Humans Need Not Apply

Mature Amateur

Share Button

Comments

  1. the funny thing is the problem with self driving cars is the transition. if you would replace every car with a self driving one there would almost be no problems. the problems arrive when we mix selfdriving cars with those that require drivers as comparison imagine a carriage with one actual horse and a motor cycle/car. sooner or later the horse will get tired and slows down while the motorcycle keeps it speed and runs over the horse with the carriage. not 100% accurate but i think its close enough to understand the problem, 'robots' are more efficient then any organism that has the same task but having just organisms is more efficient as having mixed organisms and robots because the efficiencies of the two dont match up. as another comparison triangular tires seem like a bad idea but aslong as they are on ground that has the right shape triangular tires would deliver a smoother ride then a round one. the problem comes when you put triangular tires on even or semi even ground

  2. There is some serious scaremongering here with Robotics – so you have added 2 + 2 and made it 22 for interest sake. Yes, the simple , repetitive jobs have gone to Robots.! Of course there will be many technical opportunities to develop Robots & human technicians to maintain/repair faulty Robots. If they are anything like our PC's,, there will be plenty of that work,,, ( I once did Robotics in industry. ) And Robots wont be designing OR inventing Robotics any time soon; not in the first half of this Century anyway. ( they require original thinking – out side the box as it were ).
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………
    There is NO broad spectrum intelligence OR capacity for multi-tasking Robots today ; progress has been VERY slow.
    From bots welding parts / ATM transactions / to driver-less vehicles… once 1 Robot does all 3 jobs ; we're in trouble!
    What has made some Bots viable , were other inventions like "Sat Nav" ; making Drones and other Vehicles workable.
    Man use to walk on the Moon from 1969-72,, we once had Supersonic Passenger Jets ; progress is Not a constant.!
    I recall predictions in the 1970's; "most Cars will be Electric by the end of the 20th Century"; this also, is off the mark.

  3. The horse analogy deserves a rebuttal.

    The horse population past the point of domestication was directly tied to how useful horses were to humanity. Machines will replace our jobs, but they will never make us useless to one another. We will diversify our talents and trades to compensate until a sufficiently grand paradigm shift occurs.

    By which I mean, if an artificial super-intelligence is built and ultimately decides that humans are no longer valuable, we wouldn't really have a say anymore. We would go the way of horses because the ASI has taken the role of directorship, and the future now forms to its vision, not ours.

    Or we discover some path to existential transcendence, alien intelligence, or something of equal world-changing consequence.

    Until then we will not simply diminish, because although automation will expand to take over our general labor force, it lacks vision, purpose, and imagination. Those things we supply, and the industries we build from them will continue to demand us. For the foreseeable future humanity will always have a place because humanity will always seek out new places.

    Those are my thoughts.

  4. From a job perspective, I'm either way delusional or working in one of the last bastions of human work.

    You see, video games designed by algorithms don't sound far fetched. It just needs a long time. But on the other hand, tabletop roleplaying games? A completely different story.

    I am not looking this from the perspective that I'm so good, or that the job is so hard that it cannot be automated. Hell, the entire industry works on text, and text is probably one of the most easily replicated form of art, as it has already been executed in the news industry.

    However, a game where you need to make rules that by themselves entertain people? Much harder. Tabletop roleplaying games have a different kind of fidelity. By their very nature, they have a human element to them, and the flexibility provided by that element is unprecedented. To make a tabletop roleplaying game, the algorithm would need to understand the comfort limits of human calculation, and make systems that do not mimic human imagination, but engage it. Making a good roleplaying game is not a difficult task for humans, but I reckon it's very very very difficult for anything but a human…

    Unless someone makes a REALLY snazzy algorithm for it.

  5. Why am I doing my A-levels after watching this video if everything you said is true home in Ireland sit my ass and just f*** my life it doesn't seem much point my life after watching this video.

  6. JFC. This is bleak. I suppose that the only real way to make this not an issue is either: have less humans to ensure there isn't a vast swath of redundant people. Or abolish the need for economics or even employment.

    That doesn't sound realistic. We really DO need to start thinking about this.

  7. C O M M U N I S M. No really. See all of these automated jobs will create so much abundance that everyone can get equally massive amounts of almost anything they could ever want for free, and we would spend all our time having fun.

  8. I think the main question that should be asked here is, do people exist to serve the system? Or does the system exist to serve the people? In other words, is human life only valuable based on what contributions they bring to the world? Or does human life have some inherent value in its own right, independent of any contributions that person might make? And if we're saying a person only has worth based on what they contribute, and they can't contribute anymore because technology does it all better than them, does that mean people might as well just kill themselves because they're now obsolete? And who will these robots be producing goods and services for if no one has money to buy those goods cause they all lost their job to those robots?

  9. As more people become unemployed, he government will be forced to turn unemployment benefits into something resembling a salary. Eventually, the entire population will be “unemployed” and living on this salary. However, this will not be bad: we will all live in comfort, as robots do all of our work for us. We will all consume goods and services cheaply and not have to work at all, so we can pursue other interests like education and learning. Nobody will be poor, because the robots will provide for all of us. This is a socialist paradise. The robot revolution will bring about socialism – it is unavoidable. And why would we want to avoid it?

  10. let's put aside automation for a second and distill economics into its fundamental act: an economic exchange occurs when two individuals realize they mutually benefit in an exchange.

    when neo-luddites argue that robots will take over the economy, what exactly are they arguing? Will robots become the customer and the producer? in that case robots will not be exchanging with humans and so the economy for humans will not change. Will…robots take over all of the world's resources since resources are scarce? Possibly – but if robots do not maintain resources in a way that is renewable/sustainable, it makes no difference whether we call it a robot or a corporation.

    "robots took er jerbs" is just a scary boogieman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *