general How do you feel about the rise of computers?

[Luna 831 466]

Do you think the future will be dark with the rise of the machines. And thus the machines takeing our jobs . Or do you think their will be terminatiors or robo cops in the future?

[Moony the Cat 3,702]

I think Robots and Machines will never take away every Job, because they are probably really expensive to make.

 

And if they do...i dont know, if Machines could do everything, we would become pretty much useless.

But if their are no Humans, than they shouldnt be any need for Robots on the other hand.

 

I dont know to be honest. I think when Machines would take away every Job, than the Politics would have Millions of jobless People to deal with.

And i think that could cause a lot of controversy.

But i dont know. I just wait and see what happens.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,732]

Computers on their own can't do anything. To even possibly create a Skynet type future, there would need to be an advanced A.I. of some kind. Which we are experimenting but we have nothing advanced. So computers aren't much of a threat. Not to mention that the A.I. itself would have to be fed up with humanity enough to want to do that.

[Luminance 2,186]

Sentient computers are still a long way from now. We can't even get voice commands to work on some devices and just imagine a whole robotic AI who doesn't take your command.

Edited May 5, 2016 by MiataPony

[Discordian 6,015]

Ideally we would live in a world that didn't require people to work for a living. If computers and machines could do everything for us we'd be going good. Or at the very least have machines doing the technical jobs so people could work more on the artistic ventures.

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

Computers will probably affect jobs that require little intuition, creativity or judgement the most - much as automation has done. I don't see any way that this can really be avoided, at least not in a free market, but then I suspect that the free market will also provide a solution. Areas that cannot be automated will grow as the economy grows (which it should if computers make it more efficient) which should provide new jobs - at least, that's what I hope. Automation didn't cause economic meltdown, so I don't think computers will either, but there may be a few rough years whilst everything sorts itself out.

[Anneal 2,197]

I think Robots and Machines will never take away every Job, because they are probably really expensive to make.

 

And if they do...i dont know, if Machines could do everything, we would become pretty much useless.

But if their are no Humans, than they shouldnt be any need for Robots on the other hand.

 

I dont know to be honest. I think when Machines would take away every Job, than the Politics would have Millions of jobless People to deal with.

And i think that could cause a lot of controversy.

But i dont know. I just wait and see what happens.

Robots and machines will still take jobs. The cost of making robots for a specific task will steadily drop as technology improves, and certain low-skill jobs such as telemarketers, moving company workers, and baristas really don't require much thought...and it's repetitive, which is perfect for a robot to replace. In about two decades, we can expect at least 30 million Americans will either be jobless or have a close family member jobless (some may even be permanently jobless) as low-skill work is virtually replaced by robots. Your bus will be self-driving, the Walmart you go to will probably only have five human employees or even less, and there will hardly be any humans in your nearest fast-food chain.

 

Robots aren't bad; they're going to be the next big step of technology and skyrocket our industrial and commercial efficiency to unprecedented levels. Some of the higher skill occupations like dentists, psychologists, and computer engineers are safe from automation (mostly because the dynamic situations of these of occupations still can't be handled by robots yet).

 

Not to mention Robocop looks hilariously crude for what progress we'll be making in the future. Stem cell therapy is being heavily researched and in the 2030s we'll be able to "regrow" limbs and certain organs back. Doubt robots will have some sort of vendetta against us.

[Discordian 6,015]

Robots and machines will still take jobs. The cost of making robots for a specific task will steadily drop as technology improves, and certain low-skill jobs such as telemarketers, moving company workers, and baristas really don't require much thought...and it's repetitive, which is perfect for a robot to replace. In about two decades, we can expect at least 30 million Americans will either be jobless or have a close family member jobless (some may even be permanently jobless) as low-skill work is virtually replaced by robots. Your bus will be self-driving, the Walmart you go to will probably only have five human employees or even less, and there will hardly be any humans in your nearest fast-food chain.

 

Robots aren't bad; they're going to be the next big step of technology and skyrocket our industrial and commercial efficiency to unprecedented levels. Some of the higher skill occupations like dentists, psychologists, and computer engineers are safe from automation (mostly because the dynamic situations of these of occupations still can't be handled by robots yet).

 

Not to mention Robocop looks hilariously crude for what progress we'll be making in the future. Stem cell therapy is being heavily researched and in the 2030s we'll be able to "regrow" limbs and certain organs back. Doubt robots will have some sort of vendetta against us.

"Jobless" doesn't have to mean homeless or poverty though.

[Invincible 2,091]

We stand before the cusp of unlocking the mysteries of AI technology. Recent advances would allow for evolving AIs that may eventually reach the point you're describing.

 

I'll tell you this though, as someone who studies computers as a profession.. current machines, though powerful and advanced in their own scopes, are linear and algorithmic, they are incapable of supplying true intelligence and can only mimic it. That is likely to change, however..

 

On the other hand,looking at recent advances in prosthetics and robotics, we will allow people to give themselves their own upgrades soon, making the paralyzed run marathons and the blind the eyes of an eagle. It's also entirely possible to use such machines to become better than we are already.

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

As much as I like that we create machines that make our lives quicker and easier, I don't think there will be a "rise of the machines" like some movies present. No matter how smart a machine is, it is only as smart as the information it's given, even if it has a constant connection to the internet. And even if there was an AI that is comparable to the human thought process, it will not be a 100% replica of the human brain, because we have yet to create a computer that is even a tenth as powerful as our brain.

[Azatrot 66]

Eventually AI will replace all jobs that a human can perform (and a lot that we can't), even the ones requiring intuition. Saying anything else is equivalent to saying there is something magical with the human brain that can't be replicated artificially. Or in other words: We already know that machines with full human capacity in everyway are possible, because they already exist: They are called humans.

 

This will lead to job loss, but since it will be gradual and obvious, we will be able to intervene before it's to late. Exactly how I'm not certain, but I don't doubt that people that are smarter than me can figure it out. All things considered, I have a very positive view of the rise of AI.

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

 

 

Eventually AI will replace all jobs that a human can perform (and a lot that we can't), even the ones requiring intuition. Saying anything else is equivalent to saying there is something magical with the human brain that can't be replicated artificially.

 

Not necessarily - AI may never reach the level of human intuition simply because we never manage to work out how to program it that well, rather than because it is impossible. 

 

Still, should an AI with comparable, superior or more specialised abilities comared to a human be developed and mass-produced, and replace human workers, I would guess that the welfare state would expand until it encompasses practically everyone, or at least a significant portion of the population, supported by the produce of the AI workforce. As you say though, it will probably be if not gradual then at least not an overnight transition.

[FluffyGoat13 375]

I see no need to fear the machine, sure they may take jobs, but lets put it this way; a Utopian society requires no sentients working in order to function, so the use of near-sentient machines would be integral to this; and true AI could help us get there by helping iron out any (petty) issues mankind exhibits, and then they could join us in the fun. Alternatively we may figure out a way of integrating our own consciousness into machines, which would be pretty cool. Or they could wipe us out, but I reckon that would only happen if people treated AI as sub-human rather than equals.

[Zyrael 1,471]

but I reckon that would only happen if people treated AI as sub-human rather than equals.

 

well, humans don't have a very good track record of treating others fairly. 

[FluffyGoat13 375]

well, humans don't have a very good track record of treating others fairly. 

Yeah, which is why that will be the single hardest part of this, especially since the media has created a negative stigma towards AI already.

[Azatrot 66]

Not necessarily - AI may never reach the level of human intuition simply because we never manage to work out how to program it that well, rather than because it is impossible. 

That's a possibility (one that didn't actually cross my mind), but it's fairly unlikely. While there is currently a lot that we don't know about the human brain, improvements are being made at a very rapid pace. We are already working on simulating whole brains on supercomputers, and the level of detail that we can see is constantly improving. My estimation is that we will understand practically everything about the brain before, say 2060, but we will probably before that be able to build a human level AI (albeit one that operate on somewhat different principles).

[Luna 831 466]

I honestly don't think we will live till 2060. And with all these rise in machines we are loosening jobs at a alarming rate.

[Crusaders Forever 88]

I don't think machines will ever rule or take over where humans are needed. You need a human to build the machine, and only a human can program, fix, and do other work on them.

[Buck Testa 5,505]

Human's are more likely to destroy themselves. Personally I'd join a robot uprising if given the chance.

[Anneal 2,197]

I see no need to fear the machine, sure they may take jobs, but lets put it this way; a Utopian society requires no sentients working in order to function, so the use of near-sentient machines would be integral to this; and true AI could help us get there by helping iron out any (petty) issues mankind exhibits, and then they could join us in the fun. Alternatively we may figure out a way of integrating our own consciousness into machines, which would be pretty cool. Or they could wipe us out, but I reckon that would only happen if people treated AI as sub-human rather than equals.

The issue isn't that industrial robots are taking jobs, it's that government and economics aren't necessarily as updated at technology and we will get at least about 20% unemployment rates in the U.S., especially since some workers will have no chance of directly returning to their jobs when industrial bots can do them so much more efficiently and without a complaint. The good thing is that because of this, working standards do increase, but now these permanently unemployed workers either need to go through some welfare system (the liberal end) or another education system to allow them to work in higher-skill jobs (a bit more moderate, but I can see this going along decently with fiscal conservatism).

 

There's also Initiative 2045, who want to do what you just said: integrate human conciousness into machinery or AIs with the intention of making immortality possible. I question whether it will actually work, but we do still have three decades ahead of us and I'll be a bit happy if we can get full immersion VR and more developments in robotics and AI.

 

Yeah, which is why that will be the single hardest part of this, especially since the media has created a negative stigma towards AI already.

Some people are just scared of AI because it's still something rather outlandish (which we have been seeing other races as for centuries), and for robots it really dips down into the uncanny valley. It's the same idea why ghouls and synths in Fallout 4 look pretty creepy. We're have a bit more moderate views on AI recently (with some viewing them in interest), so it shouldn't go that bad.

 

I honestly don't think we will live till 2060. And with all these rise in machines we are loosening jobs at a alarming rate.

What does life expectancy have to do with loss of jobs? World average life expectancy is already expected to extend a good extra five years in 2050 and you should live a good 85 years on average in the U.S. A good deal of diseases can easily be deal with by that time.

[Luna 831 466]

The issue isn't that industrial robots are taking jobs, it's that government and economics aren't necessarily as updated at technology and we will get at least about 20% unemployment rates in the U.S., especially since some workers will have no chance of directly returning to their jobs when industrial bots can do them so much more efficiently and without a complaint. The good thing is that because of this, working standards do increase, but now these permanently unemployed workers either need to go through some welfare system (the liberal end) or another education system to allow them to work in higher-skill jobs (a bit more moderate, but I can see this going along decently with fiscal conservatism).

 

There's also Initiative 2045, who want to do what you just said: integrate human conciousness into machinery or AIs with the intention of making immortality possible. I question whether it will actually work, but we do still have three decades ahead of us and I'll be a bit happy if we can get full immersion VR and more developments in robotics and AI.

 

 

Some people are just scared of AI because it's still something rather outlandish (which we have been seeing other races as for centuries), and for robots it really dips down into the uncanny valley. It's the same idea why ghouls and synths in Fallout 4 look pretty creepy. We're have a bit more moderate views on AI recently (with some viewing them in interest), so it shouldn't go that bad.

 

 

What does life expectancy have to do with loss of jobs? World average life expectancy is already expected to extend a good extra five years in 2050 and you should live a good 85 years on average in the U.S. A good deal of diseases can easily be deal with by that time.

With the way the world is know and other country's that is why I say that we won't live that long.

[FluffyGoat13 375]

The issue isn't that industrial robots are taking jobs, it's that government and economics aren't necessarily as updated at technology and we will get at least about 20% unemployment rates in the U.S., especially since some workers will have no chance of directly returning to their jobs when industrial bots can do them so much more efficiently and without a complaint. The good thing is that because of this, working standards do increase, but now these permanently unemployed workers either need to go through some welfare system (the liberal end) or another education system to allow them to work in higher-skill jobs (a bit more moderate, but I can see this going along decently with fiscal conservatism).

 

There's also Initiative 2045, who want to do what you just said: integrate human conciousness into machinery or AIs with the intention of making immortality possible. I question whether it will actually work, but we do still have three decades ahead of us and I'll be a bit happy if we can get full immersion VR and more developments in robotics and AI.

 

 

Some people are just scared of AI because it's still something rather outlandish (which we have been seeing other races as for centuries), and for robots it really dips down into the uncanny valley. It's the same idea why ghouls and synths in Fallout 4 look pretty creepy. We're have a bit more moderate views on AI recently (with some viewing them in interest), so it shouldn't go that bad.

Yeah, we do need to work on updating the global economy, and making it eco-friendly in the process. We also need to stop using Uranium power plants in favour of thorium ones, but that's for slightly different reasons. The problem is funding and getting these things through the arbitrary and broken bureaucracy of the world. 

 

It's also a shame that people can't get used to the notion that AI have the same potential to be 'good' or 'bad' as you or I.

Edited May 10, 2016 by BritishBrony 13

[Anneal 2,197]

With the way the world is know and other country's that is why I say that we won't live that long.

That doesn't mean the world will be the the same at it is now in the future, and science and technology doesn't wait for politics. Regardless of the economic downturns we have had and the wars we have fought in, science marches on. We're already making significant progress in robotics and medicine; it won't take more than two decades for cancer survival rates to rocket up (breast, kidney, skin, and prostate cancer first), an AIDS and universal flu vaccine to come out, amputees to grow back limbs, and so on. Even car accidents (one of the primary causes of death in the U.S.) are greatly reduced with self-driving cars.

 

So yes, we have a pretty good chance of lasting more than five decades or so.

[Once In A Blue Moon 895]

 

 

Even car accidents (one of the primary causes of death in the U.S.) are greatly reduced with self-driving cars.

 

 

Car deaths amounted to 32,719 of the total 2,596,993 deaths in the US in 2013 (around 1.26% of the total) so I don't think that self-driving cars are going to make a huge difference. Sudden death is actually quite rare, at least compared to gradual deterioration of health, although it is more common at younger ages. The primary causes of death are heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease (often smoking related), which caused over 50% of deaths when combined. Whilst I agree that cancer will probably be slowly worn away, until the weight issue is tackled heart disease is going to remain a potent killer.

 

... 

 

I think I got sidetracked by statistics... regardless, I agree that barring catastrophic natural disasters or a nuclear exchange (still exceptionally unlikely, even with the increased tensions) we will probably still be around in 2060 (hurrah for optimism.) 

 

Quite how far AI will have developed by then, I really don't think I can judge. Computing power will have increased, but I would have thought that there would need to be a fundamentally new development in programming techniques to actually achieve artificial intelligence, as opposed to a clever mimic. 

[Anneal 2,197]

Car deaths amounted to 32,719 of the total 2,596,993 deaths in the US in 2013 (around 1.26% of the total) so I don't think that self-driving cars are going to make a huge difference. Sudden death is actually quite rare, at least compared to gradual deterioration of health, although it is more common at younger ages. The primary causes of death are heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease (often smoking related), which caused over 50% of deaths when combined. Whilst I agree that cancer will probably be slowly worn away, until the weight issue is tackled heart disease is going to remain a potent killer.

 

I think I got sidetracked by statistics... regardless, I agree that barring catastrophic natural disasters or a nuclear exchange (still exceptionally unlikely, even with the increased tensions) we will probably still be around in 2060 (hurrah for optimism.) 

 

Quite how far AI will have developed by then, I really don't think I can judge. Computing power will have increased, but I would have thought that there would need to be a fundamentally new development in programming techniques to actually achieve artificial intelligence, as opposed to a clever mimic. 

 

I probably got faulty statistic from car accidents then, since they're usually compared to gun violence deaths by pro-gun control advocates (since death from gun violence yearly in the U.S. is around 30K), and mostly hearing about car accidents give the impression that they're a primary killer.

 

But yes, obesity is going to be a serious future problem in the U.S. (not sure about European countries) and with that heart diseases. I'll rely on the developments of medicine and say that we may have some ways to combat heart disease as well; stem cell therapy, heart enlargement therapies, even obesity drugs are things that are currently being researched, and the trend for heart disease mortality rates are generally going down.

 

2060 is a very far off date, and the future around that time is much more uncertain. I rather not say that much about it.