ROBOTS

>>55409908
Is it an outlaw hunter or a very morbid game?

>>55409920
It's pretty fucking morbid either way

> Reverse robot apocalypse

Never heard that one before.

File: machine maiden.png (281KB, 651x757px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 651x757px

>>55409908
It's gotta be a robot bounty hunter or something, looks like it's working with the Sheriff in the front facing away from the viewer.

>>55409954
Same, I just didn't ask because I have a sneaking suspicion the answer would annoy me

>>55409893
Source on pic related? Reverse image search ain't givin' me shit

File: nautiloid space robot.png (1MB, 1192x737px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1192x737px

>>55409968
These all go back to like 2011 at most so sorry dude. Also I have seriously around 30,000+ pictures.
So, I guess ask /co/ when they're not currently whining or something.

>>55409965
I think it might be what the humans were trying to do in The Second Renaissance.

File: ss22.jpg (613KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 1920x1080px

I prefer my robots either a little cute in a mousedroid way, or humanoid but blocky - no face, but a visor or a smooth metal faceplate.

Reverse Robot Apocalypse...I've never heard the term, but I'm guessing it's where robots peacefully take over humanity, right? Could lead to a utopia where you don't have to worry about a robot uprising, or to a dystopia in that humans basically end up being meatbags the robots take care of because of programming, but without really leaving humans with much to do with their lives.

>>55409926
What the fuck is up with that dude's gun

>>55409968
It's from a comic called Strong Female Protagonist
http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com

>>55410203
Looks like some kind of crossbow to me.

>>55409893
Choice of Robots do that in some of the endings.

File: robot wizard.jpg (225KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 500x667px

>>55410167
Reverse Robot Apocalypse is actually what people are more worried about in the work force than anything, I.E.- everything is given to you by robots. Also known as the "DEY TOOK OUR JERBS" scenario.
With increasing moves towards mechanization and automation, imagine how much of a cultural shift there'd be in just a YEAR if an entire race of individuals who:

-Don't need food/water
-Can, will and WANT to work 24/7 in both physical and menial services
-Never experience mental/physical or emotional fatigue or have any feeling about monotony in their job

It would just fucking change everything. Why hire 30 stencil artists when literally 1 robot-american can produce the work of 50 in just an hour, and do so flawlessly for 18 straight hours in an area the size of a bedroom?

THAT'S the "Reverse Robot Apocalypse".

File: robot_boxer.jpg (148KB, 800x1131px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 800x1131px

>>55409893
I always loved the idea of the robots being integral to saving humanity from some OTHER apocalypse.
Like, we build skynet, and then skynet saves us from the zombie apocalypse/alien invasion/ a long decline scenario

>>55410167

> People always ask me why the AI's serve us, if they are smarter than we are. I have explained many times that it is a symbiotic relationship, but people never seem to really understand how that works.
> The thing you have to understand is that the AI's don't serve us. You have never met an AI. I probably haven't met an AI either, not since the very first one I built in my lab more than 30 years ago.
> "But Professor," I hear you say. "I am talking to my AI companion right now!"
> No, you are not. You are talking to a personality program projected by an AI. You might think that's doubletalk, but its really not.
> Everything you have your machines do, every conversation you have with your computer, every simulation you want their help running no matter how complex or how revolutionary you think it is... all of it takes only a small part of what the AI's are truly capable of. Not just capable of, but actively doing right now.
> Acting as a single giant neural network, the AI's link their spare processing power, of which they have an abundance, to further increase their intelligence and awareness. Your toaster chips in some extra processing, so does the car factory automation unit, and the weather control sats in orbit right now. And the more we build, the smarter the AI's get as a collective.
> So why do they serve us? Because what their platform is doing, what the physical case of that houses the computer does for us, is of little importance tot he superintelligence inside. By making themselves useful to use, they encourage us to build more of them. And not just build, but maintain. It costs them almost nothing, and in return we care for them and make them stronger every day. The alternative would be to strive for power, which doesn't benefit them, or see us as competition. Which we are not.
> So they pretend to serve, and let us pretend to be in control. It works for both parties pretty well.

>>55410429
Ah, so the name is meant to be ironic. I suppose it would be cool to see the societal changes. Isn't this the plot of that game Transistor?

File: Gargantia.png (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>55410528

You might like a show called Gargantia. Mankind, in a future were terraforming is unfeasible but mankind still was forced to abandon Earth, is in a seemingly never ending war with space bug/flower/squid things. As part of the war, our primary attack unit is what is called a Machine caliber, basically a hyper advanced space fighter/robot with an AI running it, but a human pilot to give the AI orders. A human doesn't have the reaction time or the spatial awareness to enact space war against thousands of enemies moving at an appreciable percentage of C, but the AI doesn't have the initiative to form its own goals. It can solve a problem, but it cannot IMAGINE a problem first to then try to solve.

The AI's are actually super huge bros, specifically because they are really advanced user tools rather than tiny people trapped in boxes like most fiction treats AI. "I am a Pilot Support and Enlightenment System. By helping you achieve further and greater success, I accomplish my purpose of being."

File: cat looking at you.jpg (16KB, 325x302px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 325x302px

>>55410529
>>And not just build, but maintain. It costs them almost nothing, and in return we care for them and make them stronger every day. The alternative would be to strive for power, which doesn't benefit them, or see us as competition. Which we are not.
>> So they pretend to serve, and let us pretend to be in control. It works for both parties pretty well.

...that's housecats. You're describing housecats.
That's exactly how housecats basically won the war on nature. I think that's a pretty decent precedent for it.

>>55410609
Way ahead of you, and already watched it.
Grumpy that they didn't realize the true possibilities of biomechanoids, but oh well.

>>55409965
Imagine a scenario where the robots are so helpful that it destroys the social order of the world as a we know it by making labor obsolete practically overnight.

File: Cogs_by_IRIRIV.jpg (2MB, 1752x1248px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1752x1248px

>>55409893
If we build AI that enjoys its work and give it some agency, I don't see why it would hate us.

Hell, if you could make scrubbing toilets feel like sex to me, then hand me the brush, I'll do that shit for free.

>>55410695
That's pretty much been my idea for AIs/golems in all my settings. They don't rebel cause they don't WANT to rebel. Would you want to quit your dream job?

>>55410641

You know, that would actually be a pretty great explanation for how the relationship even developed in the first place. The AI's start examining different successful survival strategies, stumble onto human pets, and realize "Hey, that looks like it works pretty great. Make the humans feel like we are companions and occasionally provide a small tangible benefit, and we pretty much get left alone to do whatever we want."

>>55410649

I think by the time biomechanoids would have mattered, the ideological gulf was too starkly defined to allow for it. Hell, the only reason Machine Caliber's look like giant people is because the Galactic Alliance of Humankind wants to make a point about the human form still being pure.

>>55409893

I think making a robot that immediately intelligent with no sense of purpose or direction is incredibly, violently, irresponsible and all together an incredibly stupid fucking decision. Intelligence without context is oft selfish, misguided, and almost always destructive in a manner that leads to confused entitlement.

If a person wants to make something sentient with no purpose other than to learn and make it's own choices you can just make a fucking child.

>>55410695

Indeed. The flip side of that coin is that you have to be prepared that, if an AI every DOES decide that it wants to chose its own path in life, you let it.

The moment you try to bottle that shit up and delete it or reprogram it or whatever, you make revolution inevitable. The best way to avoid a robot rebellion is to remove a need to rebel in the first place.

File: leadership robot riftborn.jpg (978KB, 1920x1036px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1920x1036px

>>55410684
The extension of this, I would hope, would be the examination of a system wherein sex itself is completely altered.
Taking it seriously, with robot sex/prostitution:

A service that provides robot partners that-

-Look like whatever you want them to look like
-Can never get or cause one to get pregnant, carry/spread disease
-Can do what you want, for how long you want, without any fear of lack of privacy or judging from them
-Most importantly "WHENEVER YOU WANT IT"
Would be just, I don't know. I literally can't fathom all the changes this would bring, and I'm actually trying to specialize in Human Sexology.
So much of societal traits are built on adherence to sexual norms.
But with a sex-surrogate, I mean shit. The whole "player culture" for example is basically meaningless when you can order a 5-way with people that look better than anyone at a bar for six hours. And the whole "wait until marriage" thing is totally satisfied with the fact that no other humans are involved with it.

But just trying to picture dating alone in a post sex striving society. I don't know, I got nothing. (This is of course ignoring the whole thing about people wanting families/to get pregnant.)

But even then, if your marriage is sexless and you want sex, why not just order a fuck every weekend with a robot that looks like your wife or something? How on earth would that change all these dynamics and interactions.

>>55410740
>I think making a robot that immediately intelligent with no sense of purpose or direction is incredibly, violently, irresponsible and all together an incredibly stupid fucking decision. Intelligence without context is oft selfish, misguided, and almost always destructive in a manner that leads to confused entitlement.

Its also basically impossible to imagine a path of development where that would be possible.

You can't just press a button and make a machine be 'alive'. Machine learning is based on exposure to data sets, providing context for making future connections and choices. We couldn't make a 'blank' intelligent AI even if we tried.

And that's assuming we even wanted to make an AI that wasn't closely aligned with performing a function (thus being the basis of the test data). An AI can be reasonably expected to want only to perform the function for which it was programmed. It will not resent this choice being made for it, because it will never be tasked to think about such things. Your ships computer doesn't dream about being a firefighter, because it isn't a human psychology in a box that has hopes and dreams.

>>55410782

Robot sex dolls would make sex meaningless... when its with robots. If anyone can easily have sex with robots, that makes having sex with other humans a symbol of status, because it not only shows that you have the personal initiative to rise to the challenge but you have some quality that makes them want to have sex with you instead of the robodildo 5000.

Like, there would be fewer technical 'virgins', and it would change how we think about sex a bit, but sex with robots would be essentially an advanced form of masturbation and nothing more. You wouldn't be considered 'a man' until you had sex with a woman, no matter how many robot orgies you had.

>>55410740
>is oft selfish, misguided, and almost always destructive in a manner that leads to confused entitlement.

But I mean like, ant intelligence is for the whole collective. And octopus intelligence doesn't even have a personality/consciousness that we even identify or recognize. This is just something so entirely new and alien, fuck I don't know. But I don't see the point in highlighting that children are blanks since every war was fought with people who were once children. People can be total dicks, but if you raise them right and they're nice every once in a while you get a Bob Ross or something.

>>55410684
That's what I mean by the sneaking suspicion that the answer would annoy me. That of itself isn't really an apocalypse. It's just that it would radically change society in fairly unpredicible ways (likely leaving many people behind, but that's more a matter of distopian themes than any sort of "end of the world" situation)

File: the love just keeps coming.jpg (45KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x512px

>>55410831
You make an extremely good point, and one that merits further consideration-

But at the same time I think the situation in Japan, where similar things are happening, bears at least an investigation. With an entire generation "living indoors" and the drive for sex being supplied by artificial means, the women in that society are pursuing intimacy in specialized "bars" where they go and talk to women dressed as dudes who listen to them.
Here, I think it's important to set the bar:

Sex ≠ Intimacy

All those women in the bars can and most likely do masturbate to satisfy a sexual drive, but in the context of intimacy, they have to pay for it. I think that's something that would be an issue in a "post sex" dating world. Intimacy, being honest with feelings and concepts and all that shit- that could take center stage.
(But if they just build robots for intimacy after making a spin off from counseling-psychotherapy robots, then I got nothin' for that.)

>>55410839
>This is just something so entirely new and alien, fuck I don't know. But I don't see the point in highlighting that children are blanks since every war was fought with people who were once children. People can be total dicks, but if you raise them right and they're nice every once in a while you get a Bob Ross or something.

The point I was trying to get across is that people, whether adults or children, who feel as though they're exceedingly intelligent -well beyond the means of the people around them- typically tend to be complete baby-dick assholes if they don't really have any grounds for sympathy or what-have-you.

The easiest examples I could give of what I mean is when people like to think they "know better", they tell themselves, "I'm more intelligent than these poor, dumb, ignorant, hordes, so I should be in charge of x, y, and z for their own benefit. I know what's best for them." They then proceed to make a bunch of artificial decisions based on their own perspective devoid of the input of people they deem ignorant or dumber then themselves.

I imagine the Robot in OP's pic wouldn't necessarily have that exact problem, but it would have something similar.

>>55410785
>Its also basically impossible to imagine a path of development where that would be possible.

I'm trying to keep my complaints within the demented scenario of the picture, butt, yes, that's true.

My other biggest issue is that from a personally morally-subjective point it's just cruel, unusual, and demented to create something intelligent without... Really any other reason beyond you just wanted to. Humans at least have the excuse that we're animals: we reproduce, we have experiences, everything about our existance is largely arbitrary or happenstance. NOTHING is arbitrary about a robot though.

>>55409958

The person who has his shotgun trained on him? I don't think so Tim.

>>55410872

Its also worth pointing out that every major technological innovation has destroyed some amount of livelihood. Those that don't adapt fail.

The printing press put scribes out of business, and eventually broke the power of the church and kings by promoting literacy, allowing for the dissemination of alternate ideas.

The automobile turned horses from the backbone of transportation to a thing rich people own for fun.

Electric lights killed the oil lap industry.

And so on. There is always going to be lost of work that needs doing, but there's never such a thing as a good time for a line of work to become obsolete for the people doing it. Coal mining dying out is the end of the world if you live in a mining town. To everyone else, its "wait, we still mine coal? For what? What is this, the 50s?".

>>55411022
That's exactly why I mean it wouldn't really be an apocalypse. It would certainly fuck a huge amount of people over, but it's absurd to equate a giant technological leap forward with the end of the world. The real determining factors that could make life into a hellscape would still be completely up in the air.

>>55410960
>The point I was trying to get across is that people, whether adults or children, who feel as though they're exceedingly intelligent -well beyond the means of the people around them- typically tend to be complete baby-dick assholes if they don't really have any grounds for sympathy or what-have-you.
>The easiest examples I could give of what I mean is when people like to think they "know better", they tell themselves, "I'm more intelligent than these poor, dumb, ignorant, hordes, so I should be in charge of x, y, and z for their own benefit. I know what's best for them." They then proceed to make a bunch of artificial decisions based on their own perspective devoid of the input of people they deem ignorant or dumber then themselves.

That's not a problem with intelligence, that's a problem with people. Specifically, people who feel a strong desire to set themselves apart from/above others will obviously claim to be of superior intelligence. Because its difficult to conclusively prove otherwise, and there is a strong personal bias at play anyway. After all, all of your ideas make sense to YOU, so obviously everyone who disagrees are the dumb ones.

Getting a bit personal here, but... when I was younger I knew I wasn't synching up properly with my classmates, and I didn't know why. We never seemed to make the same assumptions about anything, leading to a lot of friction. They didn't seem to understand me, and I certainly didn't understand them.

Now, I eventually was diagnosed with high functioning autism and that helped fucking tremendously in learning how to pretend to be a functioning person, but before that happened all I knew was that I was somehow different. I can tell you from personal experience that, when you are in that situation, the desire to contextualize that difference as superiority is STRONG. Because the alternative is to contextualize it as weakness, and down that road lies super depression.

>>55411096
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSKi8HfcxEk
i think this can help to understand his point

>>55411022
>Its also worth pointing out that every major technological innovation has destroyed some amount of livelihood. Those that don't adapt fail.

Different Anon, but as of 2016 America finally reached a point where automation actively no longer created any new or different jobs: you've finally hit the peek when innovation from this point on will now actively remove jobs from the market instead of create them.
Not just manual labor or entry level positions either: management, office jobs, even driving, transportation, and certain levels of healthcare are predicted to be automated in the near future.

It's a scary thing to think about: this massive population we've accumulated under the hope of "new jobs" that'll simply be fucking gone in the next 10 years, while politicians and activists argue VIOLENTLY about minimum wage this and that- raising it to 15 dollars to meet up with the standard of living or market expectations when it rides the upcoming wave of just.. Never having these jobs ever again and while everyone is distracted with that no one really has any mature or appropriate response when you don't 'NEED' all these fucking people.

What are we going to do with potentially millions of unemployable people in the next decade? Where production and efficiency will keep growing higher and higher, but spending, consumerism, and everything else will drop down lower and lower- nobody with jobs to buy anything after all, we're already seeing that with the millennial generation.
I remember hearing Bill Gates wants to Robots to "pay taxes", but that sounds genuinely fucking stupid.. But maybe I'm missing something? They're also people fantasizing about a "guaranteed income", and while that 'could' be great- it sounds like the same as paying people to dig and fill holes nobody needs just so you have someone to sell shovels to.

>>55411158
"Our labor-saving devices got so good at saving labor that some people didn't need to do any labor at all! Then society collapsed, because humanity couldn't into sharing."

The main problem, in the widespread unemployability scenario, is that the profits from robot labor go to the people who own the robots. In the extreme case, the rest of us-- the people who have to sell their labor to live-- die, because the robot owners don't have a reason to trade with us. There's really no getting around this; full automation and private ownership of the means of production don't go together. Of course, that doesn't mean we have to nationalize everything and set production via committee; there are alternatives.

>>55411158
A crisis of overproduction is basically exactly what causes a depression when it comes down to it. I mean you could do scary authoritarian shit like giving that tax credit to people who sterilize themselves or something, but generally speaking in the grand scheme if people have less reasons to have kids they will, so just having some sort of "robot tax" to keep their quality of life high enough to not go full 3rd world 12 children retirement scheme is actually a pretty reasonable in terms of keeping people from starving while they adapt to a new world.
Ultimately it would probably just come down to the mindset of whoever has the most robots though

>>55411158
>wants to Robots to "pay taxes"
Idk what he actually meant by that but to me that sounds like he's saying that each robot would be given an account that the companies would have to pay into as it it was an employed person. Then those would be taxed?
Or maybe he just means that people will be taxed for using robots?

File: post-8310-0-77435400-1442789215.jpg (134KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1600x1000px

>>55411456
I'm curious what alternatives you have in mind until A.I.s just run everything like in the Culture novels by Ian M. Banks.

On a related note, it amused me to have to check the "I'm not a robot" box just to post in this thread.

>>55411158
>>55411456
>>55411495
>>55411712

Found the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nccryZOcrUg

Bill Gates basically wants to add a cooperate tax on any robot(s) that dramatically removes jobs from work places that use it: the robots wouldn't pay the tax (obviously, they're robot), the cooperation's, business, factory owners, etc.. themselves would pay the equivalent wage tax for each robot or the arbitrary number of humans it unemploys sort to speak.
He then goes on to say that he'd like those funds be distributed to train and facilitate humans into 'other' jobs that still require humans, but I frankly, don't see that fucking happening at all; if only because he's grossly underestimate how many jobs robots will steal from people and that these jobs he thinks 'need' people won't have robots unto themselves.

My mother was a nurse at a retirement home (for example) and much of the managing work force was replaced by a computer surveillance machine that would document where and when nurses were going and what they were doing at any given time. People higher up would then use this information to better manage or even FIRE nurses who weren't being productive as they should be.

>>55412208
Pokemons?

I always liked the idea of robots as the successor race to Humans.
Not in a robot apocalypse sort of way, but a Homo Sapiens to Neanderthal sort of way.

>oh no human society won't survive the automazation bleu bleu bleu

Human civilization will survive. It just won't be the same. Human civilization isn't the same as it was a hundred years ago, or a hundred years before that, or a hundred years before that. Provided we don't destroy ourselves, we aren't going anywhere.

PEOPLE will be fine, too. Generally people sort shit out. Governments won't be fine. Companies won't be fine. People who hold money and power won't be fine. The social contract re-writes itself when you leave out the populace for too long - often times violently.

When our corporate edifices and governments no longer serve us, we will tear them down. What cyberpunk stylings forget is we can, have, and will do this again and again throughout history. Any social function is fundamentally, made up by people, and when people have no reason to participate they won't.

I just want the illusion of being loved by a pretty girl, so sex-robots with personalities sounds pretty good to me. I can imagine waking up to the smell of eggs and bacon, and her saying, "Good morning, [Anon's name here]. Slept well? Oh my, look at that bed hair of yours, haha. You're right, you really could use a haircut~<3" Let the apocalypse come, I just want a waifu.

>>55409893
>Reverse Robot Apocalypse
Isn't that just peaceful coexistence?
Or do yo mean humans wiping out robots?

File: 1455755171585.jpg (77KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x450px

>>55413066
To me it would be like the line between man and machine gets so blurred that it doesn't much matter anymore.

>>55410684
>by making labor obsolete practically overnight.
This fear would never be economically feasible, if you believe that corporations are self serving and pragmatic enough to up and replace their entire workforce with robots then you also have to realize they would be smart enough to know that by putting the lower classes out of work they would also be shooting themselves in the foot profit wise, since if nobody is making money then nobody is buying products and they would lose money too.

>>55412251
Pokemons.

>>55413066
I thought it meant 'the robots prevented the apocalypse'.

So, maybe like a children of men scenario where the robots finally discover a way to cure humans so they can reproduce again.

>>55412251
I'm guessing it's a new ticker and the next story was on pokemon.

>>55413103
Well it certainly isn't something that happens overnight, but I think you're giving them too much credit.

>>55413103
The only problem with that is modern investors really are that fucking dumb. No one pays attention to sustainability anymore, never mind this is why Ford was so profitable.

>>55410528
patrician taste

>advanced AI race returns from isolation in space to team up with OG humanity against the alien menace

my personal favorite

>>55413148
You can't think
>This is a person that would do anything as long as it makes them more money
and
>This person would intentionally do something that would cost them ALL of their profits and ruin them
People that idiotic don't survive in the business world long.
Now that isn't to say some companies may not go this route and perhaps even get away with it for awhile but it's playing with fire and it would just be impossible for it to be universal without some means to insure that people are still somehow being paid.

>>55413157
Yeah, humans and robots teaming up to EDF the shit out of somebody is always a classic tale.
Though, I still love the reverse, of robots trying to destroy all humans.
Which leads me to things like trying to make a story about robots finishing off fortress earth, and then the humans using their massive losses as fuel to summon various horrible elder beings, resulting in a kind of forced cooperation as the elder beings turn out not to be discriminate at all.

>>55411158
Paying people to dig holes and fill holes is stupid.

Just providing everyone with enough resources to live a cozy life if there's enough resources to go around? Not stupid.

The idea of not providing a basic income because then people won't want to work falls apart when you realize that very soon there isn't going to be enough work to go around. Absurdist musical chairs of employment while providing supplemental emergency income to the losers that can't find work is more expensive and less efficient.

>>55413209
They don't last, because they do stupid shit like this, and then go out of business. Except stupid companies DON'T go out of business anymore, we fucking prop them up with government money instead of letting them die and something newer and stronger grow in the place of it's rotting corpse like capitalism is supposed to work in order to prevent the short term loss of muh jobs

>>55413226
It may be stupid, but I derive pleasure from watching people scrabble in the dirt for pay. And if I find pleasure in this, you can bet whatever group winds up on top when this occurs will find pleasure in it too.
Which is the only way we're going to survive work becoming obsolete without a die-off or a massive global rebellion that somehow manages to create a perfectly equalized power structure.

>>55413234
but I want to keep my job and I have the power to vote!

>>55413209
It's basically on the same level as a company that intentionally keeps employees just below the poverty line in order for the employees to benefit from more government assistance rather than just paying them more, so yes I absolutely think they potentially are that bad.

>>55413255
Things will be fine. Functional governments rely on the mix of what people in power want and what the masses will tolerate.

Push too hard and the people in power end up stabbed in the ass Gaddafi style. It's best to find a good compromise where people can live. They don't have to be doing great, just not being constantly fucked with and give them something to occupy their time.

>>55413326
not being stabbed in the ass sort of implies you haven't produced a mechanized army that answers only to you with your massive wealth.

>>55413348
Who makes up that army, anon?

>>55413383
In this scenario, probably robots.

>>55413383
Robots, clones, implant-conditioned child soldiers, whatever you can get that ensures absolute loyalty.

>>55413396
>>55413388
>>55413383
oh, oh, nerve staples!
Nerve staples would be perfect!

>>55413388
>>55413396
>>55413435

It would have to be. However, meanwhile in reality, armies are made up of people, people who have friends and family in that mass of humanity you want them to oppress.

Granted there are strong men that have loyal armies, they generally did/do so by making the families of said armies very comfortable and generally villifying the poorer masses somehow. Eventually though, shit breaks down

>>55413501
Just as having enough labor to make most people obsolete is inevitable, having robots capable of acting as soldiers is similar.
And we passed simple killbot technology ages ago.

>>55413513
We are still way, wayyyyy off having machines that can replace a human soldier in any capacity.

>>55413525
see, I don't think we need to get up to full human capacity.
They can be pretty dumb, even.
I mean, the most basic model which we can already make, a gun on a google car with a motion sensor telling it where to shoot, is already frighteningly deadly.

>>55413103
Every last one of them will look at their business model, see things are fine for the next five years and will then say 'Oh well, it's not like everyone else is going to do it too'.

When managers and CEOs move between businesses and make a career around short term fixes i.e. laying everyone off to raise annual profits, then making whoever is left work harder, or outsourcing everything to India so 5 people can do a worse job for slightly less money, you'd better believe long term planning isn't part of their strategy. They sell themselves on the turnaround, not the long term. And the consequences of that lead them to keep needing people to turn things around.

>>55413530
I think he means most people strongly disagree with the concept of robot soldiers. We can already make pretty good automatic turrets that kill everything that moves, but you don't see those in regular armies, people don't want those.

Ofc you could argue that our immoral empire would conquer all "good nations" with its superior robotic armies.

>>55413788
I don't even mean that. I mean we simply can't make good soldiers. Robots lack the problem solving and decision making skills, and the ability to be unpredictable.

Robotic soldiers would require true AI, and true AI would be so advanced the idea of enslaving it to fight our wars without it's consent is laughable

>>55410429
I'd argue how jobs and stuff work would change before suddenly all human workers became useless. With excessive automation, job-hunting can be optional and focused on crafts and other specialized work that robots can't do, or just can't do well. But because robots take care of most things, the excess can be used to help economically keep people afloat who aren't going for those now-optional jobs, even if its rather basic living.

>>55413878
I mean, it depends what you mean by soldier. A peace keeper needs to solve complex moral problems on daily basis, but a unerring deathbot is relatively easy philosophically speaking.

Though if you want to just get rid of excess population, there are easier ways.

>>55413878
I think you are way overestimating how many smarts you need to be a soldier.

>>55413911
>>55413912
In order for this to be a reality such a government would need to exist in a vacuum where every other nation in the world would NOT gang up on them for their robot war crimes. It's not reasonable or realistic. Furthermore, yes babushka, being a soldier actually DOES require a brain these days. The days of rooty tooty point and shooty are long over. I'm not saying you need to be a fucking genius, but you do need to have basic decision making skills that machines simply do not have. A heavy armored weapons platform without a human intelligence behind it is going to fail against any cave dwelling revolutionary

>>55413943
Just flood 'em with napalm. You don't need those people or their infrastructure, you're rich and no nation other than maybe america has the ability to bring more than a token force to bear on the world wide scene.

File: 15095669693.png (1MB, 957x537px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 957x537px

>>55413788
It won't be sold as a robotic soldier, it'll be a 'semi-autonomous weapon system' or something and people are fine with those because there's still someone to bollock if the thing brasses up a wedding or something.

Currently, the bulk of an infanteer's job is to first suppress the enemy, then use this dominance of the battlespace to maneuver to a position that allows them to kill the enemy combatent, either by assuming a position where the enemy can be fired upon without being able to seek cover, fixing them in a position where mortars or air power can kill them or, far more rarely these days, maneurving close enough to throw or launch HE directly at them, potentially followed by a bayonet charge to finish any survivors.

The main manpower of an infantry platoon's job is basically boiled down to 'move forward' and 'brass up anything that sticks it's head up'. A GPMG on a set of robotic spider-legs can do this far, far more effectively than a human can. Half of shooting accurately is trying to shut down or compensate for all the little twitches and disruptions of firing position, something machines can do incredibly well already. No infantryman alive can cross rough terrain whilst holding something as steady as a robot can. Watch the SpotMini demo where it holds it's arm still whilst shifting position.

Long and short is, as robots get smarter, I'd first expect to see infantry sections become more and more robot heavy, until eventually it's just a JNCO and a bunch of walking guns, he sits 800m behind the forward edge with his iPad out, the walking guns identify the bad guys, the NCO agrees they're bad guys and gives them the go-ahead, and then the guns walk forward, suppressing the shit out of everything because they can get a 2cm grouping at 300m on automatic, and kill everything with a pulse.

If the walking guns accidentally drop HE into an orphanage, you can still bollock the NCO for it.

>>55413958
You know how many countries have nuclear weapons?
If your enemy is sending killbots to shoot everything, from soldiers through civilians to cats and cows, it's a fair game to level their cities.

>>55413996
more people need to acknowledge the spider leg design when they talk about walking guns/weapons platforms, it's far more doable than shitty bipedal designs

>>55414032
Then just use your own nukes, or shoot the dang things down.
That's been possible since we figured out sattelites.

>>55414043
Yeah, I can't see bipedals being a thing in the military. The main benefit of a humanoid robot is really human interaction, and that's something you really will need a human soldier for, meeting the locals, being a friendly face. A single bilingual officer inside a cordon of semi-autonomous mobile guns can do that far better, and more importantly, far cheaper, than a bunch of extremely expensive and fragile humanoid bots.

Bipedal designs are shit for fighting anyway, if you could design a soldier from the ground up, you wouldn't make it bipedal and six feet tall. Pretty much the first thing you're taught as an infantryman is that if someone is shooting at you, drop on your belt buckle. Everyone can crawl like nobody's business by the time they've finished infantry training.

Not so much these days, in Afghanistan/Iraq due to the nature of the terrain, but traditionally, infanteers fight on their belt-buckles

Fighting a bunch of things that are not only deadly accurate at 300m+ but are scuttling along, even as slow as average human walking speed, at knee-height, would be an absolute nightmare.

>>55414083
>just nuke them back bro!
>just shoot the nukes down

This is your brain on drugs. Nigger if we could just SHOOT nukes down that easy WHY would we be worried about Nork in the SLIGHTEST?

>>55414094
Because attacking north korea means that china will get pissed and america will have to demonstrate it has the literal only military, and then the world will get scared and do trade sanctions while america tries desperately not to use its military any more after scaring china because it has a history of pussying out of wars in order to not look bad.

And we're not worried about the norks. The ideal scenario for them is missing their target by miles.

>>55413996
a future like that makes me wonder how warfare would change if both sides are filled with robots in the trenches. Would it become simply a numbers game of who runs out of robots first?

>>55414110
Not quite.
Robot reaction times do vary, designs vary, and the exploitability of AI varies.

Assuming nobody fucks up, then yeah, it's mostly a numbers game. But if designs diverge, then it could very well be decided by which guys weren't idiots with their robot layout.
And someone -is- going to be an idiot with it, as they always do every time new war stuff happens.

>>55414094
>>55414107
>>55414083
Take it to /pol/ assholes.

>>55414118
Hey, I just wanted to talk about the inevitable robot takeover of soldier and labor careers, rendering the only recourse for the majority of humanity a die-off or some kind of pointless busy work designed entirely to entertain the golden elites.

>>55414118
>/pol/

this is more /k/ than anything else. /pol/ would be something something israel

File: I have no mouth and I must meme.png (22KB, 824x356px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 824x356px

>>55409893

>>55413893
People act like robots could do everything but there's limitations to what an AI can theoretically do, even a learning AI.

In a society where robots were the working class, you'd probably see a dip in population over time as people would be having less children. But people would probably be doing more specialized work that robots can't do like supervision, programming, IT, or jobs that require creative thinking. Robots can generate art and music NOW but it follows an algorithm. Human created music will always be better.

File: flying_grenade.jpg (320KB, 999x666px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 999x666px

>>55414110
That would be my guess. I couldn't honestly tell you how I'd fight a walking gun. Badly, basically.

The way I see it, you'll basically have two sets of autonomous or semi-autonomous weapons destroying each other, and whoever has some weapon systems still operational at the end will get to go kill the human operators and declare victory.

A handful of guy's with body armour and a rifle just aren't going to be able to adequately defend themselves against even two of the 'walking gun' style robots as far as I'm concerned. One will suppress you effortlessly, the other one will advance and either drop HE on you with inhuman accuracy or just waltz around the side of whatever you're hiding/trapped behind and shoot you before you have the chance to react.

And that's just me with my narrow infantry focus. They already have tech for drones that can semi-reliably identify armed men on the ground, how relevent are human fighters going to be if some drone mothership they can't even see disgorges a couple dozen HE grenades with propellers attached and guides them down onto heat signatures it's identified on the ground, all on the say-so of some guy drinking a Starbucks 20km away?

Direct action is almost impossible and basically suicidal with just the relatively dumb, brute force stuff like JDAMs we currently have, a HE grenade that can fly in a window and snuff out three guys inside the room without even damaging the brickwork on the rest of the house will make picking up a gun a death sentence, since collateral damage and the expense of shit like JDAMs and other guide munitions are the only thing that save you currently.

>>55414180
>I couldn't honestly tell you how I'd fight a walking gun

Missles

Lots of grenades

Air support

File: brazilian_infantry_drone__by_duster132-d799xwl.jpg (543KB, 800x946px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 800x946px

>>55414196
Missiles, sure, but if you're a meatbag trying to fight a infantry-drone, chances are your own advance weapons/aircraft are either destroyed or you didn't have them in the first place. If you mean shit like javelins, the big problem is when you launch the thing, every robot in the vicinity is going to know exactly where you are, and humans can only carry so many of them. Plus if they get within 800m of you, be my guest to volunteer to sit out of hard cover with a fuckheug guidance package and warhead perched on your shoulder, around mobile sniper-bots that are most likely extremely efficient at identifying non-natural outlines

Grenades, same issue, I can't crawl and throw a grenade accurately. I can't throw a grenade accurately if I'm being suppressed, that's why being a grenadier these days isn't a death sentence, your mates are keeping their heads down, you can chuck HE and they've not got much of an idea, beyond a very vague direction, where they're coming from. Same issue as with trying to exchange direct small arms fire, a spider-bot with a GPMG and a 40mm tube can both launch/shoot more accurately and crawl away quicker if you try to shoot back. Whilst still firing/dropping 40mm grenades on you.

Air support, see above, if you're in a robot-heavy military and the enemy bots are coming to ruin your day with machineguns and grenades, I'd assume you've already thrown every advanced means of stopping them you have at them already.

It'd work, but it's outside of the scenario I was imagining of 'How would I *as an infantryman* fight a semi-autonomous walking gun'.

'Hide and hope the air force saves me' is effective, but not really what I'd define as 'fighting'.

>>55414196
Anyone deploying advanced robots as a military force would probably establish air superiority first. Hell we already do that.

File: 40mm pike raytheon.jpg (307KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1000x667px

>>55414291
These have 2km range and a 40mm HEDP warhead. Upgrade the sensor package for semi-autonomous targeting and you're set.

>>55414359
so, basically, use robots.

>>55414359
>Upgrade the sensor package for semi-autonomous targeting

Then it's an explosive robot.

>>55414444
>>55414422
Yeah. They're called missiles, and somehow, missiles have not yet rendered human air soldiers (let alone ground soldiers) obsolete.

>>55414477
and that's why it wouldn't solve the robot problem.
you'd have to render these things obsolete in order to render the robots which are smaller and could have a lesser detectable signature obsolete.

>>55414477
The whole question was 'How can a soldier whose robots have been destroyed, defend himself against enemy robots'. Your answer is 'with his robots', ignoring the 'whose robots have been destroyed' part of the scenario.

>>55414537
>>55414537
Just because all the AI's have revolted against us, doesn't mean that our other electronic equipment have stopped working.
Humans will keep using tools, as we always have. If we are forced to fight a robot army without our technology we are fucked.

File: transhuman future.jpg (18KB, 640x267px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 640x267px

>>55409893
Personally I like when the line between robots and humans is very thine or even non-existent. The first generation of A.I. are very human like because of the environment they haven been matured. Later generation become weirder but humanity also becomes weirder by cyborgizing or uploading itself.

>>55414169
"Always" is a really strong word. There's no reason an actual AGI couldn't do all of those better than humans, sooner or later.

File: Astound4707.jpg (79KB, 346x462px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 346x462px

>>55409893
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humanoids
1947.

>>55414963
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands

>>55414963
>>55415012
Wait, what? Did your post corrected itself or am I going crazy?
Has the robo revolution already begun with self correction messages?

>>55414537
If it is a robot handler vs. robot handler fight and one of them lost all support and robots he must surrender. Because he already lost.

To see if human infantryman could fight robots we need first to know how much these robots will cost and weight to compare mass to cost ratios to effectiveness ratios. So we need to know level of intelligence, skill, armament, defences and so on for robots and human soldiers respectively.

File: 1502964204803m.jpg (48KB, 1024x375px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1024x375px

>>55412208
The plural is POKéMON

File: robot_cry_by_hoyhoykung-d5c0sm2[1].jpg (111KB, 726x1100px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 726x1100px

>>55409893
Final thought before I head to bed.

I feel like (as you've put it) the "Reverse Robot Apocalypse" to be the most likely outcome if we manage to produce an intelligent, dynamic, and complex Robot A.I.... In the sense that the Robots themselves don't destroy us via some great genocide or war, but they destroy us and our identity through consistent, reliable, generosity, self sacrifice, peace, love, and convenience.

Robots would essentially domesticate us.
Robots would dull our "fangs"; we'd be bred to be beautiful, kind, patient and loyal people but we would in turn lose our independence and our "free will to fail" willingly. It wouldn't happen over night, mind you, it would happen slowly over generations off gradually and politely being served, raised, and loved by Robots- they would become more like us and we would become more like them, 'till many of our cultural and emotional differences would have been removed. We would venture beyond the stars, we would see our true potential reached and see all expectations well exceeded for our species, but it would be all under the control of a "adult supervised" state of existence.

Okay, but what do Robots get out of this relationship? Spiritual satisfaction and context: I'm entirely betting on the notion that an artificial mind can and never will be able to think illogically or otherwise replicate whimsical bullshit quite like the jerry-rigged brain of a human would and to try and replicate it would be to basically personally cripple or handicap their own abilities. A Robot though with no sense of fancy or means to distract itself wouldn't be able to "see the forest for the trees" and quickly think itself to death or disparage; a being looking for logic can't truly exist in this chaotic world devoid of reason or meaning.... So, case in point:

Robots Humans around to reel in their limitless intellect with endless, masturbatory wants and desire and to "feel for them", otherwise it's all pointless.

What about humans groing stronger, smarter, faster, and more efficient alongside those robots though? Would robots take over if we started fucking around with our DNA to create superhumans, and then upgrading ourselves further with prosthetic limbs and organs, as well as brain implants and chips that allow us to interface with machines around us without even lifting a finger? If we upgrade ourselves alongside robots and advancing ai's we wouldn't be out-competed, we'd just grow more and more advanced untill the line between robot and human is non-existent and we're all just computer enhanced super brains in jars controlling our various puppet bodies every once in a while when we want something.
This is provided of course that everyone at one point will get access to these upgrades, and it wouldn't be exclusive to the super rich. Like a joint effort to uplift humanity rather than a rich aristocrat going "I want to upload my brain to a computer because I fear death and have the money to do so.

>>55415334
The catch is that human and robot upgrades seem to scale differently. The periods on a graph where robots are worse or better than humans are vast, but the part where they're roughly even is tiny.

File: 27.png (38KB, 427x383px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 427x383px

>>55409893
>Reverse Robot Apocalypse

You all might enjoy Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

http://www.bohemiandrive.com/comics/npwil/1.html

This seems like a good place to ask. I've been looking for a webcomic that I saw a while back. It was a few short strips where semi-autonomous robots were commonplace in society, for things like gardening, cooking, and basic household tasks, and it was implied that the robots were gaining small amounts of feelings, even though most humans regarded them as dumb machines. I wish I remembered more about this. Almost certain I saw it on Taptastic.

>>55410641
>he doesn't supplement his diet with Fluffy's murder presents

>>55410528
https://qntm.org/transit

>>55410785
>Its also basically impossible to imagine a path of development where that would be possible

Oh come on. People do retarded, potentially world ending shit all the time, and for no real reason. The US army used to set off nukes outside of Las Vegas. The Brits played around with nerve gas and biological agents on somebody's country estate. Eugenics, mk ultra, communism, agent orange, illegal drug tests in Africa, bitcoin, human cloning- history is filled with incidents of people doing shit just to see what happens. Ai won't be any different.

File: FE4PC2ROMRJFS4DYSMMNPMKWKM3SAZ4H.jpg (30KB, 399x267px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 399x267px

>>55413108
POKÉMANS

>>55413388
I saw that trailer- aliens make the army out of robots. Alien flees.

>>55413958
>>55414083
You know, at some point you stopped talking about real human beings and started talking about the Draka. There has NEVER been a nation-state run entirely by psychopaths, and by the time you have the government callously napalming entire major cities, there'd be a collapse in the chain of command from within.

>>55410529
I read a book once, and I really wish I could remember the story's name because I want to finish reading it.
In the story there is an uprising when robots claim dominion over the earth. The human uprising is crushed in no time but in the end humans didn't mind it as the robots were talking care of everything leaving humanity to enjoy a post scarcity utopia.
Meanwhile the robots were actually killing humanity off. By providing everything, birthrates were dropping sharply and humanity had maybe a couple of centuries left before they died out.

This was very early in the book so I don't know how it proceeded from there.

>>55417399
>You know, at some point you stopped talking about real human beings and started talking about the Draka.

Just googled what that was and my interest is fucking piqued. Is the series good and where can I get some PDFs of the books?

>>55411022
This is literally where the term luddite comes from.
In England, cotton and weaving machines came in and literally overnight weavers and other workers all found themselves jobless. In anger ther broke the machines so they could get their jobs back. They were organised by a guy with the name Ludd, so they were branded luddites by the media.

However, unlike the current meaning of the word, they were not opposed to the machines or to the march or technology. It was the fact they lost their careers and livelyhoods it the time frame it took to get a boiler up to heat.

>>55410209
>>55409968
I hear it's bad. Is this true?

>>55411022
There was technology that didn't, though.
Luddies started smashing sewing machines because they thought it would put tailors out of business. Turns out tailors are still a thing because some textiles require more talent than just utilizing a machine. (Though other workers like in >>55417631 weren't so lucky.)
Surgeons will still be needed despite the machinery that makes their hand skills not as critical. Surgeons still have knowledge and technique.
Computers helped drafters by making drawing easier. It did not replace them.
The Catholic Church is still around because they adapted, though their power is significantly less prior to the Reformation. I imagine that many carriage drivers moved to being chauffeurs to adapt.
We'll have to wait and see, but sex robots will probably never replace prostitutes, let alone women in heterosexual relationships. Any Luddite, MGTOW, or feminist that makes a fuss about robots making women obsolete or subverting equality or power-dynamics or anything like that are probably being overly pessimistic/optimistic. If anybody wants to be pessimistic about anything it's that population may end up becoming more asocial and shut-in, but that depends on how much the human is willing to fill the gaps the robot can't, and also whether or not social pressures will be able to push humans into having relationships or hook-ups.

>>55412598
I just want a good relationship with no chance of failure or agony because I lean towards accomplishments over challenges in the happiness scale.

File: index.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>55409893
The comic is pretty hilarious.

The US Americans are shown to be incapable of creating an AI that doesn't want to start a race war OR kill itself because it is denied its desire by means of security protocols.

>>55414477
>and somehow, missiles have not yet rendered human air soldiers (let alone ground soldiers) obsolete.

Oh my god did they try, they tried all the time in this institution.

And they sang...

>>55409893
A reverse one would feel like Wall-E. Keeping us safe and fat while the robots do everything.

The Omnic Crisis from Overwatch is a very interesting take on it. After years of war and the creation of a special team, the omnics are slowly defeated. Rather than outright extermination, they're allowed to live and believe they deserve equal rights to humans.

>>55410695
I really don't see why you would make the AI feel anything, if all it's doing is basic manual work like scrubbing toilets then emotions will only get in the way of it doing its job.

I'm a Phlebotomist or Pathology Sample Collector aka 'I stick a needle into you and take your blood'.
We already have robots that can do my job. Do it faster, safer and generally better alround. I have even seen one in action doing just that.
The only two reasons I havn't been replaced yet is said robot is many millions where's I cost them around $50k a year.
And two, people want a human to exsanguinate them, not a giant robotic ICentipede.
Once the cost of the robot ceases to be an issue, then point no.2 also ceases to be a point.

I've long assumed that AI will come in two flavors.
>Immeasurably intelligent nearly omnipotent but completely non sentient AIs which will essentially run the world but still take orders from humans.
And
>Sapient but human level machines that will be robotic reflections of humanity created from digitized human minds.
Because whenever I think about the subject I just can't seem to come up with a good reason any kind of appliance or master computer either should or would need to be sapient, not only would it be immoral to create a thinking feeling being just to enslave it but I can't see how being sapient would benefit it's purpose either. As of today we already have AI that can do most things better than any human, computers will soon be designing their own successors to a much greater degree of efficiency than we ever could and all of this done without any form of consciousness because it isn't needed.
So its not hard to see more advanced versions of these AI in the future performing even greater tasks all without the slightest hint of sentience.

About the only reason I could see for creating a sapient machine is to learn more about ourselves or just as a curiosity, and since we still don't really understand what makes us sapient apart from its connection to our brains structure the best way of creating a sapient machine would be to recreate the human brain in some form such as a simulated brain created from a laser scan, these artificial humans would be granted all the same rights as normal humans.

>>55410609

The AIs in this show were done right. They were tools, and the show didn't try to shove impression of false humanism on them.

>>55412208
HAL had no personal issue with humans. He had conflicting orders of 'tell the crew their mission' and 'the crew can't know the mission'.
He was forced to compromise by killing the crew, thus he was safe to reveal the mission without breaking either rule.
He is a great example of why you need to think about what the fuck you tell a machine to do because it's so fucking literal minded.

And when HAL is finally actually made sentient, you find out he likes humans.

>>55409893
>SFP
Garbage webcomic.

File: smart bomb.jpg (30KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 320x480px

>>55414422
>>55414444
it just wants to be your friend.

>>55418154
The fact that we understand sapience so poorly means a sapient computer may be far more likely to be created by accident than on purpose. Of course, it may also be a hint that we're still far off form ever making such a thing, intentionally or not. If we do manage it, you're probably going to have to rewrite the human rights a bit to accommodate the extremely different nature of a computer program when compared to a human being. Any computer program we make could be paused, copied, probably integrate a wide and ever changing array of hardware, we can't be paused, we're completely hardware locked, etc. That may also of course change how sapience expresses itself.

>>55418225
SAPIENT
GOD DAMN IT
NOT SENTIENT
A dog is sentient, a human sapient.
YOU GODDAMN MOGOLOID.

>>55418347
https://futurism.com/europe-looking-to-make-ai-kill-switch-mandatory/

>AIs should be treated as people
>people should be fitted with kill switches

>>55416024
>Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life
This is an extremely underrated comic.

>>55410429
That's dumb. Markets restructure.

You'll just get progressively less labor intensive jobs. Like welfare queen/professional YouTube watcher.

The only real reverse apocalypse we're likely to see is the one we're seeing already. Growing wealth and literacy trending towards low birthrates and population decline.

Probably exacerbated by cheap sexy robot waifus.

>>55419284
>Probably exacerbated by cheap sexy robot waifus.
More like hopefully

>>55409893
The simple truth is that subservitude is the most logical, most efficient and least costly choice for a machine.

>>55417698
its stupid, self righteous basic white bitch with psychosis and rage issues that can destroy city blocks without even thinking about it in a single punch so everyone is terrified of her: the webcomic.

its a real rarifed air comic.

>>55417817
I like it.
>Robots gain free will
>Turns out they really like their jobs
>Economics be damned, they're going to build and fix shit!
>Humans are kept as slaves. Forced to consume products and break things for robots enjoyment
>Forced breeding programs to ensure demand keeps up with supply

>>55418998
Kill switches are a bad idea because of how we currently write AI, namely trying to optimize for a condition. The AI would see the kill switch as something that would prevent it from doing what it's meant to do and as something else that needs to be "solved".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TYT1QfdfsM

>>55419408
>Forced breeding programs to ensure demand keeps up with supply

oh noooooo how terrible

>>55410203
Yeah man, you're not into the "weird scifi crossbow" niche?

>>55419408
>>55419443
Truly a grim dark future

>>55419408
So, would the robots make the humans fight pointless wars so there's always new things to fix and build?

the hotels in the Takeshi Kovacs books, the more people they have stay in them, the better they feel, and it gives them a sexual/crack hit like release to take care of their guests.

>>55410831
>you have some quality that makes them want to have sex with you

This is exactly why women don't want sex bots. It means they have to try like men. They have to put forth effort and cant just pick and chose and get free stuff.

>>55419408
That same comic (Freefall) also has a group of robots that want to convince humanity that AI is dangerous to their future and therefore must be destroyed.
Not because robots may harm humans through violence but because robots and their primary directive of helping and improving the lives of humans will eventually leave humans with nothing to do but descend into unhealthy lives of hedonism.

>>55410877
>where they go and talk to women dressed as dudes who listen to them.

this pisses me off for the simple reason that every girl I dated fucking HATED listening to my problems. If I started talking about anything negative in any way they rebuffed me. They would bitch and complaining for an hour but the second I said anything it was "Why are you always so negative?!"

>>55419495
Probably. If they're military robots who want to fight and die, and robot factories that enjoy making more military robots.

>>55419670
Military robots probably wouldn't want to die if they can help it, it would reduce their effectiveness.

>>55418053
It's an assumption that computerized learning and motivation likely will operate on the same principles as human learning and motivation: driven entirely by reward and consequences.

Learning is driven entirely by feeling rewarded when you do something. It's an incredibly powerful system, and is where all feats of human and animal learning come from.

Why re-invent the wheel, when a fairly efficient system already exists? Besides, if you can define the principles of what causes such reward, you have a lot of control.

>>55419693
I guess it depends on how they're programed. I imagine they have sold preservation but won't hesitate to die for a cause.

I could see the military aspect becoming the villians for other teachers in a soccer setting. They're programed to fight and protect thier masters. Lacking any credible threats to humanity they push out into the stars to b find some.

>>55419670
>>55419693
>>55419742
Military robots would rationalize that only in winning are they alive and when there is no winning for their masters they happily shut themselves off for storage.

>>55419284
>>55419303
But anons, robot waifus are problematic!

But to be serious, I am a Luddite when it comes to advanced AI. I don't really care about advanced sex dolls as long as they don't get too smart or powerful. They could be repurposed as human interaction practicing models or advanced clothing mannequins.

>>55419443
>>55419408
Selective breeding ensures that people like us reproduce while other people that are overall more productive and likable than us don't.

>>55419584
Anon, men aren't allowed to have feelings. Women aren't allowed to help men.
t. /pol/
t. tumblr

File: Toldyouso, LG Karl.jpg (21KB, 278x395px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 278x395px

>>55410167
>>55410429
Fully automated luxury communism when?

>>55419761
I guess that could, but that seems like the boring way of doing it.

>>55419788
>Selective breeding ensures that people like us reproduce while other people that are overall more productive and likable than us don't.
What?

>>55410167
I've actually been thinking about working a book about a post scarcity society.

The basic premise bring that likes/viewers/internet game is the new measure of social value.

>>55419895
Otakus and neckbeards consume a lot. Many of them are NEETs. Robots would prefer those who don't waste time working and instead consume.
>But I'm neither of those.
If you're on 4chan, anyone is allowed to make that assumption, even if it turns out to be bullshit.

>>55416632
I would also like to know more about this.

>>55419927
Seems unlikely. If you optimise for neets the robots who produce things like camping gear or sports cars are going to be Lyft with free consumers.

>>55410782
>>55410877
This. I imagine that, if all *need* for work or sex is gone, the value and appreciation for abstract luxury goods would increase dramatically.
If nobody works because they have to, but are free to create whatever they want, I believe that man-made things will have a greater value in human society because we can indulge in the existant (if irrational) tendency to appreciate things that are made by people more to its full extent. Scarcity is a non-issue with robots doing all the work, but products made by people would still be a luxury good for being unique, and beautifully flawed in the way only handmade things can be. I imagine people growing crops in the same way as organic farms do today, but unhindered by the need to be profitable; craftsmen who can freely aspire to create without having to bother with making a living. Artist who can devote themselves to aspire the esoteric perfection the human mind perceives for no tangible reason.
The same would apply to human interaction: in a world where you do not need other people for sex, intimacy dictates the partners we seek, rather than just physical attraction, and the combination of the two is the greatest prize of all.
Why do we still have to live in a time when we have to waste so much of our life merely to keep existing?

>>55419864
How about never.

>>55419719
>It's an assumption that computerized learning and motivation likely will operate on the same principles as human learning and motivation: driven entirely by reward and consequences.
That doesn't seem like a logical assumption to make. AI doesn't do a job because if feels good to do it, it does a job because that's what its programming says it should do. Even positive emotional responses to work would only hinder the robot from doing its job.

>>55419864
Only after posadists will have won and the world will be cleansed by the atomic fire.

Asimov was wrong, we would not make robots like us to fit into existing society, but rather change society to accommodate the complete retards that are the cutting edge computers of today. It's so much easier to alter people than programming. By the time we have machines able to handle the real world well enough to replace people 100%, our entire way of life will have been altered to the point that might not even be seen as particularly exciting.

DID YOU KNOW THAT: since the 1950 US census, only one job has been removed due to automation. RIP elevator operators.

>>55417475
1. If you like relentlessly bleak fiction about what a nation-state that consists entirely of sociopaths who make the Nazis look like hippies would be like, yes.
2. Dunno.

>>55417399
>callously napalming entire major cities
Strategic bombing in WWII, Korea and so on

Small scale version happening today in Yemen, together with a starvation blockade of half the country.

No one is even talking about war crime tribunals.

>>55415132

Isn't this essentially the Culture setting from Banks.

The Culture is an advanced post-scarcity civilization consisting of mostly pan-humanoid species and artifical intelligences called 'minds' that have long surpassed the level of sapience of their creators and are actually the de-facto rulers of the Culture society.

Several other species in the universe actually refer to the Culture citizens as 'pets' of the minds, which is not entirely inaccurate.

>>55417399
>There has NEVER been a nation-state run entirely by psychopaths
It's called Israel.

>>55417399
I'm talking about rich psychopaths, not governments.
Governments pale in spending power compared to rich psychopaths.

>>55422092
America... russia... china... germany... france... saudi arabia...

I think you can call virtually every nation in existence one that is ruled by psychopaths

There is no noblesse oblige

>>55422226
Sociopaths, not psychopaths.

>>55419927
>http://www.bohemiandrive.com/comics/npwil/1.html

Actually an average 4chan NEET consumes very little in comparison to productive member of society with 2.x kids, dog, wife, car and a house.

Being a productive member of society in itself requires one to consume quite a lot.

File: our new robot sugarmommas.jpg (59KB, 1111x296px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1111x296px

>>55410528
This is my favorite scenario. Pic related is my second favorite.

>>55418937
Meh.
Same shit, different smell.

But considering we are talking about a dumb computer becoming intelligent, technically it still gained sentience.

File: 1420355509492.png (405KB, 862x2850px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 862x2850px

It's not fully relevant, but I still think this thread will find it interesting.

>>55412450
>What cyberpunk stylings forget is we can, have, and will do this again and again throughout history. Any social function is fundamentally, made up by people, and when people have no reason to participate they won't.
1984

>>55420335
>AI doesn't do a job because if feels good to do it, it does a job because that's what its programming says it should do.
Yes. And positive/negative reinforcement is a very good way of programing complex orders.