for everyone living on Earth?
>Absolutely not.
Admittedly, you'd have to recycle all the cars and most of suburbia too. Admittedly, my idea of decent is well short of the Amerifat Dream™.

>>61864548
>designing social systems around people
There is something to be said about it. And that is, nice rationalization.
You don't need perfect people. You simply need people who will play along and people who can get the fuck over themselves. This whole individualism thing of the past 100 years was all Bernays' doing anyway. Little of the perverse greedy lifestyle of today is hardwired. If anything, it was bred in, and it can be bred out as easily. Unfortunately, we will probably have to completely fuck ourselves to snap ourselves out of this. Fortunately, that may be in the cards anyway.

>>61863648
I can no longer read the word 'cordially' without thinking i'm being invited to a proper session of assfucking. Thanks 4chins.

>>61864678
The faces are always the worst part. Burqabot when

>>61863424
I'm already a NEET.