• Ross Rants: Robot Jobs
    42 replies, posted
[video=youtube;aY8_F8I1Y_U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY8_F8I1Y_U[/video]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/ruz74BU.png[/t] :what: Unless links aren't physical, isn't this impossible?
Is it just me or have there been a bunch of videos about this type of thing recently?
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;49986290][t]http://i.imgur.com/ruz74BU.png[/t] :what: Unless links aren't physical, isn't this impossible?[/QUOTE] while I think the claim is a bit overzealous, let's humor why that's a feasible concept: say you've got 10 points to link together 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, , 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10 7-8, 7-9, 7-10 8-9, 8-10 9-10 so those 10 points have a total of 45 unique 2-point connections. The higher the number, the bigger the gap is, as 4 points connected only yields 6 unique (50% more links than points) whereas the 10 here is a 450% difference now look at a deck of 52 cards- there are [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNS1QvDzCVw]80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (67 0's) different arrangements, allegedly more than the number of atoms on earth[/url] so let's extrapolate on this fact and consider that we're allowed more than just unique 2-point connections, so 1-2, 1-2-3, 3-2-1, etc are all considered unique connections. The average brain has 100,000,000,000 neurons, sooooooo that's a LOT of potential connections
I've always wondered about this. If robots take the minimum wage jobs such as those in fast food restaurants and the transport industry, that's just less jobs on the market for people that desperately need money. It's not like charlie and the chocolate factory where you can just get a job fixing the machine.
[QUOTE=dai;49986480]while I think the claim is a bit overzealous, let's humor why that's a feasible concept: say you've got 10 points to link together 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, , 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10 7-8, 7-9, 7-10 8-9, 8-10 9-10 so those 10 points have a total of 45 unique 2-point connections. The higher the number, the bigger the gap is, as 4 points connected only yields 6 unique (50% more links than points) whereas the 10 here is a 450% difference now look at a deck of 52 cards- there are [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNS1QvDzCVw]80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (67 0's) different arrangements, allegedly more than the number of atoms on earth[/url] so let's extrapolate on this fact and consider that we're allowed more than just unique 2-point connections, so 1-2, 1-2-3, 3-2-1, etc are all considered unique connections. The average brain has 100,000,000,000 neurons, sooooooo that's a LOT of potential connections[/QUOTE] Potentiality's a lot different from actual connections between neurons, that, you know, consist of matter, though
[QUOTE=Holt!;49986697]I've always wondered about this. If robots take the minimum wage jobs such as those in fast food restaurants and the transport industry, that's just less jobs on the market for people that desperately need money. It's not like charlie and the chocolate factory where you can just get a job fixing the machine.[/QUOTE] And that's why we need to dispel the notion that one needs to have a job no matter what.
[QUOTE=Holt!;49986697]I've always wondered about this. If robots take the minimum wage jobs such as those in fast food restaurants and the transport industry, that's just less jobs on the market for people that desperately need money. It's not like charlie and the chocolate factory where you can just get a job fixing the machine.[/QUOTE] Ideally, you would transition to a world that Ross mentioned, a world where you get taken care of, since the cost of living becomes cheap through automatisation. A harsh reality might be that corporations see a chance of making more money and fucking over everyone in the process.
[QUOTE=Holt!;49986697]I've always wondered about this. If robots take the minimum wage job such as those in fast food restaurants and the transport industry, that's just less jobs on the market for people that desperately need money. It's not like charlie and the chocolate factory where you can just get a job fixing the machine.[/QUOTE] Which is why society has to (and most likely will) change in order to avoid a whole fuckton of problems. Fast food workers, factory workers, drivers, and other low-end employees will soon be replaced completely, jobs fixing the machines will disappear as well, as they'll be able to maintain themselves/each other. Higher-end jobs will probably follow eventually. But yeah, we have more or less no idea how our own brains work yet, even less so what consciousness or sentience actually are/mean, creating a real artifical sentience is no easy task, and I highly doubt it's something "just beyond our reach". It's important to keep in mind that computer hardware is nothing but a bunch of plastic, silicon and copper, and even if you'd let specialized software run using it that'd able to mimic human behaviour very well, it'd still be no more sentient or actually "intelligent" than the gearbox in your car
[QUOTE=Kaelnukem;49986963]A harsh reality might be that corporations see a chance of making more money and fucking over everyone in the process.[/QUOTE] And then we end up like Deus Ex or Shadowrun.
universal basic income will be a good idea at some point but obviously its not a perfect solution, and will likely just be a stepping stone towards some other kind of society.
[QUOTE=ironman17;49987026]And then we end up like Deus Ex[/QUOTE] We're getting closer every day.
-snip-
Well, to be honest, there is a problem before we even get to the problem: How come the employers see us as Robots already as such, since we can theoretically be replaced by them.
Why would you even want to make artificial sentience though? That just seems dangerous imho
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;49986856]Potentiality's a lot different from actual connections between neurons, that, you know, consist of matter, though[/QUOTE] even in that simple pairs thing, a single connection point added is an addition of ([total points]-1) connections. That compounds astoundingly as we get into higher numbers and can vastly outnumber the amount of atoms comprising the initial points. The connection itself uses existing pathways (yes, made of atoms) that could be traveled many times on the way to other connections, and the actual act of completing a connection uses electrons, not more atoms. Like, I've got over 70,000 miles on my car's odometer, and the important part is it was overwhelmingly performed on a selection of 50-100 miles of roads that I used frequently, even if the destinations were unique in many instances. so let's say a neuron is 10 atoms for math's sake, though it's obviously gigantic by comparison. We have 2 neurons, that's 1 connection. we're at a 1:10 ratio and vastly outnumbered by atoms at this point. now if we go and have 10 neurons, that's 100 atoms, but 45 connections. Nearing 1:2. I'm not gonna math this out and don't know how to complete sequences to just enter it into a calc or whatever, but let's say there's 1,000 neurons now, with 10,000 atoms. If I add a single neuron at this point, that's only an addition of 10 atoms, but it creats 999 more unique 2-point connections. That's a huge gain of connections over atoms and by this point I'm sure we've surpassed connections over atoms
This has been the case for the last few thousand years. New technology comes along that makes a certain set of jobs redundant. The Luddites knew it during the Industrial Revolution. We know it today. People either adapt and find new lines of work, or they go hungry. Without heavy government regulations, there's no stopping it. And should we? The only reason we have science, philosophy, and art, is because certain jobs were made easier through efficiency, or were made redundant. Agriculture enabled more food to be produced for far, far fewer man-hours of work. And when less hours are spent on working to simply survive, more hours can be spent on intellectual pursuits. If the early 20xx industrial revolution is played properly, the decrease in availability of menial jobs would see an increase in the number of STEM jobs, both due to untapped bodies but also through the necessity of having people to design and maintain the robotic workers. There will be a period of shit. There always is when things get turned upside down like this. But I don't think it's the end times.
People like to assume that it's all working class jobs that will get fucked over by this but they're not entirely right, certain jobs like Electricians, Plumbing and Hard/Softscaping can't really be done by robots for the foreseeable future, robot helpers maybe but there will almost always have to be a human involved in those jobs.
I hope I don't live long enough to see this future. I fear I will though.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;49987590]I hope I don't live long enough to see this future. I fear I will though.[/QUOTE] you don't want to be served at Mc Donalds by a waitress with big ol' robot titties and a voice that sounds like a cheap wind-up toy being ground up in a lawnmower? weirdo
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49987733]you don't want to be served at Mc Donalds by a waitress with big ol' robot titties and a voice that sounds like a cheap wind-up toy being ground up in a lawnmower? weirdo[/QUOTE] In what dystopia would I eat at McDonalds? I already don't...
To be fair, there will be a point were even some higher skilled jobs may be replaced to a large degree. There are already alot of stepping stones available in terms of database analysis, simulators, etc that will really give some form of weak AI stuff to work with. Maybe it'll just be higher forms of abstraction. i.e. Electrical engineering, we already have a plethora of simulators that range from simple models of components (SPICE) all the way to full physics simulators (Cadence, etc). Designing low level devices may be abstracted away from the engineer and designed solely by one or several weak AIs in tandem. Leaving the EE only to provide specs and supervise/connect the higher level components. (I.e. Weak AIs design highly optimized logic gates/blocks and the EE arranges/connects them).
[QUOTE=dai;49987297]even in that simple pairs thing, a single connection point added is an addition of ([total points]-1) connections. That compounds astoundingly as we get into higher numbers and can vastly outnumber the amount of atoms comprising the initial points. The connection itself uses existing pathways (made of atoms) that could multiple times by other connections, and the actual act of completing a connection uses electrons, not more atoms. so let's say a neuron is 10 atoms for math's sake, though it's obviously gigantic by comparison. We have 2 neurons, that's 1 connection. we're at a 1:10 ratio and vastly outnumbered by atoms at this point. now if we go and have 10 neurons, that's 100 atoms, but 45 connections. Nearing 1:2. I'm not gonna math this out and don't know how to complete sequences to just enter it into a calc or whatever, but let's say there's 1,000 neurons now, with 10,000 atoms. If I add a single neuron at this point, that's only an addition of 10 atoms, but it creats 999 more unique 2-point connections. That's a huge gain of connections over atoms and by this point I'm sure we've surpassed connections over atoms[/QUOTE] Ahhh, yeah, now I get what you mean. for whatever reason when I read "connection" I thought "Individual conductor". I.E; "There are more conductors inside your head (consisting of atoms) than there are atoms" and I was just '?????????????'
[QUOTE=elowin;49986945]And that's why we need to dispel the notion that one needs to have a job no matter what.[/QUOTE] I'd probably jump of a bridge if I didn't have a job. Sitting around all day for nothing is too much for me.
There's always potential for jobs in mining for metal and/or recycling, since there's a lot of resources that go into making a robot. That said, robots are finite and businesses would need to crunch numbers to decide whether it's more expensive to produce and maintain robots or to keep paying their current employees
[QUOTE=Maloof?;49987317]This has been the case for the last few thousand years. New technology comes along that makes a certain set of jobs redundant. The Luddites knew it during the Industrial Revolution. We know it today. People either adapt and find new lines of work, or they go hungry. Without heavy government regulations, there's no stopping it. And should we? The only reason we have science, philosophy, and art, is because certain jobs were made easier through efficiency, or were made redundant. Agriculture enabled more food to be produced for far, far fewer man-hours of work. And when less hours are spent on working to simply survive, more hours can be spent on intellectual pursuits. If the early 20xx industrial revolution is played properly, the decrease in availability of menial jobs would see an increase in the number of STEM jobs, both due to untapped bodies but also through the necessity of having people to design and maintain the robotic workers. There will be a period of shit. There always is when things get turned upside down like this. But I don't think it's the end times.[/QUOTE] The luddites were right though and its only recently we've seen an increase in need for specialized and hand crafted objects like what the luddities made. Everyone says they're wrong but every line and point they made during their battle against the Industrial Revolution came true. The problem is that Industrialization won and so they were painted as halters of progress because that's the only way we can justify the shit conditions, pay and abuse that workers went through. [editline]23rd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=KommradKommisar;49988940]I'd probably jump of a bridge if I didn't have a job. Sitting around all day for nothing is too much for me.[/QUOTE] Humans in general love to work, create and tinker. Its why we've come this far, this idea that someohow humans are lazy is bogus and is only going to further piss people off who already would love to create and tinker but can't because of money.
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;49988940]I'd probably jump of a bridge if I didn't have a job. Sitting around all day for nothing is too much for me.[/QUOTE] I mean under universal income, you don't have to sit around all day and do nothing. You could easily do charity work, or find some projects of your own to work on and that's assuming you can't get any of the remaining jobs.
[QUOTE=Rufia;49989100]I mean under universal income, you don't have to sit around all day and do nothing. You could easily do charity work, or find some projects of your own to work on and that's assuming you can't get any of the remaining jobs.[/QUOTE] And who would he perform this work for?
[QUOTE=Swilly;49989106]And who would he perform this work for?[/QUOTE] Robots still cost resources, they just cost less. Assuming he's not interested in pay, there are still going to be plenty of people who would welcome his services and that's not even considering the numerous tasks that would be too specialised or niche for robots to perform, at least initially. I mean I can't go into specifics without knowing the specifics of his job or interests, but having a workforce of machines performing menial tasks doesn't just mean that there is suddenly going to be nothing left to do with yourself.
At this point, the future in regards to automation terrifies me. Even if we were to institute ideas such as a basic income, wouldn't that just increase the cost of goods anyways, outstripping the basic income somewhat? Not to mention the fact that with current stranglehold that the rich and powerful have on politics and the way businesses are run, it would be hard to even institute these basic reforms. What amazes me is still the upper classes' insistence that they must have the majority of the money, considering that the only way for capitalism to truly work is for the circulation of currency. The storage of vast quantities of wealth is doing nothing but hurting the economy. If it weren't for this, all of our problems would be solved instantly, but they just don't seem to realize it. There's a lot of really bad shit to come in the future on our current path.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.