Support NeoGAF

[Stephen Colbert]

I feel like people are underestimating just how big of an impact AI and robotics will have on every facet of our lives. Watson 1.0 maybe geared to answering jeopardy questions, but it seems inevitable that Watson 3.0, or 4.0, or X.0 would be able to do EVERY SINGLE JOB that humans are used to do today.

Almost every technology, once it becomes a mass consumer product reaches critical mass and advances at an exponential rate. We had the internet for two decades with not all that much progress, but once it hit the general populace, it started to expand at an absolutely unbelievable rate and now infests every aspect of our lives.

Computers likewise have been around for over half a century, but once they become consumer products, began to advance at an unbelievable rate.

Even things like videogame graphics, smartphones and tablets all show this pattern.

Robotics likewise, have been around in some form for a long time, but I believe they are on the verge of becoming a consumer product within our life time. And once that happens, the advancement of the technology will occur at an unbelievable pace, and they will come to be in every facet of our lives. And soon after that, they will be able to do everything that humans are capable of doing.

Our generation will see the robotics and artificial intelligence revolution. And in all liklihood, when they become consumer products, they will start to advance at a much faster rate than most people expect.

Imagine what kind of changes society will undergo as slowly jobs done by humans are replaced by machines. What incentive will a company have to pay a worker 50k an year, when they could buy a machine for 50k that performs the same task but more quickly and more efficiently? At that point, the entire reason for human labor disappears, jobs disappear, the economic system as we know it will have no reason for being. And at the same time, we will the capacity to produce a sufficient number of machines to basically meet our every waking need, to care for the entire population of humanity.

Either we end up with hundreds of millions of people unemployed and homeless, or we embrace a system where virtually everything is done by machines and provided to us, essentially free of charge, basically the textbook definition of a welfare state/socialism/communism/whatever you want to call it. People would still be free to work, but out of interest rather than out of necessity. And they would probably be well aware that a machine could do what they are doing much faster and more efficiently.

I want to hear your theories on what the transition to such a society might look like. Can it done peacefully, assuming we see it coming far enough in advance. Or is a prolonged period of poverty and economic and political turmoil inevitable?

What will life be like? I predict that people will coalesce with others with similar interests. You spend one day a week hanging out with buddies that love to play boardgames like Catan or party games like Cranium. One day hanging out with people with similar movie tastes to yours, one day hanging out with your videogame buddies playing Halo 176 in virtual reality. Basically whatever your interests are, you will coalesce with others with similar interests. However, a segment of the population will probably turn purely to sex and designer drugs (both of which will be far safer than they have ever been in the past).... http://hedweb.com/

If you don't see that ever happening, you are probably thinking about computers too rigidly. True AI in computers will occur when computers are designed to modify their own programming algorithms based on the inputs they receive and the experiences they gain. And that AI would for all intents and purposes be no different than human intelligence.

Watson already does that to a very very minor degree. It learns from it's own mistakes and past errors. A much more advanced version of him should be able to build on it's own experiences the same way a human brain does. And such a version would understand beauty the same way we do. It could take a while, but it seems inevitable that we will someday have machines capable of performing every single task that humans do today, and do it more efficiently.

Even if these machines start off expensive, they will be mass produced and become cheaper and cheaper with each passing year.

And there is nothing that AI shouldn't be able to do that a human can. Even though things like creativity and humor are complex mechanisms, they are neural mechanisms none the less, and ones that an advanced enough AI should be able to replicate someday.

Yes, it sounds like a bad scifi movie, and it could take a lot longer than we may expect, but inevitably it WILL happen at some point.

Both Europe and the US reflect modern societies which have become productive enough, that a portion of the population could get away with not working. While the idea itself isn't popular, technology absolutely undeniably has advanced to the point where a smaller portion of the population can produce enough to sustain all of us. That pattern will only grow with time, and once we have robots, it will start to grow at an exponential rate that will surprise most people. Where as now, US and Europe could probably survive and thrive with just 80% of the population working, once robotics takes over, they could probably thrive with less than 1% of the population working once all is said and done.

As that point approaches, that segment of the population on the govt dole is going to multiply and multiply at an alarmingly pace. Either society will resist it and denounce the freeloaders and try to kick them off the govt. dole, or they will see what is to come, and they will embrace a post-labor society. I am hoping it will be the latter.

 

[Feep]

There is no concievable way that if technology continues to advance, we won't at some point end up with machines that can do every thing humans can do, and better.

Even though I do think computers will one day exceed our own capabilities, I wouldn't say so with 100% confidence.

Humans may always engage in creative works. Even if computers can do them "better", they may be at a level at which we ourselves could not appreciate. It's likely an economy could not function solely off of this, but hey, it'd pass the time.

What do you want us to discuss? Machines make us stuff, we don't have to work. Okay.

 

[Staccat0]

This girl in the credit score banner is really cute...
Anyway, I'm sure someone will tear you to shreds, but I sort of think the same thing. Not sure how the transition will happen. People will just get more liberal I suppose wihtout using the big scary "s word"

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Yes, we will arrive there. Its that or let 85% of the population starve because we have 8 billion people and only 1 billion jobs that need doing.
I talked about this in the other thread, but a system in which everyone pulls their own weight does not work when there are literally not enough jobs to be done.

We don't have to have 100% of labor replaced my machines. Just a significantly large part of it that it becomes inhumane to inflict starvation and poverty on the large part of the population that, try as they might, can not work.

Well said. At some point, it will become the only humane choice. Sticking with capitalism will no longer be an option.

Non-alienating labor is humanly rewarding. Humans requiring financial rewards for their hard work is not universal. It is a socially learned response.

Exactly. The act of doing something, anything to keep yourself busy is innately rewarding.

Getting paid for it, and doing it being the only means to make a living is a socially learned response.

How many people here would prefer to spend their time having discussions on gaf, playing sports, writing short stories, watching movies, playing board games, building with legos, playing with your kids, playing videogames whatever it is that interests you, rather than working if they still get paid and get their needs cared for?

All those things are rewarding, and can qualify as labor, but they are labor we pursue out of interest rather than out of necessity.

People in a post work society will still do things, they will just be doing the things that they actually want to do.

On a slightly related tangent, prolonged lifespans are inevitable as well. Just the research being done with telomeres is showing immense potential already, actually reversing the aging process in mice....

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/mouse-aging-reversal/

And that in itself will lead to turmoil when it comes to entitlement programs, population growth and what not. An ever increasing aging population that may actually be perfectly healthy, and fewer and fewer deaths each year to compensate for new births will cause significant stress on the economy, atleast initially. How that transition shakes out will probably have a huge impact on how the transition to a welfare state will shake out as well.

Yet another source of stress on society will occur many decades later, right around when Internet 5.0, 6.0, or 8.0 or whatever comes. Currently you are willingly spending your time in the internet interacting with people rather than interacting with people in the real world.

Now imagine what will happen when the very experience of being online is light years richer and more pleasurable than it is now, when every facet of what we interpret to be reality can be simulated by computers. That will probably happen atleast at some point before the singualarity (the integration of human brains and computers) will happen.

In that version of the internet, you could be sitting having this exact same conversation with these exact same people, but on what appears to be a yatch with the ocean air rushing at your face while sipping on caviar and the finest wine you have ever had, then essentially teleport over to the finest restaurant in all of France for brunch. Or if it's more to your liking, you could forego conversation altogether and instead be participating in a giant orgy with most beautiful people, celebrities and models you have ever seen.

This will take some time, until machines can perfectly simulate the electric impulse that we interpret as our senses. But it will eventually happen at some point. And at that point, the internet will be more addictive than crack.

-----------------------------------------------

Yes, I understand that some of what people predicted will happen within the next few decades later proved impractical/unfeasible for many more (bases on the moon, flying cars, robots to fight our wars for us, cold fusion etc). But these were out there predictions akin to modern predictions about the technological singularity and quantum computing. And they will all happen eventually, they are just taking longer than we anticipated.

Advancements in AI and robotics are not unrealistic at all. They are basically inevitable and people have often repeatedly and drastically underestimated just how big of an impact emerging technologies can have on every facet of society.

Much of what seemed like relatively minor developments in the 70s and 80s (computers and the internet) quickly became an integral part of our every aspect of our lives and our society.

I think AI and robotics is the same way. If technology continues to advance, I don't see how they won't someday supplant all need for human labor and even human intelligence. Opting to have a human do something a robot could do for better and cheaper, wouldn't make sense, either for the corportion, or for the laborer. What choice will we have then but to become a welfare state?

 

[Forkball]

We will always have jobs building and maintaining robots. It's win/win.

 

[btkadams]

We will always have jobs building and maintaining robots. It's win/win.

but then robots will take those jobs too!

 

[Witchfinder General]

Imagine what kind of changes society will undergo as slowly jobs done by humans are replaced by machines. Either we end up with hundreds of millions of people unemployed and homeless, or we embrace a system where everything is done by machines and provided to us, essentially free of charge, basically the textbook definition of socialism.

It didn't happen at the turn of the industrial revolution when people feared the very same. Hell, even William Blake loathed the coming age of machines

And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon England's mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England's pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England's green & pleasant Land

Creativity is a human pursuit and technology only serves to free up our time to pursue other endeavors, for good or ill.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

We've had more technological development in a few decades than we have had in the entire history of human history before then. So history isn't exactly a reliable guide that we can use to claim that there will always be something that machines will be incapable of doing.

We've never seen anything like this before. The industrial revolution was purely mechanical in nature. But right now, the advances are happening not just in mechanics but in AI, and at a much faster rate than anyone anticipated.

It didn't happen at the turn of the industrial revolution when people feared the very same. Hell, even William Blake loathed the coming age of machines.

The predictions did come true. They predicted that manual repetitive labor will be largely done by machines. Back then, all manual labor was done by people, by hand, and that's what 90% of the population did.

The industrial revolution changed that as far as repetitive work is concerned. The machines made back then were not flexible/intelligent enough to do non repetitive tasks. But repetitive tasks have for the most part been displaced by machines entirely.

Computers, ai and robots likewise will largely displace the non repetitive tasks as well. It could take a long time, but eventually, there really shouldn't be anything that a computer or AI is incapable of doing.

We are machines ourselves, just biological ones. We are just working on making the mechanized ones catch up with our level of advancement. Once we do, we really would have no reason to work, or eventually even to engage in creative tasks except for our own enjoyment.

Eventhough things like creativity and humor are complex mechanisms, they are neural mechanisms none the less, and ones that an advanced enough AI should be able to replicate someday.

I see no reason why a much more advanced version of Watson wouldn't be able to write up plots for sitcoms for example, tell jokes, or paint.

 

[remnant]

We will just do different stuff. Look at the tech community. The people would have been working in a factory 40-50 years ago now make apps and videogames, and on average make more money compared to people who now work in factories.

If these robots do give us an economic boom, people will just take this new wealth, in terms of time and apply it to something else. That's one of the reasons why socialism through robotics isn't an inevitable reality. It doesn't take into account the new markets that will be created when the robots "come of age"

Edit: if anything it will prevent socialism. Socialism gains momentum on quality of life, not necessarily inequality. If this new technology makes us wealthier and our lives better, why fuck with a plan that works?

 

[Witchfinder General]

The predictions will come true. They will just take longer than expected.

Nah. You can't predict the future any better than I can. Natures abhors a vacuum ergo something will fill in the time that future technology may bring.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I like how you just lumped communism and socialism together as the same thing. :/

 

[daviyoung]

Will the robots be owned by the state? What does this have to do with socialism?

 

[OttomanScribe]

Either we end up with hundreds of millions of people unemployed and homeless, or we embrace a system where everything is done by machines and provided to us, essentially free of charge, basically the textbook definition of socialism.

I think you need to go back and look up Socialism in your textbook.

 

[remnant]

I like how you just lumped communism and socialism together as the same thing. :/

In the scenario the OP is presenting they basically are the same. What is a communist going to do that a socialist wouldn't or even stand against? Regulate the production of machines?

 

[GaimeGuy]

I think you need to go back and look up Socialism in your textbook.

Seriously. Under socialism, the people who do nothing will get nothing, which is the opposite of what he said.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

We are going off topic here. I would prefer to focus on the actual implications of something like this, and whether you think this truly is inevitable and why and why not.

What you call it is largely irrelvent, but just to clarify...

Seriously. Under socialism, the people who do nothing will get nothing, which is the opposite of what he said.

We are talking about a world where no one is doing anything at all. All work that needs to be done is be done is done entirely by machines. In such a world, a theoretical world without any actual labor that needs to be done by anyone, communism and socialism are one and the same.

 

[numble]

Seriously. Under socialism, the people who do nothing will get nothing, which is the opposite of what he said.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

If the most that you can do is nothing, you still get as much as you need.

 

[Subitai]

I think human cyborg enhancements will prevent a complete take over of work by machines. If we don't shoot ourselves in the foot, we're on the edge of a bio-nano tech revolution that will completely change the face of humanity. Among other things, I believe our political system will evolve into something we don't have a definition for yet, although it will be constantly behind trying to catch up in clunky spurts. You can kind of see this already with the mess that is trying to regulate Wall Street crooks while not stifling true financial innovators trying to maximize the efficiency of capital investment.

 

[GaimeGuy]

No it doesn't. We are talking about a world where almost no one is doing anything at all. All work is being done by machines. In such a world, communism and socialism are one and the same.

Ah I see what you mean now.

Hmm...

 

[remnant]

Seriously. Under socialism, the people who do nothing will get nothing, which is the opposite of what he said.

under what model of socialism does that apply? Those who do nothing gain the most percentage-wise.

 

[GaimeGuy]

No, I completely misunderstood what he was saying, forget my earlier post.


I suppose in a world where everyone's work was the same, and everyone's economic output was the same, then yes, socialism and communism, and least from an economical standpoint, would be inherently equal.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Marx's definition of 'Socialism' is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the period between Capitalism and Communism where the state is systematically dismantled and the means of production become publicly owned. What you seem to be describing is some kind of weird techno-corpratist state.

Another popular idea of socialism is anything which places the greatest emphasis upon the will of the people as the most important determiner of law and state action. This is also not described in the OP.

Socialism cannot be described simplistically as 'people who do nothing getting everything' as that reflects neither the reality of socialist states, nor the rhetoric of socialist commentators. The nearest thing I can think of it being similar to is the simplistic polemical idea of socialism held by some American teenagers.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Marx's definition of 'Socialism' is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the period between Capitalism and Communism where the state is systematically dismantled and the means of production become publicly owned. What you seem to be describing is some kind of weird techno-corpratist state.

Another popular idea of socialism is anything which places the greatest emphasis upon the will of the people as the most important determiner of law and state action. This is also not described in the OP.

Socialism cannot be described simplistically as 'people who do nothing getting everything' as that reflects neither the reality of socialist states, nor the rhetoric of socialist commentators. The nearest thing I can think of it being similar to is the simplistic polemical idea of socialism held by some American teenagers.

Again, the discussion is getting sidetracked. So let me just say, what you call it is irrelevent. I would prefer to focus on the actual implications of a future where there is nothing a human is capable of doing that a machine isn't.

What would the transition phase look like? And would our society successfully and peacefully be able to make the full transition, or will the few obscenely wealthy people that make the machines with the govt left powerless to do anything as society collapses.

 

[Kraut]

Isn't this basically the conceit of the Zeitgeist movies? A utopian world where everything that can be automated, is, leaving no purpose for a monetary system or capitalism. I don't think this is so much a prediction as it is an inevitability. Unless people really cling to the 'old-ways', I have to imagine this sort of system being ideal for an advanced civilization.

 

[numble]

Marx's definition of 'Socialism' is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the period between Capitalism and Communism where the state is systematically dismantled and the means of production become publicly owned. What you seem to be describing is some kind of weird techno-corpratist state.

Another popular idea of socialism is anything which places the greatest emphasis upon the will of the people as the most important determiner of law and state action. This is also not described in the OP.

Socialism cannot be described simplistically as 'people who do nothing getting everything' as that reflects neither the reality of socialist states, nor the rhetoric of socialist commentators. The nearest thing I can think of it being similar to is the simplistic polemical idea of socialism held by some American teenagers.

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

The OP posits a situation where the most you can give due to your ability is nothing, since labor is monopolized by machines.

Of course, you shouldn't bring in the "reality of socialist states" since they've all gone away from theory.

I think the hypothetical is unrealistic, but I think it would actually fit under a theory of communism.

 

[remnant]

I think it would wiser to move away from the idea of becoming "socialism/communism" The thread title should be "is a huge welfare state an inevitability"

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Isn't this basically the conceit of the Zeitgeist movies? A utopian world where everything that can be automated, is, leaving no purpose for a monetary system or capitalism. I don't think this is so much a prediction as it is an inevitability. Unless people really cling to the 'old-ways', I have to imagine this sort of system being ideal for an advanced civilization.

That's how I see it to.

Given enough time and advancement, there really shouldn't be anything a human is capable of doing that a machine isn't. Even things like creativity and humor are complex mechanisms but they are mechanisms none the less, and ones that an advanced enough AI should be able to replicate someday.

Corporations aren't going to employ people if it's cheaper to employ machines. Likewise, most people wouldn't want to slave away at a task when they know a machine could do it effortlessly. There will be a transition period, and the whole process could take a while, but eventually I think it's inevitable that we end up at this state, where human labor is completely unneccessary for the building or maintanence of society.

 

[water_wendi]

Only death is inevitable - Irwin Schiff, a year before being imprisoned

 

[remnant]

What would the transition phase look like? And would our society successfully and peacefully be able to make the full transition, or will the few obscenely wealthy people that make the machines with the govt left powerless to do anything as society collapses.

Why does this sound more and more like the plot to Deus Ex 3?

To answer your question it won't look that different than what's happening now. The technology will grow more complex and multi-layered, requiring more skills and creativity for the human to keep up. The work and wages will continue to grow vertically, and as a result inequality will grow as those who don't know will be left behind by those who do. Those who are left behind will vote for their various safety nets.

Basically you will see "1% of americans have all the money" for the rest of your life. i guess it's possible to see a Wilsonesque "progressive era part 2" in the country again and a backlash that seriously hampers the growth of personal wealth in the name of financial equality, but that will eventually end as well and we return to free enterprise again.

 

[OttomanScribe]

The OP posits a situation where the most you can give due to your ability is nothing, since labor is monopolized by machines.

However it does not explain how anything would necessarily be 'given to each according to their needs'. What I see is an argument for an increasing wealth disparity, where those who own the means of production (in this case robots) have absolutely no need to pay any heed to the workers at all. It would create the kind of state that would be as antithetical to socialism as one can imagine.

The workers would not be workers any more, the proletariat and the means of production would be the same thing (robots).

 

[remnant]

That's how I see it to.

Given enough time and advancement, there really shouldn't be anything a human is capable of doing that a machine isn't. Even things like creativity and humor are complex mechanisms but they are mechanisms none the less, and ones that an advanced enough AI should be able to replicate someday.

Corporations aren't going to employ people if it's cheaper to employ machines. Likewise, most people wouldn't want to slave away at a task when they know a machine could do it effortlessly. There will be a transition period, and the whole process could take a while, but eventually I think it's inevitable that we end up at this state, where human labor is completely unneccessary for the building or maintanence of society.

I think your giving robots a bit to much credit. In the end they are still replicating what we do naturally. i just can't see them out imiginating us.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

I think you are giving our brains too much credit. They are incredibly powerful, and capable, but at the end of the day they are machines themselves. The process we use to come up with jokes, or write scripts, or innovate use neural algorithms.

There is no reason that given enough time and development, an advanced enough AI couldn't replicate those same algorithms to do the same things.

Only death is inevitable - Irwin Schiff, a year before being imprisoned

Are you sure that death is inevitable? I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/mouse-aging-reversal/

The fact is, we've had more technological development in a few decades than we have had in the entire history of human history before then.

So using history as a guide to predict that things will work themselves out and society as we know it will be sustainable is shortsighted.

 

[water_wendi]

Are you sure that death is inevitable? I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/mouse-aging-reversal/

The fact is, we've had more technological development in a few decades than we have had in the entire history of human history before then.

So using history as a guide to predict that things will work themselves out and society as we know it will be sustainable is shortsighted.

Who would want that? Take billions of people and have them live their undying lives of shattered dreams toiling away in whatever factory or cubicle or high pressure job forever and ever. Sounds like paradise on earth. ill pass.

 

[shadyspace]

Star Trek is socialist. Therefore, we will become socialist.

 

[Trent Strong]

I don't know if I'd describe the star trek the next generation society as communist or socialist.

 

[HarryHengst]

Isn't this basically the conceit of the Zeitgeist movies? A utopian world where everything that can be automated, is, leaving no purpose for a monetary system or capitalism. I don't think this is so much a prediction as it is an inevitability. Unless people really cling to the 'old-ways', I have to imagine this sort of system being ideal for an advanced civilization.

But the people in power will cling to the old ways. Thats happening now already,which is causing pretty much all the problems we have now. People in power are conservative as fuck and are really, really not willing to give up even a bit of their wealth so other people can get more. So no way they are willing to let everyone have easy lives.

 

[shadyspace]

I don't know if I'd describe the star trek the next generation society as communist or socialist.

Meaning you're unsure of which one to describe it as?

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Who would want that? Take billions of people and have them live their undying lives of shattered dreams toiling away in whatever factory or cubicle or high pressure job forever and ever. Sounds like paradise on earth. ill pass.

Overall for society as a whole, reversing aging is probably a bad thing. If fewer and fewer people age, get sick or die, and newer people are continously born, eventually something has to give.

But for individuals themselves, I know plenty of people that would jump at the chance to reverse their age a bit, be younger, and healthier and stay in that state for a very long time.

Is the government going to make it illegal? Somehow, I don't see that happening.

And remember, this is just the first step in probably a long chain of advancements in reversing the aging process...

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/could-age-reversal-mice-be-applied-humans

 

[HarryHengst]

I don't know if I'd describe the star trek the next generation society as communist or socialist.

Seeing as how captain Picard is basically a dictator its not communist. On the other hand, it seems that labour and capital as we know it don't really exist in it any more, so its hard to call it socialist, as socialism is mostly about labour and owning the means of production.

Then again, people do have jobs aboard the enterprise, but they don't seem to get paid for it, so i guess it's about the inherent satisfaction the job gives you, not about having to work to stay alive. Not sure if Star Trek society would be okay with people doing fuck-all all day long and just hang around the holodeck all day.

 

[Trent Strong]

Meaning you're unsure of which one to describe it as?

The TNG society doesn't have an economy, so I don't think you can describe it as capitalist, communist or socialist. Those labels don't apply to a society where replicators can make almost anything at any time, and any job outside of lawyer or the military is unneccesary.

 

[remnant]

I think you are giving our brains too much credit. They are incredibly powerful, and capable, but at the end of the day they are machines themselves. The process we use to come up with jokes, or write scripts, or innovate use neural algorithms.

There is no reason that given enough time and development, an advanced enough AI couldn't replicate those same algorithms to do the same things.



Are you sure that death is inevitable? I wouldn't be so sure of that if I were you...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/mouse-aging-reversal/

The fact is, we've had more technological development in a few decades than we have had in the entire history of human history before then.

So using history as a guide to predict that things will work themselves out and society as we know it will be sustainable is shortsighted.

AI is nothing but calculations put on calculations put on calculations. Technically an Ai could do this stuff, but so much about creativity comes from experience and emotion. You could teach a computer how to write a song, but that computer can't explain why it's beautiful, it's can't explains why it works.

Those songs we write and scripts we read and build up are born of life's experiences. If a computer doesn't have that than I don't think it could be more efficient.

But assuming it does...so what. We live in a world of super genius slaves. This sounds like of those problems that people worried about, and then we solved it and never thought about it again

Socialism is the end result of a just, compassionate society.

Yet so much pleasure seems to come from capatalism. What a conundrum.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

But the people in power will cling to the old ways. Thats happening now already,which is causing pretty much all the problems we have now. People in power are conservative as fuck and are really, really not willing to give up even a bit of their wealth so other people can get more. So no way they are willing to let everyone have easy lives.

At some point, they won't have a choice. If there are no jobs for anyone else to do, and there are hundreds of thousands of robots running around fully capable of building and maintaining society on their own, do you really think that the people in power will be able to cling to power, when they are out numbered a million to one? I am not sure that they would even want to at that point.

The real question mark is how painful the transition process will be and how long it will take.

If we see it coming decades ahead of time, the younger generations are atleast familiar and prepared for what is to come, the transition can be made as painlessly as humanly possible.

 

[shadyspace]

Overall for society as a whole, reversing aging is probably a bad thing. If fewer and fewer people age, get sick or die, and newer people are continously born, eventually something has to give.

But for individuals themselves, I know plenty of people that would jump at the chance to reverse their age a bit, be younger, and healthier and stay in that state for a very long time.

This is just the first step in probably a long chain of advancements after all...

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/could-age-reversal-mice-be-applied-humans

Space colonization, dude.

 

[Trent Strong]

Seeing as how captain Picard is basically a dictator its not communist. On the other hand, it seems that labour and capital as we know it don't really exist in it any more, so its hard to call it socialist, as socialism is mostly about labour and owning the means of production.

Then again, people do have jobs aboard the enterprise, but they don't seem to get paid for it, so i guess it's about the inherent satisfaction the job gives you, not about having to work to stay alive. Not sure if Star Trek society would be okay with people doing fuck-all all day long and just hang around the holodeck all day.

Pretty much. Except the reason Picard is a 'dictator' is that the enterprise crew is in the navy, and Picard is their captain. I imagine the world government on earth is some sort of democracy.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

AI is nothing but calculations put on calculations put on calculations.

The same thing applies to our brains. You are thinking about computers too rigidly. True AI in computers will occur when computers are designed to modify their own programming algorithms based on the inputs they recieve and the experience they gain.

Watson does that to a very very minor degree. It learns from it's own mistakes and past errors. A much more advanced version of him should be able to build on it's own experiences the same way a human brain does. And such a version would understand beauty the same way we do.

But assuming it does...so what. We live in a world of super genius slaves. This sounds like of those problems that people worried about, and then we solved it and never thought about it again.

This is more a creative exercise and discussion than it is a serious attempt to address and solve this problem, considering these issues are probably several decades away at a bare minimum.

It's no different than any other thread on neogaf. It exists so that people could discuss a topic that interests them.

 

[Subliminal]

Yeah. Socialism =/= communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

 

[remnant]

At some point, they won't have a choice. If there are no jobs for anyone else to do, and there are hundreds of thousands of robots running around fully capable of building and maintaining society on their own, do you really think that the people in power will be able to cling to power, when they are out numbered a million to one? I am not sure that they would even want to at that point.

The real question mark is how painful the transition process will be and how long it will take.

If we see it coming decades ahead of time, the younger generations are atleast familiar and prepared for what is to come, the transition can be made as painlessly as humanly possible.

If we lived in a society that is maintained solely by robots, "power" in the future won't be the same as power now. Still you aren't factoring knowledge in engineering, energy and the value of land resources

Why would they lose power? If the old guys got you to a reality where robots do everything for you, clearly something is working.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

If we lived in a society that is maintained solely by robots, "power" in the future won't be the same as power now. Still you aren't factoring knowledge in engineering, energy and the value of land resources

Why would they lose power? If the old guys got you to a reality where robots do everything for you, clearly something is working.

I actually expect that they will voluntarily loosen their control/power slowly for their own sake. Especially, if the machines running around are just as knowledge of engineering as they are. If they don't they may fear a social upheaveal where they lose everything, by force.

In fact, I expect or atleast hope that the US Federal Trade Commission if it still exists by then would have intervened well beforehand to break up any monopolies so that the "power" is distributed thru many different entities using antitrust laws already on the books.

Whatever happens, the transition won't be quick and it won't be painless.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

AI is nothing but calculations put on calculations put on calculations. Technically an Ai could do this stuff, but so much about creativity comes from experience and emotion. You could teach a computer how to write a song, but that computer can't explain why it's beautiful, it's can't explains why it works.

Those songs we write and scripts we read and build up are born of life's experiences. If a computer doesn't have that than I don't think it could be more efficient.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

http://i55.tinypic.com/i53djb.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]

That's an awesome cartoon. I hope you don't mind that I quoted your post in the OP. I feel that it does a great job of illustrating my point.