So when robots replace most of us as workers, we'll just

>>8432560

Most of normies will be playing cowaduty 388 or watching Big Brother 87. Most of us will be masturbating on VR. But it is likely that some weirdos will be pushing creativity and science to limits beyond our comprehensions because why not and life without challenges is boring.

>>8432560

More time to do creative stuff, art and philosophy.

>>8432560
>More machines imply more free times
Humans will reproduce way less, least appealing jobs will be machine maintenance. Majority of STEM will became engineers to create and program more machines, a very narrow but elite group will be devoted to fundamental research.

>>8432560
If I didn't have to work + extended lifespan I would get more degrees. Probably study physics, biology, and biotechnology.

And contribute. Also this: >>8432619 and >>8432609 VR thing.

>>8432560
They won't tell normies and will pretend that they're still needed, assign them useless work, useless goals like a sophisticated career path or more money, and yes, without money they won't be able to have basic things, so normies would have a bit of a motivation.

>all these people thinking that the government is going to pay them to do fuck all

you're literally going to die in poverty you dumb fucks

>>8432560
made up jobs will be created for no real reason

google bullshit jobs

>>8432661
Who are you quoting? Nobody said any of this and everyone so far except you is saying people are going to work.

They promised us a painless concentration camp.

>>8432706
There is nowhere to put the millions who'd have lost their jobs to the machines, it's as simple as that

>>8432663

We already have that, it's called HR

So capitalism will basically collapse due to technological advancement...which is what Karl Marx predicted

>>8432761
I know right? All those millions of unemployed horse and mule riders who couldn't keep up with automobiles... It truly is a tragedy.

File: campfema_dees.jpg (48KB, 568x456px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 568x456px

>>8432560

What do you think the FEMA camps are for?

>>8432776

>There weren't 7.5 billion people back then
>Cars provided jobs to drive them (truckers, cabbies) and those jobs will eventually be replaced by self-driving vehicles

>>8432776

Someone who did their job through riding a horse could start driving a car instead and still do their job. That's different then your job being automated.

>>8432787
I have no idea, but that picture makes me want to go.

>>8432560
No, you starve to death in the gutter, and the robots recycle your corpse.

We are entering a cyberpunk dystopia. And not the good kind of dystopia.

>>8432795
>All of humanity goes unemployed
>Implying more than 1b of humanity isn't unemployed
>Implying the population count isn't going to drop like a mother fucker come 2050
>Implying 7.5 billion people is concentrated in one place.

The countries that are going to suffer from automated work is China, India, Africa, and ME.

Europe (If it gets its shit together), US, parts of SA, Australia, Japan, SK, most 1st World Countries will be fine.

>>8432635
You wont need engineers when computer become smarter than humans. Maybe a small circle of them but thats all.

So when is this singularity thing suppose to happen? Ray Kurzweil a smart man says 2035? Which is like 19 years from now.

>>8432560
When the world's labor is replaced by robots, we will find more and more of the human race in some position relating to managing, designing, repairing, and coding for those robots.

>>8433321
Will that be after or before the protest, small riots, or lobbying against robot labor, and movements that robots have rights even though they aren't sentient?

>>8433317
we'll have flying cars, nuclear powered vacuum cleaners and robots that are smarter than humans by the year 2000

>>8433329
We had flying cars since the late 1980's and robots smarter than humans by the late 1990's though.

It just wasn't mass produced because limitations and impracticability. I don't know about the vacuum cleaner though,

>>8433328
>after or before
It will be intermittently the whole time. I live in San Francisco, and there has already been a push from certain elements of the city against the tech boom here and the way it affects the culture.

>>8432661
>>8432724
It doesn't make sense.
Who would buy products(and provide income) from owners of robot-factories if everyone were poor? If we can create so much wealth and food with such a small cost, the prices will fall down so everyone will be able to buy them. In theory we could optimize our production to such a degree that everything you need to survive will be basically free.
Also let's assume these companies will fire everyone for sake of robots and won't lower the prices so all these workers won't be able to buy food anymore. Nothing stops them from creating their own bakery and shops and sell/exchange food with other poor to survive, make money and maybe buy robots as well and sell products at minimal price and win the market.
Companies cannot function without clients, but clients can create new companies when needed.

>>8433354
Dude, are you serious? That's pretty sad, I mean I can understand keep the culture and what not, but progression is always the key. My state is irrelevant and we always get shit late so I doubt we will have this problem.

Has anyone made like an effort to let the tech boom continue, but designate certain parts of the city to be culture only like a preservation area? Like how strong is keep the culture movement there decent (25%), strong (50%+)?

>>8432560
I imagine it would be very similar to how life changed after the industrial revolution.

Humans will be liberated from doing the completely worthless work but there will be plenty of work that needs do be done that the robots can't. You will need more technicians to fix/build the exploding population of robots for example.

Just because the vast majority of work done on farms and in factories today are done by machines doesn't mean there are no humans working on farms/in factories.

>>8433471
No, but it does mean there are far fewer farm workers. Now imagine that in EVERY industry.

>>8433386
You're making the mistake of assuming the system is singular. It's not.

The economy is made up of billions of actors with trillions of variables. There is no overlord pushing for automation, it's millions of factories trying to get a leg up on each other by cutting out unecessary expenditure.

>>8433486
Does this mean there will be more robotic artist? This means OC characters from Deviantart will now be illustrated in great numbers and in good quality?

Does this mean I can now have my own japanese anime done by robots?

>>8432560
nthing other anons, would spend time expanding my knowledge on shit

Hell, I wish basic income and universal healthcare were a thing in the US so that I could feel comfortable bumping down to a part time job to make going to school easier, or even dropping work entirely knowing that a social safety net will keep me safe while I study towards my goal of making the human body internally recycle its own waste.

>>8433471
There is a point where robots and computers will be out of things that they can't do. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results; there will be a point where machines will be able to replace almost all jobs, even management positions

>>8433537
>There is a point where robots and computers will be out of things that they can't do. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results; there will be a point where machines will be able to replace almost all jobs, even management positions

You still need human overseerers. Also be nice to chill eternally.

>>8433486
You do realize that before the industrial revolution the vast majority of the total workforce worked on farms right?

I didn't say it wouldn't radically change our working society, but there will be plenty of new jobs that need to be doing, that people will find a living doing.

>>8433541

>You still need human overseerers.

Why?

>>8433386
capitalism will die with proper automation, taking away with it all the billions of people that can actually be replaced by machines

this is also going to help the planet, if there aren't 7 fucking billion people in it, you don't have to produce shit for 7 billion people.. hundreds, maybe thousands of factories that destroy the planet are going to be shut down, since there is no need for them anymore

the future will be bright if we can actually eliminate these people that are not going to be necessary anymore

>>8433556
Just in case shit pops off. A plan B.

>>8433574
>We can actually eliminate these people that are not going to be necessary anymore.
Hold up there Anon. Genocide is not okay. How are you going to deem who is useful and who is not man?

Like what the fuck? How would you feel I busted into your house, dragged out family, and shoot them in the back of the head for being "useless". Calm your fucking roll bro.

They'll create a welfare state akin to Rome's Bread and Circuses. A lot of people will just decide to survive on the Bread. Others will work to improve their fortunes. Eventually you'll have an economic and then civil crisis. As the difference between the basic income poor and the working classes is huge.

>>8432560
>we'll just basically do what we do in our free time currently, but for 24-7, right?
Lol fuck no, we'd be the adaption period, wealth inequality would hit record levels. You'd either be rich, or be a 3rd world citizen. 80% of the working class would have no employment, wishful thinking wouldn't cover it.

The industrial revolution would be nothing like it. A significant amount of tasks are too complicated for a cost-effective machine to reliably pull off, even today. When we hit the point it's cost-efficient to design machines for these complex tasks instead of employing minimum wage workers, society is FUCKED. The price of items wouldn't even decrease significantly, the materials would always cost, the money would simply go into the machines and the pockets. And there'd be no new opportunities for employment as in the industrial revolution, there are no doors left to open.

US society at least. European society would adapt in time, but the US is too capitalistic in government and thinking.

>>8433556
Loss of power = loss of operation = direct loss of product

>>8432560
Once robots have sufficiently taken over all jobs in society, save it for maybe redundant oversight, escorts, and politics I believe the best course of action will be communism

>>8433602
Massive batteries in Faraday cages, anon. The future has so much potential

>>8433599
>European society would adapt
>US would be fucked.
Anon. Europeans wouldn't survive while the US strives.

Right now Europe is barely surviving while the US strives.

>>8433607
>communism
[collapse]

>>8433620
Communism doesn't work because of social loafers. If no work is needed, why not? Once singularity hits, humans will really have no chance against machines to invent or be productive.

>>8433612
Oh right, in the US mindset, the US would be fine, only 90% of the irrelevant less financially set population would be fucked.

>>8433628
Looking at just our current political regime you'd be right. however, you'd be surprised how many hardcore conservatives would turn into socialists when their families are starving to death and they can't do anything about it.
Society still adapt

>>8433631
*will adapt

>robots take all jobs
>wealthy refuse to participate in basic income funding
>food riots and mass civil warfare
>billions die
>no one left to understand or support technology
>back to agrarian lifestyle
>everyone happy
>process repeats again in 100 years

>>8433631
>Society still adapt
I don't doubt it. I just think it'd take the US longer to do so.

Will robots give us an unlimited supply of chicken tendies?

>>8433625
When is this singularity?

>>8433628
>90%
Anon.

>>8433537
If it gets to that point and we haven't evolved/improved ourselves to still be superior to our creations, then we are truly cucks that need to kill ourselves and save the robots the trouble

>>8433625
communism doesn't work because of central planning.

everything wrong with the soviet economy. you can find another communist country doing better, because they allowed some degree of private property ownership and market economy.

like poland. they allowed the farmers to own land. the farmers also helped the central government plan agriculture.

>its an exponential linear progress of technology indefinately is assumed definite episode

We could be at the end of all progress tomorrow for all we know

>>8433662
Not pure communism where everything is shared, but basically welfare for everyone since the robots do the work. We just need to make sure they're programmed to love their jobs
>>8433657
The moment an ai computer can improve itself in both hardware and software

>>8433663
technological progress speeds up and slows down with the increases in energy we can access and energy density we can create. progress slows because we can not increase current energy levels or densities.

wood and muscle - doing shit by hand

coal - industrial revolution

oil and small chemical batteries - modern age

nuclear power - current age

when we get fusion to be commercially viable and the next level of battery or capacitor. then the next level of technology will happen.

>>8433674
I always thought the modern age was a bad name since it will eventually and ironically be outdated.
Also good luck convincing the liberals to use nuclear power. What we really need is cold fusion.

>>8433674
Estimations on commercial fusion power? And what comes after fusion?

>>8433674
>when we get fusion to be commercially viable

You mean IF we get fusion to be viable.
And we are still in the age of Oil and Gas by the numbers, nuclear has only ever been a novel secondary source.

You seem to think we have access to some Civilization technology tree we can see down the line and how much science points we need to put in it.

>>8433679
cold fusion is an /x/ tier meme

Consdering for the time that all power plants are designed around the Rakine Cycle.

>>8433681
We can't even convince these cucks to allow fission.
Your guess is as good as mine what's passed nuclear (besides fusion).
Maybe gravity?
>>8433686
Flying was once thought to be impossible too

>>8433684
Fusion will be viable one day.

We have to remember that ITER is the first actual attempt at something resembling a commercial fusion plant. Everything else has been a lab experiment. We still have people dicking around with laser ignition fusion. when it can never be power plant.

>>8433693
>Fusion will be viable one day.

T. Muh crystal ball

We don't have a clue

>>8433692
> Flying was once thought to be impossible too

And many people were once convinced Ornithopters (bird like flight) would be possible but they were utterly wrong. Planes practically came out of the left field, as many significant technological advances tend to

>>8433580
>>8433602

No, that's stupid. Literally anything you can think of is something that can be automated eventually. People aren't made out of magic.

>>8433692
>Flying was once thought to be impossible too
We fucking see thing fly every fucking day. When's the last time you saw cold fusion happening naturally?

>>8433715
art

>>8433724

People aren't made out of magic. There's also already music made by algorithms.

>>8433729
but is it any good

>>8433734

It's fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VTI1BBLydE

>>8433729
Thats not art, just the illusion of art. Its just a more complex way of stapling two paintings together and calling it a new work
Art is magic

>>8433737

>Thats not art, just the illusion of art.

All art is just the illusion of art.

>Its just a more complex way of stapling two paintings together and calling it a new work

People art is the same. Nobody's ideas are without influences.

>>8433702
we can make fusion and sustain it. we just can't get more energy out of it, than we put in.

this is the last hurdle to fusion power plants. after that it is a matter of refinement.

>>8433739
Influence is the entire point of art. Look kid clearly you're out of your depth on this subject, stick to /vg/

>>8433741
>we just can't get more energy out of it, than we put in.
>this is the last hurdle to fusion power plants

Which may never be overcome

>>8433742

>Influence is the entire point of art.

Great, then programs can do art.

>>8432609
I see greater value being placed on things humans imbued their wills and time into. In a world where no one would need to produce tangible goods, some would choose to, and doubtless others would like to pay a premium for goods that involved a sentient beings effort and time to produce.
An natural extension of "made in (your country), artisanal, organic, etc" marketing approaches.
The humanities would enjoy further emphasis.
Education beyond a secondary level would become less practically oriented, save for paths of study that would manage the automation of infrastructure and industry.
As more pressing problems are marginalized or negated, and behaviorial characteristics such as reliability and hard workmanship are given fewer instances to present themselves, the political landscape will be wholly dominated by what in our time are really minute differences. Identity politics is that coming situation in its infancy. Opinions will be of more immediate relevancy to social standing than accomplishments, as few in such an age will have had any.

>>8433749
What about medicine in all of this?

>>8433752
I'm only an EMT, but it would make sense to me that a system like ours would require a system of near or appraoching complexity to evaluate it.
A human healthcare provider offers something powerful that automation cannot, the ability to think discontinously (sp?), that is, our method of training systems to think for themselves relies on explicit instuctions that are to be followed without variartion, and for systems that on the surface appear to have graduated past this, their foundations would invariably be 'taught' or 'programmed' to require that inquiries or problems be evaluated in the same rote manner.
The causes for a condition could only be culled from a list of things the system has been taught, thus if an automated doctor was evaluating a patient with a runny nose, they may not come up with any cause, if something so simple as the patient eating hot mustard 15 seconds prior was not entered into it's predefined list of possibilities.
The gestalt understanding and mode of thought humans have is something remarkable.

>>8433765

>The causes for a condition could only be culled from a list of things the system has been taught, thus if an automated doctor was evaluating a patient with a runny nose, they may not come up with any cause, if something so simple as the patient eating hot mustard 15 seconds prior was not entered into it's predefined list of possibilities.

AI can learn generalized trivia. This was demonstrated decently enough with Watson on Jeopardy.

>our method of training systems to think for themselves relies on explicit instuctions that are to be followed without variartion, and for systems that on the surface appear to have graduated past this, their foundations would invariably be 'taught' or 'programmed' to require that inquiries or problems be evaluated in the same rote manner.

Neural networks don't rely on explicit programming.

>>8433771
Well there you have it, it appears my profession would be given a life of leisure instead of work.
This will be interesting to see emerge over the years.

>>8433709
Point is we don't know
>>8433722
You're either trolling or stupid. Either way >>>/b/

>>8433743
Someone here's a Debbie downer
Care to explain your pessimistic views?

>>8433765
Wouldn't it be reasonable to have a human doctor working alongside an automated doctor?

>>8433795
It could be, then the problem of liscensing/opinion validity emerges.
Supposing nothing changes in terms of medical liscense structure up to such a time as that, what doctor would want to put their career and practice in jeopardy by extending their liscense/authority to practice to an automated entity.
Perhaps attitudes will change as artificial system mature, but the simplest thing I see would be for the automated doctor in question to be used merely as a bipedal physician's desk reference, with no opinion authority being extended to them by the liscense holding human doctor.
I could also see human doctors balking at the idea of an automated medical student seeking residency hours, or more appalling still, an automated doctor with no residency expecting to be anything other than a reference machine. In short, no automated doctors.

>>8433793
I am being neither pessimistic nor optimistic. Simply that pop-science in recent years has produced a narrative of a supposed future path of technology that many people have bought into despite it being little more than a sort of canonized science fiction.

All I ask is the humble acceptance of the tremendous limitations of our foresight in the face of what are countless other legitimate possibilities. This is nothing but a fundamental attitude of the scientific process

>>8433827
But how are they scientifically impossible? We know fusion is possible, why can't we recreate it and harness the energy?

>>8433681
We already have something better than fusion but we aren't developing it because of lobbying by fossil fuel industries.

Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors, we built a few at universities and then killed all the programs by the 70s. They produce almost no nuclear waste, consuming 99% of their mass during energy production, the waste they do produce has a half-life of a few years compared to fission plant waste.

There is no danger of dangerous containment loss because the plants can be run at drastically lower pressures and with much less waste heat. Only 500 tons of thorium a year in scaled up LFTRs would be enough to power the entire country for a year at current usage. There are multiple thorium deposits throughout the continental US, I cannot remember exactly which state but somewhere in the mid-west is a deposit that has enough thorium to power the US at current consumption levels for 3600 years, by extracting and processing only 500 tons of thorium a year.

Do you see how that massive reduction in labor/spending might be fought by corporations?

That tiny amount of material could meet our energy needs for effectively ever until we develop microgravity blackhole generators or whatever the fuck is next.

>>8433839
>Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors

Oh boy, here we go

>>8433838
The question is not whether we can recreate and harness it (as indeed we already have in some capacity) but whether it will ever be energy positive never mind an economical source of energy.
The ongoing research will give us the answer, but if it turns out to be negative it wont be the first or last dead end of enquiry

>>8433851
They aren't something crazy. I don't understand the dismissive tone of your post. They work, we've made ones that produced more energy than they required to start and operate.

The problems with molten salt reactors and LFTRs is mostly to do with materials science which we have improved at greatly since the 70s.

The reason the technology was shelved and didn't receive huge grants from the DOE was because they couldn't manufacture plutonium bombs with the waste product.

>>8433861
Yea yeah, I've heard it all before. You salt shills almost seem like you share a script

>>8433867
"salt shills"

Do you get paid for every post protecting oil and gas?

There is no one to pay for shilling for lfhr. lol.

>>8433872
>he does it for free

I know, its people falling for a meme

>>8433877
You are literally replying like a shill.

Ad hominen, dismissive, redirecting, ignore logical or factual arguments.

Or, you're just "pretending" to be retarded.

>>8433878
>No, you are the shill

Classic shill move

>>8433503
Yeah. That's why it'll work.
If there was someone who control prices and wages, we might fall into a problem where we produce a lot of wealth but no one can buy it. But in free market it cannot exists.
Bit in real world if someone come up with way to produce things at lower price, he will lower prices or they will lose customers, except if it's law-enforced monopoly abomination like comcast.

>>8433574
But who will pay for energy and parts of these robots if everyone will be too poor to buy anything?
With proper automation the prices will fall a lot, to a degree where all necessary things are basically free.

File: 1455765610780468891.jpg (97KB, 629x800px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 629x800px

>>8433574
>>8434070
Also I'm sure captialism will fail, but not in a way that everyone will be poor and dying.
It will fail because when everything is so cheap people will lose will to compete. Prices will stop at level when everyone can live for nothing, so most people will only case about entertainment, art and philosophy/self-learning for sake of it and they won't need to work and create competition. Even now you can get water for free in various places. If we reach level where food is just as cheap, places like art gallery or shopping center etc. might just give food, water and maybe even shelter to people for free just to encourage them to buy art and entertainment they offer.
We will only advance in fields that has enthusiasts or entertainment, so video games, space exploration and all other "fun" things are safe.
At this point either government or corporations might just start communism(unconditional basic income) and nothing really will change. In market where everything is cheep and barely anyone is working, the border between capitalism and communism is really thin and doesn't really change anything.

>>8433333
We have had waht?
Your quints prove nothing

>>8432560
Lothrop Stoddard actually covered this in the Revolt against Civilisation.

Consider the amount of education required to be a mere plebian worker in the contemporary period. The amount of training, intelligence, social skill and literacy required to fill a middle class job now is incredible. We essentially spend 13 years at least to graduate high school, 17 years if we include university study. Usually more than that now.

The difficulty of achieving a middle class salaried position becomes more difficult due to competition, automation etc. So more and more people effectively "drop out" of attempting to attain these positions. But robots can do most of the lower level work from manufacturing to fast food. So a much smaller pool of workers is needed to fill those hands on positions compared with intellectual/white collar work.

This will create an enormous underclass who aren't able to compete for wages, lack purpose and meaning. They will be used by rebelling aristocrats and upper class outcasts who have the natural ability and desire to overthrow the system.

Whilst the consequence of this is not what Stoddard predicted, what has happened instead is the rise of the police state and endless foreign wars which keeps a large portion of the population in line and provides employment for the lower classes.

On top of this, technological advancement centralises the power of the owners of capital. A section of police with assault rifles can control hundreds of people. New information technologies enable mass surveillance and control.

Ultimately, it seems we are heading towards a Gibson-esque nightmare. They will likely pass enough social reform for mass welfare states to dull the plebeians combined with the endless distraction of technological entertainment.

Combine Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, We, 1984, Animal Farm and the Glass Bees.

>>8433574
>le overpopulation meme

Besides your naively edgy teenage rant, the more a country's population is educated and brings women into the workforce, birth rates will inevitably decline.

>>8432560
We have enough resources on the planet to easily support existing population. The problem is that a handful of people control most of the resources so they create a monopoly and force you to become a wagecuck.

Now if we can bring population to a stable level and reduce it a bit in the future, bring in automation and improvements in medicine to optimize our mind and body, we will see the emergence of great thinkers, philosophers and geniuses worldwide who otherwise would be trapped in a fucked up system that never lets them explore and discover their own talents.

>>8432560
wouldn't you end up needing people who can repair and maintain the robots anyways? unless they're intelligent enough to repair themselves i guess

>>8434164
We do have enough resources on the planet to easily support existing population, but we can survive only because "wagecucks" go to work and produce wealth. It's not a problem that corporations hire people, it would be a problem if they didn't existed and there was no one to produce food for everyone.

>>8432560
Either the elites will come up with increasingly pointless and redundant forms of employment to perpetuate the current system, or the elites withdraw into fortified city-states and the world outside regresses into war torn medieval hellscape.

The future, I think, will depend upon the extent to which we're able to decentralize the means of production- I personally suspect that tools like the 3D printer are developmental precursors to compact industrial assembly machines which could be utilized at home to produce most objects/items.

So I don't actually think that automation will necessarily place power lopsidedly in the hands of corporations- I suspect that it will instead offer the ability to decentralize production amongst the populace- because why have a traditional production chain which -you- have to operate when you can foist that duty upon your customers, and when customers can do so economically.

To me, they sorta represent what solar panels and the like represent- decentralization of the means of production. Which leaves creative properties (the blueprints by which things are made/unique pieces of art) and raw resources.

The people, using, I think, VR technology and the internet, will be fairly well-able to distribute 'blueprints' with a fair degree of ease- what with, for example, how rampant piracy is in music, I don't see how it would be economic or feasible to restrict the exchange of information between parties.

That just leaves natural resources, really- and whatever processing might be necessary to create materials not easily created in a compact automated assembly device. And, well, the distribution thereof. So long as governments keep sovereignty over natural resources in their borders, corporations should fade in importance, as traditional economic power sorta breaks down, I'd think.

Any of that make sense?

>>8434248
Elysium basically. The most likely outcome.

>>8434253
Elysium's point was that the dynamic already exists. Magic technology aside it wasn't an exaggeration.

File: WHAT.jpg (18KB, 328x315px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 328x315px

>>8433333
>>8433333
>>8433333
>>8433333

>>8434249
It is much more likely that intellectual property laws are going to get a lot worse to prevent this development. Normal people will have to pay outta the ass the operate these devices legally, most likely in the form of being required an operating licence (which will be very difficult to obtain) and massive restrictions placed on how stuff made with them can be used or distributed.

That or a resource crisis halts automatisation much like it could halt digitalisation. All technology-oriented predictions essentially base themselves on 'nothing happening', nothing disturbing production in its current state. It's a pretty bold expectation.

>>8434267

I don't see why the devices themselves would be regulated by governments, seeing as they work to government's advantage in the tug between political power and economic power they're currently losing. -Especially- seeing as how automation is likely to boot most people out've the job market, curtailing their ability to accrue capital entirely without supplement from elsewhere (say,a universal basic income, for example, or the ability to sell power to the grid/the service of an automated vehicle/drone to the populace/whatever).

I wouldn't know enough to be able to say whether we'd face a resource crisis or not, but, if we were approaching such a crisis, I'd imagine we'd just turn our eye to space and get mining.

>>8433681
Dyson Sphere.

File: main-qimg-9df683d573f79221a91f7030967942ed-c.jpg (40KB, 572x336px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 572x336px

>>8434285
>not dark energy

y

>>8433879
>No, you are the shill

Classic shill move

Do hémoroïdes go away on their own ?
I have one since yesterday and its kinda painful, i want to pierce it and be done with it.

>>8433333
check'ed

I think the end result will eventually be the same, but what happens in the first 50ish years will depend on who makes the first real AI (as in an AI that can learn and apply new skills effectively). If the creators are only interested in money the technology will spread like wildfire in spite of any consequent laws that are passed, most likely situation is the company relocates to China and sells robots to other American companies with factories in China (and other countries we exploit for money), and even though robot workers are outlawed in the US and maybe other first world countries, all the big businesses are outsourcing the jobs and buying AI under the table. Unemployed people with nothing to do will try to riot against the AI production companies but it'll be too steep of an uphill battle to do any significant damage.

If the creators happen to be decent people they'll show the technology to the government and have laws passed in advance before mass production begins, and only sell it within the bounds of the law. Presumably they'll go first to assisting scientists in significant labs, replacing soldiers in combat, and then replacing people in particularly hazardous jobs.

There will be a long struggle of unemployment before any sort of basic income is implemented. This will be due to republicans

>>8434471
Optimist view. Is one we should strive for.
Pessimist view is one we should avoid.
Nihilist view is one we should ignore entirely and leave to philosophers to debate, so they have something to do.

Congratulations, Anon. Your view is optimistic.

>>8434471
The end result after 50-100 years I predict is the vast majority of labor is done by robots. I agree with >>8433749 many people will probably choose to work, maybe even the majority of people, but the only significant jobs at that point will be scientists working on and/or with the AI for further progress, government jobs, and jobs that are affected by real human contact like sales.
Art will still be around but the price of animation for example will practically disappear, so people will get bored of these fancy action movies that are currently thriving and the industry will once again have to depend on talented writers and actors. Same basic idea for other art forms too.

The interesting part is what will happen to people who don't work and just live in the standard robot-made houses with robot-made food and commodities. One thing we know about people is that when they're given something for free for long enough they begin to believe that they are entitled to that thing, so I predict that people with nothing to do will start rioting and demanding higher quality houses/food/entertainment etc. What happens at that point depends on the government.
The other interesting thing is what will happen to the rest of the world once the 1st world countries have mostly solved their own problems. Bureaucrats and Dictators around Africa and Middle-Eastern Europe won't want to give up their power, but the more powerful nations (assuming we aren't at war with each other at that point) will be putting more and more pressure on them to implement the robot housing and food production for their people, and AI weapons will slaughter the warlords and guerrillas that once controlled the area. Most likely scenario IMO is most of them submit to the UN in return for the promise of maintaining their status, and others are eventually toppled and claimed by other countries.

>>8434491
yeah, this is like the best-case scenario. The more likely scenario is that the invention of AI causes a worldwide identity crisis resulting in the rise of extremist groups who throw the majority of the world back into chaos before any of this can happen.

File: just fuck my society up.jpg (1010KB, 3112x3461px) Image search: [Google]

1010KB, 3112x3461px

>implying any of that extra productivity will benefit workers and won't just add a couple of zeroes to a handful of the elite's bank accounts

>>8434565
>every larger productivity improvement in human history resulted in increase amount of wealth and standard of living
>but this time it'll be different, I swear

There's an idea going around of having a basic living income that's given to everyone regardless of class or status, replacing all other kinds of welfare. Since technological advancement might result in large numbers of people losing their jobs quite quickly, this provides a safety net against the issues normally associated with unemployment.
The issue is that people will see it as a free ride, but when basic needs are already covered, any income gained from working will only go to improving your quality of life above that basic standard, and you don't lose that income when you start to earn more, which is where some welfare systems have trouble with people quite correctly pointing out that they're unlikely to get a real increase in wealth until they get a wage that is higher than what they're likely to achieve anyway. I believe Finland was thinking about doing some trials in a few towns, but I doubt any country outside of scandinavia would try it.
The idea that being able to work at all would be hotly contested is a pretty scary one, to be honest. But that's probably not going to happen for a while.

>>8434619
who's going to make the money for that 'basic income'?

"work" these days is sitting in an office talking to other people

or if you're poor you have to stand and manage some piece of technology that does the real work for you

work will continue down this path of becoming more like non-work, but we'll still call it work because we'd rather be drinking

>>8434489
No, there will be a lot of unemployment because people will be paid to not work.

There's always something productive to be done, you just have to think it up.

>>8434635
No one makes money(ignore printing), workers make wealth. Without wealth you could buy, money means nothing.
The idea is that if we archive level where we can create enough wealth without use of workers, we could just redistribute that wealth to everyone. If we could reduce production costs to near zero, basic standard could theoretically be free.
Even now you can live for free, there are plenty of places that give you shelter, food and water and even more. But their "basic standard" is homeless-tier.

>>8434644
so just to be totally clear, basic income should be a thing only after and not before AI begins replacing humans in the workforce?

>>8434652
AI is irrelevant.
Basic income will be a thing in one form or another after we will be capable to produce so much wealth that basic needs like food, shelter, clothes etc. will cost basically nothing.
It could be solved socialistically, by government paying money to every citizen or capitalistically by corporations fulfilling your basic needs to encourage you to buy their products(free food at shopping malls, free house with ads, etc.)

>>8434666
hmm, yeah I guess I could agree with that, but I don't think things like housing or food will become really cheap until the means of production is practically autonomous. I'm doubtful that that level of technology will be reached without AI

>>8432560
If they successfully created a hamburger flipper. what jobs will be left in america? Government jobs?

>>8434699
When tractors were invented, it removed a job. And then people created 10 new jobs with the labor that was freed up.

>>8434713
wwhat I'm saying is we have moved all manufacturing to china. that was america's big contribution and main workforce now our main workforce is service jobs. without those we have nothing but government jobs left.

>>8434725
No, we have other things to do that we simply haven't depended on as much, or even invented yet. I don't have to know what they are - I just know that we've never run out of jobs before, except during depressions when the government imposed shortages of money, or in 2009 when people were paid to not work.

Even in China the 'manufacturing' jobs don't involve back-breaking labor, you're just making sure that the machines are doing the work correctly.

File: hqdefault[1].jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>8433681

>And what comes after fusion?
Pic related but trillions of them connected to generators

>>8432560
Jesus you people are stupid.

Post scarcity cannot work in our society. The problem is not technical, it's social.

In a world with no jobs there is no consumption which means no demand.
Unless you would propose a communist style system where the lay person consumes resources produced by the machines, which belong to the owners of the machines.

However in such a world where the machine owner gains nothing from having built the machine, then why do so in the first place? Why invest the time and resources when there will be no return?

A much more likely scenario is one where our society is divided between those who own machines and those who do not. Those who own machines engage in commerce with each other, exchanging the fruits of their machines labor and enjoying luxurious lives.
Meanwhile those who do not own machines will have no real value to contribute to society and so will be forced to live off of whatever generosity the machine owning elite give them.
Worst case scenario people die off en masse and survivors hunt through the streets as scavengers
Best case scenario looks like Detroit or brazil.

Besides to think that our society is close to achieving any post scarcity scenario is laughable. At best this might start to become an issue around 2100. You neckbeards will all have died from diabetes by then

>>8433238
This guy gets it

>>8434713

There is a fundamental diference.

Back then, when machines substituted the manual work people moved into intelectual work.

Now machines are moving into administration or medicine, that means that people won't have other places to move into or jobs will be in very low supply as there will be fewer engineers needed to even design, improve or keep these kind of things.

Is not as simple, as the "tractor that created 10 jobs behind it", "the robot arm that needed 4 technicians behind it" or "that camera system needs 1 guard and a subcontracted bussines behind it"

We are talking about a big problem in our hands on the level of the welfare system in a constantly increasing population or a pension system dependent on working joing people, sure for now the problem doesn't seem like much and might turn out to solve itself, but for now on, if we are actually right we have no idea of what to do for we don't even have some sort of backup plan to contain the situation for longer.

So eexperts have theorized that the rough transition from a monetary society to a resource based society will be mitigated by essentially assigning people robots that 'work' for them and they reap all of the profits. Obviously this doesnt work long term

>>8433771
Classic "I think computers are god" mentality
Humans will always be able to approach harder conceptual problems than computers.

>>8435059

Not every human is capable of doing the kind of thinking computers can't. Burger flippers, shelf stockers and ditch diggers won't automatically become particle physicists and brain surgeons once their jobs become automated.

Reminder:

Optimist believe the Singularity will happen in 2030
Realist believe the Singularity will happen in 2040
Pessimists believe the Singularity will happen in 2055

>>8435127
reminder:

pop sci fags and people who make conjectures about things they have no idea about (oh I'm sorry that's the same set) believe the timeline I'm quoting

nobody else has put a timeline on it because of insufficient data (or not caring, or not knowing about the idea of a singularity, or many other reasons, but the most relevant reason being insufficient data for us to have a meaningful conversation about when the singularity will happen, especially considering it's mostly just a meme theory at this point)

>>8435163
You sound upset Mr.Knowitall.

File: singularity.png (13KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 1000x1500px

>>8435127

>>8435177
>Post a chart without citations.
>Singularityfags has their results just skyrocket without moving to the right climbing.
>Doesn't even define what is physically possible.
Not a singularityfag, but your chart is shit n' waste of a post.

>>8435069

This implies that any of those jobs are a consequence of intelligence and not circumstance

Speak for yourself. I for one will be liberated to learn more and use that knowledge to work to make human life even better, more fulfilling, etc. There will always be something to improve.

>>8434983
>implying the state wouldn't implement the post-scarcity means of production
>implying government jobs engineering and planning post scarcity jobs won't be sought after for prestige and personal curiosity

>>8435277
Ironic there are several people who wish to do what you want to do, but are bound by work and other obligations to complete them.

Sad we won't see a post-scarcity society.

>>8435303
Robots doing everything for us/post-scarcity or not, there is some indication that there might be a universal basic income in our lifetimes. People who only want to work to make life better usually don't need much else, so that could be enough for them/us.

>>8435353
How can we get to a society like that?

>>8435472
By working hard and making sure no dumb fuck set us back.

>>8435613
What's the best path to work in ai? I'm currently a cs sophomore

>>8432560
A socialist type system would need to be implemented so machines (means of production) are collectively owned by the people.

>>8435913
Wouldn't know I don't do CS.

Go to bed, Lexi.

General thing from the thread is that eventually we will implement a socialist system providing basic income after manufacturing is taken by machines?

>>8435934
because...?

>>8435934
>Collectively owned by the people
You mean the state.

>>8437471
He doesn't like capitalism.

>>8437548
Capitalism can't really work when there are no jobs left for humans

>>8437605
As said above certain jobs won't be taken.

Art, Acting, Engineering, Medicine, Law, and etc can't be replaced with machines. Human art would be valued more than art done by a machine.

>>8437621
Not with current machines, but the ai we're talking about would be capable of everything, even art.
The only thing humans would do is make the heavy, executive decisions, and be a redundant oversight

>>8437804
Nobody was talking about AI's.

>>8437809
Did no one spell it out to you, or did you not read the thread?

>>8437820
>All complex machines that perform complex tasks will need to be AI.

>>8437843
OK, how would you build a machine that can learn, solve, and adapt without meeting the definition of ai?

>>8438035
>How would you build a machine that can solve.
Have a problem and build the machine to solve that problem.

>Adapt
Upgrade said machine to increase efficiency.

>Learn
Look at problem, look at how the machine is solving problem, and find a way to increase machine efficiency in solving it faster.

>>8438041
If you read the thread everyone else got the memo that most jobs, save for some politics and oversight, would be taken. That implies ai