Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5
Why is /pol/ never talking about robots? It is much more important issue than nationalism, immigration, racism, sexism, and other categories of "equality".
For brainlets, a quick recap:
>In capitalism, most of consumption goes to those who produce most. Government equalizes wealth to some extent though.
>Production needs LABOR, LAND, PHYSICAL CAPITAL, and HUMAN CAPITAL
>The distribution of labor, land, physical capital, and human capital mostly tell us how wealth and income will be distributed. Labor is usually distributed to lowest income bracket, human capital is what generally comprises middle class and wealthy, but ownership of physical capital defines the rich
>Before industrialism, labor and land were the most important factors
>With industrialism and later with information technology, physical capital became more and more dominant
ROBOTS (=physical capital), which are owned by the rich (the top 5%, robots are expensive), seek to replace labor and human capital.
>Carpet factory has 10 employees making 500 carpets a year with 500'000 USD in operating expenses, 600'000 USD in sales and 100'000 USD in profits. Each carpet-man gets nice paycheck of 24'000 a year, and the owner 100'000 USD a year.
>Owner of the carpet factory buys CarpetoRobot3000 for 100'000 USD. It will make 1000 carpets a year with 50'000 USD in operating expenses. Carpet-men are fired. Owner of the CarpetoRobot3000 kinda gets their moneys.
Possible solutions
>10 workers buy the CarpetoRobot3000 themselves (unlikely, poor people are bad with money)
OR
>Owner of CarpetoRobot3000 must pay so high taxes for the robotic workforce that those taxes eventually are used to setup a basic income (citizens get 800 usd/month without doing anything)
OR
>"It's the carpet-mans fault! They should specialize to do some labor that robots can't do"
OR
>People support human labor by not buying cheaper and better products from robotic factories (0% chance to actually happen)
>>
>>139844808
Because they don't know and live only on hate, jews,muslims, and black people. /pol/ average IQ is below 75 that's why. The real problem is AI and it will replace most jobs in the next 10 years.
Humans are not that special when you feed a machine with information data it can easy out think any human. AI evolves with data
>>
File: I'm not a robot.png (47KB, 955x589px) Image search:
[Google]
47KB, 955x589px
>>139844808
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbWHt2VjQ7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv7gAL2CKHw
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/the-risk-of-automation-for-jobs-in-oecd-countries_5jlz9h56dvq7-en
>>
>>139846982
In recent years, there has been a revival of concerns that automation and digitalisation might after all result in a jobless future. The debate has been fuelled by studies for the US and Europe arguing that a substantial share of jobs is at “risk of computerisation”. These studies follow an occupation-based approach proposed by Frey and Osborne (2013), i.e. they assume that whole occupations rather than single job-tasks are automated by technology. As we argue, this might lead to an overestimation of job automatibility, as occupations labelled as high-risk occupations often still contain a substantial share of tasks that are hard to automate. Our paper serves two purposes. Firstly, we estimate the job automatibility of jobs for 21 OECD countries based on a task-based approach. In contrast to other studies, we take into account the heterogeneity of workers’ tasks within occupations. Overall, we find that, on average across the 21 OECD countries, 9 % of jobs are automatable. The threat from technological advances thus seems much less pronounced compared to the occupation-based approach. We further find heterogeneities across OECD countries. For instance, while the share of automatable jobs is 6 % in Korea, the corresponding share is 12 % in Austria. Differences between countries may reflect general differences in workplace organisation, differences in previous investments into automation technologies as well as differences in the education of workers across countries.
>>
>>139844808
There's no redpill on robots. Your only choices are bluepill or blackpill. Makes discussion pointless.
>>
>>139844808
fuck you
>>
File: robowhore_2.png (444KB, 990x792px) Image search:
[Google]
444KB, 990x792px
>>139844808
Looking forward to my robowhore.
>>
>>139844808
Did you know:That you don't transplant consciousness into a computer,you enable an environment in which it can evolve.
>>
PEPPA
>>
>>139847328
My current formula is
1. Choose a purpose. For example: firefighter robot
2. Design a "nucleus".
3. Design left "action" side. Design right "thinking" side.
4. Thinking side constructs an "initiation". The initiation gets sent into the nucleus. Nucleus makes sure there is nothing harmful in the initiation the thinking side created. If it passes, it gets sent into the action side where it, of course, gets to action.
Nothing the thinking side sends to nucleus can ever change nucleus. The robot will be forever a prisoner of the nucleus. The robot is free to develop its thinking side however it wishes. If nucleus stops functioning, e.g. the robot succeeds in breaking it indirectly, no further actions get passed through. For robots that cannot stop functioning (for example firefighter robot), the nucleus will revert the entire thinking side back to initial profile, if it detects the robot is failing to fulfill its purpose (in this example, it doesn't help humans in fire).
However, the robot may succeed in destroying its action side components. In this case, it is a pure failure.
The nucleus records all thinking side profiles that led to failure and prevents them in further developments.
5. Few of these robots should operate simultaneously in different environments. Most successful robots are selected and their thinking side given to next robots.
6. Product robot will be ~40% design, ~50% learned, and ~10% will be left to each robot for it to individualize according to its service environment.
Next goals are
>trying to include mutations to every variant
>giving the thinking side opportunity to evaluate its own action side and requesting changes to its components
>evaluate how many products will fail given the 10% freedom
>>
>>139847149
See this anon has his mind on the prize
>>
>>139844808
>ROBOTS (=physical capital), which are owned by the rich (the top 5%, robots are expensive), seek to replace labor and human capital.
news flash: carpet weaving has been automated longer than almost any other industry, at least for 100+ years. carpet weaving was one of the very first applications of computer controlled machinery
but AI is a myth, relax. the dogma of algorithmic computation = consciousness is a classic flat earth delusion
>>
>>
>>139844808
/pol/ talks about robots all the time.
It always degenerates into declarations that the waifu age will soon be upon us while a handful of people who vehemently disagree with OP and/or fear robot communism post endless walls of text.
>>
File: sexbot.png (471KB, 500x691px) Image search:
[Google]
471KB, 500x691px
>>139844808
Every night with a warm, sexy, pleasure-bot.
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5