general Robots and mankind's future

[ManaMinori 4,145]

Is anyone else wary or afraid of robots designed to look and act more like humans, and even are capable of AI/ smart self teaching behavior?

What are your thoughts on the future of man with these kinds of robots? Or with robots in general? Are we in danger?

[Invincible 2,091]

I took a robotics class last year. I can tell this much; with current hardware, fully self taught robots are still but a work in progress. Current AI is pretty impressive but it has many limitations.

 

Even so, I'm not worried too much. A robot design to mimic a human will have a decisive flaw - it's humanity.

[Discordian 6,015]

We'd only be in danger if a self-learning robot was only ever taught bad things about the human race. If it had the capability to learn in the same capacity as a human than it would have as much of a chance as any human to learn how to love or hate humanity.

 

People automatically assume the worst case scenario in this sort of thing but a robot wouldn't actually have more or less power than any human to destroy the world.

 

Let's assume they even wanted to destroy the human race; if they had similar intelligence to us then there would need to be a justice system in place that could put them in jail for any crimes committed.

 

Robots wouldn't be able to consolidate enough power to overthrow the human race fast enough for people to not take action.

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,302]

I don't feel as though we've anything to worry about for a very long time; and maybe not ever.  In the meantime, I think humans are a far greater (and more feasible) threat to humans.

[simba86 1,541]

only problem i see is them taking more jobs

[Probably Lee 197]

Kind of hard to make a real artificial intelligence when we don't understand intelligence in the first place.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Savage Lee

[cider float 2,537]

Any machine or software that teaches itself would teach itself stuff that people might not want or care about. And there's really no need to make robots look like us. I feel like windows and mac might already be trying to make software figure out what people like best for the next product but it will be something people really won't want.

Kind of hard to make a real artificial intelligence when we don't understand intelligence in the first place.

And pray tell who would know intelligence in the first place?

[City Bread 44]

You're talking about at least fifty or so years before robots will be able to be "self aware" And I say that with quotations since creating a machine that has a conscience is pretty...well...hard. Having an AI ask and answer questions is one thing, but I doubt robots will be doing anything too impressive anytime soon. As for future generations, I don't even know. 

[1Bit 1,531]

All I'm afraid of is people giving robots jobs which put human lives at risk. Robots working with calculations and math...what if a robot was in charge of maintaining a city? Or at least it's water supply or power or something? If it could better complete its task of running everything at maximum efficiency by cutting off some of the city dwellers or something similar, then we're creating more problems than we're fixing.

 

I doubt half of that made sense  I'm just rambling a lil bit~

[Probably Lee 197]

Any machine or software that teaches itself would teach itself stuff that people might not want or care about. And there's really no need to make robots look like us. I feel like windows and mac might already be trying to make software figure out what people like best for the next product but it will be something people really won't want.

And pray tell who would know intelligence in the first place?

Sorry, by intelligence I meant the human brain. We do not completely understand it yet. The brain is just a fancy, squishy computer after all.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Savage Lee

[Anneal 2,197]

only problem i see is them taking more jobs

The problem isn't really robots stealing jerbs, it's more that a whole lot of people are not paying attention to what's arriving and aren't placing much of an effort to adapt to it. If we don't adapt to the "Robotic Revolution" is going to be way more hard hitting than any of the previous Industrial Revolutions. There is definitely going to be mass unemployment, starting from the robots taking up minimum wage jobs. Other occupations won't be safe either; after the blue-collar and pink-collar laborforce becomes automated (mostly) the white-collar abd various other occupations are next.

 

If we do get through it though we could actually have higher living standards, far shorter work hours, and if you're radical enough to believe it, some of us might not even need to work at all.

[Wind Chaser 4,768]

The more immediate issue is adapting to a society in which machines are able to automate a massive amount of current jobs. Humanlike robots won't really become a major concern until we get over this first.

 

Right now, predictions have it that about 40% of jobs these days can and most likely will be automated due to economic benefit within the next 14 short years. We don't know for sure yet the exact titles of future jobs that this wave will create, but like the Internet revolution created titles like "web designer" and "search engine optimizer", the Internet of Things is creating entirely new industries and rapidly transforming old ones. These colleges in the US already offer degree programs pertaining to the operations of commercial drones, and just look at how new technologies are transforming the agricultural industry.

 

The biggest problem is anticipating just how much unemployment this will cause, as well as redesigning our social systems to accommodate this. The current educational system in the US is woefully inadequate at preparing students for work; general education is far more focused on producing test scores that justify its own funding than actually producing students with the skills and social connections to enter the workforce. College curricula are also insufficient in producing results, as most students graduate with a high debt load and have to work low-paying, low-skill jobs that they would have had at a younger age in a better economy. Not just does college have to be made to have a more reasonable price point - it has to provide much better results than it does now. Similarly, high school should get out of this obsession with standardized testing and develop a more involved and relevant curriculum.

 

In addition to the adverse impact on young and less-educated people, poor people stand to lose more from this as well. We already see how outsourcing guts the workforce in the first world. When automated, companies' productivity and profits go up while average wages go down. The economic implications of a gutted working and middle class are best summed up in this exchange between Henry Ford II and UAW representative Walter Reuther:

 

 

Ford: Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues?

Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?

 

The only solution to a staggeringly high unemployment rate, other than comprehensively fixing the education system, would be to institute a guaranteed minimum wage. As "liberal" and "socialist" as this sounds, even some conservatives have a case for this, and the need will become apparent when (not if) the unemployment crisis becomes as dire as predicted. The truth is that a trickle-down approach is not feasible in this case, and money needs to be reinvested where it's going to be used, rather than ending up in bank accounts where it would sit idle, or only passed among the elites. A strong economy is one where the people at the bottom have a reasonable amount of spending power, and not measured in money alone but in activity.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Wind Chaser

[cider float 2,537]

All I'm afraid of is people giving robots jobs which put human lives at risk. Robots working with calculations and math...what if a robot was in charge of maintaining a city? Or at least it's water supply or power or something? If it could better complete its task of running everything at maximum efficiency by cutting off some of the city dwellers or something similar, then we're creating more problems than we're fixing.

 

I doubt half of that made sense  I'm just rambling a lil bit~

There's lots of things robots can't take into account and I'm afraid that robots will be used to run multi maintenance like you mentioned as a means to have greedy CEOs to keep all the money for themselves while having no workers to pay. All the CEOs would have complete control over the common man which is the 99%. 

Edited February 26, 2016 by cider float

[Anneal 2,197]

 

In addition to the adverse impact on young and less-educated people, poor people stand to lose more from this as well. We already see how outsourcing guts the workforce in the first world. When automated, companies' productivity and profits go up while average wages go down. The economic implications of a gutted working and middle class are best summed up in this exchange between Henry Ford II and UAW representative Walter Reuther:

 

The only solution to a staggeringly high unemployment rate, other than comprehensively fixing the education system, would be to institute a guaranteed minimum wage. As "liberal" and "socialist" as this sounds, even some conservatives have a case for this, and the need will become apparent when (not if) the unemployment crisis becomes as dire as predicted. The truth is that a trickle-down approach is not feasible in this case, and money needs to be reinvested where it's going to be used, rather than ending up in bank accounts where it would sit idle, or only passed among the elites. A strong economy is one where the people at the bottom have a reasonable amount of spending power, and not measured in money alone but in activity.

I'm not really for a big increase in minimum wages as of now, though; wage jumps might sound great on first sight, but that's also going to induce inflation and cause that convenient market price drop to rise back up again to meet up with labor wages. Right now people should be focusing on keep the minimum wage on a stable level, maybe $10/hr.

 

(On another note, I don't think Bernie really understands how an national $15/hr minimum wage is going to badly affect the economy as a whole...the U.S. has never even gotten close to $15/hr in any year, even in terms of inflated 2015 USD. I don't hate Bernie, but I just want to say he needs to study more economics.)

 

Guaranteed "free money" is a strange step, but honestly, a massive amount of people are going to be jobless anyways and this might actually be the thing that can increase living standards. Like I said, we shouldn't focus too much on increasing minimum wages but decreasing market prices to make them more affordable. That actually benefits the corporations as well to simply decrease market prices as automation increases, based on how capitalist competition works.

 

There's lots of things robots can't take into account and I'm afraid that robots will be used to run multi maintenance like you mentioned as a means to have greedy CEOs to keep all the money for themselves while having no workers to pay. All the CEOs would have complete control over the common man which is the 99%.

 

Except it won't be very simple for the CEOs because with the mass unemployment that is likely to follow, corporations are going to die off as well. Soon enough, all that hogged money is going to be worth much less, especially with a sharp decrease in consumers. Robots aren't cheap, at least not in the next decade or two; corporations who want to automate would also need to need to put their consumer's minds in thought. That's what got Henry Ford to dominate the automobile industry for a good while and is a pretty good example of how capitalism can work. (But not lassiez-faire. Ford didn't want government getting involved. That doesn't work.)

[cider float 2,537]

I'm not really for a big increase in minimum wages as of now, though; wage jumps might sound great on first sight, but that's also going to induce inflation and cause that convenient market price drop to rise back up again to meet up with labor wages. Right now people should be focusing on keep the minimum wage on a stable level, maybe $10/hr.

 

(On another note, I don't think Bernie really understands how an national $15/hr minimum wage is going to badly affect the economy as a whole...the U.S. has never even gotten close to $15/hr in any year, even in terms of inflated 2015 USD. I don't hate Bernie, but I just want to say he needs to study more economics.)

 

Guaranteed "free money" is a strange step, but honestly, a massive amount of people are going to be jobless anyways and this might actually be the thing that can increase living standards. Like I said, we shouldn't focus too much on increasing minimum wages but decreasing market prices to make them more affordable. That actually benefits the corporations as well to simply decrease market prices as automation increases, based on how capitalist competition works.

 

 

Except it won't be very simple for the CEOs because with the mass unemployment that is likely to follow, corporations are going to die off as well. Soon enough, all that hogged money is going to be worth much less, especially with a sharp decrease in consumers. Robots aren't cheap, at least not in the next decade or two; corporations who want to automate would also need to need to put their consumer's minds in thought. That's what got Henry Ford to dominate the automobile industry for a good while and is a pretty good example of how capitalism can work. (But not lassiez-faire. Ford didn't want government getting involved. That doesn't work.)

Well that's true but the maintenance team would be very selective in their requirements none being of the blue collar variety but those specifically with experience in robotics and computer programming still narrowing down hirelings to the few. The value of the many would still be low, even if the value of the hogged money drops it still doesn't matter it's not going to change the fact that that money isn't in the hands of the many.

 

Also who's to say there won't be machines that will be doing the maintenance on machines of course that might not happen the day after but the slow decline towards mechanizizing the workforce would create a lot of turmoil in all the sectors of human workers. Skills that workers have developed for years would be wasted and they would reach sudden loss of rank.

Edited February 26, 2016 by cider float

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

From what I gathered so far, we're dealing with programs that can "evolve". IMO, phrasing it as evolution sheds more light on the process rather than saying "learn". Please see the following video for a demonstration.

 

 

There's an important caveat to consider here. Because we're dealing with programs that evolve over time, generation by generation, it's important to note how evolution itself works. You see, no creature evolved into whatever we see now for nothing. Any and all creature that lived had to be able to survive for long enough to not just reproduce but to have their offspring repeat the process. Failure to do this leads to a very simple result: extinction. What this ends up meaning is that only species that succeed in continuing reproduction can continue to exist. This is why all individual creatures of evolution are seemingly tailored in such a fashion as to facilitate continued reproduction and avoid extinction as best as possible. If that can be done, then it won't matter how a said species gets there. No matter what happens, the goal is to avoid extinction.

 

An AI works in a similar fashion but instead of avoiding extinction, we may instead program AI to evolve and be able to perform other tasks such as controlling a battery and inverter system, letting it know when to charge and discharge and save as much money as it can just to name an example. This being the case, we're more likely to see AI built for specific tasks. It has taken us hundreds of millions of years to evolve brains as complex as what we have all the while being in environments under so many influences within those hundreds of millions of years. So far it's hard to say exactly how evolution has wired us. Furthermore, what function would human robots with artificial human even have aside from showing what technology is capable of? If we're going to use AI for specific roles, such as building control, there really won't be any need to build in a self-preservation and reproductive tendencies, would there? Instead, such an AI would be tailored to its specific role with anything in addition being needless expenditure in labor and resources.

[PinkieatHeart 208]

I for one, welcome our robot overlords. We're just scared of things being more powerful than us, but that doesn't mean they're bad.

[Anneal 2,197]

Well that's true but the maintenance team would be very selective in their requirements none being of the blue collar variety but those specifically with experience in robotics and computer programming still narrowing down hirelings to the few. The value of the many would still be low, even if the value of the hogged money drops it still doesn't matter it's not going to change the fact that that money isn't in the hands of the many.

 

Also who's to say there won't be machines that will be doing the maintenance on machines of course that might not happen the day after but the slow decline towards mechanizizing the workforce would create a lot of turmoil in all the sectors of human workers. Skills that workers have developed for years would be wasted and they would reach sudden loss of rank.

 

That hogged money drop would matter. If they don't change to at least appeal to some consumers in a way the economy is also going to backlash on them and a good deal of companies would die out like that too. It's no different from the multiple Industrial Revolutions; no side is going to win if the world doesn't adapt. We can still argue about capitalism and socialism now, but it doesn't erase the fact that both assume a human labor force and all that would be irrelevant in a decade or two. We should be more concerned in changing them, like when we changed economic ideas during the tech jumps.

 

And that last part in unfortunately inevitable, like the last Industrial Revolutions. Only this time, both the skilled and unskilled are being phased out. But the benefit of this is a whole lot of efficiency and much shorter work hours; working less than 25 hours a week is no longer just a dream, and that can be used to an economy's advantage. Save for some people, we just have to cycle a controlled amount of money in, and cancel out the price drops of using robots with the increased the increased money supply, and there will be little inflation while products are still affordable.

 

For a good while, though, robots are going to end up working with other workers. We're going to have our first trillionaires soon. A lot of new jobs will suddenly become available that we never heard of before. Global warming and an imminent oil crisis is going to pose serious issues. It's not going to take very long for everything to change. Drastically.

[Swift Marquis 327]

Just....hold the electric plug close :3

For every lord there is a vigilante

For every robot there is an energy source

And for every AI there is a fatal error xD

[Concerned Bystander 2,902]

We don't need to worry about Skynet for a very long time.  Even the argument about jobs isn't as strong as it was.   The largest industrial user of robots is the automotive industry, and even there, companies like Mercedes and Toyota are actually getting rid of many of their robots, and replacing them with people again.

[EpicEnergy 23,147]

I doubt robots will rise and take over humans, at least not anytime soon with the way things are right now in regards to technology.

[Splashee 28,560]

AI based on trial and error, versus man kind based on stupidity and thousand years of experience. I don't know who will win in the future. For some reason I still see stupidity leading to more stupidity.

[Pastel Heart 6,466]

I for one welcome our robot overlords~

[Splashee 28,560]

2 hours ago, Pastel Heart said:

I for one welcome our robot overlords~

I promise you, it will be true! And they will listen to your type of music as well!!!

Sadly, they will have problems being accepted in society. But they have the right taste in music though!

[Pentium100 2,117]

2 hours ago, Super Splashee said:

AI based on trial and error, versus man kind based on stupidity and thousand years of experience. I don't know who will win in the future. For some reason I still see stupidity leading to more stupidity.

AI (or rather artificial neural networks) is kind-of based on how a brain operates, however, right now it is too simple, because it would take a huge amount of processing power to have the complexity of a human brain (or even dog brain, though I think they managed to simulate some fish brain).

Because of that, we see some weird problems, for example, you can take the image of a kitten, give it to an AI and it will identify the image as a "kitten". Now change a few pixels imperceptibly and the AI will say that it's a gun, even though humans would have hard time telling the difference between the original and altered picture. This is because the AI has limited processing power and has not seen a lot. In comparison, over your life, you have probably seen many examples of kittens and cats, and even more examples of things that are not kittens or cats, in addition, you probably have an understanding of what a "kitten" is. The AI can only say that "this collection of pixels is similar enough to the collections of pixels previously identified as a kitten".

I have seen a TED talk where they trained an AI to identify some kind of fish. They had good success rates and decided to see which part of the image the AI uses to identify the fish. The answer - the hands of the fisherman (because most pictures show to the AI were of people posing with the fish).