Robots Will Take Your Job

[Phi for All]

As to Phi's claim that opponents of the AGW hypothesis are "the best when it comes to fear", I beg to differ. In general such persons tend to take the view that there is no cause for alarm and/or that whatever changes in climate may lay in wait, human ingenuity will enable us to cope adequately.

 

AGW proponents, on the other hand, tend to claim that doom lurks somewhere in the immediate future, or the shadowy past, perhaps, and that only drastic measures will possibly ameliorate utter catastrophe. Repent, repent, etc.

No cause for alarm, or no cause to upset the profit infrastructure prematurely? That's where their fear lies, so they spend a lot of that money getting people with opinions just like yours to post on discussion forums, to sew fear and doubt about new technologies and costs and taxes and unemployment and immigration and abortion and robots and terrorism and regulations and Communism and welfare and Socialism.

 

And the anti-AGW folks aren't just saying there's nothing to worry about. They're misrepresenting the solutions, making people afraid of doing something now about a problem pretty much the whole planet agrees is getting worse.

 

I understand that they are reaching out to fundamentalist Christian sects to explore common strategies, correct me, if I am wrong. And please pardon the digression, all.

Unfortunately, they found the corporate conservatives had beaten them to it. It's my understanding that the anti-AGW lobby has a firm contract with the fundies and a non-compete clause. That's OK, fear is your weapon, not mine. You stick with the heart on this one, and I'll use my mind.

[swansont]

The topic is the superiority of robots vs humans. Arguably, the superior quality control possible with robots vs the haphazard nature of human talents and irrational distribution of resources is a point in favor of robots, hence, relevant.

.

And the post had nothing to do with that topic, hence its irrelevance.

 

Robots have no advantage doing things that exceed their capabilities

[Strange]

Proverbially, "time is money".

 

So, as usual, no supporting evidence.

 

Does it take decades to program any robot?

 

"In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it."

http://xkcd.com/1425/

 

Contrast this with the education of human larvae and draw your own conclusions.

 

Before they can talk or walk, children can manage tasks that are still impossible for computers and robots

 

[swansont]

Before they can talk or walk, children can manage tasks that are still impossible for computers and robots

 

And not long after they can walk, they can manage something that robots don't do as well.

[iNow]

It's unfortunate how the OP has managed (or, more apropos, mismanaged) this topic, as it really is quite interesting and important.

 

Yes, jobs will be lost due to automation. New jobs will also be created and gained as robots improve productivity and increase output efficiently. None of this should lead to the absurd conclusion that humans are obsolete now or that they will be any time in the coming decades.

 

The true meat of this discussion is what we do to better plan for it and ensure all gains don't remain focused in the hands of a very few. Do we let only owners and the wealthy have access to these advancements or do we take steps to ensure access for all? Do we prioritize isolated profits or do we prioritize expansive social gain? Can we update our educational system in such a way that our children are better prepared for this modern age, or will we continue training them to be cobblers, blacksmiths, or any of the other jobs long ago creatively destructed like milk deliverer and video rental clerk?

 

There is an interesting discussion to be had here, but alas... Our OP is content to trollishly rake muck, call us all irrelevant, and ignore outright the copious counter examples and refutations provided.

 

For those interested, here's another nice article from MIT Review published today that explores the nuanced points more respectfully. It's the 3rd in a series (the other 2 of which are linked within): http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/538401/who-will-own-the-robots/

Edited August 8, 2015 by iNow

[dimreepr]

Good post +1

 

It seems to me that a potential pitfall is somewhat similar to the OP’s conclusion “You are already obsolete, have a nice day.” not that we’ll become obsolete obviously ridicules, but more that we may lose our sense of purpose at least in part.

 

Even if we can overcome the, seemingly, insurmountable problem that money not only equals power but also bragging rights.

 

A job, for most, fills a great deal of our time and while we dream of retirement and a chance to relax, put our feet up and just chill. What, after all, is life without contrast and purpose?

[Harold Squared]

Since robots are only superior in repetitive basic tasks, the haphazard nature of human talents is clearly superior since that nature includes the invention of robots.

Superiority in what way? In terms of carrying out "repetitive basic tasks" such as calculation, robots win. In terms of productivity around the clock, robots win. In terms of labor relations, robots never go on strike, in fact they can be designed to labor in conditions humans would never tolerate.

 

As a matter of experience, creativity in most workplaces is viewed as a liability. Conformity is generally more accepted.

And the post had nothing to do with that topic, hence its irrelevance.

 

Robots have no advantage doing things that exceed their capabilities

And humans are able to exceed their capabilities? How so? Your statement is a tautology, nothing is capable of exceeding its capabilities by definition.

 

With that said, the capabilities demonstrated by electronic intelligence are expanding at a very great rate. No human can beat the latest generation of chess programs, for example.

Good post +1

 

It seems to me that a potential pitfall is somewhat similar to the OPs conclusion You are already obsolete, have a nice day. not that well become obsolete obviously ridicules, but more that we may lose our sense of purpose at least in part.

 

Even if we can overcome the, seemingly, insurmountable problem that money not only equals power but also bragging rights.

 

A job, for most, fills a great deal of our time and while we dream of retirement and a chance to relax, put our feet up and just chill. What, after all, is life without contrast and purpose?

What is work, after all, but a series of repetitive tasks? Whether a person is standing on an assembly line or bending over an operating table, a robot can do it faster, better, and cheaper.

[swansont]

 

And humans are able to exceed their capabilities? How so? Your statement is a tautology, nothing is capable of exceeding its capabilities by definition.

 

We're not comparing humans to humans, we're comparing them to robots. Robots do not have an advantage over humans in areas where they don't do as well as humans. Which is a tautology, but one that you seem to think doesn't exist. (Without actual evidence, as usual)