Robots to replace humans in all work within 120 years

When will robots completely replace humans?

  • Next 50 years

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • Next 120 years

    Votes: 5 26.3%
  • Next 200 years

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Next 300 years

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Never

    Votes: 9 47.4%

  • Total voters
    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?
 
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
 
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'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.
 
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.
 
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 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/technol...e-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-s...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.
 
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.
 
I don't think robots will ever completely replace humans. Who would run, repair, replace?
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
Edit: wrong thread!!! Sorry, if someone can delete this post that'll help
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 29129 times.

Back
Top