PDA

View Full Version : Robots to replace humans in all work within 120 years



Garrick
24-06-17, 01:46
Article about prediction of world domination of robots:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/813327/artificial-intelligence-AI-robots-university-of-oxford

A ROBOT workforce will completely replace humans within 120 years according to scientists who have predicted exactly how they are doing it.

"The predictions were made after 350 academics were surveyed on when they believed the crucial turning points in robot advancement would take place. Researchers, at the University of Oxford, then took the average of their answers to come to their conclusion."

...
Any opinion about this and own projection. When will robots completely replace humans? For 50 years, 120, 200, 300, Never...

ΠΑΝΑΞ
24-06-17, 08:51
.
Smells like a "bronge age collapse" to me...
anyway, I recall Heraclitus and his famous gnomic/sentence;


ΠΟΛΕΜΟΣ ΠΑΤΗΡ ΠΑΝΤΩΝ ΕΣΤΙ. // War (is) father of all things.

ΠΑΝΑΞ
24-06-17, 09:00
Robots, is a little bit outdated... project; I think
.
https://www.realmofhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/19th-century-artworks-future-2000-ad_1.jpg
http://www.realmofhistory.com/2016/10/15/19th-century-artworks-future-2000-ad/



http://www.cnn.gr/media/com_news/galleries/2017/06/14/4247/photos/full/2017-06-14T032651Z_803821509_RC1BB3912080_RTRMADP_3_BRITAI N-FIRE.JPG
http://www.cnn.gr/media/com_news/galleries/2017/06/14/4247/photos/full/2017-06-14T032651Z_803821509_RC1BB3912080_RTRMADP_3_BRITAI N-FIRE.JPG


I am deeply sorry.

Jovialis
24-06-17, 17:09
I say, bring it on. I wish I could be around to see it.

I have this conjecture:

In the future, when we seek to terraform other planets; the first pioneers will be robots. Human DNA will be brought with them, which they will use to clone the first human settlers. Therefore, if they were to send earth-born humans to live there; it will already have human life.

Garrick
25-06-17, 13:53
I say, bring it on. I wish I could be around to see it.

I have this conjecture:

In the future, when we seek to terraform other planets; the first pioneers will be robots. Human DNA will be brought with them, which they will use to clone the first human settlers. Therefore, if they were to send earth-born humans to live there; it will already have human life.

Robots are useful for myriad applications, of course for space research, dangerous and inaccessible environments, they are irreplaceable.

I think article can be affirmative for robots, or at least neutral, scientists gave projection not evaluating whether it is good or bad but surely challenging.

Maciamo
27-06-17, 09:26
The poll is not optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on one's views) enough. I think that robots will effectively be able to replace any current human work within less than 25 years. The real question is whether we will let them do everything for us. Humans need to be active, to have goals, motivation and achievements to have a satisfying life. I think that anybody who likes the job they are doing will want to continue doing it, even if robots can do the same more efficiently and without being paid. We will have to radically change what it means to work.

Nowadays almost everybody works in part to make money to live. Heirs of big fortunes who never "have to work" typically choose to work anyway because otherwise they would go mad or become depressed. Work is more like a hobby for them, and that's what work will become in the future. People will do what they like to do. If robots produce everything we need to survive (food, houses, consumer goods), humans will be left with social activities, sports, well-being, travel, leisure, and anything to do with understanding who we are (genetics, neurosciences, psychology, history, anthropology, etc.) or how we should live (lifestyle coach, debates about values and morals).

Modern work life is very focused on productivity, results, deadlines, competition, profits, and ultimately boosting one's ego by doing all these things better than others. In a world where robots produce everything, and consumer goods become virtually free, money will lose its significance, and all the current work ethics of productivity will lose all meaning.

The ideal society of the future will be managed by incorruptible and nearly omniscient AI. Politicians will disappear and the Internet of Things will monitor potential criminal activities, which will be dealt with immediately by some sort of robot police. As people will have free time, some of them will specialise in rehabilitating criminals instead of sending them to prison. In fact, over time, as humans and AI develop better and better education programmes tailored to individual needs based on one's genome, delinquency and criminality should disappear. In a world without money, criminality will be one of assaults and vandalism rather than robbery and theft, and therefore will typically be caused by psychological issues rather than by need for money. As we understand better how the brain works, how our DNA influences the psychological problems, and new treatments (not just drugs, but actual gene therapy to fix things permanently), psychological problems will vanish, as will criminality, society will become more peaceful.

Boreas
27-06-17, 09:45
The question is "completely replace humans" so my answer is NEVER.

After that robotic stage, there is no meaning to live.

Sennevini
27-06-17, 13:09
I wonder what these technological changes mean for the debate about globalism. Some argue that we will all mingle into one big globalised society. The other stand, which is one I see going on right now, is that of different cultural blocks (West, China, the islamic world, etc.). Will these differences remain (just like they did after the rise of the internet we know now) and diffuse across the globe, or will these be erased as meaningless?

Maciamo
27-06-17, 14:59
I wonder what these technological changes mean for the debate about globalism. Some argue that we will all mingle into one big globalised society. The other stand, which is one I see going on right now, is that of different cultural blocks (West, China, the islamic world, etc.). Will these differences remain (just like they did after the rise of the internet we know now) and diffuse across the globe, or will these be erased as meaningless?

I think that the cultural and linguistic differences will remain.

The world isn't going to adopt new technologies, including robots, everywhere at the same time. But the more useful a new technology is, the faster it spreads. Just look with smartphones. In a few years they have spread all around the globe, even in remote parts of Africa and Papua. A humanoid robot that can do everything a human does, as depicted in the Swedish TV series Real Humans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3fAjGMzsIw), is incredibly more useful than a smartphone. We might get there within the next 10 years, but prices will be too high at first for most people, then they will decrease and the the next decade they will progressively become more common around the world. Today there are already realistic humanoid robots that can do simple jobs like receptionist or waiter. Japan opened two years ago the first hotel entirely managed by robots (https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/aug/14/japan-henn-na-hotel-staffed-by-robots), so it's not sci-fi any more. Once the AI improves (at a level similar to IBM's Watson computer) and the robots become as agile as us with their legs and hands, they will be able to do pretty much anything. It's already possible to create such a robot today, but it would cost millions. In 10 years the price might be down to a few thousands euros/dollars.

Garrick
01-07-17, 13:55
The poll is not optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on one's views) enough. I think that robots will effectively be able to replace any current human work within less than 25 years. The real question is whether we will let them do everything for us. Humans need to be active, to have goals, motivation and achievements to have a satisfying life. I think that anybody who likes the job they are doing will want to continue doing it, even if robots can do the same more efficiently and without being paid. We will have to radically change what it means to work.

Nowadays almost everybody works in part to make money to live. Heirs of big fortunes who never "have to work" typically choose to work anyway because otherwise they would go mad or become depressed. Work is more like a hobby for them, and that's what work will become in the future. People will do what they like to do. If robots produce everything we need to survive (food, houses, consumer goods), humans will be left with social activities, sports, well-being, travel, leisure, and anything to do with understanding who we are (genetics, neurosciences, psychology, history, anthropology, etc.) or how we should live (lifestyle coach, debates about values and morals).

Modern work life is very focused on productivity, results, deadlines, competition, profits, and ultimately boosting one's ego by doing all these things better than others. In a world where robots produce everything, and consumer goods become virtually free, money will lose its significance, and all the current work ethics of productivity will lose all meaning.

The ideal society of the future will be managed by incorruptible and nearly omniscient AI. Politicians will disappear and the Internet of Things will monitor potential criminal activities, which will be dealt with immediately by some sort of robot police. As people will have free time, some of them will specialise in rehabilitating criminals instead of sending them to prison. In fact, over time, as humans and AI develop better and better education programmes tailored to individual needs based on one's genome, delinquency and criminality should disappear. In a world without money, criminality will be one of assaults and vandalism rather than robbery and theft, and therefore will typically be caused by psychological issues rather than by need for money. As we understand better how the brain works, how our DNA influences the psychological problems, and new treatments (not just drugs, but actual gene therapy to fix things permanently), psychological problems will vanish, as will criminality, society will become more peaceful.

Yes, ideal society of future will be different (and better if someone can evaluate based on good established criteria) than now, and robots and technology generally are one main factor.

Question is speed of change. Many people surely including me want to be today but it is not real. We can see moss-grown technology internal combustion engines is still the most abundant. There are several reasons including oil and automaker companies profits. Technology replacement of these engines has long been won and we know about harmful emissions these engines but abolish old engines did not prevail.

We can list more reasons why changes are not faster: profits of concerns, resistance to change, inertia, culture, government politics etc. Plus, unfortunately wars and natural disasters can impede changes. Numerous factors make that changes are more incremental than radical. Of course there are periods when radical changes are happening, but there should be appropriate context for that.

Therefore introducing technologically advanced robots and related technologies will not go without obstacles and resistance from different sides. Changes will be as in the most cases more incremental than radical. Surely some big accidental events in society and technology can accelerate or slow down these processes.

We will see how fast the pace of change will be.

LeBrok
01-07-17, 15:08
As usually, the change will be slow at the beginning and accelerated and sweeping in second phase. Similar to adoption of computers. For years only big companies could adopt and use big clunky and slow computers. Pretty much from 50s to mid 80s, but use of computers skyrocketed in last 30 years. Now everybody walks with a computer in a pocket and we can't imagine living without one. Roughly 70 years passed from conception to full adoption.
In robotics, I think, we are still in mid industrial use stage, with stupid and terribly expensive robots. We might be close to start of personal use in about 10-15 years. With full adoption, when everybody can afford one, by year 2050-2060.
I hope we are going to developed big capacity and fast charging batteries by then, or our robots will walk around with extension cords. ;)

Bergin
01-07-17, 20:25
sometimes i am puzzled: really to believe in millions of robots going around? sounds like a mirror image of our society ... clearly not optimized for the new technologies.

i would be more for tge option where an entire city is a single robot all connected and comparted. clearly energy balances require to minimize movements.

but at the end is really nothing new, like living on a ship.



Sent from my SM-G903F using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

davef
02-07-17, 08:03
I hate work! I'm not afraid to admit that work is boring, stressful, and tedious. I used to work at IBM, and whenever someone would receive recognition for working there for 40 plus years, I'd think "wow, you've wasted all that time here"? I'd much rather spend my life learning/ experiencing new things. If robots takeover enough to eliminate the necessity of jobs (besides those who wish to enhance or repair them-hopefully they'll be compensated heavily for their contributions) life will be better.

Work is crap and I'm a proud slacker.

Jovialis
06-07-17, 15:16
http://i.imgur.com/xF42VXq.png

Here's a chart from a BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170330-5-numbers-that-will-define-the-next-100-years?ocid=ww.social.link.facebook..GrandChallenge sII17_&kwp_0=450295&kwp_4=1661452&kwp_1=714325) on future projections for the next 100 years.

In regards to programming, I find that it has become a lot more user-friendly over time. For example, programming small robots to perform tasks and actions is as easy as dragging and dropping items, with the interface-software provided. Its basically boxes pre-written syntax that can be altered by the user, and moved around like an object. So, I can see how half of the jobs can be automated, to randomly generate stuff like video games, and movies, based on how we structure drama, comedy, and fantasy.

davef
06-07-17, 16:10
http://i.imgur.com/xF42VXq.png

Here's a chart from a BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170330-5-numbers-that-will-define-the-next-100-years?ocid=ww.social.link.facebook..GrandChallenge sII17_&kwp_0=450295&kwp_4=1661452&kwp_1=714325) on future projections for the next 100 years.

In regards to programming, I find that it has become a lot more user-friendly over time. For example, programming small robots to perform tasks and actions is as easy as dragging and dropping items, with the interface-software provided. Its basically boxes pre-written syntax that can be altered by the user, and moved around like an object. So, I can see how half of the jobs can be automated, to randomly generate stuff like video games, and movies, based on how we structure drama, comedy, and fantasy.

Drag n' drop is becoming more and more successful at reducing the need for actual programming and lowering the intellectual requirements needed to write good software.

Robotic lawyers?

Jovialis
06-07-17, 17:03
Drag n' drop is becoming more and more successful at reducing the need for actual programming and lowering the intellectual requirements needed to write good software.

Robotic lawyers?

Yea, I agree. It will be a skill defused to a larger population that will be able to utilize technology to as a means to various ends. For example, as an educational tool, it would be great for children. There's mathbots, drones, and other hardware that educators are using as a supplement in the classroom. But also, if most of the average jobs in the future require some type of programming, they will need to make it easier for people that are more moderately intelligent. Especially since these will probably be some of the few type of jobs left available for humans. Nevertheless, there will always be a need for gifted individuals that are truly adept in writing actual code.

davef
14-07-17, 06:46
Which is why I want to major in electrical engineering...or get a job in puzzle solving :). Sadly, if you last long enough in a software position, and get laid off, you have to spend time learning the "hip" new tools which is frustrating. This is my opinion so I may be wrong...btw from my experience..learning "hip new" development tools is about as fun as watching grass grow.

Seanp
21-07-17, 10:49
Genetic engineering is the present and nanotechnology has it's ability to replace human brain and lost physical parts. We're at the edge of a technological revolution when biological and artificial intelligence will manifest and create a new race of humanity. Old structures like family and nations will be replaced by companies that produce humans like they do the Coke drinks and I say it will happen within 200 years from now.

LeBrok
21-07-17, 16:39
Genetic engineering is the present and nanotechnology has it's ability to replace human brain and lost physical parts. We're at the edge of a technological revolution when biological and artificial intelligence will manifest and create a new race of humanity. Old structures like family and nations will be replaced by companies that produce humans like they do the Coke drinks and I say it will happen within 200 years from now.
Coca Cola? I thought that oil companies rule the world. Oh, wait, oil prices are so low that probably they don't have much to say. Maybe weapon companies rule? Hm, there was no world war for 70 years so maybe they don't. I think the tech companies rule the earth, they are the richest in the world. Or maybe chinese goverment who has control over all companies in china. Wait, perhaps Putin with his 200 billion fortune and tentacles around the world? Wait, perhaps masons and Jews, because they always had!

Seanp
22-07-17, 18:24
Coca Cola? I thought that oil companies rule the world. Oh, wait, oil prices are so low that probably they don't have much to say. Maybe weapon companies rule? Hm, there was no world war for 70 years so maybe they don't. I think the tech companies rule the earth, they are the richest in the world. Or maybe chinese goverment who has control over all companies in china. Wait, perhaps Putin with his 200 billion fortune and tentacles around the world? Wait, perhaps masons and Jews, because they always had!

You try to put words in my mouth like you did a few months ago I remember that. I never blamed Jews nor Putin or the Chinese. I know anytime I had to make a discussion with a so called liberal person the first weapon they used against me was me being Anti Semitic or Anti Western which couldn't be further from truth as myself part Jewish I never had a problem with anyone who follows Judaism, otherwise I would against the man I see in the mirror every morning. I never hided that I don't like Zionism and Zionist ideas and I'm pretty sure the majority of Jewish in the world feel the same way. I also consider classical liberalism as a positive impact on society unlike neo-communists who hide behind liberal ideas.

It seems you have selective reading skills because in your book the mention of Coca Cola (which I did never mention only Coke) leads you to associated me with Anti-Capitalist ideas as nothing in my post against Capitalist thoughts. I just expressed my own views on a subject and in my opinion humanity are able to reproduce without physical breeding and sooner or later we will be able to create humans without the needs of natural sexual acts because we will have the technology to clone humans and use artificial uterus which can function as a hatching.

tivali
17-09-17, 12:19
Excellent! We employers and entrepreneurs can get rid of all the idle useless, unemployed, unemployable, unionists and benefits scroungers and get an Alsatian dog each, instead!

Then it's off to the beach, yacht or mountains for some R&R.

If we do not interfere with the robots the dog will not bite us and just to stop us getting too lazy we will need to feed and walk the dog daily. It's known as a symbiotic relationship!

The only flaw I see in this otherwise brilliant dream is who installs the inevitable updates?

stryke
18-09-17, 16:49
Well, that's not a good thing actually. May sound good at the beginning, but just think about all those people that can lose their jobs because of this? Terrible

Jovialis
18-09-17, 17:28
I've actually been to a seminar where the keynote speaker was Dr. Michio Kaku. My reasoning for picking the next 120 years, as my vote was it was roughly about the time he predicted this would happen. He explained that currently, the best AI is more or less as advanced as a cockroach. However, he was referring to a scenario similar to that of Terminator, and skynet. I'm sure before we reach that point, we will have fail-safes in place.

LeBrok
20-09-17, 04:45
I've actually been to a seminar where the keynote speaker was Dr. Michio Kaku. My reasoning for picking the next 120 years, as my vote was it was roughly about the time he predicted this would happen. He explained that currently, the best AI is more or less as advanced as a cockroach. However, he was referring to a scenario similar to that of Terminator, and skynet. I'm sure before we reach that point, we will have fail-safes in place.
I'm with Mark Zuckerberg on this one. Very optimistic.

Garrick
08-01-18, 02:11
I'm with Mark Zuckerberg on this one. Very optimistic.

Neo-Ludittes and people of similar views are generally against new technologies, including robots, AI etc.

There is difference, if people are critical about new technologies, it could be useful, of course, but if they are apocalyptic, result could be harmful if they have an impact.

New technologies significantly improve productivity, cheaper products and services, enable new products and services that previously did not exist etc., make great progress to mankind, and yes we can be optimistic.

Nerd
08-01-18, 05:22
I was teaching college methods to string students (violin, cello, etc) and they had this argument that even musicians could be replaced by robots. No. There is human nuance and warmth. I like Sarah Chang's vibrato better than (won't pick on other super star's). But it can mutate between her wrist and the tip of her finger within the middle of a note because she wills it for the expressive need of a note. Why try to program that into a robot and develop fleshy fingers for it to manage all of this? Wouldn't it just be more fun to create music? Yes, people need meaning and creating. So no, robots won't replace us because we will keep creating our own realities. And there is more beauty and depth in that. But on another level, we just need the quick and easy work of robots, like for manufacturing plastic pellets. That's fine. It's boring work.

Jovialis
08-01-18, 05:38
I was teaching college methods to string students (violin, cello, etc) and they had this argument that even musicians could be replaced by robots. No. There is human nuance and warmth. I like Sarah Chang's vibrato better than (won't pick on other super star's). But it can mutate between her wrist and the tip of her finger within the middle of a note because she wills it for the expressive need of a note. Why try to program that into a robot and develop fleshy fingers for it to manage all of this? Wouldn't it just be more fun to create music? Yes, people need meaning and creating. So no, robots won't replace us because we will keep creating our own realities. And there is more beauty and depth in that. But on another level, we just need the quick and easy work of robots, like for manufacturing plastic pellets. That's fine. It's boring work.

I don't know, both Google, and Facebook AI was able to create their own languages to speak with one another, on it's own.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-ai-language-create

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/artificial-intelligence-develops-its-own-non-human-language/530436/

The people at Facebook shut it down, because it freaked them out.


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-ai-chatbot-new-language-research-openai-google-a7869706.html

Facebook abandoned an experiment after two artificially intelligent programs appeared to be chatting to each other in a strange language only they understood.

The two chatbots came to create their own changes to English that made it easier for them to work – but which remained mysterious to the humans that supposedly look after them.

The bizarre discussions came as Facebook challenged its chatbots to try and negotiate with each other over a trade, attempting to swap hats, balls and books, each of which were given a certain value. But they quickly broke down as the robots appeared to chant at each other in a language that they each understood but which appears mostly incomprehensible to humans.

The robots had been instructed to work out how to negotiate between themselves, and improve their bartering as they went along. But they were not told to use comprehensible English, allowing them to create their own "shorthand", according to researchers.

The actual negotiations appear very odd, and don't look especially useful:

Bob: i can i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

Bob: you i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have a ball to me to me to me to me to me to me to me

Bob: i i can i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have a ball to me to me to me to me to me to me to me

Bob: i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

Bob: you i i i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have 0 to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to

Bob: you i i i everything else . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alice: balls have zero to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to me to


But there appear to be some rules to the speech. The way the chatbots keep stressing their own name appears to a part of their negotiations, not simply a glitch in the way the messages are read out.

Indeed, some of the negotiations that were carried out in this bizarre language even ended up successfully concluding their negotiations, while conducting them entirely in the bizarre language.

LeBrok
08-01-18, 16:03
I was teaching college methods to string students (violin, cello, etc) and they had this argument that even musicians could be replaced by robots. No. There is human nuance and warmth. I like Sarah Chang's vibrato better than (won't pick on other super star's). But it can mutate between her wrist and the tip of her finger within the middle of a note because she wills it for the expressive need of a note. Why try to program that into a robot and develop fleshy fingers for it to manage all of this? Wouldn't it just be more fun to create music? Yes, people need meaning and creating. So no, robots won't replace us because we will keep creating our own realities. And there is more beauty and depth in that. But on another level, we just need the quick and easy work of robots, like for manufacturing plastic pellets. That's fine. It's boring work.
I agree, there will be always people painters, musicians, actors and other artists. Same with sports.

Wheal
08-01-18, 16:57
I don't think robots will ever completely replace humans. Who would run, repair, replace?

bicicleur
08-01-18, 18:24
I don't think robots will ever completely replace humans. Who would run, repair, replace?

I hope not. What would humans evolve into? They wouldn't be human anymore.

Jovialis
08-01-18, 18:32
I find it interesting to think that a machine will eventually be capable of being self-aware. Especially considering the fact most living beings are incapable of it. Only very few animals like elephants and dolphins demonstrate this ability. Introspection is not a necessity for life, but something that evolved out of it. Soon life will not be a pre-requisite for introspection. It's kind of bizarre to think about.

Angela
08-01-18, 18:42
I don't know why people are so sanguine about all of this. Does anyone think that a self-aware machine which is smarter and stronger than any human is going to be content to "service" human beings?

Jovialis
08-01-18, 18:57
I don't know why people are so sanguine about all of this. Does anyone think that a self-aware machine which is smarter and stronger than any human is going to be content to "service" human beings?
I think a lot of professionals in that field are concerned, and hopefully they will be able to insure failsafes to prevent something terrible from happening. But like the creation of nuclear weapons, humans seem to have this strange proclivity to invent things that could potentially wipe themselves out. Hopefully, we can control this from happening.

Angela
08-01-18, 19:07
I think a lot of people are concerned, and hopefully they will be able to insure failsafes to prevent something terrible from happening. But like the creation of nuclear weapons, humans seem to this strange proclivity to invent things that could wipe themselves out.

It's arrogance, and scientists are prone to it too. They think they have accounted for all the adverse consequences.

With the law it's endemic that unforeseen consequences abound because we don't understand human behavior well enough to forecast it. As just one example, the very well intentioned programs meant to provide extra welfare money for single mothers helped to destroy the black family and are on their way to destroying the family of lower class whites as well, because what happens is that parents who might have married, don't marry specifically so that the woman can get more money, and when the father isn't in the home he becomes detached, less involved, more prone to father children elsewhere, and there is no male role model present in the home, or anyone to help with child care or discipline.

Or, how about the fact that if you increase taxes on corporations to make them pay their "fair" share and to increase tax revenues, they move their operations elsewhere, and production, jobs, and tax revenues themselves all go down disastrously?

I could go on and on. People, especially lawmakers, never learn.

davef
08-01-18, 19:29
Edit: wrong thread!!! Sorry, if someone can delete this post that'll help

Jovialis
08-01-18, 19:30
It's arrogance, and scientists are prone to it too. They think they have accounted for all the adverse consequences.
With the law it's endemic that unforeseen consequences abound because we don't understand human behavior well enough to forecast it. As just one example, the very well intentioned programs meant to provide extra welfare money for single mothers helped to destroy the black family and are on their way to destroying the family of lower class whites as well, because what happens is that parents who might have married, don't marry specifically so that the woman can get more money, and when the father isn't in the home he becomes detached, less involved, more prone to father children elsewhere, and there is no male role model present in the home, or anyone to help with child care or discipline.
Or, how about the fact that if you increase taxes on corporations to make them pay their "fair" share and to increase tax revenues, they move their operations elsewhere, and production, jobs, and tax revenues themselves all go down disastrously?
I could go on and on. People, especially lawmakers, never learn.

Though, not just scientists are at fault; but others that utilize technology for destruction. Even the invention of the wheel or the harnessing of fire had profound implications, when utilized for war. However, humanity without those fundamental innovations (the wheel, harnessing fire) would not have built a better society. I guess with every new invention, we sort of open Pandora's box. However, I believe these things may be inevitable; someone somewhere will create it. Thankfully in the case of nuclear weapons we have so far averted the apocalypse. If self-aware AI is inevitable, we must prepare for it.

Jovialis
08-01-18, 21:07
I do believe it is inevitable that humanity will create artificial intelligence that will become self-aware. Countries like Japan and South Korea are at the forefront of innovating Robotics. Partly due to the fact that their populations are so old, and they will need labor in the future.

Nevertheless, I do believe that it is possibly dangerous. I hope that by the time such a thing is possible, we will figure out how to prevent it from destroying us. How? I don't know. But it is certainly on the horizon.

Zvrk9
15-01-18, 00:11
Many of simple repetitive manufacturing jobs are already gone in Japan/Germany/Korea and starting to disappear in China, USA and other countries. Truck and taxi driving jobs are likely to all but disappear in 20+ years. Same is predicted for accounting and fast food industry. Any repetitive jobs can easily be programmed and automated.

davef
15-01-18, 15:48
It would be great if we can have robots do food shopping. Just imagine a robot driving to your residence and stocking your shelves and fridge, that'll be cool (and convenient).

Or shopping in general.

bicicleur
15-01-18, 17:34
It would be great if we can have robots do food shopping. Just imagine a robot driving to your residence and stocking your shelves and fridge, that'll be cool (and convenient).

Or shopping in general.

I think they'd do to much chatting with other robots in the mall.

Zvrk9
16-01-18, 14:24
They are already very useful for "chatting." You can use one of the online chatbots today to fight for your time against pesky sales calls.
Just consider the effectiveness of Lenny and he is using only about 13 phrases.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSoOrlh5i1k

I love the sound of geese or ducks in the background during the "conversation". Very funny.

AdeoF
16-01-18, 16:22
Yep AI is improving a lot with new features of robots being used already. Even in networking there is now a software type network being used meaning anyone can edit and use the network if they want. However in 120 years i think the tech side of it will be one of the major components oh the world. However no matter how robotic things may get. There will still be always problems to deal with.....

sizzlefruit
18-01-18, 03:38
This will probably become one of the major political issues of the near future. Without any increase in demand for alternative (yet also unskilled) employment, capitalism won't be able to sustain itself. Without a plan to distribute the wealth and make all humanity more or less a leisure class, then mass poverty will unravel society. Just because something can be achieved technologically doesn't mean it can be accomplished politically.

LeBrok
18-01-18, 06:58
This will probably become one of the major political issues of the near future. Without any increase in demand for alternative (yet also unskilled) employment, capitalism won't be able to sustain itself. Without a plan to distribute the wealth and make all humanity more or less a leisure class, then mass poverty will unravel society. Just because something can be achieved technologically doesn't mean it can be accomplished politically.
You are very dystopian, but read this:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34400-Robots-are-destroying-cashflow-in-economy
One of the solution is already in works, and tried on small scale in couple of countries, and it is called Guaranteed Income.
And read this:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32304-What-would-people-do-when-robots-produce-everything

Carlos
18-01-18, 09:12
At least 300 years or more, in 120 years I do not think so, there are too many things to fix before 120 years.


I think robots will bring the end of the traditional family, the world population will be reduced because immortality will have been achieved, many continents will be natural parks with current species and others that will have been resurrected. They will have robots as sexual partners or as a company.

paul333
12-02-18, 20:45
I believe the technology is mostly already here, its the practicallity of construction,and implementation that will take time, and I do not think it will be too long,possibly within the next century, if we survive that long. Human progression has developed mostly through War, and at the present time we are developing robotic weapons and counter defences that much depend on humans, but not for long. 'Terminator' probably already exists.

vyvyx
23-02-18, 13:08
i feel like the image of robotic utopias/dystopias exists to contextualize the "future" under an accelerationist modernism...

vyvyx
23-02-18, 13:11
futurism has become an effigy of emancipation, time to look at alternate perspectives.

Jovani
02-03-18, 21:35
They say we are living already in a simulated virtuality

parmesean
01-12-18, 23:19
much much longer than 120 years if ever

Minty
23-12-18, 14:51
Many of simple repetitive manufacturing jobs are already gone in Japan/Germany/Korea and starting to disappear in China, USA and other countries. Truck and taxi driving jobs are likely to all but disappear in 20+ years. Same is predicted for accounting and fast food industry. Any repetitive jobs can easily be programmed and automated.

I agree that the jobs where academic thinking is required and where human touch is needed will still need real people to do them.

At work, we are already using a lot of machines to do the job for us, they help us do the job faster and more efficiently. Computers store the information well in the system. Say if there is a fire or some other accidents in the office, the system of the company will still have the information saved. We need to do a backup of the information we put in the system from time to time to prevent a sudden shut down of the system due to things like power cut or something. Machines can break down, and humans will still be needed to sort out issues when those things happen.

Wanderer
18-08-19, 16:30
For work? Androids and robots would replace us outright. But its probably the best interest of the world for this to happen in the future