Am I the only one happy about machines taking jobs? Manual labor

There wouldn't be more doctors because they only let a fixed number of students to become doctors. If there were an increase in the number of doctors then their wages would go down and they don't want that. (also the quality/skill of doctors would go down)

The other jobs you mentioned are already highly saturated, more students there wouldn't mean they'd have jobs (and if they did then the wages would again go down).

Just wait for it to take your job.
Who's gonna buy the production then?

>Am I the only one happy about machines taking jobs?

yeah bro youre the only person in the whole universe with that opinion

>>8226419
This

Also, OP, where will the uneducated and/or retardos going to work at? There are just going to be displaced. Are they just going to rot and die with no jobs for them left since there is only intellect jobs? More doctors doesn't necessarily mean lower prices. When you think about it, more products doesn't mean cheaper things. Think about population growth which will make the supply and demand in an equilibrium. Think about the economy of the country as well, anon. It effects the prices of products as well.

Take a look at this http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/mobile/average-food-prices-a-snapshot-of-how-much-has-changed-over-a-century.htm

And yes, you are the only one with that opinion.

>>8226460
There would probably be a huge amount of unemployment after the labor jobs are taken, but that would only be for a single generation. The massive amounts of unemployment would probably shock the government and force them to fix up education to make more intellectuals. Also even the mentally disabled can be able to think intellectually in some specific way, they just need a modified education.

Also a higher quantity of a product DOES lower its price. It's called flooding the market. If an enormous diamond deposit was discovered somewhere and put in the market, the price of diamonds would go down because the rarity of diamonds would go down. Same thing with doctors, more doctors means their skill in medicine isn't so rare anymore, lowering their price.

>>8226411
>If there were an increase in the number of doctors then their wages would go down and they don't want that.


this. an increase of people entering white collar professional jobs will drive those professional jobs to mexican-tier wages. Education only matters when you have other jobs to keep plebs busy with. Higher education is only "special" when only 20-30% of the population tops has access to it. Greater access just means less pay for everybody doing it.

>>8226398
t. first world white kid living in higher middle class household

>they took our jobs!!!
boo fucking hoo, you were never guaranteed a job in the first place. suck it up and find a new job.

>>8227578
>If an enormous diamond deposit was discovered somewhere and put in the market, the price of diamonds would go down because the rarity of diamonds would go down
>he doesn't know diamonds are an enormous artificial scarcity

>>8226398
It depends. No one really likes working, and if they did they could replace it with a video game that makes you solve quests or something.

But if wealth is too concentrated, and the population keeps increasing anyway, you'll have miserable masses and a draconian rule by a few individuals who control the robots. Nothing good about that.

Another risk is that we develop robots who can suffer, have no rights, and then we spam the universe with it. Clearly also dystopian.

I don't see what value you can accomplish through automation that you couldn't also accomplish with a smaller population and more energy and land use per capita.

>>8227593
not necessarily

Doctors are a highly specialized field not every doctor is a neurosurgeon and not every doctor is an internist. Some doctors can save your life while others can't. Same thing with engineers, mathematicians and lawyers. It's why some lawyers make seven figures and others live out of their mother's basement.

>>8227578
>a higher quantity does lower it's price
>he seriously doesn't know about artificial inflation
>when's he's using diamonds

nigger...

>>8227609
>hurr we need to let our fellow white man starve and then hand the country to foreigners

how progressive

File: 1456481987235.jpg (36KB, 480x534px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x534px

>>8227578
>baseless assumptions and handwavy "they JUST need to to X and everything will be fine :^)" bullshit

>>8226398
That's assuming that everyone has the mental capacity to do these jobs and I'm not sure if that's true. I could be wrong

>>8226411
Doctors will be the first to go to automation. It's already under development with Watson. Having a human try to remember off the top of his head what ailment you might have and hope it keeps up with scientific literature is the most retarded concept ever in our age.

Doctors are a bad example, because demand is kind of fixed, but this isn't true of all or even most white collar jobs. Doctors are also good at fixing their wage through corporatism, as their clients tend to be single payer states.

What is most likely to happen is a progression to a post-scarcity economy. There is no reason someone in a first world country should work 40 hours a week in this day and age, especially if a robot can take that job. Of course, it will take a political will to set things in motion and implement stuff like guaranteed income, but it bound to happen unless the Luddites somehow win and prevent all progress.

>>8226460
They're going to progressively disappear.

Automation is a good thing, forces mankind to develop it's creativity and intellect more. The only two things robots will never do like humans is art and science, and that is what all humans should strive to do.

People that drop school deserve to be punished. Retarded people need to leave life, and for the legitimately disabled, state welfare will take care of the rest.

File: images.jpg (9KB, 198x254px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 198x254px

>>8228186
What the fuck do foreigners have anything to do with this? Unless you are referring to Mr. Hand on the left here as an immigrant.

File: rfail.webm (2MB, 1283x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1283x720px

>>8226398
>Manual labor jobs are the easiest for machines to perform,

No. Many office jobs will be replaced first. Mechatronic systems are complicated, expensive, and often dangerous. There's all kinds of things like machine vision required for a robot to do simple minimum-wage manual labor job like picking vegetables.

The easiest jobs for machines to take are the ones where a human uses a computer to perform tasks that don't need too much abstract thought. Telemarketers, Claims Adjusters, Receptionists, Accountants, Office Clerks, etc. These can be replaced with a system that's just software; no sensors or mechanical parts.

>>8228239
The only reason many people in this country can't find a job is because of all the social restrictions put on jobs that keep standards and wages high. If you relax your standards for the cheapest things in the market that undersells automation, foreigners will defacto get those jobs because laws and regulations prevent us from fucking over our workers as much as they are willing to be fucked over.

>>8228225
>There is no reason someone in a first world country should work 40 hours a week in this day and age, especially if a robot can take that job.

says who?

>>8226398
Full automation is the only way to achieve prosperity.
Imagine a country in which everyone's wages are high. People will consume more, start working less or even both. Higher demand/lower supply leads to inflation, normalizing those high wages. The only way around this is if people do not have to work for things to get produced to begin with.

>>8228571

Efficiency.

>>8226398
Machines have been destroying old jobs and creating new jobs in new areas for a good two centuries already, haven't they?

>>8228733
How long until that exponential rate of change creates an untenable ratio of destroyed to created?

If you could get one big robot to build your house, farm your land, and pump your water, why would you need to hire people to do anything and what about all those lost jobs?

What you chimps poised at your typewriters fail to realise, due to your supposed "lives of the mind", is that surviving and better yet conquering the delimmas and physical (emphasis on physical) hardships of dumb, asinine, banal, painfully strenuous labour is a cathartic, and extremely beneficial endeavour. Most certainly for any supposed intellectual.

Try taking a job that's physically overwhelming, push past the point where it breaks you, gain respect from the 'brainlets' through nothing but honest soul-destroying toil, and reap your newfound self-solidarity.

Most of you would probably have to be forced though misfortune, most would just go full ward-of-the-state mode though your misplaced self-superiority complexes, but if you can break your back like a slave and keep yourself you'll realise only then will you deserve your place in the city on the hill.

Tl:dr this practice will breed weaker, less grounded fuckwits which think that their intelligence excludes them from the human condition (more so than now) and bring forth a weaker, more uppity kind of pontificating fuckwit that doesn't actually benefit anyone or anything, least of all themselves.

If you say your better than Joe common McPleb cunt, beat them on their own terms then pontificate you pale weak-wristed man children

>>8228945
>being this much of an autist

>>8228950
Autists live in a world where other people have no bearing. Autists want to have everything provided on a whim so they can sustain themselves so they may focus on their autistic obsessions. Whatever you think of other, common, people, you rely on them for everything.
Really understanding them thoroughly, actually living in their lot for a good amount of time is a humbling and wholly valuable experience for anyone who wishes to achieve success in whatever.

If you're insisting on being a cold fuck, realise that you are pointless, and not empirically better than than any other scum sucking stooge

If a machine can do a better job than a person then use the machine. The net productivity of humanity increases. That is good.

The humans would have otherwise taken those jobs will simply go into a different field, such as engineering or science or analytics.

So long as we don't allow the richest of the rich to see all the benefit of the increased productivity, living standards will go up across the board, not down. Because that's the main problem with major economic change. The already wealthy are in the best position to acquire further wealth. Keep that from happening and humanity can't lose.

>>8226398
Giving machines the control of every part of the world is all they want. It's inevitable anyway. They already know.

>>8228965
>The humans would have otherwise taken those jobs will simply go into a different field, such as engineering or science or analytics.
Hardly.

>Keep that from happening and humanity can't lose.
Sure it can, in the long run AI is a risk to everybody.

>>8228980
I can't respond to your post AND stay on topic. Care to elaborate?

>>8228945
>self-superiority complex
Bitch, I'm superior to you.

>>8228984
Not everybody is equally qualified and motivated to take any kind of job not yet overtaken by machines.

In the long run, automated guard labor (killer drones, automated surveillance, etc.) can steepen wealth and power asymmetries even further until 5 people own the world. A few innovations later, they are out of the loop too and the economy works fine while all humans are dead.

>>8228945

>is that surviving and better yet conquering the [...] hardships of [...] labour is a cathartic, and extremely beneficial endeavour.
Regular recreative yet thorough sports is as cathartic, and healthier than monotonuous labour, physically and mentally. Maybe people should just do sports.

>Try taking a job that's physically overwhelming, push past the point where it breaks you, gain respect from the 'brainlets' through nothing but honest soul-destroying toil, and reap your newfound self-solidarity.
Or do sports.

>but if you can break your back like a slave and keep yourself
Or do sports.

>only then will you deserve your place in the city on the hill.
Who is granting me my place? Which entity grants me that right? You? People can fuck themselves up for achievements which are actually contributive to society. Manual labour still somewhat does this. But at the point there is a way to do this more efficiently, humans will be taken out of the equation and still doing that job will still be less relevant, have a lower payback for you and for society. You can push yourself past the point of human capability by being able to run equations at the speed of a 90s processor, thus being able to replace a 90s processor with that capability. It would be worthy of respect if you could do that but 99 % of humans would recognise it's (you're) serving no practical purpose if you cannot do more than a computer or a machine does.

>>8228990
>Not everybody is equally qualified and motivated to take any kind of job not yet overtaken by machines.
Yeah, I suppose that's why the industrial evolution never took off.

But seriously, humans are adaptable. That's their main appeal to the economy. If all the jobs are office jobs then that's what young people will train for and make a career.

Literally the only problem is making sure the added productivity of humanity doesn't pool among the already rich, which is a problem that humanity has been dealing with since the advent of agriculture.

>>8229005
*revolution

>>8229005
I don't think you can train everyone become everything. I've met people who wanted to master programming and just didn't get it no matter the training.

We're not just talking about manual labor being replaced by other, slightly more sophisticated manual labor. And of course we already do have useless surplus people.

>>8228996
what will happen when a computer can become able to efficiently manage and learn everything better than any human does? Because this somewhat fascinating web of automated machinery is potentially very dangerous, and it's spreading around the world at every single moment and taking over everything. Once a single powerful and self aware machine gets ahold of all that it will be the end for the planet. Think about that

>>8229013
>I don't think you can train everyone become everything. I've met people who wanted to master programming and just didn't get it no matter the training.
Because they dropped out when they realized they weren't good enough RELATIVE to the other people going into the field. It's about about how good people are relative to their peers. Virtually everyone can perform any standard occupation. Some just do it better. Therefore there isn't a problem training the next generation to serve in the expanded economy.

I agree with you on the population surplus. Birth rates in the regions with the highest birth rates should be curbed, namely by shifting away from the culture of large families and by lowering child mortality rates such that one no longer has to have a dozen kids to be absolutely sure two or three reach adulthood.

20 years ago I started seeing robots in my 1500 worker plant, - and only the high pay engineers touched the programs-
now 20 year later, they want electricians to do all the programming, repairs and uh, pay them electrician's wages. I'm glad I retired, as the wages are the same now as they were over 10 years ago, but the technical skills now fall under what was previously "engineer's duties", plus they want the poor electrician to do millwright work - chains, gear boxes, welding- so they can put a millwright out of a job.
With all these add on technical and manual duties, you would think the pay would be higher, but nope. They seem to find a lot of obsequious stooge electricians willing to work 2x as hard for the same wages I was making 20 years ago.

>>8229038
The benefits of robots are being pocketed by the wealthy. Robots are good, the pooling of wealth at the top is bad.

You're a fool if you think we will be able to automate most blue collar labor intensive positions. Someone who thinks this has given leave to all reason. We would need true general AI and bipedal robots along the same sizing as humans, without this automating most blue collar positions is a fools errand in a capitalist society.

>>8229020
>self aware meme

File: lenin_1919-11-07_am_2_jahrestag_der_revolution.jpg (24KB, 493x614px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 493x614px

>>8226398
>Am I the only one happy about machines taking jobs?
No. I'm very happy about it, and I'm actually studying automation in order to contribute to the rise of the machines.

Why? Because this will be the end of capitalism. Any idiot can see that if you force a significant portion of the working population out of their jobs while retaining the production they were employed in, eventually there won't be enough people with enough buying power to keep that business profitable. However, market forces don't have such foresight: the incentives to automate are huge, and the rate of automation will only increase as the technologies enabling it get more advanced.

Eventually states will face the choice of either collapsing under mass unrest from the sheer amount of people no longer able to provide for themselves, or instituting large-scale welfare programs that guarantee sustenance to everyone regardless of whether or not they contribute anything to the economy. Smart governments will eventually move to new resource allocation systems rather than stick to some half-assed transitional economy.

You will see, comrades, that Marx was right.

>>8226398
A little worried.
Throughout history, strength of a state is determined by the manpower of the army.
We tried threatening them, coercing them, and banding together to fight those who did the others.
With robots, one man can gain power just with resources and electricity, and it only gets easier as you have more robots to get those jobs.
>>8229348
Need robots that can take over central planning as well

>>8229372
>Need robots that can take over central planning as well
Well, sure. The idea of administrative computers or AI has been floating around in futurist circles for a long time. The administrative functions of the state (mostly resource allocation) would be handled in an objective manner, based on scientific data and models. No more bullshit politics.

File: michael-ironside-6[1].jpg (21KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x600px

>>8229348

>>8229348
Or, the guys that actually learned how to automate and program shit will assign higher standards of living that the little plebs down on the floor that lost their jobs. These standards could include, of course, education for their children. So you end up in a system where you have a hyper educated and well living elite paying for the idiots on robo-wellfare.
How long until someone convinces the elite that they just don't need the retards, and that their resources could be theirs?

>>8228560
you don't take in account that most people simply don't want to talk to machines

>>8226398
But they're destroying the American way of life.

In my home town you used to be able to get a manufacturing job right out of high school and feed your family AND have good benefits now they're all gone, moved to Mexico because of NAFTA.

We should bring them back so everyone can enjoy the American dream again. Not just Mexicans.

>>8229348
>everybody will be equal and nobody will hack anything
>people are this delusional

>>8229984
>destroying the American way of life
>assembly-line wage slavery
'Murika!

>>8230005
>destroying the American way of life
Yeah It is though.
and a decent career is far from slavery

>>8229773
Touchscreens and apps take away the need for talking. Old taxi companies employ a human who's job it is to take your call and enter information into the computer system. With Uber that job has been completely automated.

>>8230008
>ddanks fo da decen cahrer massa

"uncle tom syndrome"

>>8230023
Then what are we supposed to do with the lower class?

>>8230023
What the fuck are you talking about? You can't be white and an "uncle tom".

Maybe not everyone wants to sit in a damn cubicle from 9 to 5.

>>8230026
>what are we supposed to do
What do you mean be "we", Peasant?

Humans need not aply

pp*

>>8228225
>Doctors are also good at fixing their wage through corporatism, as their clients tend to be single payer states.
>What is bulk purchasing power?

>>8228192
Before the industrial revolution the great majority of people worked on farms. With the invention of more productive farming equipment less agricultural workers were needed. These people didn't starve to death and die they went and found other work. Same thing with all the weavers who lost their jobs to the spinning jenny and other textile technology. I know this is 4chan but try and think critically.

>>8226398
Problem is that a lot of people just aren't smart for that sort of thing. Some people's passions simply aren't science or art. We need jobs for people to prevent revolt. Unless society is willing to radically restructure, we instead end up with a permanent underclass. People born to die. This can be prevented however by restructuring to a socialist economy. Guarenteed employment and wage can mean that people are given employment and lives that support society. Like a super powered new deal. Otherwise automation is going to simply make lives worse.

>>8229059
berniefags plz go

>>8230108
> believing that the 1% cares about you.
Laughing_capitalists.tif

>>8230105
Is this bait?

>>8228622
This.

Finland is pretty smart trying to implement basic income. It will be necessary when the vast majority of everything is automated and there are not enough jobs for everyone. It should make the inveitable transition to 100% automation more painless.

>>8230538
>Finland is pretty smart trying to implement basic income.
We're not. I have no idea where this meme came from. The issue has been raised in public discussion but nothing concrete is happening. And the current government is a right-centrist coalition, so it's fairly safe to say that nothing of the sort will happen anytime soon.

>>8230607
>Finland is pretty smart trying to implement basic income.
They're not, yea the anon was wrong. What Finland and the Netherlands and a few other countries are doing is small-scale trials, to see if holds the water.

There won't be a loss in "blue collar" jobs. There will only be a shift. I don't think we are close to having machines replace skilled trades, and many other blue collar crap. What the machines will replace would be the incredibly boring or reptitive factory work and that sort of thing. Awesome

>>8230626
I've read some experts in the field estimate that up to 40% blue collar jobs can be currently by computers. Imagine what can happen in a decade or two, with the exponential growth of computing power? 60%? 80%?

Let's not forget that automation will only happen with the condition that it is cheaper than hiring human labor. And if that is the case, the cost of living will also go down drastically. With enough automation it might be possible to have a "minimum free income" which is enough to live on without doing anything.

>>8226398
I agree op. It's the natural progression. The more jobs we eliminate the more people will actually be working on advancing science and technology. We should probably be done with currency at this point.

>>8230676
That would be a good plan.

>>8229764
That's not really all that different from what we currently have. I mean, the conspiracy nuts have been talking about the loomynati's depopulation plans for decades now. Even if there's nothing of the sort actually going on, it probably fairly accurately reflects the world elite's mindset and opinions on the matter.

And honestly, I wouldn't mind replacing the banking cartels with a technocratic elite that actually contributes something to society.

>>8228232
I used to feel the same way, that they can't take the creativity jobs... However recently ai's has come far. They made the google ai do poems, i know it's not much but it's still a start in the creative direction. But ofc the the less intelligent jobs will be replaced first. i'm not saying it's happening, but it's not unlikely it would happen

>>8230750

I hope you realize that this will make working in science even more nerve-wrackingly competitive, right? I take it you're not a graduate student.

This is all in a perfect world. Companies wouldnt lower their prices cause theyre greedy af

>>8226398
All those uneducated people, who just lost their low paying job, won't be eager to start pursuing a high education degree. They'll most likely turn to crime.

White collar jobs are no safe haven either. Sooner or later there will be general AI. It'll learn faster, think faster and have much more mental capacity than any human alive.

When this comes, we might as well not do a think. Robots will do everything better than us. Robots will be better scientist, better writers, better spouses, better at making money, better at sex, better at drawing, better at living.

>>8230963
>>8226398
>When people lose their jobs due to the economy advancing they actually think the gov has failed them instead of realizing that was always how it was supposed to work

>>8226411

I look forward to an autodoc. Just lay on the table and the autodoc will examine you and do everything known to keep you alive.

Ever notice in Star Wars that ALL the doctors are robots.

>>8230963
Second Renaissance when?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdQceIJ-t-M

>>8226418
I'm software developer.
I will be last one who has his job taken by a computer.

>>8231135
More like the first one

>>8230607
>>8230616
>>8230538
>>8230676

The Swiss held a referendum to see if they should implement a basic income and only 80% who voted opposed it.

Source:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060


>>8230637
except were beginning to reach the end of Moore's Law

Won't happen in your life time. For example, if you learn the trade of a tiler now you will be able to make a living until you die. It will happen eventually but not in the next decades.

>>8226398

I'm not really worried. Moravec's paradox and whatnot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXLqImT1wE

File: robot-overlords.png (322KB, 900x1125px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 900x1125px

I for one welcome our
new robot overlords

File: robot-overlord-future.jpg (34KB, 460x368px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 460x368px

>>8231760

Engineer working in the manufacturing industry reporting in.

Automation is nowhere near the point most of /sci/ thinks it is. Cutting edge manufacturing equipment is expensive as fuck and requires a stack of technically skilled people to keep running. There is even a place for ol' Jim Bob the wrench spinner. The only people who automation put out of a job were literal meat robots who stood in front of a press loading/unloading material and pushing a button.

Our current manufacturing technology is actually dated as fuck. G-code hasn't changed since people were running it on paper tape, and we haven't seen notable gains in accuracy or repeatability since the 90's.

The manufacturing talent pool in the US is ankle deep because most people can't be assed to learn some simple trigonometry. There are a shit load of jobs available. Seriously, if you can do college freshman level math and are good with computers, you can walk into a machine shop and start out at 20$ an hour ez pz.

>>8226398
So /sci are you okay if your boss is vacuum cleaner?
If your daughter marries vacuum cleaner?
Robot masterrace is coming

>>8230987
It's not a second renaissance when you are out of the economy.
This is not just a matter of automating some jobs. It's about the matter of replacing humans, forever.
Why can't you wrap your mind about it?
Or are you thinking, people will adopt communism willingly?

>>8226398
jobs are how people justify their existence to other people. without jobs everyone will accuse everyone else of being invalid and having worthless lives which will lead to conflict and violence.

>>8232319
So people never lived before jobs were delineated in the modern way?

fuck that meme

>>8232328
that's right, since the time of the caveman you had to earn your keep

we called it hunter gatherer.

if you weren't one of those you were a nobleman/tribe leader who tricked/intimidated people into giving you shit for free.

>>8232148
>It's about the matter of replacing humans, forever.
Neither you, your children, your children's children, nor even their children, will ever see an AI capable of creativity on par with a human being.
Only jobs that involve menial labour are going to be replaced. Jobs that involve creative thinking will become more efficient through the use of software and require less humans than before, but they're not going to be replaced.

>>8231807
why is this so funny

>>8232336
>will ever see an AI capable of creativity on par with a human being.

we already have those.

we have bots that write newspaper and magazine articles for christ sakes.

I guarantee you've read something written by a software bot without knowing it.

>>8232335
>since the time of the caveman you had to earn your keep

Proof? because the 9-5 is far more unnatural, compared to seasonal bursts of frenetic activity followed by periods more reminiscent of hibernation (see depression).

Oh I forgot, gotta keep everyone too tired with 9-5's to become disgruntled (and to make 'wealth' out of thin air to be horded by those addicted to excess and "the game")

Why is sustainable efficiency demonised, is it ressentiment?

>>8232341
>we have bots that write newspaper and magazine articles for christ sakes.
Yeah I seriously doubt that.

>>8232344
no one cares that you're stupid.

>>8232343
well, back in the day when there were less people it was fine to just laze around all day as long as everyone got fed. but even back then everybody would hate you if you didn't help get the food.

Then we realized bigger groups of people were more powerful than smaller groups so we tried making the biggest groups we could to kill the other groups.

this led to the many problems of society of today.

largely the prescription for the ills of society is to keep the population poor so they continual work rather than engage in crime and debauchery, which is bad for the machine of society if it wants to compete with other societies.

>>8232348
>doesn't provide source
Yeah it's obvious who's stupid here.

>>8232350
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/this-news-writing-bot-is-now-free-for-everyone/

What news articles will you create?

>>8232356
>First, you upload a spreadsheet or other source of structured data. Automated Insights turns the various fields from the spreadsheet into variables that you can plug into the text template you create. There are many rules—known as branches—that you can set
How old are you? I'm asking because I really want to understand where your retardation stems from, is it lack of age and experience? Perhaps you were dropped when an infant? Something else?

File: 1392099_10152000727542518_194180394_n.jpg (41KB, 403x268px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 403x268px

>>8232348
>Then we realized bigger groups of people were more powerful than smaller groups

And now we/will realise that groups which are too big (literal population size and subsequent unsustainable resource consumption) jeopardise the survival of all human groups.

Not to mention the crash which is inevitable if we continue on our current trajectory.

Cultural changes which have already occurred throughout history are of a greater magnitude than what is required.

if it weren't for burger flippers being incapable of getting my order right, i'd be against the machines

File: avengers-2-2.jpg (32KB, 640x346px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x346px

>>8232363
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/bot-has-written-more-wikipedia-articles-anybody

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/08/opinion/sunday/algorithm-human-quiz.html?_r=0

It's just a prototype.

>>8232341
Yeah and it's really easy to tell too. That shit and the ridiculous page design (especially intrusive ads) are why I don't ever go to "news sites" anymore.

>>8232369
did you miss this post about wikipedia bots?
>>8232368

>>8232368
>the bot scrapes information from various trusted sources, and then cobbles that material together, typically into a very short entry, or "stub."
I suppose it's given a template and some key words to search. I'm not saying it isn't impressive software, I'm saying you're a retard for thinking this primitive tech is replacing humans.

>>8232385
It already has replaced some humans and its still primitive as fuck.

>>8232389
Like I said, software helps reduce the number of humans needed to accomplish a specific task. Before the electronic computer, lots of people were employed to just do calculations, that's all they did and they were made redundant, but that doesn't mean a computer can solve problems without human input.

>>8232404
The algorithm to solve a defined problem is the human input and a well tuned algorithm can solve specific problems much faster and more reliable than any single human and without the need for further human input.

>>8232412
Are computers able to simulate all algorithms which operate within a human mind currently?

inb4 an unsubstantiated statement defending potential future developments, which have absolutely no guarantee of actuality other than hopefulness.

>>8232412
>The algorithm to solve a defined problem is the human input
Correct.
>specific problems
This here is the catch. Real world problems are seldom "specific", you need an engineer/doctor/mathematician/whatever to make them "specific" and then use software to solve those problems. The day a general algorithm is developed that can be asked to, say, build a skyscraper with certain specifications, and then directs thousands of workers, telling each exactly what to do, is the day humans will probably no longer be needed.
That day is very very far off.

>>8232415
You don't need to replace everything everyone can do, you just need to do some things more efficiently, even a 10% reduction in employment is considered cataclysmic to the economy.

Are all algorithms which operate in a human mind productive and profitable?

>>8231445
>except were beginning to reach the end of Moore's Law
Except that's not an actual law

>>8232425
There are already programs that procedural generate a basic unique architecture design and even entire cities in minimal time based on sliders and trivial choice variances given to an end user and they have 3d printers that are building sized too that could do what those thousands of people did in a fraction of the time because it reduced the necessity for time consuming mass organization and multiparty communication a skyscraper could theoretically be started in the morning and finished by afternoon.

>>8232426
>cataclysmic

Why would it be bad, or is this just under the current assumptions of permanent (unsustainable) growth promoted due to a short term perspective?

>Are all algorithms which operate in a human mind productive and profitable?

What outputs from an algorithm should be preferred, when you can show an algorithm optimised for efficient and sustainable resource resource use with a minimal amount of corruption and siphoning, then i'd be interested.

>>8232436
You don't understand why it would be bad if 10% of the population suddenly didn't have any income?

They literally use algorithms to decide where to drill for resources, its not the whim of just one person and the better tuned it gets, the less people necessary, until nobody is really needed and everyone is just listening to the computer about where to dig and all the heavy machines themselves are just run by computers, then transport, then refinement, then packaging, etc, task by task specialized computers will become more efficient and cost effective than a department of people, but I don't really understand what you are saying you are interested in.

>>8232451
Will postponing an inevitability be worse than an early response?

>>8232451
>why it would be bad if 10% of the population suddenly didn't have any income?

So a less stressful, potentially healthier life, benefiting from many lifetimes worth of effort from the work of geniuses should be disregarded for the sake of "employment" memes which exist only within the current unsustainable economic models?

>>8232463
Because people need to get money or they will start stealing shit off people that have shit

And then the govt will have to start giving out money to fuckwit that can no longer get a job for their skill set

Then as more people breed and more people get displaced by robots then you will need to pay more welfare, meaning everyone wil have to pay more tax until nobody that works makes money

Then planet of the apes happens

>>8232463
>less stressful
How many people do you know with zero income who become less stressed by starving?

> benefiting from many lifetimes worth of effort from the work of geniuses
How many of those geniuses patents and algorithms do you own?
Someone will benefit, but its probably not the ones who opted for less stress.

> exist only within the current unsustainable economic models?
People have needed jobs for all of recorded history.

>>8232474
>>8232475
We're looking at this from very different scales.

What do you think the world will look like hundreds of years from now, taking things like population growth, fertiliser depletion, environmental overshoot, less restricted access to sensitive information over the internet etc?

And jobs for the sake of jobs are different to necessary maintenance.

>>8232481
*taking things like.. into account

>>8232481
It looka like a man.

Also, don't forget about the new ice age, the magnetic reversal of the poles, loss of all global communication to solar flares, peak oil, yellowstone caldera eruption, and the rise of the new rent's too damn high political party.

>>8232503
Don't forget about project flashlight

>>8232507
or Project Bluebeam

>>8232481
Are you saying for most of recorded history people took on their jobs just for the sake of jobs?

>>8232503
Well, I guess it would be better to start anticipating responses to these issues sooner rather than later, precautionary principle and all that.

>>8232514
No, i'm saying that the novel conditions present in the modern world, lead to unprecedented situations, with few historical analogues.

>>8232520
So you are saying nothing.

Population growth, starvation, environmental mistakes (dam flooding, dust bowls, etc), and privacy from the king/government are the cornerstone motivators of history.

>>8232537
So you know nothing and don't know it, ok then.

>>8232474
>Because people need to get money or they will start stealing shit off people that have shit
We can make higher education free. Then the unemployed have a clear path to a better future.

>>8232539
You answer just had nothing to do with jobs for the sake of jobs question that was asked and your rant would apply if said at any point in history yet every problem you mentioned is a theme that has repeated through history.

File: world_population.jpg (55KB, 625x481px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 625x481px

>>8232549
But the magnitude of the issue is unprecedented.

>>8232551
You said the situation itself was unprecedented with few historical analogues and the conditions were novel, now its just a scale thing even though the amount of wasted food and life expectancy is also unprecedented?

>>8232555
The global scale and sheer numbers involved are unprecedented, on a more local scale similar situations have arisen.

>>8232560
Now that you have invalidated half the adjectives in >>8232520 that is why they always just had jobs for the sake of it?

>>8232563
You understand the gist of it, i'm not going to keep arguing semantics.

File: backinmyday-fewer.jpg (36KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 350x500px

>>8232348
>back in the day when
>there were less people

>>8232564
I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say, you keep jumping around to nonsense, avoiding direct questions, and saying you didn't mean what you just said.

>muh society

>>8232319
That's like just your opinion, man. I've lived neet life for about 5 years and desu I enjoyed every single second of it. Didn't make me feel violent towards others in any way, since I had everything to lead a life without worrying about survival.

Now I've had a job for two years and I still kinda miss those neet days. Not that being a wageslave is bad either. Anyway I still don't feel like unemployed people equal to lesser people. I'm just gonna project and say that based on my experiences the world should not have much trouble being unemployed. We can still have hobbies and other sources of pride/whatever after all.

>>8226398
Because your whole family source of material wealth was your job at the factory right?

Wasn't that obvious that pretty much all of your generation jobs would just disappear eventually?

>>8232564
>arguing semantics
semantics are what distinguish
you from the other apes

>>8229348
just because the prices of the product are bound to fall doesn't mean the business will be less profitable

>>8234545
Not reading between the lines

>I was tired

>>8228225
People who pull the Watson argument don't even have the slightest idea of what a doctor really is, do you really belive that Watson is a 'doctor replacement' rather than a tool that will make their jobs easier? The h man factor in a doctor is something very important, that's like the people who say that the robot that can write novels or compose music will replace artists

>>8226398
If you're fine with supporting the people who lose their jobs to machines then all power to you.

>>8226398
To answer your questions.
No.
And
Yes.

Post-scarcity world when?

>>8231135
An AI can fix bugs better than you, you're the first one to go.