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.
That's actually what Carl Marx was talking about with socialism. rather than let us all live comfortably off the work of the machines the capitalists said well all those unemployed can now work in art or something to be defined later on or that they can figure out themselves. new things and innovations however obviously most people do not come up with groundbreaking new things to do and make money from on any kind of regular basis.
Robots need not be particularly fancy. Automation of factories and willy wonkas dad (sorry charlies dad), lost his job to the machines. Since marx in 1920 something has mechanization led to greater overall conditions and how have people adapted? Quality of life on the surface appears better and we have more stuff, not too much more of the world has been swept under the rug and their suffering ignored much more so than in previous generations, decades or centuries.
I still say liberate the means of production for the worker as few to none of us can afford a factory. You can get some hand tools and power tools. Who was the guy who burst his heart in a competition with the steam drill? ole John Henry.
That's actually what Carl Marx was talking about with socialism. rather than let us all live comfortably off the work of the machines the capitalists said well all those unemployed can now work in art or something to be defined later on or that they can figure out themselves.
Consumer capitalism has worked well. Capitalism alone self-destructs. You need unions and government policies to spread the wealth to the masses.
Robotics completely changes that however. The masses won't be reduced to serfs and peasants like in the past when they were needed for labor, but rather to the status of vermin. Those who consume resources but provide no tangible benefit.
We dont have to have emotional whimsical AI's to replace humans. quite the opposite.
What you showed me is a very fast search engine, nothing more. Also, if you pay attention, Watson won by basically pressing the button faster than humans, because it is probably electronically wired to do so.
This is essentially what I've been saying - computers are good at manual labor and memory stuff. You're seeing it right there. It means nothing.
Now if Watson were to be asked to explain why Josh Duggar is so hated, it would have been completely stumped. Same with the question: What candy do you like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Also the article talks about simulating neurons and synapses specifically. This is the basic building blocks of a brain. I'm not sure why you are in such denial.
Did you read the article? They're not trying to built a brain, they're trying to built a chip that is "inspired" by how our brain works - they are trying to make a faster chip, nothing more. How FAR of a leap do you have to make to think that is going to lead to a thinking robot?
.
What you showed me is a very fast search engine, nothing more. Also, if you pay attention, Watson won by basically pressing the button faster than humans, because it is probably electronically wired to do so.
And humans can buzz before they know the answer. Watson only buzzes if he knows the answer. IE he has decided to answer the question. Its a fine line between that, and the speed advantage.
Quote:
This is essentially what I've been saying - computers are good at manual labor and memory stuff. You're seeing it right there. It means nothing.
Really? sooooo you don't use google? You havent noticed that computers are starting to write news articles? And are unaware that robotic surgery is a thing now? And self driving cars are just....manual labor and memory stuff?
Quote:
Now if Watson were to be asked to explain why Josh Duggar is so hated, it would have been completely stumped. Same with the question: What candy do you like?
Know how I know you didnt watch the video?
Some examples:
Wanted for general evil-ness; last seen at the tower of Barad-dur; it's a giant eye, folks. Kinda hard to miss : Sauron*
"Bang Bang" his "Silver hammer came down upon her head" : Maxwell's Silver Hammer*
To push one of these paper products is to stretch established limits : Envelope
Could it tell you why Josh Duggar is so hated? Absolutely. Would it understand it? Nope, not yet. Thats the difference between a expert system, and a AI.
Would it answer the candy question? Probably. But again, not because it understood it.
Quote:
Did you read the article? They're not trying to built a brain, they're trying to built a chip that is "inspired" by how our brain works - they are trying to make a faster chip, nothing more. How FAR of a leap do you have to make to think that is going to lead to a thinking robot?
SPOCK: Computer. Resume testing. ...T'plana-Hath, matron of Vulcan philosophy
TEST COMPUTER VOICE: What is the molecular formula of aluminum sulfide crystal?
TEST COMPUTER VOICE: ...White Queen to section five, grid six. Queen takes Knight. Rook takes Queen. White pawn to section five, grid seven, pawn takes rook. Checkmate.
TEST COMPUTER VOICE: ...Correct. What significant contribution to bioengineering was made on the Loonkerian outpost on Klendth?
SPOCK: The universal atmospheric element compensator.
TEST COMPUTER VOICE: Evaluate and conclude. A starship's sensors indicate it is being pursued so closely that it occupies the same space as its pursuer.
TEST COMPUTER VOICE: ...Correct. Identify object and it's cultural significance.
SPOCK: Klingon mummification glyph.
TEST COMPUTER VOICE: What was the principle historical event on the planet Earth in the year nineteen eighty-seven?
TEST COMPUTER VOICE: ...Correct. What is Kiri-kin-tha's first law of metaphysics?
SPOCK: Nothing unreal exists.
TEST COMPUTER VOICE: ...Correct. Adjust the sine wave of this magnetic envelope so that anti-neutrons can pass through it but anti-gravitons cannot.
TEST COMPUTER VOICE: ...Correct. What is the electronic configuration of gadolinium?
TEST COMPUTER VOICE: ...Correct. How do you feel? ...How do you feel?
SPOCK: I do not understand the question.
I think that's the problem computers will have when trying to think. Nor would it care, an even bigger problem, even if we could program computers to identify human emotion - probably not that hard truthfully, we couldn't make one care or know how to respond beyond standard responses that would not take into account the context. It could search all the psychological diagnoses in every medical database in existence and use a scanner to detect facial expressions but could it look into the person's eyes and say what he or she needs to hear? Probably not. That kind of job won't go away.
Star Trek is a good proxy for imagining this situation because they have imagined a world where humans are no longer needed to actually do the work of production in that future - that work is all done by machines, androids or corporeal holograms. The result is that humans had to re-think their economic system.
When computers actually replace people, and I think they can for most of our production-based economic sectors and at least some of our service ones, capitalism will no longer work. Capitalism is based on a triangular hierarchy. If machines replaced humans at the base, the thing would start to collapse, we'd have to devise a new system.
And humans can buzz before they know the answer. Watson only buzzes if he knows the answer. IE he has decided to answer the question. Its a fine line between that, and the speed advantage.
A computer executing a manual task faster than a human should be nothing new. Afterall, we've been using machines in manufacturing for almost a century now.
A computer being able to search through the database faster than a human is also nothing new. This is why we put all the data in databases instead of file cabinets.
In other words, there is no groundbreaking stuff in the video - it's just a powerful search engine that can electronically sends out pings. None of which is new stuff. You are in awe because you don't understand the technology and is wowed by the dog and phony show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Really? sooooo you don't use google? You havent noticed that computers are starting to write news articles? And are unaware that robotic surgery is a thing now? And self driving cars are just....manual labor and memory stuff?
Self driving cars are exactly manual labor and memory. Once we have enough satellites and map data, it's on. We already have self-landing plane and auto-pilot long before self-driving car. This is not exactly science fiction coming true. Don't get me wrong, self-driving cars are awesome, but the technology behind it isn't that ground-breaking.
Robotic surgery is also just more manual labor. The "meat" of the operation still comes from the doctors to plan out the surgeries, the robotic arms merely execute the plans. It's like having a surgeon standing next to you telling you what to do. There is NO intelligence in the robot, all of that has to come from the doctors. This should sound familiar right? It's what I've been saying again, again, and again - these are just tools that are extensions of the human brains. These tools cannot function without humans.
The computers are writing articles and even some books too - technical books. It's all just mining data and then splitting out text by following the templates designed by humans. This algorithm is probably the smartest thing we invented so far. Yes, it's smart and it can replace some low-level journalistic jobs but 1) the intelligence still comes from humans. 2) I never said computer will not replace some jobs. The key is that other types of jobs will be created and computers still depend on humans for their intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Know how I know you didnt watch the video?
Some examples:
Wanted for general evil-ness; last seen at the tower of Barad-dur; it's a giant eye, folks. Kinda hard to miss : Sauron*
"Bang Bang" his "Silver hammer came down upon her head" : Maxwell's Silver Hammer*
To push one of these paper products is to stretch established limits : Envelope
Could it tell you why Josh Duggar is so hated? Absolutely. Would it understand it? Nope, not yet. Thats the difference between a expert system, and a AI.
Would it answer the candy question? Probably. But again, not because it understood it. [/url]
It may be able to answer the Josh Duggar question by querying what people say about it and then summarizing it, but it cannot answer the candy question because the question is what kind of candy the computer likes, it can answer what kind of candies most people like though.
Exactly, an expert system is not AI. And it's a big leap to say it will eventually lead to that.
seriously, thats the point. their work is advancing down that path.
They can put a human brain into a robot body, and it is still not AI..... because a human brain is not AI!! Yes, this looks like it is advancing down that path the same way that humans first learned to start fires would eventually lead to water heaters. We're talking a long time into the future.
.
even if we could program computers to identify human emotion - probably not that hard truthfully, we couldn't make one care or know how to respond beyond standard responses that would not take into account the context.
You program it to care just like humans care. "Caring" would be a set of primary goals to seek and a set of primary dislikes to avoid. If you have a robot that is tasked to look after your children, then for instance keeping them form killing themselves would be a primary function, and the robot would really "care" about this.
A computer executing a manual task faster than a human should be nothing new. Afterall, we've been using machines in manufacturing for almost a century now.
A computer being able to search through the database faster than a human is also nothing new. This is why we put all the data in databases instead of file cabinets.
In other words, there is no groundbreaking stuff in the video - it's just a powerful search engine that can electronically sends out pings. None of which is new stuff. You are in awe because you don't understand the technology and is wowed by the dog and phony show.
Actually I am in awe because I DO understand the technology. LOL. In the end we're powerful and flawed search engines. You ask me a question I search my knowledge base for an answer. I extrapolate based on incomplete knowledge. Thats nothing special.
FYI-I've worked as a software engineer, and QA on firmware at Intel. I get to play with hardware about a year in advance. In the past I have not revealed this because to be honest theres some whack jobs here that I suspect would harass me at work, but I'm changing companies. I've been involved in everything from troubleshooting CPU's all the way up to complex software that used neural network learning algorithms. So yeah....apparently "I dont understand the technology"
I'm not quite the worst person you could say this too, but I do in fact understand this technology better then 99% of the people out there.
Quote:
Self driving cars are exactly manual labor and memory. Once we have enough satellites and map data, it's on. We already have self-landing plane and auto-pilot long before self-driving car. This is not exactly science fiction coming true. Don't get me wrong, self-driving cars are awesome, but the technology behind it isn't that ground-breaking.
Wow. Its also vision, and extrapolation. Its the best example of technology that people said would NEVER be done by a computer. That the requirements for it were impossible. If you had asked me 20 years ago if it was possible even I would have laughed. Heck who remembers the first pathetic driving competition that DARPA did?
Quote:
Robotic surgery is also just more manual labor. The "meat" of the operation still comes from the doctors to plan out the surgeries, the robotic arms merely execute the plans. It's like having a surgeon standing next to you telling you what to do. There is NO intelligence in the robot, all of that has to come from the doctors. This should sound familiar right? It's what I've been saying again, again, and again - these are just tools that are extensions of the human brains. These tools cannot function without humans.
A fair enough criticism. I should have chosen another example. However...these tools WILL function without humans eventually. For example, diagnosis using the Watson computer mentioned earlier. Something which is far closer today then a fully automated surgeon (which is being worked on)
Quote:
The computers are writing articles and even some books too - technical books. It's all just mining data and then splitting out text by following the templates designed by humans. This algorithm is probably the smartest thing we invented so far. Yes, it's smart and it can replace some low-level journalistic jobs but 1) the intelligence still comes from humans. 2) I never said computer will not replace some jobs. The key is that other types of jobs will be created and computers still depend on humans for their intelligence.
Reading this, and other responses.....It seems like you can't comprehend the progression. You don't understand that this technology isn't standing still.
Quote:
It may be able to answer the Josh Duggar question by querying what people say about it and then summarizing it, but it cannot answer the candy question because the question is what kind of candy the computer likes, it can answer what kind of candies most people like though.
Exactly, an expert system is not AI. And it's a big leap to say it will eventually lead to that.
Agreed, a expert system is not a AI. We're about 15 years from a AI, its not the big leap you think. Just having systems where you can say "Tell me everything about this picture", and having it recognize everything, and name them is pretty amazing. But its not AI. Its just some of the basic components to provide a self learning AI with a interface that allows it to create context.
AI is real research, and is being funded at increasing levels. Its going to happen.
Quote:
They can put a human brain into a robot body, and it is still not AI..... because a human brain is not AI!! Yes, this looks like it is advancing down that path the same way that humans first learned to start fires would eventually lead to water heaters. We're talking a long time into the future.
.
I didnt say it would be a human brain in a robot body. I'm suggesting tearing apart a human brain at such a level that we can determine the interactions between the parts such that eventually you end up with a wholly non-organic system that can be duplicated. Its one of several methods to reach a AI. Once we can emulate everything in the brain, theres nothing stopping us from doing so.
Humans are not made out of magic. We're not special. We are extremely complex, and it will take a lot of work and effort to figure it all out, but it will occur.
And the doubling of horsepower as we discussed is whats making a lot of these advances possible.
A technical way of looking at it....the good ol Commodore 64. If you have a calculator, you can't emulate it, or do much compared to it. Sure math. Whoopee. A modern computer can emulate it in its entirety. That horsepower is needed to make the advances in AI. That make sense?
But seriously, you really do not seem to be able to understand the progression of science and technology. You base everything on the NOW, without thinking "oh but in 18 months that doubles". And the knowledge to create a AI ALSO is increasing rapidly.
Actually I am in awe because I DO understand the technology. LOL. In the end we're powerful and flawed search engines. You ask me a question I search my knowledge base for an answer. I extrapolate based on incomplete knowledge. Thats nothing special.
FYI-I've worked as a software engineer, and QA on firmware at Intel. I get to play with hardware about a year in advance. In the past I have not revealed this because to be honest theres some whack jobs here that I suspect would harass me at work, but I'm changing companies. I've been involved in everything from troubleshooting CPU's all the way up to complex software that used neural network learning algorithms. So yeah....apparently "I dont understand the technology"
I'm not quite the worst person you could say this too, but I do in fact understand this technology better then 99% of the people out there.
Then you should know that what you saw in the video is not the same thing as an AI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Wow. Its also vision, and extrapolation. Its the best example of technology that people said would NEVER be done by a computer. That the requirements for it were impossible. If you had asked me 20 years ago if it was possible even I would have laughed. Heck who remembers the first pathetic driving competition that DARPA did?
If you transport someone from twenty years ago to the present, that person would find a whole lot of things mind-boggling - smart phones, Internet, 3-D big screen tvs, etc. What does it proof? Nothing really. No one is disputing that technology advances; but to think that it can replace most human jobs are too big of a leap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
A fair enough criticism. I should have chosen another example. However...these tools WILL function without humans eventually. For example, diagnosis using the Watson computer mentioned earlier. Something which is far closer today then a fully automated surgeon (which is being worked on)
Again, I'm not disputing that computers will replace some jobs, but it will also create jobs. If diagnosis using computers are here, somebody needs to built/service those computer. As an IT person, you should know that your job wouldn't have existed 50 years ago. It exists now because of automation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Reading this, and other responses.....It seems like you can't comprehend the progression. You don't understand that this technology isn't standing still.
Agreed, a expert system is not a AI. We're about 15 years from a AI, its not the big leap you think. Just having systems where you can say "Tell me everything about this picture", and having it recognize everything, and name them is pretty amazing. But its not AI. Its just some of the basic components to provide a self learning AI with a interface that allows it to create context.
AI is real research, and is being funded at increasing levels. Its going to happen.
I have said that AI will happen at some point, but it is not happening anytime soon, or even within our lifetime. At least not the AI that you think is smart enough to replace most human jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
I didnt say it would be a human brain in a robot body. I'm suggesting tearing apart a human brain at such a level that we can determine the interactions between the parts such that eventually you end up with a wholly non-organic system that can be duplicated. Its one of several methods to reach a AI. Once we can emulate everything in the brain, theres nothing stopping us from doing so.
Humans are not made out of magic. We're not special. We are extremely complex, and it will take a lot of work and effort to figure it all out, but it will occur.
And the doubling of horsepower as we discussed is whats making a lot of these advances possible.
A technical way of looking at it....the good ol Commodore 64. If you have a calculator, you can't emulate it, or do much compared to it. Sure math. Whoopee. A modern computer can emulate it in its entirety. That horsepower is needed to make the advances in AI. That make sense?
But seriously, you really do not seem to be able to understand the progression of science and technology. You base everything on the NOW, without thinking "oh but in 18 months that doubles". And the knowledge to create a AI ALSO is increasing rapidly.
Even if we can emulate everything in the brain, all we're doing is just cloning a new brain. It's still not AI and it's impractical - no one needs to built a new brain (save for medical purpose) when there is already billions of it in the world that exist naturally.
Foreseeing the future is EXACTLY what I've been doing - I see the progression decades into the future and no, your AI still don't exist.
I have also touched on the economics of robots - it simply would not make sense economically for it to take over most of human jobs. You don't need a crystal ball for economics because it basically applies to all different periods of time. And no, a future that you describe would not make made sense economically either.
.
Then you should know that what you saw in the video is not the same thing as an AI.
I do. Watson is a expert system. I havent claimed it was an AI at all.
Quote:
If you transport someone from twenty years ago to the present, that person would find a whole lot of things mind-boggling - smart phones, Internet, 3-D big screen tvs, etc. What does it proof? Nothing really. No one is disputing that technology advances; but to think that it can replace most human jobs are too big of a leap.
So 20 years ago. 1995. Now transport someone from 1975 to 1995. The amount of change is smaller. go further back 1800 to 1820...almost nothing. Thats the point of accelerating change, and perhaps why we disagree so much. The "big leap" is coming a HECK of a lot faster then you expect.
Quote:
Again, I'm not disputing that computers will replace some jobs, but it will also create jobs. If diagnosis using computers are here, somebody needs to built/service those computer. As an IT person, you should know that your job wouldn't have existed 50 years ago. It exists now because of automation.
Ahhh the "creative destruction" argument. Lots of historical data to back it up as well. I believe its a reasonable argument, even though I disagree. My argument is...this time its different because while in the past humans could change and adapt, whats coming now is going to occur MUCH faster, and more importantly theres very very little that will remain unique about us or special. And the jobs created at first will be highly skilled jobs.
BTW The argument that "these new jobs will be in fixing them" is a massive deflection. #1 that requires skills many dont have, but more importantly if your argument is that losing 20 million jobs isn't a problem because we will have to service the automation, you miss the point that its not a 1-1 replacement. its a 100-1. Your discussions so far don't strike me as that foolish, so thats more of a cautionary note to those reading this and thinking it.
Guess what? Highly skilled jobs require above average people. What about all the average people? Hmm...See before, when receptionists got laid off, they went on to work other low skill jobs. But we really are talking about the wholesale replacement of almost all of those. People aren't going to become magically more capable. The jobs of the near future require truly impressive levels of knowledge.
In the past people went from picking fields, to working fast food. Both require about the same level of intellectual capability. (no offense intended to either group-both do require some intellectual capability). Is the average fast food worker going to go to developing software? Uhhhhhhhhhh
So what average intellectual jobs will be opening up? Uhhhhhhh
And thats one of the ways this is different.
Quote:
I have said that AI will happen at some point, but it is not happening anytime soon, or even within our lifetime. At least not the AI that you think is smart enough to replace most human jobs.
Im 45. I suspect we're going to see a real ai within my lifetime, at a large scale. You can disagree, and have stated your views well. Hopefully I have mine as well. We disagree. But I do respect your viewpoint on it. I've enjoyed the back and forth, and you've been relatively nonsense free.
Quote:
Even if we can emulate everything in the brain, all we're doing is just cloning a new brain. It's still not AI and it's impractical - no one needs to built a new brain (save for medical purpose) when there is already billions of it in the world that exist naturally.
Sorry, but if you have cloned a brain to the point of emulating it, it is in fact a AI. Its artificial, and its intelligent. Even more importantly its just the start, everything advances from there. Looking at the basics of the costs to create such a thing, We can estimate when and the cost based upon Moores Law. Note-while some see the end of Moores law, that date is usually past the point at which the processing power is available to create a AI at a insanely low price point. IE I paid more for my watch or phone.
Quote:
Foreseeing the future is EXACTLY what I've been doing - I see the progression decades into the future and no, your AI still don't exist.
Those who make a living at this disagree. Investment firms aren't throwing money at this because they think it wont have a large return in a reasonable time frame. You're looking at recent linear developments, and thinking thats the curve we are on. Its not, it really is exponential. And thats a massive difference.
Quote:
I have also touched on the economics of robots - it simply would not make sense economically for it to take over most of human jobs. You don't need a crystal ball for economics because it basically applies to all different periods of time. And no, a future that you describe would not make made sense economically either.
.
Which part? I think our economic system faces a existential threat from technological development.
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.
