Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's already practical and widespread, not general intelligence mind you, but specific intelligence such as business intelligence and general automation.
All this really started about 10,000 years ago in a spiritual sense, when the farming revolution allowed humans to have titles other then "hunter" or "gatherer".
The past 150 years - the Industrial Revolution really picked up the torch like not other era in recorded history, and even so we are seen a very rapid increase in automation in just the past 10 years. Mostly thanks to huge advancements in computer hardware and software engineering practices.
Practically speaking, we can completely automate most farming, logistics, manufacturing, and retail operations. There is of course a capital expense, but it is decreasing as well.
While there is a lot of automation there is a lot of manufacturing that has plenty of human intervention and will continue to for years. We are pretty far from having manufacturing with no human interaction. There may be a few cases but it's certainly not widespread.
While there is a lot of automation there is a lot of manufacturing that has plenty of human intervention and will continue to for years. We are pretty far from having manufacturing with no human interaction. There may be a few cases but it's certainly not widespread.
If two auto manufacturers can reduce it's workforce by 50% but still maintain the same output, it would have a roughly equal effect on the economy is if one reduced it's workforce by 100%. So in a sense, it's somewhat irrelevant in the macroeconomic sense.
If two auto manufacturers can reduce it's workforce by 50% but still maintain the same output, it would have a roughly equal effect on the economy is if one reduced it's workforce by 100%. So in a sense, it's somewhat irrelevant in the macroeconomic sense.
But if two auto manufacturer's reduce workforce by 50% each they are both still dependent on human intervention.
But if two auto manufacturer's reduce workforce by 50% each they are both still dependent on human intervention.
Indeed they are, but they are dependent on less. Inductively speaking, less human intervention has the same effect as no human intervention, except to a lesser degree of severity. The effects are not discrete.
Maybe I shouldn't have gone into that "general intelligence" thing, it's a bit of an advanced topic.
Indeed they are, but they are dependent on less. Inductively speaking, less human intervention has the same non-discrete effect as no human intervention, except to a lesser degree of severity.
Maybe I shouldn't have gone into that "general intelligence" thing, it's a bit of an advanced topic.
Yes it is less but my point simply is we are not close to 100% replacement of humans. There are more than enough problems with current automation.
Yes it is less but my point simply is we are not close to 100% replacement of humans. There are more than enough problems with current automation.
But we don't need 100% replacement of humans. If we replace 50% of humans, that could mean a very intimidating job market. In such a situation, socialism is natural, especially when trends point to continued refinements in automation.
Basically it's not a problem that be solved with a free market, because a free market requires a very strong human involvement. Nor can unemployment rates can not be solved when the private industry is not looking for employees.
You are IMO mistakenly using socialism instead of communism.
Socialism is the means of production in the hands of the government. Government in and of itself requires people. The more government the more people as government has to have people.
Communism is the move away from government control and the move towards equal distribution of goods and the means of production are fully automated or self fulfilling. Humans do what they can but in the end it doesn't matter as the community provides the goods and services no matter what intelligence a person has.
In reality humans would have to give up some human traits to accept that. Not likely to happen without a dictator or totalitarianism.
You are IMO mistakenly using socialism instead of communism.
Socialism is the means of production in the hands of the government. Government in and of itself requires people. The more government the more people as government has to have people.
Communism is the move away from government control and the move towards equal distribution of goods and the means of production are fully automated or self fulfilling. Humans do what they can but in the end it doesn't matter as the community provides the goods and services no matter what intelligence a person has.
In reality humans would have to give up some human traits to accept that. Not likely to happen without a dictator or totalitarianism.
Total communism is the natural economic endgame of total automation.
HOWEVER, it's not a discrete progression. We are not going to go from 100% to 0% employment overnight. Instead, should automation continue, there will be a general decrease is the need for human labor. Even in this case, the free market falls apart. A government is necessary to ensure, at worst, a distribution of wealth, or at best of distribution of labor. So what you will see is more government involvement in the economy, and it manifests itself in the tweaking and adoption of labor laws, and the increase in fundings for social services or government institutions. This has been happening for the past 100 years already, and I believe technological progression is a big reason why.
that is deep
but i am moredeep
greetings from iracus
when the machines take over fortunately there will
always be a slot available for a well endowed women to support the
the CEO
there is an argument that automation creates jobs as well and requires very skilled people to interface with those new systems.
that is deep
but i am moredeep
greetings from iracus
when the machines take over fortunately there will
always be a slot available for a well endowed women next to
the CEO
there is an argument that automation creates jobs as well and requires very skilled people to interface with those new systems.
Well the question should be if automation creates net jobs. If it does, that it likely wouldn't be worthwhile. So I'm fairly positive it does not. Automation is anyway mostly a capital expense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
