/sci/ - Science & Math

>he wants to work
Imagine being this much of a slave

it literally will though, this has happedn time and time again the problem is that shifting of jobs from more trivial basic tasks to more complex, idk if our society can do it

>>10969910
>>10969914
After all, it's the reason why you exist. To serve and benefit your masters. The subconscious fear that automatization will make one redundant and that this redundancy entails one's own death.

>>10969917
Really ? That's the only problem ?

5 men were replaced by an automatic filling machine. Would you need 5 people around the clock to repair it too ?

>>10969917
People's iq isn't going to magically increase, there is going to be a large amount of brainlets without money and a lot of free time.

>>10969928
any job can be dumbed down... using computers

>>10969928
so you mean to tell me that there aren't going to be tons of people striving for their personal goals, doing art and improving their own lives like I was told?

>Useless people deserve to exist because they deserve to exist

Yikes

>>10969925
do you not understand how our civilization has been functioning since the industrial revolution? It will simply create more growth: ie the companies will invest in MORE filling machines, more similar technology etc. Wealth will be generated, prices will go down, people will be lifted out of poverty. This is literally the formula we discovered that holds civilization in place. The problem like I said is moving too fast where the workers cant keep up.

The sheer fact that so many people misunderstand what economic growth is really sheds light on why things like communism and anarchism are so prevalent

>>10969940
Why are you alive then.

>>10969928
What? Like jannies?
>shivers with dread

>>10969939
No. That would require actual post-scarcity. Not this bullshit where people have to fight for every last scrap of possibility they can squeeze out of the rest of human civilization.

>>10969914

I don't want to work though, I want to have some way to support my living. And most people sooner or later will lose it to automation, unless we get UBI

>>10969910
That's the biggest cope if there ever was one.

>>10969933
But we are reaching slowly a point where the person wouldn't be necessary at all.
Do you even understand what automation means?

>>10969917
Brainlet.


How may people does it take to take orders, and cook food at a restaurant? Maybe 12.

Now how may people does it take to maintain a machine that does all the work that the workers it replaced. Maybe 2.

>>10969968
Become rich asap, otherwise you are going to be a homeless faggot fighting for food in a wasteland.

>>10969947
>This is literally the formula we discovered that holds civilization in place.
For this to continue indefinitely into the future you would need to argue there are tasks humans can do which will NEVER be done artificially and without human intervention.

>>10969979
Thats my point you monumental retard, your view on what society is is fundamentally backwards. All of that = more food, cheaper food, more food locations, more choices to eat. Guess where that surplus labor goes? To other non developed restaurants, cities expand, more warehouses, new markets, etc

>omg there are too many humans and decreasing resources
>wtf why will automation increase productivity and filter out low skilled brainlets

Few smart people and lots of useful machines is the future.

>>10969987
>indefinitely into the future
anon..... humans aren't going indefinitely into the future. The idea that we are destined to "colonize the stars, space empire etc etc" is a myth. We are here till the inevitable economical and social collapse, the atomic war, or till the sun dies. Space Age and other futuristic Utopian societies are a modern Idea that has only had traction since the 50s.
>you have to argue there are tasks humans can do which will NEVER be done artificially and without human intervention.
There are plenty of those, in fact most jobs are those. This is something you wont understand unless you study AI and robotics. There are literal limits to what AI can do. An AI will never be as dynamic as a human mind.

>>10969987
You would also need limitless resources and consumers to keep up

>>10969914
As soon as there is no work, you'll see a heavy culling of the "useless eaters"

>>10970022
>An AI will never be as dynamic as a human mind.

But are the tasks we do in the economy really that dynamic? All these lean six sigma people are stripping more and more complexity and dynamism from jobs in large corporates every year.

Yeah bro just train the entire population to do labor that requires a 115+ IQ, why wouldn’t it work

>>10969917
Historical automation helps unskilled workers beat skilled ones. Can you explain why it'd be different now?

>>10969914
>dude politicians are nice people. They're totally going to implement the UBI when everything is automated. Name me one time a regime let its citizenry starve to death?"

solution is simple
seize the means of production (automation)
from each according to his ability to each according to his needs
t. garl margs

>>10969933
>>10969977
It'll be like that black mirror episode with the cuck porn. Everyone does some meaningless retarded bullshit to feel like they're working.

>>10970249
Its no different now, im just saying that this is what it is. hopefully politicians dont sell out to 3rd world countries as much as they have in the past.
>But are the tasks we do in the economy really that dynamic
alot are getting more dynamic because more and more people are getting educated. Take all of these cyber security programs for average ppl for example. also youre forgetting that .1% of humanity will have this shit, and society must evolve, ie we must have actual humans doing things always at the "fringes" of the market. Its like the economy in India now. You can't just make them START with green energy, they have to evolve through fossil fuels, and only then will the richest parts of the country move to green energy, then it will slowly spread to developed areas (like whats happening in the west). Likewise, we dont just REPLACE everyone with robots, we just wait till it is economically doable to implement them, then the "frontiers" of human truck drivers gets bigger and expands to poorer areas.

>>10970241
>>10970275

>>10969910
>>10970232
It will be answered that many self-prop systems-governments, corporations, labor unions, etc.-do take care of numerous individuals who are utterly useless to them: old people, people with severe mental or physical disabilities, even criminals serving life sentences. But this is only because the systems in question still need the services of the majority of people in order to function. Humans have been endowed by evolution with feelings of compassion, because hunting-and-gathering bands thrive best when their members show consideration for one another and help one another. As long as self-prop systems still need people, it would be to the systems' disadvantage to offend the compassionate feelings of the useful majority through ruthless treatment of the useless minority. More important than compassion, however, is the self-interest of human individuals: People would bitterly resent any system to which they belonged if they believed that when they grew old, or if they became disabled, they would be thrown on the trash-heap.

But when all people have become useless, self-prop systems will find no advantage in taking care of anyone. The techies themselves insist that machines will soon surpass humans in intelligence. When that happens, people will be superfluous and natural selection will favor systems that eliminate them-if not abruptly, then in a series of stages so that the risk of rebellion will be minimized.

>automate everything
>lower birth rates until global population is 1 billion
>only then reveal technology to extend lifespans to thousands of years
Problems weren't.

>>10970295
Even though the technological world-system still needs large numbers of people for the present, there are now more superfluous humans than there have been in the past because technology has replaced people in many jobs and is making inroads even into occupations formerly thought to require human intelligence. Consequently, under the pressure of economic competition, the world's dominant self-prop systems are already allowing a certain degree of callousness to creep into their treatment of superfluous individuals. In the United States and Europe, pensions and other benefits for retired, disabled, unemployed, and other unproductive persons are being substantially reduced; at least in the U. S., poverty is increasing; and these facts may well indicate the general trend of the future, though there will doubtless be ups and downs.

It's important to understand that in order to make people superfluous, machines will not have to surpass them in general intelligence but only in certain specialized kinds of intelligence. For example, the machines will not have to create or understand art, music, or literature, they will not need the ability to carry on an intelligent, non-technical conversation (the "Turing test"), they will not have to exercise tact or understand human nature, because these skills will have no application if humans are to be eliminated anyway. To make humans superfluous, the machines will only need to outperform them in making the technical decisions that have to be made for the purpose of promoting the short-term survival and propagation of the dominant self-prop systems. So, even without going as far as the techies themselves do in assuming intelligence on the part of future machines, we still have to conclude that humans will become obsolete. Immortality in the form (i)-the indefinite preservation of the human body as it exits today-is highly improbable.

>>10969928
neuralink will save us!

>>10970249
You millions of years ago:
Lots of species have undergone intelligence improvements. None of them have formed civilization. Can you explain why that particular species of hominids becoming more intelligent would be different now?

>>10970316
>AI has exponential growth
Sure champ

>DURR THE AI GONNA WIPE UP OUT IT GUNNA KILL US ALL
Why haven't we genocided bonobos?

>>10970316
>graph goes vertical

UNLIMITED POWER!!

>>10969928 is right

The average IQ is 100. In the modern economy, an IQ under 85 bars you from all but the most trivial tasks, definitely not a living wage in most states. Even the military won't take retards. If the average IQ necessary to work the majority of decent paying jobs goes up from 100 to 115, 34% of the population that would have previously been able to find meaningful employment will be left behind. This is a real problem that nobody wants to address.

>>10970243

Based and IQ pilled.

>>10969917
historical precedent fallacy

>>10970347
soon

>>10969910
>jobs for the sake of jobs
If you want that, just create jobs about digging holes and filling them again, brainlet

>>10970444
We already do that.

>>10970444
We do that already. We have jobs where people tear up good roads and spend 10 years building new ones to tear them down and build a new one for 10 more years etc.

Giving useless people fake jobs to placate them is literally how HR departments came to be and started ruining offices

>>10970022
>There are literal limits to what AI can do.
There are limits to everything, but you can't speak meaningfully about limits to AI because that term is way too vague. If you want to talk limits you need to get more specific e.g. Minsky proving that perceptrons were incapable of learning linearly separable relationships like the XOR function.
>There are plenty of those, in fact most jobs are those. This is something you wont understand unless you study AI and robotics.
Well I've been a software developer automating office work including the development of solutions making use of ML for the past ten years and I don't agree with you, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with this idea everyone who works with this general collection of subject matter you're talking about will believe what you do.
I also don't know why you're lumping in robotics here. Do you work with the hardware side of things? I don't think most people working with the majority of job automation opportunities out there have much of anything to do with hardware, which further adds to my confusion of where you're coming from with all this.
Are you one of those Amazon warehouse engineers or something?

>>10969910

>Implying automation has ever created jobs

In pre-industrial times there was no 0-18 universal education.

There was no cult of higher education where you wait around to 22 or even longer to enter the workforce.

There was no pension at 65, no retirement.

Years worked have dropped drastically, as have hours per week, participation rate and unemployment.

>>10970391
just install a tax funded nuralink for the plebs, problem solved. honestly i'd do it and just give myself over to an AI as a pure meatbot for 8 hours a day.

>>10970495
we don't
>>10970529
that's due to corruption not due to any kind of make work program

>>10969910
Kek

>>10971562

>He thinks an AI wants to use human bodies to do work when they can have machines do it cheaper and better

Anything an AI can use a human body to do, an AI can do better with machinery.

AI is a meme. They can't even introduce automated driving without causing a civil war.

>>10969910
>Let's create labour saving machines
>OK, but how will we make the property-owning class transfer wealth to the working class, when there will be less labour to do?
>They'll do extra labour maintaining and creating those machines

Fuck humanity tbeh.

>>10970022
>implying we won't make animal/human level artifical intelligence
retard

>>10969947
You are fucking retarded.