Robots to replace humans in all work within 120 years

[Garrick]

Article about prediction of world domination of robots:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/scienc...sity-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]

.
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]

Robots, is a little bit outdated... project; I think
.

http://www.realmofhistory.com/2016/1...uture-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


I am deeply sorry.

[Jovialis]

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]

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]

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]

The question is "completely replace humans" so my answer is NEVER.

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

[Sennevini]

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]

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, 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, 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]

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]

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]

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

[davef]

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]

Here's a chart from a BBC article 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]

Here's a chart from a BBC article 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.