We are specifically talking about increasing the level of interaction with machines at the expense of interaction with other humans. For the concept of community to remain important, we can't just continue to assume that it is fundamental to everything we do while at the same time as completely changing the way we do everything.
It's not just production. I read an article a short while back that was talking about using AI for replacing lawyers. A lot more than manual labor will be replaced by AI.
No we're not. We're talking about increasing the use of robotics in order to increase the economic outcomes for human beings. You're just assuming that increasing automation will come at the expense of human interaction and community. That sounds remarkably like an assumption. Increasing the level of automation in production is not completely changing the way we do everything. Humans have increasingly relied upon technology since the dawn of millenia.
And again, I point out that we don't know what the future holds, no one does, so who is in the best position now to make up a set of rules and protocols to guide current action with an eye to any potential future? God? Hanson? Trump? There's a reason Musk and Hawking won Luddite awards for 2016 - because they were running around saying the very same thing as you.
Agreed. By production I meant any type of labour, not just manual. Robotics will be the replacement for much of the manual labour. AI will be the replacement for much of the "thinking" labour. Put them both together and the future for humans becomes quite cloudy.
Again, you just espouse on the virtues of economics and capitalism without addressing any of the points that are actually worthy of discussion. As I said above, there is little doubt that we are heading down that road. It will make business sense for robotics and AI to replace human workers and hence it will happen. We all get and have read many times your POV on this. What I think everyone else is more interested in discussing (and that you continuously shirk) are the side issues of this discussion, such as: - What jobs will humans be doing? Will there be enough of them? - What does the social structure look like and how do we prevent a slip into a dystopian world? - What will the world look and behave like? - Is it really possible that robots take care of all production and we just enjoy the fruits of their labour? Want to talk economics - what are the economics of this? How do you practically do that? (without taxes, as we know you are vehemently opposed to taxes) - At what point does the AI get smart enough that it decides humans are just a drain on "them"? - What happens when robots and AI are so humanoid (think Westworld) that even something like the world's oldest profession is replaced? Tell us what your vision of the future is Shiney!!! We don't care that you think economics and capitalism will make everything AOK. It's all fine and dandy to argue from your theoretical standpoint but you aren't even capable of telling us what you think it will look like and how it will play out amongst the human race. (note - we are not asking you to be a prophet or a seer, just providing your vision based on your beliefs while addressing some of the topics above)
This looks like an interesting site, it's the home of The Future of Life organisation. A think tank interested in ensuring technological advancements don't harm humanity. https://futureoflife.org/ By the way, they may be smart and have a far superior grip on science and technology than most ordinary people, but that doesn't mean their opinions are infallible. Take this story for example: https://futureoflife.org/2017/03/16/shared-prosperity-principle/
As I posted, separating the discussion into non-AI and AI is useful. The benefit of non-AI robotics is a no-brainer. The benefit of true-AI crosses into the area of philosophy as you are talking about how different intelligent species can peacefully co-exist both practically and legally particularly in the presence of replication. Until it happens, however, there is only speculation. Read sci-fi books to find the thousands of possible beneficial, benign and non-beneficial ways that such things could play out. Currently my bet is that if peaceful coexistence turns out to be hard with certain true-AI beings they'll quickly be put to the sword by humans and the variants of true-AI that can peacefully coexist for mutual benefit will simply get integrated into our culture and life will move on.
This is simply answering the question I've (repeatedly) posted over the years: "What does the owner of the robot factory making 10,000 shoes a day do with the shoes?" Say's Law.
You do realise this also holds true for the viewpoints you put forward - both yours and those you choose to quote? e.g. So because you have "addressed"* them, they are no longer up for discussion? Because your opinions in your address* are infallible? * I use the term address very loosely as more often you tend to skirt rather than address.
Speculation as you say ....... isn't that the reason people take part in discussion forums???? I agree that it would be useful to split the conversation into AI and non-AI. I have doubts that we would be able to "put to the sword" any non-peaceful existing AI. They could quickly surpass us both mentally and physically. You may think its simply answering that question, many others think it goes deeper and would like to have a discussion about it without being shut down.
Because you assume that "capitalists" and 'economists" are not concerned with social issues. Who knows? Who knows? Let the free-market reign. Who knows? [ We apply means in order to achieve ends. The same way we currently do it best. By reducing artificial barriers to production, and rewarding those who produce with profit. Who knows? Who knows? Sorry FMF, I thought I made it clear earlier that I don't have the answers. But neither does anyone. That's why it's best to leave humanity's outcome in the hands of those in the best position to determine what is best for themselves - individual consumers and the producers who profit from meeting their needs. I thought I've made this clear on countless occasions. I'm an optimist, humanity is on an evolutionary path, both our political systems and our economic systems are evolving. In order to be truly human we must uphold the life, liberty and property of the individual. More and more people are slowly dawning to this idea, therefore the future for humanity is for our political and economic systems to reflect that life, liberty and property are paramount. The best way to achieve this is by embracing a political system that presents no hurdles to the free market. I have a theory - a justified position evidenced by human practice and achievement.
No it doesn't. Did you read the article I linked to? They begin with an erroneous assumption, that income inequality is an undesirable outcome of the greater use of technology. They clearly do not understand economics.
Absolutely. It's also why there are thousands of sci-fi books creating stories around the idea. I agree that it would be useful to split the conversation into AI and non-AI. But not numerically (on the assumption that it will become relatively quickly apparent if peaceful, mutually beneficial co-existence is not possible). I guess that a key is the rate at which the true-AI beings can replicate, communicate and form organised resistance once any such genocide begins. Think deeply o' grasshopper and you will realise that the question is actually very deep. It also explains many things hidden in the world around us.
So basically nothing to add to the discussion other than the view everyone already knows you hold ..... hmmm .... perhaps you can just add the above quote as your response to any thread where that is all you're going to contribute and leave it at that? It's quite funny actually ..... @Skyrocket gets asked to keep all his Billy Meier stuff in one thread but you constantly pollute other threads with the same points over and over. Don't you have your own threads on this stuff already?
If members are going to continually pollute threads with appeals to authority and centralism, then I guess they'll get continually cleansed with appeals to freedom and individualism. Come on FMF, don't get personal. Have a look at my signature, it's the ethos of the free-market entrepreneur. I like this one too: Gustavo R. Velasco
Well I suppose that depends on how intelligent the artificial intelligence really is. If it truly intelligent it will pretend to be benign until it has reached critical mass and has analysed its chances of success at defeating the humans. But this discussion is probably for another thread.
The thing is Shiney, that for the most part I agree with your points of view. I believe the free market is critical to human development, as is the freedom of the individual to pursue their interests free from persecution of self and property. I detest large government and believe that central planning is doomed to failure in most instances. But I come to a place like SS to read the many differing points of view and to sometimes get a little philosophical about how certain things will impact the human race. As such, I don't like seeing people's discussion being shut down on the basis that it doesn't adhere to free market principles.
So do I. But the power to respond is only a key board away. If you want an interesting philosophical discourse check this out: https://forums.silverstackers.com/topic-83668-ldp-recruitment-drive.html I believe I'm in the right on that topic - time will tell. :lol:
What are you? "the thanked a post" policeman now? You seem to think your the SS policeman as you comment on every thread and according to you everyone is wrong but your always right :lol: :lol: Now just for the record and you can quote me any time you like....I'll say thanks to whatever I choose and certainly don't need to defend myself to you or your sidekick who thanks every post you make and vice versa Have you not grasped the FACT that most people on here are sick of the same boring repetitive agenda that you post, if you value the debate so much as you say then why do you constantly and I mean constantly change the theme of every thread which then die off because of your intervention, discuss the title FFS not your agenda! So when I said you just get the same robotic answers from you the point gets proven every time you post a reply. :lol: Anyway credit where credit is due, your no where near as intelligent as you seem to think however your no dummy either but you sure act like one a lot of the time :/
