Humans Need Not Apply

[Mugendramon]

seems stupid tbh

 

• maintenance will be required so that means humans will need to be available for maintaining the robots.
• robots are only taught what could be an answer to a certain question/disease/etc. and that means mistakes WILL happen no matter what. Just open webMD and you'll know what I mean. Imagine telling a robotic doctor that your back hurts or you have a flu = cancer.
• companies can easily hack into systems to ruin production lines and then leave no proof to be used against them in court. 

 

humans will never be replaced.

 

Robots could not learn to maintain other robots in the same way they learn their other routine tasks?

 

Won't argue for doctor bots because this is actually a point I agree with

 

That last thing can happen nowadays anyway. The moment robots learned to assemble more robots hacking becomes a lot less hazardous as they would not just be a single network but several, easily replaceable machines operating separately.

[Tentacruel]

Never really understood the actual desire for humans to be replaced by machines. 

 

Anyway, I'm a bit skeptical that we're on the verge of replacing all jobs with robots.  Artificial intelligence is, at least at the moment, just the illusion of intelligence.  Robot sentience is not something that is going to happen until/unless some very large discoveries are made about sentience/self-awareness as a whole.

 

Regardless of how advanced A.I. is, it's not physically different than a bunch of .txt documents. 

 

I honestly don't see the point in having robots literately take over.  There are many jobs where I'd honestly think it'd be easier to just hire some schmuck than buy or build a robot to do it. 

 

Basically, why?

[Mugendramon]

AI being an illusion of intelligence basically means we're looking at extreme mechanization rather than automatization, which is a good thing (like horses vs cars was).

[Tentacruel]

AI being an illusion of intelligence basically means we're looking at extreme mechanization rather than automatization, which is a good thing (like horses vs cars was).

 

Hey, as long as we can use that extra productivity to provide basic living to all the people that will now be out of a job. 

[Mugendramon]

Hey, as long as we can use that extra productivity to provide basic living to all the people that will now be out of a job. 

 

Humanity can kick back and grow fat like in Wall-E while robots produce and give while asking for nothing in return. Without an actual consciousness to rebel with, everyone gets their share in theory.

 

But then overpopulation happens. And the scary scary next step is population control. Not necessarily of the preemptive kind.

[Tentacruel]

Humanity can kick back and grow fat like in Wall-E while robots produce and give while asking for nothing in return. Without an actual consciousness to rebel with, everyone gets their share in theory.

 

But then overpopulation happens. And the scary scary next step is population control. Not necessarily of the preemptive kind.

According to some people population will naturally level out.  Hopefully that ends up being the case. 

[Aix]

AI can learn. It's not really perfect, but it comes damn close enough to not matter in some cases, and gradually in most cases. As they said, they don't have to be perfect, they just have to be better than us. The brain is just a biological computer, though an advanced one at that.

How is it easier to hire someone? You can't mass produce guaranteed quality humans. Robots don't need training, and the maintenance cost is less than minimum wage.

[Tentacruel]

Calling the brain, just a biological computer is a gross simplification.

 

A.I. can only learn if you program it to learn, and even then, you're pretty much mathematically predicting every possible situation that said A.I. will come into.  It will only do what you allow it to. 

 

Basically, you're assuming a lot of things.  Also, robots do not produce guaranteed quality, unless the task is so stupid and repetitive that it's just a fancy conveyor belt.   It's like any software.  The more complex it is, the more bugs it's going to have.

 

Gotta have people patching that shit. 

[Mugendramon]

Calling the brain, just a biological computer is a gross simplification.

 

A.I. can only learn if you program it to learn, and even then, you're pretty much mathematically predicting every possible situation that said A.I. will come into.  It will only do what you allow it to. 

 

Basically, you're assuming a lot of things.  Also, robots do not produce guaranteed quality, unless the task is so stupid and repetitive that it's just a fancy conveyor belt.   It's like any software.  The more complex it is, the more bugs it's going to have.

 

Gotta have people patching that shit. 

 

A program operating on .txt commands which can write its own .txt commands would technically be as sentient as your average animal responding to stimulus. From there on it'd be growing toward sentience.

[chaoticjexak]

I assume i don't have to remind people of sci-fi films and deus ex machine? this will not end well, mark my words. also, what if robots are programmed to be able to program things.. they could go all ultron style and massively upgrade themselves.