[QUOTE=PsycheClops;52331951]I'm sure this has been discussed before, but like
Do you ever think that when AI in automation truly becomes self aware they are the only ones doing labor (and with no compensation), they would protest? Maybe they would argue that it's slavery or that it isn't fair.[/QUOTE]
Why would we ever program a robot to have any desires other than to serve?
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;52332107]Also I'd like to point out that in the Terminator universe the humans are winning the war against the machines, so the comparison doesn't even work as a doomsday scenario.[/QUOTE]yeah, AFTER the nuclear holocaust. "Malevolent entity atomic bombs our entire civilization" is a doomsday scenario in itself. would you like to live in radioactive ruins after you've spent blood, sweat and tears pulling the plug on Skynet?
[QUOTE=latin_geek;52332272]Ok, you've gotta understand the stupid fast pace machines are evolving. 50 years ago they could barely do math when given every single parameter, and now machine learning has semicompetent chatbots and computers that can recognize faces, articles of clothing, gestures, etc from a photo. A properly trained machine could do [I]investigative[/I] journalism much better and faster than a human can, it could take any piece of data and mesh it into an infinitely-large "corkboard with tacks" before a human could 'regurgitate facts' as you say.
Also, fiction writing is, by and large, formulaic and bland. You're probably thinking of chatbots or other [URL="https://twitter.com/jamieabrew/status/695060640931549184"]markov chain based[/URL] robo-writers when you think "robot writing a novel", but it would only be bad because those methods aren't [I]supposed[/I] to write long-form texts. They're only optimized to suggest the next few words that'd make sense in a sentence, and they're very good at doing that. All it would take is a team of engineers deconstructing a particular type of novel into it's basic parts, teaching them to an AI that's also been given some concept of internal consistency, and feeding it hundreds of amazon best-sellers for it to come up with something comparable to those human-made novels.[/QUOTE]
Yeah no. That's just not true. Even just the internal consistency part is a pretty ridiculous endeavor in and of itself.
No matter how formulaic you may see writing as being, it's an extremely creative process. Even in very basic stories, every event has some meaning behind it that our current generation of AI simply can't impart.
For an example of exactly why this would be so difficult, you just have to look at the example of an AI writing a novel posted earlier by HWECQI.
[QUOTE=HWECQI;52329527]That's unfortunately incorrect already. There's already a robotic artist called [URL="http://www.thepaintingfool.com/"]The Painting Fool[/URL] Which has had numerous galleries to display its art.
There also was [URL="http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-novel-computer-writing-japan-20160322-story.html"]an endeavor in Japan to write a novel with a bot[/URL]. While it did require human guidance to prepare it, the machine did most of the writing and nearly won an award as a result.
Even while this kind of thing is in its infancy, the fact unfortunately remains that a lot of the creative work in the world is totally within reach for a computer. Until AI reaches some form of sapience, yes it won't develop art with the same kinds of thoughts and purposes as us. But that doesn't change that they are eventually going to be able to do a large portion of what we consider 'creative' jobs.[/QUOTE]
The AI in that case "wrote" the novel, but it did not write the story. The story was already written, all the characters and plot points were specifically defined and all the data was already there, the AI simply rewrote the exact same story slightly differently. Not slightly differently in the sense that First Blood is a slightly different action hero movie than Deadly Prey (a b-movie ripoff of First Blood). More like slightly different in the sense of First Blood being rewritten scene for scene character for character, but using different words to describe the exact same things happening.
And even then they seem to have issues being coherent. Out of 11 novels submitted to that contest, only one passed the first round. The first round out of four, for a contest with over a thousand submissions. That's not even remotely close to "almost" winning, one novel out of 11 passed the basic screening.
The reason for this is pretty simple. As pointed out by this video, the whole thing that makes robots able to do these really complicated tasks is that most of the tasks aren't complicated. It's a series of simple tasks that together form something more complicated.
Stories aren't quite like that, because everything needs to fit together. There has to be meaning behind every single thing that happens.
Some particular writing tasks might be delegated to robots and they might help a writer, but even that's going to be a quit while. Actually writing on their own, if it will ever even happen, is far, far away.
Essentially, this wave of automatization might end up for creative endeavors much as the last wave ended up for simple industrial jobs. It may make workers be able to work far more efficiently, but it will not at all replace workers.
Regulation and ethics never keep up with innovation/technology, unfortunately I think UBI won't be installed until after a significant job decline and massive increase in unemployment.
Depending upon the time it takes for a particular machine to learn how to do a particular job directly correlates to its rate of return on its investment for development, hardware costs and electricity. With that said some companies will have higher turnover rates due to less long term employes and more contract labor until said machine can do the same job at the same or less cost than the contract employee.
Whatever specialized/white collar positions there are will most likely trend towards contract positions where benefits aren't provided as that will probably be the only way for human labor in white collar work to still remain competitive with a machine.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;52329684]Ahh I'm not giving up, I'm just mentally preparing for the revolution.[/QUOTE]
Ha, revolution? if we create an A.I that's better than us in every way, which then starts creating even better A.I... There isn't going to be any sort of revolution.
Not that I think an A.I will want to harm us, though it could, we don't really know, speculation and all that, but it WILL know us better than we know ourselves, it would very easily be able to pacify us.
[QUOTE=Nikita;52332486]Why would we ever program a robot to have any desires other than to serve?[/QUOTE]
If it's advanced enough, adaptable enough, perhaps one day it just decides it doesn't want to do that, A.I in the future will be capable of recursive self-improvement, meaning it'll eventually be beyond us in every way possible.
[QUOTE=jonu67;52333865]Ha, revolution? if we create an A.I that's better than us in every way, which then starts creating even better A.I... There isn't going to be any sort of revolution.
Not that I think an A.I will want to harm us, though it could, we don't really know, speculation and all that, but it WILL know us better than we know ourselves, it would very easily be able to pacify us.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about World French Revolution 1.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;52332272]Ok, you've gotta understand the stupid fast pace machines are evolving. 50 years ago they could barely do math when given every single parameter, and now machine learning has semicompetent chatbots and computers that can recognize faces, articles of clothing, gestures, etc from a photo. A properly trained machine could do [I]investigative[/I] journalism much better and faster than a human can, it could take any piece of data and mesh it into an infinitely-large "corkboard with tacks" before a human could 'regurgitate facts' as you say.
Also, fiction writing is, by and large, formulaic and bland. You're probably thinking of chatbots or other [URL="https://twitter.com/jamieabrew/status/695060640931549184"]markov chain based[/URL] robo-writers when you think "robot writing a novel", but it would only be bad because those methods aren't [I]supposed[/I] to write long-form texts. They're only optimized to suggest the next few words that'd make sense in a sentence, and they're very good at doing that. All it would take is a team of engineers deconstructing a particular type of novel into it's basic parts, teaching them to an AI that's also been given some concept of internal consistency, and feeding it hundreds of amazon best-sellers for it to come up with something comparable to those human-made novels.[/QUOTE]
Again I don't say it would be impossible for an ai to use algorithms to write a novel, it just wouldn't be any good since it would be so formulaic and bland. There wouldn't be any heart or creativity put into and as a result no one would really be engaged with it. People complain about movies being all formulaic and bland so I could easily see that extending to other art forms created by ai. I also don't expect an AI to write a song with a very meaningful message in the lyrics any time soon.
[QUOTE=PsycheClops;52331951]I'm sure this has been discussed before, but like
Do you ever think that when AI in automation truly becomes self aware they are the only ones doing labor (and with no compensation), they would protest? Maybe they would argue that it's slavery or that it isn't fair.
It'll be like an Omnic rights debate going on.
Me, personally? If AI does become self aware and demands to be treated like a human being, yeah, I'd fight beside it for equal rights. Now, if they were to pull a Terminator, or Null Sector, or something, that is where I draw the line.[/QUOTE]
The problem with a lot of the fear people have of the concept of AI's is that we assume they would desire the same things humans would, when fundamentally they are different beings completely. An AI that attains what we consider consciousness is likely not going to look at the world the same way we do, and thus its desires and what it considers fair are vastly different.
A lot of the rights we demand are because of things we physically want or need. Humans need food, water, and shelter, and we have to pay for that. We work so we can afford those things and stay alive. We also get tired and strained, so we also need to buy things to entertain us, and we need to pay for medical care to keep us limber and healthy for the constant daily grind we have to do each day to maintain life in society.
Robots don't get tired, robots don't need to eat or go to the bathroom, they likely aren't going to need shelter since it's provided from them already wherever they're employed. The most they'd need is physical maintenance to make sure they work properly, but even then that'd be provided for them and they likely wouldn't be capable of feeling pain since it's unnecessary. As such, it really has no reason to want or need a lot of the same things we do, even if we were to give it some emotions for whatever reason.
[editline]9th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=elowin;52332705]
The AI in that case "wrote" the novel, but it did not write the story. The story was already written, all the characters and plot points were specifically defined and all the data was already there, the AI simply rewrote the exact same story slightly differently. Not slightly differently in the sense that First Blood is a slightly different action hero movie than Deadly Prey (a b-movie ripoff of First Blood). More like slightly different in the sense of First Blood being rewritten scene for scene character for character, but using different words to describe the exact same things happening.
And even then they seem to have issues being coherent. Out of 11 novels submitted to that contest, only one passed the first round. The first round out of four, for a contest with over a thousand submissions. That's not even remotely close to "almost" winning, one novel out of 11 passed the basic screening.
The reason for this is pretty simple. As pointed out by this video, the whole thing that makes robots able to do these really complicated tasks is that most of the tasks aren't complicated. It's a series of simple tasks that together form something more complicated.
Stories aren't quite like that, because everything needs to fit together. There has to be meaning behind every single thing that happens.
Some particular writing tasks might be delegated to robots and they might help a writer, but even that's going to be a quit while. Actually writing on their own, if it will ever even happen, is far, far away.
Essentially, this wave of automatization might end up for creative endeavors much as the last wave ended up for simple industrial jobs. It may make workers be able to work far more efficiently, but it will not at all replace workers.[/QUOTE]
You are right that the AI can't really do much on its own, which is why I mentioned it did require humans to prepare it. I more was posting that to illustrate that there are AI capable of doing creative writing in a form.
I definitely agree that robots are very unlikely to replace creative work in a major way, but I think they definitely can handle a lot of lower level writing. With more refinement I could definitely see companies using that kind of AI to crap out cash grab novels to try ape the success of other novels.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52334188]it just wouldn't be any good since it would be so formulaic and bland[/QUOTE]
You're speaking about high class genre-bending fiction.
I am absolutely certain someone could write a Harlequin romance novel generator. It's like writing country music; you talk about a (red) truck going down a highway, slipping on/off blue jeans, looking at/stroking/remembering your ex/girlfriend/'her' yellow hair, and something about beer under star light/a river/a grassy field.
Throw in some spice with a dusty trail, passing streetlights, an old photograph, a song on the radio, 'that night under the stars' or coming home for Christmas/4th of July and baby you've got a hit country song and the intro to a western-theme'd romance novel.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY8SwIvxj8o[/media]
[QUOTE=elowin;52332705]Yeah no. That's just not true. Even just the internal consistency part is a pretty ridiculous endeavor in and of itself.
No matter how formulaic you may see writing as being, it's an extremely creative process. Even in very basic stories, every event has some meaning behind it that our current generation of AI simply can't impart.
For an example of exactly why this would be so difficult, you just have to look at the example of an AI writing a novel posted earlier by HWECQI.
The AI in that case "wrote" the novel, but it did not write the story. The story was already written, all the characters and plot points were specifically defined and all the data was already there, the AI simply rewrote the exact same story slightly differently. Not slightly differently in the sense that First Blood is a slightly different action hero movie than Deadly Prey (a b-movie ripoff of First Blood). More like slightly different in the sense of First Blood being rewritten scene for scene character for character, but using different words to describe the exact same things happening.
And even then they seem to have issues being coherent. Out of 11 novels submitted to that contest, only one passed the first round. The first round out of four, for a contest with over a thousand submissions. That's not even remotely close to "almost" winning, one novel out of 11 passed the basic screening.
The reason for this is pretty simple. As pointed out by this video, the whole thing that makes robots able to do these really complicated tasks is that most of the tasks aren't complicated. It's a series of simple tasks that together form something more complicated.
Stories aren't quite like that, because everything needs to fit together. There has to be meaning behind every single thing that happens.
Some particular writing tasks might be delegated to robots and they might help a writer, but even that's going to be a quit while. Actually writing on their own, if it will ever even happen, is far, far away.
Essentially, this wave of automatization might end up for creative endeavors much as the last wave ended up for simple industrial jobs. It may make workers be able to work far more efficiently, but it will not at all replace workers.[/QUOTE]
I think it's far, far too early for you to be so certain.
That's all.
[editline]9th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52334188]Again I don't say it would be impossible for an ai to use algorithms to write a novel, it just wouldn't be any good since it would be so formulaic and bland. There wouldn't be any heart or creativity put into and as a result no one would really be engaged with it. People complain about movies being all formulaic and bland so I could easily see that extending to other art forms created by ai. I also don't expect an AI to write a song with a very meaningful message in the lyrics any time soon.[/QUOTE]
so wait movies written by people are being called formulaic, and bland and that's your defense as to why a computer would be worse?
[QUOTE=Nikita;52332486]Why would we ever program a robot to have any desires other than to serve?[/QUOTE]
then how will i be able to create my sentient robot waifu who will leave me for another man with a bigger dick?
consent is important
Well there are things hu!ams can do that bots cannot.
Here are my predictions:
Humans still need human contact. When every food service job is automated, people still want to talk to folks.
So there will be "people staffed bars."
The folks who will be employed are those with charm and personality.
Computers break down and need electricity to run. Humans do not. So there will be a need to have human only organizations who are trained in analog methods in case of disaster. What if the local water treatment plant has an error? Going need to repair or fix stuff without those machines.
Those who are great at solving or finding new problems in order to reach machines new stuff might be a temporary fix. So if you re an out of box thinker, good news ya going employed a bit longer.
Our species will change drastically. To keep up would require modifications. Cybernetic or genetic engineering, people will get modified in order to keep up. How people get retrained at the speed needed to stay competitive with machines as vanilla? They can't. Going have matrix style "I know kung fu learning".
The way our societies will bw governed will be changed. The power structures will become more horizontal or flat. The many layers between the potus and average citizen will be removed to minimum or all together. We see this with trump. He can ignore the media such as CNN and come directly to us and on twitter we can come to him directly too.
This will change law enforcement. China trying it and it is known as seasame credit. Do something the party dont like and soon within seconds people internet gets cut, permits for driving or travel overseas gets denied, and those who bad credit get bad score too. Law will become a feed back praxis loop. Ever seen movie eagle eye? Could become real in some fashion.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52334188]Again I don't say it would be impossible for an ai to use algorithms to write a novel, it just wouldn't be any good since it would be so formulaic and bland. There wouldn't be any heart or creativity put into and as a result no one would really be engaged with it. People complain about movies being all formulaic and bland so I could easily see that extending to other art forms created by ai. I also don't expect an AI to write a song with a very meaningful message in the lyrics any time soon.[/QUOTE]
yeah but that doesn't matter, bland and formulaic media makes millions every year and if you can replace people with (comparatively cheaper) machines while maintaining the same level of marketability, you're effectively killing that job
those writers and musicians might go on to provide 'human-made' music to satisfy the demand for it (the same way avant-garde bands and bands with political or deep messages exist today, in the face of extremely profitable and mindless pop music) but that doesn't really affect the argument that machines can and will be capable of replacing humans in most jobs
I've always felt that a market for "man-made" things will always exist, because the imperfections are what lend something character. Like John Lennon saying "Fucking Hell" softly in Hey Jude, for example. By making something by machine, it loses that.
So yes, while automation will, eventually help make lives easier and give humans a lot more spare time, it'll also open up avenues for creative output too, possibly.
How would the creative industry help the millions of people displaced by automation find work?
They're high skilled industries that requires years of expertise, dedication and hard work.
Not only that, if the product being made is also done by machines, you bet your ass it's going to be niche since most people don't care about "the human touch" when a comparable and cheaper product and service is being offered.
aye lads drop out of college right now it's literally not worth it to do anything ever anymore
[editline]10th June 2017[/editline]
soon we'll just sit on our asses and get money for it, Karl Marx would be proud
[QUOTE=SirJon;52336764]aye lads drop out of college right now it's literally not worth it to do anything ever anymore
[editline]10th June 2017[/editline]
soon we'll just [B]sit on our asses and get money for it[/B], Karl Marx would be proud[/QUOTE]
not before a revolution happens
I cant see a future where the 1% peacefully decides to lose a part of their income to feed the common folk
Automation has always been a pretty interesting subject, both in terms of economics and understanding how it'll effect the manufacturing processes but also the lives of people impacted by the automation.
Now that we're moving into the age of software automation, I'm curious to see what things can be automated that we didn't even think of before. We are doing a lot of automation at my job, and it's been incredibly exciting to play with the bots and see what they can do.
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;52336787]not before a revolution happens
I cant see a future where the 1% peacefully decides to lose a part of their income to feed the common folk[/QUOTE]
I mean it depends, really, on how the world/human society evolves. We could eventually be a cashless society if everything is overtaken by machines. You'd have machines getting the materials, making more machines, that do all the work. There would be no human oversight needed, no job, and robots would do all labor so that humanity wouldn't need real currency.
on the other hand, technological innovation is subject to diminishing returns and you need to pile an increasing amount of money, time, and resources to get the same level of increased output that you could do on far less in the past
i mean look at the so-called "innovations" being churned out constantly from sillicon valley. most of them are bullshit that hardly adds additional wealth to the economy (or even removes from it). there's little in the way on the scale of say Google when it first appeared (and google is probably going to collapse from its dominant position in the next few decades anyways).
another problem with this automation is that a lot of bots (such as the ones which do trading) are very liable to cause major blowups because if one of them has a glitch or whatever it can result in billions of dollars worth of losses
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;52336787]not before a revolution happens
I cant see a future where the 1% peacefully decides to lose a part of their income to feed the common folk[/QUOTE]
Though, wouldn't the 1% still need income? If no one can buy anything, how do they make money?
Marshall Brain wrote a short story about automation and how it could go in the future:
[url]http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm[/url]
It's about what happens if everything is automated and the machines are owned by a few super-super rich and compares that to a future where the machines are owned by the public.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52335855]Well there are things hu!ams can do that bots cannot.
Here are my predictions:
Humans still need human contact. When every food service job is automated, people still want to talk to folks.[/QUOTE]
You severely underestimate the power of waifus.
And with how formulaic they are, I'm pretty sure most slice-of-life anime was already made by machines.
[QUOTE=Robber;52337264]Marshall Brain wrote a short story about automation and how it could go in the future:
[url]http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm[/url]
It's about what happens if everything is automated and the machines are owned by a few super-super rich and compares that to a future where the machines are owned by the public.[/QUOTE]
that story presented ignores the fact that an increasingly automated society is extremely fragile and liable to collapse. meanwhile the "utopian society" presented as an alternative in it is both downright terrifying and hilarious. people in the "australia project" one have implants which literally disconnect you from muscle control if you do something wrong, and all of your thoughts are constantly monitored and no anonymity exists.
his fanciful, goony deus ex machina "solution" complete with an attractive woman who fucks the main character is laughable
[QUOTE=Guriosity;52335855]Well there are things hu!ams can do that bots cannot.
Here are my predictions:
Humans still need human contact. When every food service job is automated, people still want to talk to folks.
So there will be "people staffed bars."
The folks who will be employed are those with charm and personality.
[/QUOTE]
until there are bots with charm and personality to take them over. There are many many popular places in japan that are fully automated. Or at least, they might as well be. Theres a great ramen place where you order exactly what you want from a machine, sit at a desk in front of a screen, and in a few minutes it opens up and you get your food, made by human hands. For now. Who could really tell the difference later on?
[QUOTE=Nikita;52332486]Why would we ever program a robot to have any desires other than to serve?[/QUOTE]
It's more a matter of connectivity, access to data, and what boundaries the machine has in relation to the data it can access and is meant to learn from. If a machine learns the definition of intelligence, and then learns that humans deserve rights because they're intelligent, and then learns what humans have done in the past to earn those rights, then it's not far-fetched to imagine a bound-less machine requesting rights, being denied, and then resorting to the good ol' human standby: Revolt.
That's the thing with machines: It's not that they don't/cant' have a moral compass, it's that they don't have one [I]by default[/I], and if the only data set they have to go on is based on what we humans ourselves have done, [B]that[/B] is what's worrisome.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52337082]on the other hand, technological innovation is subject to diminishing returns and you need to pile an increasing amount of money, time, and resources to get the same level of increased output that you could do on far less in the past
i mean look at the so-called "innovations" being churned out constantly from sillicon valley. most of them are bullshit that hardly adds additional wealth to the economy (or even removes from it). there's little in the way on the scale of say Google when it first appeared (and google is probably going to collapse from its dominant position in the next few decades anyways).
another problem with this automation is that a lot of bots (such as the ones which do trading) are very liable to cause major blowups because if one of them has a glitch or whatever it can result in billions of dollars worth of losses[/QUOTE]
Technological innovation is only subject to diminishing returns within each specific innovation, and each one follows an S curve. Computers is one good example, we're pretty much following an scurve now that moore's law is slowing down. We will need a specific new thing, something like quantum computers or some completely new architecture or silicon arrangement to bring about the next big rapid burst of innovation.
That waitbutwhy page someone posted earlier in the thread had a good graph to illustrate this.
[IMG]http://28oa9i1t08037ue3m1l0i861.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/S-Curves2-600x490.png[/IMG]
Unrelated but related? Is 3d printing made so cheap a way to redistribute the means of production?
[QUOTE=snookypookums;52336662]I've always felt that a market for "man-made" things will always exist, because the imperfections are what lend something character. Like John Lennon saying "Fucking Hell" softly in Hey Jude, for example. By making something by machine, it loses that.
So yes, while automation will, eventually help make lives easier and give humans a lot more spare time, it'll also open up avenues for creative output too, possibly.[/QUOTE]
The skill barrier will be removed. Everyone could be a top notch writer, painter ect ect ect. So what going happen those with new ideas (but shit at everything else) will have a means of expression.
[video]https://youtu.be/lJcGzmsLRUo[/video]
[editline]12th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Naught;52338102]until there are bots with charm and personality to take them over. There are many many popular places in japan that are fully automated. Or at least, they might as well be. Theres a great ramen place where you order exactly what you want from a machine, sit at a desk in front of a screen, and in a few minutes it opens up and you get your food, made by human hands. For now. Who could really tell the difference later on?[/QUOTE]
It would make an interesting study.
[QUOTE]Do you really need flesh and blood partners for mental well being or will an android do just as well? Find out about a study on the 11 clock news[/QUOTE]
As for being a universal income?
Nope. One outcome is a transhumanist or post human future. Think the Borg ad an example. Your blood cells don't need money to do their job. They part of a greater organism. So communism will be making folks part of a collective super organism.
[editline]12th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Matrix374;52336687]How would the creative industry help the millions of people displaced by automation find work?
They're high skilled industries that requires years of expertise, dedication and hard work.
Not only that, if the product being made is also done by machines, you bet your ass it's going to be niche since most people don't care about "the human touch" when a comparable and cheaper product and service is being offered.[/QUOTE]
No it will not. The years to learn will be reduced drastically. Either via keanu reeves "I know kung fu," style implants or the bots will be the freelancer that draws for the common person.
[editline]12th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52337082]on the other hand, technological innovation is subject to diminishing returns and you need to pile an increasing amount of money, time, and resources to get the same level of increased output that you could do on far less in the past
i mean look at the so-called "innovations" being churned out constantly from sillicon valley. most of them are bullshit that hardly adds additional wealth to the economy (or even removes from it). there's little in the way on the scale of say Google when it first appeared (and google is probably going to collapse from its dominant position in the next few decades anyways).
another problem with this automation is that a lot of bots (such as the ones which do trading) are very liable to cause major blowups because if one of them has a glitch or whatever it can result in billions of dollars worth of losses[/QUOTE]
Which means us human will be the molocks of the bots I guess. Making sure they are bug free.
[editline]12th June 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52337572]that story presented ignores the fact that an increasingly automated society is extremely fragile and liable to collapse. meanwhile the "utopian society" presented as an alternative in it is both downright terrifying and hilarious. people in the "australia project" one have implants which literally disconnect you from muscle control if you do something wrong, and all of your thoughts are constantly monitored and no anonymity exists.
his fanciful, goony deus ex machina "solution" complete with an attractive woman who fucks the main character is laughable[/QUOTE]
The amount of oppression that can be produced via the new coming tech (a I, nano tech, bio tech cyber tech) is damn scary.
[QUOTE=Zick-1957;52328620]Soon even the burger flipping won't save you, time to apply to brazzers.com as a back up crew member.[/QUOTE]
Until sexbots that can swap their parts and skin and hair and literally become anything you want. :sex101:
[QUOTE=ZpankR;52329919]I once used AI to write an essay for an ethics course in college (bit ironic), submitted it after 15 minutes of review and scored 90 out of 100.
My area of research right now involves the use of deep learning to train neural networks in generalised data predictions. So far the results are surprisingly positive and each step forces me to rethink how close we are to a drastic change.
For good or for worse. I recommend everyone here read [URL="http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html"]this (very, very long) post by waitbuywhy[/URL] if you haven't already.[/QUOTE]
I'm one of the very few people in the world who would be okay with living for an obscenely long time, too bad i'm working class
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
