For all those that think automation is just a threat for the little people

[BoberFett]

That's not the problem of technology or automation, and not my problem to provide them with a purpose for their lives. Or you could be a progressive and give them big fat taxpayer checks because you fear them lynching you otherwise.

So if the choice is between the right-wing cynicism of "get a job you bum" and the left-wing cynicism of "here's money, please don't mug or rape me" I'll take the former. It's the cheaper and slightly more moral of two bad options.

LOL, call me a left winger if it makes you feel better. Lord only knows plenty of lefties around here think I'm an extreme fascist rightwing super-Nazi because it helps them sleep better at night when they think I'm the enemy.

But as another head-in-the-sander yourself, I'm not sure what your "Get a job" response will mean to someone for whom there are no jobs unless you have an electrical cord coming out of your ass and a circuit board instead of a brain.

 

[BoberFett]

This is the dumbfuck that once lamented the loss of telephone switchboard operators instead of a modern system that allows much cheaper phone calls and millions more calls, cellphones, the Internet, the entire modern tech age that we live in.

And this nit wit STILL whining about *BILLIONS* of people without realizing how dumb that is- he's whining to provide jobs for people in India and China. McOwned level dumb. I never realized he was quite this dumb.

This shitstain clearly hasn't understood a single word I've said. True fucktardery in it's most unfiltered form.

 

[BoberFett]

Lame denial. Jobs, per se, are a function of organization & leadership. Otherwise, we'd still be wandering bands of unspecialized hunter gatherers.

Your views are starting to make more sense. No wonder you complain about how corporations aren't creating jobs like you believe they're supposed to, and in their absence believe it's governments job to employ people to dig holes and others to fill holes back up.

It's your brand of foolishness that causes me to say that the left doesn't have any better ideas than the head-in-the-sand right. Your answer to not enough jobs is... to create more jobs.

What we're talking about here is a paradigm shift in economics. Jobs cease being a thing. Instead of the idiotic left wing goal of continually driving up wages to match the ever increasing cost of living, figuring out how to drive the cost of living to zero so that you don't need a job to live.

 

[BoberFett]

China and India have massive manpower advantages over the rest of the world. They are not embracing any of the automation schemes that dimshits like Gooberfett piss his pants over, it would be suicidal and stupid of them. It's a NON-FUCKING-ISSUE for "billions of people", it's not even a current issue for most in the western world.

Gooberfett and all the nitwits wringing their hands over an imaginary "problem" that's not even a reality, and sure as shit won't be a reality for nations that are going to push their own manpower advantages- not willingly commit suicide- is just fucking McOwned-level "Oil Thugs" stupid. To say nothing of China and India's economic issues not being mine nor anyone else in the western world's problem to solve in the first fucking place.

But then again... this subject/this forum? What else did I expect besides reactionary, childish thinking from simple minds who quake in fear over imaginary robots?

The umbilical cord wrapped around your neck during delivery, didn't it?

I'd love for you to find where I fear technology or don't want it implemented.

Answer my question, you simpleton: What will you do with the people whose skills are not necessary in the future?

 

[Jhhnn]

Your views are starting to make more sense. No wonder you complain about how corporations aren't creating jobs like you believe they're supposed to, and in their absence believe it's governments job to employ people to dig holes and others to fill holes back up.

It's your brand of foolishness that causes me to say that the left doesn't have any better ideas than the head-in-the-sand right. Your answer to not enough jobs is... to create more jobs.

What we're talking about here is a paradigm shift in economics. Jobs cease being a thing. Instead of the idiotic left wing goal of continually driving up wages to match the ever increasing cost of living, figuring out how to drive the cost of living to zero so that you don't need a job to live.

Sounds great. Now dovetail that with the ownership based profit motive of Capitalism & with the usual work based morality of the right wing. Provide reasonable transition scenarios.

 

[BoberFett]

Sounds great. Now dovetail that with the ownership based profit motive of Capitalism & with the usual work based morality of the right wing. Provide reasonable transition scenarios.

It doesn't work. Neither does the left wing model of take from the rich to give to the poor. That's why I say it's a whole new paradigm. But you are so firmly entrenched in your world view that you'll continue to believe the only problem is the evil right wing, and never yourself, so you'll continue to identify the problem incorrectly, and poorly apply the wrong solution.

 

[Zaap]

Answer my question, you simpleton: What will you do with the people whose skills are not necessary in the future?

Send them to your bunker to haul you out of it, you dumbshit.

Your idiotic question is like asking me, "Hey, what are you going to do with all the starving people in Saudi Arabia when they toss aside oil and challenge the world with solar and alternative power!??! Whatcha gonna do then, huh huh??"

NOTHING you dumb fucking prick, because they're never going to willingly toss aside their greatest advantage in favor of INVENTING ways of destroying themselves, just because some dimshit like you is a conspiratorial kook afraid of fucking robots!

China isn't going to replace BILLIONS of people that are their main strength in the world with BILLIONS of fucking robots that don't even exist! To the extent they use automation, it will only be to augment their manpower advantage you fucking idiotic childish bonehead, not REPLACE it. That's fucking beyond fucking stupid.

The west will only have an advantage in making automated processes make more sense for manufacture (see retard, that would be OUR strength) than does making things in factories full of hundreds of thousands of completely disposable worker-bees. (see retard, that would be THEIR advantage!)

Your idiotic position requires you to invent a time machine and spin the clock back to 1957 or something, and then sure, we can use sheer manpower to compete against a basket case communist China, and a crazy, unhinged Soviet Union, a recovering from their last bout of craziness Europe, and a stone age India.

From 2015 onward, that's not the case. We're not going back to a manpower driven model, trying to compete with the "billions" of the world you're wringing your dumb mitts over.

And as I say -guaranteed- in the next thread you'll be whining your ass off at "outsercing err jerbs!!" for companies that ARE providing them with jobs, doing the very thing you're whining at me for like it's my fucking responsibility to do. Just watch. You'll be too stupid to even recognize the significance of it, of course.

 

[BoberFett]

This moron just doesn't quit.

Still hasn't answered my question.

Still hasn't shown me where I've advocated eliminating automation.

Truly the dumbest of the dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, after doubling, tripling, or more throughout the Great Society programs then rate slows slightly as Reagan takes office and implements his reforms; then drop precipitously after Clinton signs welfare reform and guts key elements of your welfare state. Great track record there for how they "work like a charm" unless you meant to say "....once they were abandoned."

Oh, and I'm sure increasing average ages or incarceration rates in the U.S. have nothing to do with the crime rate either, it's all about how much taxpayer loot you can shove out the door to people.

Now that is the epitome of seeing what you want to see. Your chart does not support what you said.

 

[Jhhnn]

It doesn't work. Neither does the left wing model of take from the rich to give to the poor. That's why I say it's a whole new paradigm. But you are so firmly entrenched in your world view that you'll continue to believe the only problem is the evil right wing, and never yourself, so you'll continue to identify the problem incorrectly, and poorly apply the wrong solution.

Well, I don't see Capitalism going away anytime RSN, which puts your whole premise into the realm of fantasy. I agree that we need a paradigm shift, no doubt. It just needs to be reality based. We need a new New Deal of some sort or another.

 

[Moonbeam]

Zaap: China and India have massive manpower advantages over the rest of the world. They are not embracing any of the automation schemes that dimshits like Gooberfett piss his pants over, it would be suicidal and stupid of them. It's a NON-FUCKING-ISSUE for "billions of people", it's not even a current issue for most in the western world.

M: Are you sure? http://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-deman...20-years-becoming-country-most-robots-1405486

Z: Gooberfett and all the nitwits wringing their hands over an imaginary "problem" that's not even a reality, and sure as shit won't be a reality for nations that are going to push their own manpower advantages- not willingly commit suicide- is just fucking McOwned-level "Oil Thugs" stupid. To say nothing of China and India's economic issues not being mine nor anyone else in the western world's problem to solve in the first fucking place.

M: I think maybe that's a personal issue with you. As a member of the human race I take an interest in any problem I see potentially affecting the welfare of the human race sort of like a duck takes to water. It's how I am. I don't mind if or that you might make fun of it. I am quite inured to the fact that people who seem to have some issues of self respect and have, as a result, a lot of ego tend to belittle the interests of others as a means to aggrandize what they think is important. It's hard to internalize their point of view when it is so obvious what causes it.

Z: But then again... this subject/this forum? What else did I expect besides reactionary, childish thinking from simple minds who quake in fear over imaginary robots?

M: I can't speak for what you expected. I do, however, know something about the phenomenon of conformational bias. It could be that's what's happening. I can look on the web, however, and find many many articles about the argument as to whether robots are taking our jobs with all manner of highly educated and scholarly people on all sides of the debate. Your argument that those who disagree with you are idiots is frankly does not seem to be factual.

 

[Subyman]

I may not put my foot down at the self-check out, but I'm not going to talk to computer-face as a waiter or whatever. Even the Chili's checkout tablet sitting at the table bugs me. Friggin thing serves ads while you checkout...

 

[bshole]

As much as there is a part of me that can enjoy porn, I don't indulge it. And I
also don't find it funny. It makes me sick. I think sex is best between two loving people filled with tenderness, not two actors going at it mechanically. I see it as a perversion of something far and away more valuable. I see it as an objectivation of sex that leads into meaninglessness, and a crude exploitation of the people involved. I see not sexy women, but some poor mother's lost child. I do not think that truly happy people would involve themselves in it because it is self demeaning. Sorry, but you pushed one of my buttons.

What are you a priest or a prude? Men are hardwired to think about sex all the time with as many partners as possible. That is an evolutionary trait meant to spread as many of the man's genes as possible. It is UNNATURAL and PERVERSE for a man to be with one woman and still be happy. Why are you dissing men for their genetic code? They have no control of that, it is simply who they are.

 

[Moonbeam]

What are you a priest or a prude? Men are hardwired to think about sex all the time with as many partners as possible. That is an evolutionary trait meant to spread as many of the man's genes as possible. It is UNNATURAL and PERVERSE for a man to be with one woman and still be happy. Why are you dissing men for their genetic code? They have no control of that, it is simply who they are.

I never understood why at the time, but come to think of it, I seem th recall some thread in which you were called a pervert of some kind. That would certainly shed some light on your posts. In a thread a out automaton and job loss, I suppose a leper would bring up the joys of leprosy.

 

[Blanky]

If you don't find this...scary, you probably should.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_how...ications_of_computers_that_can_learn#t-752550

I was watching this and not very far in it occurred to me that this kind of thing is going to kill a lot of jobs. Just as I have thought; the fact automation hasn't removed jobs yet doesn't mean it won't; computers are getting smarter at a faster rate than we are.

And then around the 17 minute mark the speaker drops the bomb. If you hadn't figured out where this was going you weren't paying attention. Computers can already do an awful lot of things people can't do, and if things trend as he purports they are (and I believe this to be so), they will keep doing things people can't. When a new job is created for a person, a computer will quickly replace it.

Look at the geographical chart showing all the service jobs. Competent machines/robots will be able to do most of these. And it isn't theoretical. They already can do much of it, we've just not put them on industrial lines and cranked them out yet en masse.

My personal belief is that we are from decade to decade going to see an increasing unemployment rate, as marginally educated people are pushed permanently out of the iob market. Employment will be pushed toward those with specialized skills, and we will end up with ever increasing demands by the public to have government benefits because they cannot realistically be expected to ever earn a living when a cheaper robot can do a better job. Short term it will be strange. Long term maybe good for all of us; imagine a society in which we no longer need to labor to exist and thrive ?

 

[Paratus]

Why do you and Zaap keep repeating this stupidity? Nobody is saying throw your shoes in the machine.

But what are your plans for the billions of people who are unable to contribute to the economy because their only skills are done better by a machine?

Notice Zaap has avoided a very simply question, several times.

WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH BILLIONS OF UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE?

Orginally posted by Ebenezer Scrooge

Let them die and decrease the surplus population.

Of course Zaap won't come straight out and say that.

 

[realibrad]

Of course Zaap won't come straight out and say that.

I think that the correct way to look at it first off, is the non employed. Yes, there will be people who get replaced, but the majority is likely to never be hired for the jobs the robots do. I think where the disconnect is happening, is the idea that a company will come out with a robot, and the next day it will replace people.

What I think is far more likely, is that a company will come out with robots, and you will see a transition of maybe 10 years before said industry is dominated by robots. That seems at first horrible, but remember that those robots will start cranking out goods/services that are much much cheaper. There will be a race to the bottom, where incomes may fall, but goods will likely fall in price faster.

The reason I believe that, is because any rational company would understand that if wages are falling, that their goods/services must also fall in price if they hope to sell them. What good is a car that costs $100 if the income of the consumer is too low to justify the cost? So, what I see is a world where labor demand is rapidly decreasing, but goods/services are falling even faster.

So, what about the eventual point where robots might replace all labor jobs? Well, we would first need to decide what is a labor job. Would an artist be considered a labor job?

I think, ask I have explained before, that the world will eventually get to a point where goods/services are basically free. We live in a world of constrained resources, but what happens when we can create resources? What about a world where robots can create resources, and energy so cheaply, that we simply give it away?

 

[Newell Steamer]

Yeah,.. no.

Our self awareness, intelligence, etc,.. it is heavily rooted in our major senses. Think about Plato's The Cave.

We are born with the tools (our hands, our eyes, etc.) and through experiences (touching, hearing, seeing), we figure (with our brain) things out. Computers/AI is missing a major piece to all of this; experiences - they do not interpret. It is not even they can not,.. they just don't. Because there isn't anything organic about them.

No amount of processing power or sensors or advanced (even quantum) programming is going to replicate a human, to the point where CEOs can get replaced.

Now, customer service reps,.. sure,.. but up to a certain point. I don't think we'll have autonomous, independent beings, on par with humans.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah,.. no.

Our self awareness, intelligence, etc,.. it is heavily rooted in our major senses. Think about Plato's The Cave.

We are born with the tools (our hands, our eyes, etc.) and through experiences (touching, hearing, seeing), we figure (with our brain) things out. Computers/AI is missing a major piece to all of this; experiences - they do not interpret. It is not even they can not,.. they just don't. Because there isn't anything organic about them.

No amount of processing power or sensors or advanced (even quantum) programming is going to replicate a human, to the point where CEOs can get replaced.

Now, customer service reps,.. sure,.. but up to a certain point. I don't think we'll have autonomous, independent beings, on par with humans.

I see many people seem to rue the advent of email ("automation") and would prefer to return to the old way of verbally dictating correspondence to be transcribed by a secretary, keyed by a typing pool onto hardcopy, physically transported by a courier, and wait several days for the response since the same work needed to be performed on the other end. If only we could have all those amazing jobs back we'd be so much better off.

 

[BoberFett]

If you don't find this...scary, you probably should.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_how...ications_of_computers_that_can_learn#t-752550

Scary and incredible at the same time. I started reading the transcript, I'll have to watch the video later. The software developer in me finds AI fascinating.

 

[BoberFett]

I see many people seem to rue the advent of email ("automation") and would prefer to return to the old way of verbally dictating correspondence to be transcribed by a secretary, keyed by a typing pool onto hardcopy, physically transported by a courier, and wait several days for the response since the same work needed to be performed on the other end. If only we could have all those amazing jobs back we'd be so much better off.

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ On A Goddam Pogo Stick!!!

For the last fucking time, nobody is fucking saying we should destroy all technology and start banging rocks together to make mother fucking fire.

Some of us are just forward thinking enough to realize that although technology is amazing and wonderful, it has the side effect of marginalizing human usefulness.

You, Zaap, and the rest of the boneheads need to stop with the strawmen.

 

[glenn1]

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ On A Goddam Pogo Stick!!!

For the last fucking time, nobody is fucking saying we should destroy all technology and start banging rocks together to make mother fucking fire.

Some of us are just forward thinking enough to realize that although technology is amazing and wonderful, it has the side effect of marginalizing human usefulness.

You, Zaap, and the rest of the boneheads need to stop with the strawmen.

So you're OK with marginalizing the human usefulness of some people (like the typing pool going away), but not some other undefined jobs. Care to specify which jobs you're worried about marginalizing and which ones you aren't?

 

[theeedude]

If a computer can do your job, it should and eventually will be doing your job. Societal implications are for the government to worry about, not the private sector. Those of us designing and programming computers will continue to move the ball forward, if you can't keep up with it, too bad, so sad, we will take your candy.

 

[hal2kilo]

And their menial jobs,


Meet Amelia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAWWpwn1suw

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ntelligence-creation/articleshow/45529418.cms

http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...al-Intelligence-Platform-Interacts#.VJ_T4cNDA




The next step, self awareness.

Must destroy Skynet!

 

[BoberFett]

So you're OK with marginalizing the human usefulness of some people (like the typing pool going away), but not some other undefined jobs. Care to specify which jobs you're worried about marginalizing and which ones you aren't?

What the hell is wrong with you? Can you be any more dense? I'm not making any value judgments on who should or should not be marginalized. I'm not saying any technology should be abandoned because it marginalizes people. It's a fact that a larger and larger percentage of humans WILL BE marginalized. Technology will march on. It cannot be stopped. As machines get smarter and more capable, the number of people who can do any given job better than a machine will get smaller and smaller.

The question is how do we deal with it? You're so fucking dense you can't even identify the question. You and the rest of the fucking buffoons keep setting up "HERP DERP YOU WANT TO GET RID OF COMPUTERS AND HAVE TYPING POOLS DERP!" strawmen as fast as you can, that you don't take the time to actually put any real thought into what's being discussed.

Humans will be marginalized. When physical labor becomes a thing of the past, telling someone who is less intelligent than a computer algorithm to "get a job" might as well be telling them to grow wings.