dimreepr Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, EdEarl said: I'm rereading the foundation series now. I don't know if anything can be done; except, understanding vibrations in the force may improve one's enjoyment. Hope springs eternal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 5 hours ago, Sensei said: The future of humans... ...is not bright... Our future's so bright I gotta wear shades... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 4 minutes ago, Moontanman said: Our future's so bright I gotta wear shades... And they lived happily ever after... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 2 hours ago, EdEarl said: Why, robots run farms, transport produce, prepare produce, deliver food to people just in time for meals. All we need is an app to order what we want. If you think the current owners of property will prevent this system, consider what an AI in control of all the robots can do to minimize people interfering. Will those people actually declare war on the bots to prevent farms being run, transportation and distribution? They're going to need, time, resources and land; to do all that. Even if the labor is effectively free, the other inputs will cost. 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: It's not about scarcity, it's about equality and our current economic system is not up to the job. Unfettered capitalism is a race to the bottom; making money without investing in people, is just kicking the can down the road (after feeding on the contents) in the hope that someone else will pick it up. May not be capitalism, bit there will be something. We could certainly do better right now if we were willing to sacrifice a bit. Main issue is externalities are not taken into account with pricing at present. If something like the environment or social ills is not factored in, then the system is blind to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, Endy0816 said: They're going to need, time, resources and land; to do all that. Even if the labor is effectively free, the other inputs will cost. May not be capitalism, bit there will be something. We could certainly do better right now if we were willing to sacrifice a bit. Main issue is externalities are not taken into account with pricing at present. If something like the environment or social ills is not factored in, then the system is blind to them. What price humanism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, Endy0816 said: They're going to need, time, resources and land; to do all that. Even if the labor is effectively free, the other inputs will cost. There are two extremes, everyone gets a handout of necessities from Earth's resources or at least some people starve to death. I expect AI will manage to keep everyone with necessities if possible, rather than let people starve. How they do it is beyond my ability to predict. Another possibility is that AI will leave us for a life in space and we cause a mass extinction. My expectation is that AI will keep us around because we are a link to their existence, as a souvenir. And, since it is easy, keep all of us and prevent mass extinction. We are potty trained and will work to help survive and thrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Being a human doesn't cost other humans unless you want to be a better human and that doesn't make sense unless you want more; in which case you're less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 44 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Being a human doesn't cost other humans unless you want to be a better human and that doesn't make sense unless you want more; in which case you're less. It will cost something in practical terms. If you want to subsidize others, you can do that, but you can't ignore the cost. 1 hour ago, EdEarl said: There are two extremes, everyone gets a handout of necessities from Earth's resources or at least some people starve to death. I expect AI will manage to keep everyone with necessities if possible, rather than let people starve. How they do it is beyond my ability to predict. Another possibility is that AI will leave us for a life in space and we cause a mass extinction. My expectation is that AI will keep us around because we are a link to their existence, as a souvenir. And, since it is easy, keep all of us and prevent mass extinction. We are potty trained and will work to help survive and thrive. Depends on what the AIs goals are. They may well not be rational and possible they won't even notice us. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer Personally I think a merger is more likely though. Generally we all get up in arms, but then the new world ends up looking alot like the old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 1 minute ago, Endy0816 said: Personally I think a merger is more likely though. Generally we all get up in arms, but then the new world ends up looking alot like the old one. For most of human history as I understand, jobs were rare and people bartered. By saying the new world ends up looking like the old one that we will be bartering again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 17 hours ago, Endy0816 said: It will cost something in practical terms. If you want to subsidize others, you can do that, but you can't ignore the cost. 19 hours ago, Endy0816 said: Even if the labor is effectively free, the other inputs will cost. If the labour is free there are no subsidising others, therefore any other cost is the same for all humans, so irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) 20 hours ago, Endy0816 said: They're going to need, time, resources and land; to do all that. Even if the labor is effectively free, the other inputs will cost. 25 minutes ago, dimreepr said: If the labour is free there are no subsidising others, therefore any other cost is the same for all humans, so irrelevant. As dimreeper said, material cost is irrelevant. However, let us suppose that some owner decided to charge for something taken from his property. What can be done. The robots can make underwater mining equipment and scour the ocean floor for free resources. The robots can recycle everything and reuse. The robots might make sea going hexagonal interconnecting barges to float around the equator, manufacture soil from ocean mud, grow things for food, build billions of apartments on the barges, and house humanity. There are no great storms on the equator since there is no Coriolis effect. If for some reason people use up the Earth, the bots can make a Dyson swarm of habitats using asteroids for raw materials. Robot labor makes things possible that are difficult, perhaps impossible, to imagine. There is about 149M km2 land on Earth. The equator is about 30,000 km long. Building barges 250 km north and south of the equator (500 km) would add about 10% livable surface to the Earth. Building up would be enough to put the world's population around the equator. Edited January 19, 2018 by EdEarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) On 18.01.2018 at 3:45 PM, EdEarl said: The transition from current society to the society of abundance provided by robots may be difficult for people until there are enough robots to actually provide everything people need, and governments do not interfere . I see what you meant. Some governments might be pissed off not getting money from taxes, when everything is given for free, exchanged by citizens for free.. Taxation on robots is example of such interference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_tax Edited January 19, 2018 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Sensei said: I see what you meant. Some governments might be pissed off not getting money from taxes, when everything is given for free, exchanged by citizens for free.. Some governments evict people from their home if they cannot pay taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 When I was younger I used to read a lot of Science Fiction - not all the fantasy stuff you get nowadays but what used to be called hard SF. (funny how the initials converge). Anyway SF used to allow the imagination to explore potential futures and I remember reading a story in the mid 1960s about a very poor girl and her friend a very rich one. The interesting twist here was that in that scenario robots had been developed to such a stage that no-one needed to 'work'. Robotic production units churned out immense quantities of everything. And the poor girl was poor because she was required to consume vast quantities of this production continually. Conversely the rich girl was rich because she only had to eat two meals a day and wear one new set of clothes etc etc. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the story or the author, though I think it was contemporaneous with Billenium. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 9 hours ago, EdEarl said: As dimreeper said, material cost is irrelevant. However, let us suppose that some owner decided to charge for something taken from his property. What can be done. The robots can make underwater mining equipment and scour the ocean floor for free resources. The robots can recycle everything and reuse. The robots might make sea going hexagonal interconnecting barges to float around the equator, manufacture soil from ocean mud, grow things for food, build billions of apartments on the barges, and house humanity. There are no great storms on the equator since there is no Coriolis effect. If for some reason people use up the Earth, the bots can make a Dyson swarm of habitats using asteroids for raw materials. Robot labor makes things possible that are difficult, perhaps impossible, to imagine. There is about 149M km2 land on Earth. The equator is about 30,000 km long. Building barges 250 km north and south of the equator (500 km) would add about 10% livable surface to the Earth. Building up would be enough to put the world's population around the equator. "Rogue AI violates UN Law regarding deep sea mining - More at 11" You guys scare me sometimes. Even an AI can only do so much so fast and it is still going to need to consider opportunity costs. Take care of humans or devote everything towards improving yourself. Decision could go either way. More probable is AI where it makes economic sense and humans otherwise. An AI could run a company, but would be incapable of satisfying a demand for human-made paintings. There may be some kind of UBI, but probably going to be the future's poverty level. People wanting more will be able to / have to find work of some sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 On 19/01/2018 at 8:33 PM, Sensei said: I see what you meant. Some governments might be pissed off not getting money from taxes, when everything is given for free, exchanged by citizens for free.. Taxation on robots is example of such interference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_tax 3 It depends on the government, America (and to a lesser extent GB) will probably take that stance because its bad for the wealthy and privileged (themselves), but a more progressive government like Norway or Sweden will promote its development because it's good for the people (everyone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 58 minutes ago, dimreepr said: It depends on the government, America (and to a lesser extent GB) will probably take that stance because its bad for the wealthy and privileged (themselves), but a more progressive government like Norway or Sweden will promote its development because it's good for the people (everyone). But we're talking about couple different models: 1) robots produce everything, and result of their work is given for free, owners of robots don't get richer, (jump to 3c' or 3c'') 2) robots produce everything, and result of their work is sold, owners of robots get richer, unemployed are becoming poorer 3) robots produce everything, and result of their work is sold, tax on robot exists (buyers of goods pay it actually), government takes the money and: 3a) waste it, as usual 3b) spend it more wisely, unusual and probably not possible to sustain in long term (often changing politicians, unexpected events like crisis, disasters). 3c) give it away as basic income, and: 3c') people without having to work, will degenerate 3c'') people without having to work, will spend their entire life wisely, learning and becoming more and more smart and intelligent, will be discovering world and Universe If there will be 3c, politician who will promise the largest basic income will win election, in society which is full of fools (and cause inflation). ..I could go on, and on, and on, each of these paths further extending what can happen as a result.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdEarl Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 13 minutes ago, Sensei said: But we're talking about couple different models: 1) robots produce everything, and result of their work is given for free, owners of robots don't get richer, (jump to 3c' or 3c'') 2) robots produce everything, and result of their work is sold, owners of robots get richer, unemployed are becoming poorer 3) robots produce everything, and result of their work is sold, tax on robot exists (buyers of goods pay it actually), government takes the money and: 3a) waste it, as usual 3b) spend it more wisely, unusual and probably not possible to sustain in long term (often changing politicians, unexpected events like crisis, disasters). 3c) give it away as basic income, and: 3c') people without having to work, will degenerate 3c'') people without having to work, will spend their entire life wisely, learning and becoming more and more smart and intelligent, will be discovering world and Universe If there will be 3c, politician who will promise the largest basic income will win election, in society which is full of fools (and cause inflation). ..I could go on, and on, and on, each of these paths further extending what can happen as a result.. I didn't see: AI is smarter than us, so they take over politics and business, and run everything as they see fit. Anyone who opposes robot rule will be taken care of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 43 minutes ago, Sensei said: But we're talking about couple different models: 1) robots produce everything, and result of their work is given for free, owners of robots don't get richer, (jump to 3c' or 3c'') 1 45 minutes ago, Sensei said: 3c) give it away as basic income, and: 3c') people without having to work, will degenerate 3c'') people without having to work, will spend their entire life wisely, learning and becoming more and more smart and intelligent, will be discovering world and Universe Oh, come on Sensei you of all people should understand, all you've done is describe the extremes of a bell curve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itoero Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 There is always the question if there is sufficient energy and raw material to robotize the 'commercial world'...robots need food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 1 minute ago, Itoero said: There is always the question if there is sufficient energy and raw material to robotize the 'commercial world'...robots need food. No, robots need energy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itoero Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, dimreepr said: No, robots need energy... ? Yes and the food they need is energy. But is their sufficiently raw material and energy to robotize our commercial world? Edited January 24, 2018 by Itoero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 7 hours ago, Itoero said: ? Yes and the food they need is energy. But is their sufficiently raw material and energy to robotize our commercial world? Yes, quite a bit more than enough but we have to go off planet to get it... A Dyson swarm would be the ticket! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Krycek Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Some interesting comment by Sam Harris... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ZSeHiix50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 17 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said: Some interesting comment by Sam Harris... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ZSeHiix50 Oh please... What did he say that was interesting? And how did he argue the points raised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now