Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 46

Author Topic: Transhumanism Discussion Thread  (Read 54269 times)

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #510 on: January 17, 2014, 02:28:38 pm »

Maybe that's just my state, which is especially bad.  When Occupy was in full-swing, I think we only had a few hundred participants in the entire state.  I think even Alaska had more activity than us.
I truly hope it's just your state; and on the whole, I'm generally more optimistic about America than about, let's say, France, when it comes to tackling fundamental flaws. Do you remember that Churchill quote?

The thing is, I truly love the US. The first time I went there, I was maybe 10 years old; and as soon as we came back, I started talking about wanting to emigrate. I no longer do that, though. The country's great, the people are great, the whole American spirit is great, but the politics scare me too much. But I'm carefully optimistic about that; horror scenarios tend to not come true. I really hope you guys will pull through~
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #511 on: January 17, 2014, 02:37:40 pm »

Helgo--

I had to explain to people what the occupy movement was protesting *FOR*, because 90% of people around me in my state had no clue.

Unless he and I live in the same state, it was pandemic. The big turnouts happened in cities with large populations, with large demographics of tightly clustered people being impacted.

The US is a very disparate geographical region. Much of the country is enforced wilderness. (Literally. the BLM wont sell. People WANT to buy.) We dont have a nationwide rapid mass transit system (Like Europe does with light passenger rail) that is worth a shit, or affordable. (We have businesses like GreyHound Bus, which ferry interstate-- but costs of tickets are often over 300$. This makes organizing protests difficult.)
Logged

scrdest

  • Bay Watcher
  • Girlcat?/o_ o
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #512 on: January 17, 2014, 02:40:52 pm »

It will never cost nothing. You need to power and maintain the robots, you need someone to construct and program them (self-replicating robots would negate this one) and so on.

Even if you would relegate all the maintenance to other robots, THOSE need to be maintained as well, and then you need robots that can fix other robots, which results in 'turtles all the way down', or robots that can fix themselves, and then you get the risk of programming cancer if any piece of code responsible for the fixing becomes corrupted.

Plus, people at the top, all evidence otherwise notwithstanding, are not complete idiots when it comes to Economy 101: you sell products. People buy products. To buy products people need to have money. To have money people need to be paid. To be paid people need to work.

Also, the longer the chain of robots all the way down is, the more it is susceptible to an attack.
Logged
We are doomed. It's just that whatever is going to kill us all just happens to be, from a scientific standpoint, pretty frickin' awesome.

XXSockXX

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #513 on: January 17, 2014, 02:43:12 pm »

Hm, while our welfare system does balance a lot of things out, it also depends on enough people working to pay for it. So full automation would be a serious threat to the welfare state.

Labour freed up by automation does go elsewhere at some point, but in practice this always leads to a lost generation or two who does suffer from these changes. If you look at the industrialization in Germany in the 19. century, or later the de-industrialization process in the coal and steel industry starting in the 1970's, that did work out well, but at the cost of having several generations with severe unemployment or poverty problems.
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #514 on: January 17, 2014, 02:46:26 pm »

The question is not whether the human labor will still exist, but whether or not it will still exist in an economic and tradeable format.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #515 on: January 17, 2014, 02:50:18 pm »

It will never cost nothing. You need to power and maintain the robots, you need someone to construct and program them (self-replicating robots would negate this one) and so on.

Even if you would relegate all the maintenance to other robots, THOSE need to be maintained as well, and then you need robots that can fix other robots, which results in 'turtles all the way down', or robots that can fix themselves, and then you get the risk of programming cancer if any piece of code responsible for the fixing becomes corrupted.

Plus, people at the top, all evidence otherwise notwithstanding, are not complete idiots when it comes to Economy 101: you sell products. People buy products. To buy products people need to have money. To have money people need to be paid. To be paid people need to work.

Also, the longer the chain of robots all the way down is, the more it is susceptible to an attack.

You can replace "robots" with humans for every instance. Humans are biological robots.

We have doctors to repair other humans-- we have families to create more humans. Doctors can be doctored by other doctors.

Same can be true of robots. A fully automated fleet of machine servitors is theoretically possible if you solve the energy equilibrium problem.  You dont need unlimted energy. You just need equilibrium in energy use. Eventually global population will level out. at that point, coupled with such machines, output volumes dont have to increase.
Logged

WillowLuman

  • Bay Watcher
  • They/Them Life is weird
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #516 on: January 17, 2014, 03:24:55 pm »

In a fully-automated labor force, the problem stems from the existence of money - the robots could create everything necessary to sustain a stable human population, yet people could not afford those necessities because they don't have money from wages. The obvious answer would be to eliminate money and distribute the welfare in the form of robot-made food, clothes, etc. This only works with a population in equilibrium, though.

IMO, the main problem with the world today is that our systems are entirely dependent on growth. Our economy is set up in such a way that entities have to keep growing or die. They can rarely just find a stable niche. Stability and equilibrium are required.

That may be getting a bit too broad, but in the end it all comes down to sustainability. The world may not make such a transition within our lifetimes, though.
Logged
Dwarf Souls: Prepare to Mine
Keep Me Safe - A Girl and Her Computer (Illustrated Game)
Darkest Garden - Illustrated game. - What mysteries lie in the abandoned dark?

scrdest

  • Bay Watcher
  • Girlcat?/o_ o
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #517 on: January 17, 2014, 03:27:09 pm »

It will never cost nothing. You need to power and maintain the robots, you need someone to construct and program them (self-replicating robots would negate this one) and so on.

Even if you would relegate all the maintenance to other robots, THOSE need to be maintained as well, and then you need robots that can fix other robots, which results in 'turtles all the way down', or robots that can fix themselves, and then you get the risk of programming cancer if any piece of code responsible for the fixing becomes corrupted.

Plus, people at the top, all evidence otherwise notwithstanding, are not complete idiots when it comes to Economy 101: you sell products. People buy products. To buy products people need to have money. To have money people need to be paid. To be paid people need to work.

Also, the longer the chain of robots all the way down is, the more it is susceptible to an attack.

You can replace "robots" with humans for every instance. Humans are biological robots.

We have doctors to repair other humans-- we have families to create more humans. Doctors can be doctored by other doctors.

Same can be true of robots. A fully automated fleet of machine servitors is theoretically possible if you solve the energy equilibrium problem.  You dont need unlimted energy. You just need equilibrium in energy use. Eventually global population will level out. at that point, coupled with such machines, output volumes dont have to increase.

Except you cannot reprogram a human easily. You can, memetically, but it's very hard and depends on the mental and emotional state of the human. And assembling a human is a bit difficult, since you need to grow us, whereas for a robot it's just putting pre-made parts together.

Oh yeah, and WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE. You either get robots that are functionally equivalent to a human, in which case you just created a new race, enjoy the upcoming robot uprising, or you get robots that don't have the mental capabilities of a human, in which case something in an all-robot chain will get fucked up in a way that requires human intervention or a chain that has way to big proportion of robots that don't do the job you want them to to those that do.
Logged
We are doomed. It's just that whatever is going to kill us all just happens to be, from a scientific standpoint, pretty frickin' awesome.

Dwarf4Explosives

  • Bay Watcher
  • Souls are tasty. Kinda like bacon.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #518 on: January 17, 2014, 03:30:31 pm »

IMO, the main problem with the world today is that our systems are entirely dependent on growth. Our economy is set up in such a way that entities have to keep growing or die. They can rarely just find a stable niche. Stability and equilibrium are required.
Exactly what I was about to say. This is more or less required if you want something to work well; you need to test a system over and over again to see if it works well, and if the system is constantly changing, that doesn't work.
Logged
And yet another bit of proof that RNG is toying with us. We do 1984, it does animal farm
...why do your hydras have two more heads than mine? 
Does that mean male hydras... oh god dammit.

LeoLeonardoIII

  • Bay Watcher
  • Plump Helmet McWhiskey
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #519 on: January 17, 2014, 03:33:59 pm »

I wonder about that too, if we have robots who do jobs how will people be able to pay for stuff?

This happens now with outsourcing - effectively, jobs leave the market but companies still exist and their customers still exist, but some customers no longer have income to pay for goods and services.

I think you'll see robots doing the dangerous, heavy, undesirable jobs. Sorting recyclables out of garbage, mining coal, underwater welding, arctic trucking, crab fishing. The question is, will it ever get to the point where a robot is cheaper and more efficient than a human at other tasks, like sales? Well there are vending machines.

Similarly, a librarian has a lot of useful knowledge but computers are getting better and better at doing their job. A computer teacher could spot when a pupil isn't grasping a concept, offer some options that describe what the pupil may be feeling from which he can choose, and change its lesson to conform to those problems. A program should be able to identify, for example, if a math student doesn't grasp a certain concept and needs to go back and do some remedial learning. A computer program linked to a 3D projection and sensors should be able to teach you a martial art. In these cases you're dealing with a lot of small human cues, language complexities, and so the robot needs to be very well-developed. But once it's developed making copies is cheap, so it puts a lot of teachers out of a job.

A self-driving car should be able to replace a cabbie. The car would be more expensive, but once the costs of developing the technology are paid off actually producing them is not so expensive. Also the car can hold four passengers, meaning it can network with the service and pick up more fares along the way, avoid heavy traffic and construction detours, and interface fully with the automated driving road system. At some point having a driver in the cab is going to stop making sense.

But let's say you have a technician whose job it is to repair and replace the robot teacher or the self-driving car. It's reasonable to assume that the house your teacher is in is too strange and complex for a robot to navigate. And what company will send a robot which can be stolen and tampered with to a work site? A car may be more standardized, so that once it's on the lift the robot mechanic can do everything. But, barring a mythic singularity, you still need humans to actually create stuff.

Some human is going to be an engineer, using complex computer tools, to design a new car. The robots on the assembly line need changes to their tools and they need to be reprogrammed to the new manufacturing process. You still need people involved.

Where does the material come from for these robots and car parts? You need prospecting, which could be aided by robots, but isn't really a thing you can do from orbit AFAIK. The metal must be mined and processed, and that mining equipment needs technicians to keep it working. Sure you could have a robot that fixes the mining equipment, and it's able to fix other repair-bots, but there are always mistakes and unexpected hazards for which you need a human around just in case. You don't want the savings of a few peoples' wages to be what causes your whole operation to shut down for weeks at a time?

//

Establishing this infrastructure is a problem. Right now we have a lot of people who can do work, and cheaply, while developing these robots is expensive and installing them doesn't make economic sense.

But let's say you've established such an infrastructure that robots do most of the work. Since sci-fi writers typically are either way too conservative or way too liberal with their predictions, one might predict that we would have a computer network spanning the globe by 2050 and another might predict a moon-base by 2001. I'd say this level of robotic infrastructure wouldn't occur even in a small rich country before 2100, and then only because (A) there is a dramatic drop in population, or (B) robotics becomes so cheap it's worthwhile compared to human labor.

Regardless, you will have people who own this infrastructure, or it will be owned in common, perhaps by the government.

If it's government-controlled, you might see some kind of welfare system. If not, perhaps it will work like private industry below.

If it's privatized, there will be a wealth division between those who have the means of production and those who don't - who are locked out of this high-efficiency economy. The lower 99.99% will not be able to afford the goods available in the market because they have no income. Instead they will perform whatever jobs are available.

For example, if you can't get a job, you will do whatever you can. Remember your whole neighborhood can't find work, can't pay rent. Maybe you get some seeds and plant food to survive, and in the process you have an excess. You trade this excess to your neighbors for stuff they do, such as clothing repair. Money doesn't enter the slum economy, and it doesn't get used. Instead you have a network of loans and payoffs, of gifts given and received. People live in relative squalor to today because they, as an economic group, must fulfill all of their own needs.

This may be supplemented by government assistance. It's essentially a tax on the working and owning 0.01% to make sure the 99.99% don't starve to death. But any assistance from the big capital-owners isn't going to help. For example, if someone in the slums buys a pair of shoes on credit, how will he ever pay it off if he can't find a job? And that tax may be unsustainable, if the robotic production is geared toward producing massive amounts of goods but can sell to only the 0.01%.

Production will not only have little to no market of customers (no demand, because nobody can afford the goods at that price), those customers will demand durable goods because they can't afford to buy new clothes every five years or a new washing machine every ten. The culture of obsolescence will no longer be tolerated. People will be forced to do without a washing machine, and wash clothes by hand.

Which brings up why the slum economy will still work: there are human-labor alternatives to automation. A human can grow a crop of tomatoes and mash and cook them into pasta sauce. A human can wash laundry, or repair a car, or teach someone how to play baseball. So these people will survive. But their standard of living will not be great because they're basically self-employed subsistence workers completely without working capital.

It may be cheaper to own a motorcycle, for example, than a horse. The horse eats a lot, it moves relatively slowly, it gets sick, and becomes too old to work long before the motorcycle can no longer be repaired. However you can breed the horse - when's the last time you got your bike to do that? But the main sticking point is that the horse requires only things that can be produced within the slum economy. The motorcycle requires some kind of fuel / electricity, spare parts, tires. It's not about cost and usefulness, it's about having the right kind of currency.

Would that split between a local slum economy and a global robotic economy be stable? Would the poor, as evidenced in all of recorded history, rise up and demand a redistribution of control over production? This would effectively mean that the original investment in the infrastructure is lost, and production owned in common means goods produced are available in common. It would topple every throne of the 0.01% - but likely they would stand back up still taller than everyone else.

What does a person do all day when robots produce goods and serve human needs, and they can produce art, compose music, and explain the beauty of a sunset over the mountains? When the only reason a robot lover is less enjoyable than a human one is merely that the human is human? Will people begin to attribute maximum value to handmade goods rife with imperfection and relatively expensive to produce?
Logged
The Expedition Map
Basement Stuck
Treebanned
Haunter of Birthday Cakes, Bearded Hamburger, Intensely Off-Topic

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #520 on: January 17, 2014, 03:36:03 pm »

In a fully-automated labor force, the problem stems from the existence of money - the robots could create everything necessary to sustain a stable human population, yet people could not afford those necessities because they don't have money from wages. The obvious answer would be to eliminate money and distribute the welfare in the form of robot-made food, clothes, etc. This only works with a population in equilibrium, though.
Nope. Welfare. You don't need to go as far to the east and past as Russia 1917 - Germany 1970 is enough.

And growth isn't strictly speaking necessary. Growth makes it easier, but the system can (and will) adapt to stagnation.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

Descan

  • Bay Watcher
  • [HEADING INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #521 on: January 17, 2014, 03:37:35 pm »

Wait, what? ... You... You know you can have more than one maintenance robot, right? They can fix each other. Seriously. What?
Logged
Quote from: SalmonGod
Your innocent viking escapades for canadian social justice and immortality make my flagellum wiggle, too.
Quote from: Myroc
Descan confirmed for antichrist.
Quote from: LeoLeonardoIII
I wonder if any of us don't love Descan.

WillowLuman

  • Bay Watcher
  • They/Them Life is weird
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #522 on: January 17, 2014, 04:07:33 pm »

In a fully-automated labor force, the problem stems from the existence of money - the robots could create everything necessary to sustain a stable human population, yet people could not afford those necessities because they don't have money from wages. The obvious answer would be to eliminate money and distribute the welfare in the form of robot-made food, clothes, etc. This only works with a population in equilibrium, though.
Nope. Welfare. You don't need to go as far to the east and past as Russia 1917 - Germany 1970 is enough.

And growth isn't strictly speaking necessary. Growth makes it easier, but the system can (and will) adapt to stagnation.
When has the system ever been in stagnation since the industrial revolution? It's been a vicious cycle of booms and busts since the dawn of globalization. Our economy is has been a great big fucked-up sine wave, overall.

-snip-

This is paradoxical. The complete mechanization of the world cannot directly cause the complete reversion of the world to an agrarian society. Why would there be robot factories if only a handful of individuals could buy those goods? A handful of robots could supply said handful of individuals. They'd be forced to kowtow to some form of pressure in order to have customers at all.

If you develop advanced AI that perfectly mimics or surpasses human function, then use it to replace even artists, teachers, and engineers, then why not just make robotic customers too? It's utter nonsense. Not every job can be replaced. Robot artists don't replace human ones and put them out of the job, any more than, say artists immigrating from another country put other artists out of the job. That's not how humanistic fields work. Artists make money off their unique perspective and work: robot artists would just add to the pool of existing artists.

As for teachers, humans rely heavily on human contact and interaction to learn. This goes especially for children. You say of human teachers, "Oh, they'll become obsolete when we can make robots that mimic subtle human facial expressions and whatnot," but then what's the difference between that robot and a human? How does this robot with perfectly functional human AI  not know how to navigate a house? Why is it cheaper to use a robot than, say, a real human in this case? Humans grow on their own, out of readily available organic materials, rather than expensive metals and plastics.

Nature doesn't give us the strength to lift an entire car off the conveyor belt, or the capability to weld bits to it with our own bodies, or to make a t-shirt without using any tools whatsoever. However, nature does give use complex and sophisticated social abilities. Humans are naturally well equipped to manage and educate other humans. From a strictly economic viewpoint, why bother trying to rebuild the entire thing from scratch when it already exists naturally, in abundance? The human brain has immense powers that computers are barely even moving towards today. They can crunch numbers like you wouldn't believe, but we're still the undisputed masters of qualitative reasoning.
Logged
Dwarf Souls: Prepare to Mine
Keep Me Safe - A Girl and Her Computer (Illustrated Game)
Darkest Garden - Illustrated game. - What mysteries lie in the abandoned dark?

scrdest

  • Bay Watcher
  • Girlcat?/o_ o
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #523 on: January 17, 2014, 04:10:15 pm »

Wait, what? ... You... You know you can have more than one maintenance robot, right? They can fix each other. Seriously. What?

Who are you replying to? If me, then:

a) I already recognized that
b) This is precisely where robo-cancer comes in (actually wrong term, robo-prion is more like it). If a maintenance robot is damaged/bugged in such way that is undetected immediately and causes the robots fixed by it to fix other robots in the same, faulty way, the damage spreads exponentially.
Logged
We are doomed. It's just that whatever is going to kill us all just happens to be, from a scientific standpoint, pretty frickin' awesome.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Transhumanism Discussion Thread
« Reply #524 on: January 17, 2014, 04:12:58 pm »

LeonardoIII:

Would it interest you to know that the notion that humans are required to produce innovations is demonstrably false, and that we are currently, right now, using machines to design and build machines?

For instance, the earlier mentioned "evolved antennas".  They work better than anything humans have made. They look very strange, but they are here, the techology that designed them already exists, and it is making newer, better ones even as I write this.

Eventually, humans will have done a sufficient amount of work that robots can literally do everything a human can do, better.

Even getting along with each other.

We create robots to service our needs. If that is the local optimum the robot ais seek, they will be servitors who's very reason for being is to serve, and they will actively change themselves to better perform that function.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 46