Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

How advanced do you hope the world will be when you are old?


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#41
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-

^^^Resource based economy is kind of inevitable really. We'll no doubt see a loss of jobs from robotics and AI and E-Commerce is already replacing a lot of real world commerce. I think the Venus project and Zeitgeist conspiracies are bullshit but Resource based economy is a real thing that is eventually going to happen in a long and maybe violent process. 

 

This graph shows the loss of manufacturing jobs from 1973-2013

 

Spoiler

 

Here's an MIT technology review article on the loss of jobs due to technology.

 

This shows the inevitable loss of jobs to technology. This will either go for a corporatocracy, a corporate hell in which corporations will probably use their resources for power. Another possibility is if a government is communist (or socialist), it will go through a smooth transition from giving people money, which will become meaningless because jobs are becoming very very very very hard to find, into giving them resources based on their contribution to something. Maybe scientific progress? I don't know but money will be very hard to get if jobs are very hard to get. That's for sure.

 



#42
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,244 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

I don't particularly believe in a resource-based economy either. An idea-based economy is another matter: people get money for contributing useful ideas.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#43
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-

I don't particularly believe in a resource-based economy either. An idea-based economy is another matter: people get money for contributing useful ideas.

 

Those are entrepreneurs.



#44
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts

I don't particularly believe in a resource-based economy either. An idea-based economy is another matter: people get money for contributing useful ideas.


Hey look, someone who is rational. What you just described is capitalism.

#45
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts

^^^Resource based economy is kind of inevitable really. We'll no doubt see a loss of jobs from robotics and AI and E-Commerce is already replacing a lot of real world commerce. I think the Venus project and Zeitgeist conspiracies are bullshit but Resource based economy is a real thing that is eventually going to happen in a long and maybe violent process.

This shows the inevitable loss of jobs to technology. This will either go for a corporatocracy, a corporate hell in which corporations will probably use their resources for power. Another possibility is if a government is communist (or socialist), it will go through a smooth transition from giving people money, which will become meaningless because jobs are becoming very very very very hard to find, into giving them resources based on their contribution to something. Maybe scientific progress? I don't know but money will be very hard to get if jobs are very hard to get. That's for sure.

1: You state that we will either enter a corporate hell or communist society. This is a false dichotomy. In addition, in a previous thread, I called out a resource based economy to be communist. Everyone then defended it. I'm glad that someone sees it my way.

2: Robots will take many menial jobs, sure. But what about scientists, artists, musicians, lawyers, designers, inventors, nurses, therapists, judges, supervisors, managers, advisers, journalists, actors, comedians, porn stars, composers, politicians, film directors, engineers, generals, athletes, cartoonists, or writers?

Everything about a resource based economy is a blatant propaganda lie. Don't fall for it.

3: They claim that wars, greed, corruption, and crime are all caused by money. No. They are caused over what money can buy: resources. Remove the money, you still have wars, greed, corruption, and crime.

4: Do you actually think that this society is a good thing?

#46
FutureGuy

FutureGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts

Capitalism as we know it can't last though. It's flawed. It won't be able to deal with the increasing automation of jobs. One could say that as machines take jobs they create new ones, but at some point, it's inevitable that they will be able to do every known task better than us. At that point it wouldn't be logical to use humans to work. I think humanity should try to overcome scarcity ASAP, otherwise we're screwed. The molecular assemblers described by Drexler in engines of creation would be the best option.



#47
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
Why is it flawed? Why can't it deal with increasing job automation? It seems to have done this perfectly so far.

resized_creepy-willy-wonka-meme-generato

Robots will do every task better than us? First of all, this implies hard AI, which there is no evidence for. Secondly, let's see a robot porn star.

#48
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,155 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda
To TreeHandThing: Regarding #2, don't kid yourself— AI will take those jobs soon enough. In fact, for some it's already starting. It may turn out that humans have no jobs to fulfill in 50 years.
Your mistake in reasoning was to only see robots, particularly as they are today, and not the whole roundup of hard robots (that we're used to), soft robots (morphable), artificial intelligence, general collective internet (internet of things), 3D printing matured, and future transhumanism. This didn't include nanotechnology or an abuse of quantum physics, but merely more advanced variants of what we have now.
3D printing alone leads to an open source society. With robots cheap enough, who's stopping me from letting a robot do all my work? It could be artificially intelligent, or it could be connected to the artificially intelligent Cloud.

This will invariably lead to a restriction on possible careers for humans, most likely in the higher arts. Not everyone is going to be an artist. Even if I'm wrong, this suggests that, in the future, social stratification will be enhanced. We don't want that. Why? A lot of people are going to die. Either rich people or poor people. Maybe everyone.
The number of people entering this dwindling number of professions will balloon.

Star0 would easily crush the No AI argument. Even a large bundle of Narrow AI will be disruptive.
Capitalism won't survive the next century. Consumerism will.
Once you create an open source, remote society, I refuse to refer to it as capitalist. It simply isn't. I call it technostism, but frankly I can't imagine what itbmust be like.
Maybe Athens can provide an example?

I agree on #3 though. Glad someone sees it my way.

Robot porn star? You mean now, or in a few years? That's like arguing internet porn will never be a thing in 1965.
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#49
FutureGuy

FutureGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts

 

Why is it flawed? Why can't it deal with increasing job automation? It seems to have done this perfectly so far.

 

 

I studied economics for a bunch of years, capitalism failed multiple times, like for instance in 2008 and in 1929. Also, it's failing even now because most money belong to a very small elite, while the rest of the world is poor. That counts as failure. Also, I don't hate capitalism, I just see it rationally for what it is: an old, hence obsolete system, built by a completely different society

 

 

Robots will do every task better than us? First of all, this implies hard AI, which there is no evidence for. Secondly, let's see a robot porn star.

 

 

Strong AI doesn't exist merely because we don't understand how our brain works. EU and USA are currently working hard on fixing that and simulating the brain by 2023. Once you're able to fully understand the brain and simulate each and every function, you're also able to replicate it. As long as it's a finite system, it is possible to simulate it. Second, photorealistic CGI and virtual reality could replace modern porn altogether. It's just an example. Use some imagination when you think about these things. Have you read the timeline at all?



#50
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-


^^^Resource based economy is kind of inevitable really. We'll no doubt see a loss of jobs from robotics and AI and E-Commerce is already replacing a lot of real world commerce. I think the Venus project and Zeitgeist conspiracies are bullshit but Resource based economy is a real thing that is eventually going to happen in a long and maybe violent process.

This shows the inevitable loss of jobs to technology. This will either go for a corporatocracy, a corporate hell in which corporations will probably use their resources for power. Another possibility is if a government is communist (or socialist), it will go through a smooth transition from giving people money, which will become meaningless because jobs are becoming very very very very hard to find, into giving them resources based on their contribution to something. Maybe scientific progress? I don't know but money will be very hard to get if jobs are very hard to get. That's for sure.

2: Robots will take many menial jobs, sure. But what about scientists, artists, musicians, lawyers, designers, inventors, nurses, therapists, judges, supervisors, managers, advisers, journalists, actors, comedians, porn stars, composers, politicians, film directors, engineers, generals, athletes, cartoonists, or writers?
Evidence man, show evidence. All your other points were just claims.

Hmm, I see what you're saying. Creativity, something unique to the human mind can not be replicated into machines. Reply to my post on the "How will you treat robots thread" then I can reply without guessing your views.

#51
FutureGuy

FutureGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts

 

Creativity, something unique to the human mind can not be replicated into machines.

 

Why not? Creativity is nothing more than the result of neural activity in our brains, just like motion, or breathing, or thinking. Everything we do is nothing more than electric signals and chemicals, so it can be replicated.



#52
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-

 
Why is it flawed? Why can't it deal with increasing job automation? It seems to have done this perfectly so far.

 
 
I studied economics for a bunch of years, capitalism failed multiple times, like for instance in 2008 and in 1929. Also, it's failing even now because most money belong to a very small elite, while the rest of the world is poor. That counts as failure. Also, I don't hate capitalism, I just see it rationally for what it is: an old, hence obsolete system, built by a completely different society
 

Build my an inhumane system called natural selection.

#53
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-

 
Creativity, something unique to the human mind can not be replicated into machines.

 
Why not? Creativity is nothing more than the result of neural activity in our brains, just like motion, or breathing, or thinking. Everything we do is nothing more than electric signals and chemicals, so it can be replicated.

I agree with you, it's just that I posted something on another thread that deals with the same topic but he hasn't replied. I didn't want to copy down my whole argument again.

#54
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,155 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda
Creativity is born from experience and our building upon it.
Once AI experiences the world and forms an opinion of it, it will be creative.
I've actually dwelled on this in MaMeki— civilization is the forerunner to great creativity.
There must be an AI civilization before we truly see any net gains, otherwise it would just be like chimps raising Einstein. Doesn't matter how smart Einstein was, if he were raised by chimps, he'd be a feral wild man set back 100,000 years.
That's AI's situation.
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#55
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-
I have always thought creativity is simulated from the environment one has experienced. Observation & Memory = Creativity.

#56
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,155 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda
Yet you forget one last spark, without which a fire will never burn: wonder. If one wonders, one can be creative. One must reflect on their observations and memories. Of how else one can interpret something, or relate it to other things.
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#57
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-

Yet you forget one last spark, without which a fire will never burn: wonder. If one wonders, one can be creative. One must reflect on their observations and memories. Of how else one can interpret something, or relate it to other things.


I'll just post a very bad metaphor

Input -> [Storage] -> Output
Observation -> [Memory] -> Creativity

That's my logic.

#58
FutureGuy

FutureGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts

Don't get me wrong anyway, I do think that capitalism is the best option until we can overcome scarcity.



#59
Spacekitty

Spacekitty

    Dusk Cypher - Instigator of Transcendence

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • LocationHuman Shell Unit Version 1.0

Wow, such flames over a resource based economy? Whats wrong with a world  full of people driven by purpose? Whats wrong with nanotehnology and quantum computing? they are very VERY real things. I mean look at what nanotechnology has created so far. There are materials made from nanotechnology that are rigid but dissolve when in contact with water. Biodegradability there is a huge bonus.

 

and quantum computing has also made quite good leaps in the field of wireless comunication. They transfered what im pretty sure was a kilobyte of information across a room.

 

Anyway, back to saying what you hope for the future before you die, you've all gone off topic


I will instigate the singularity!


#60
TreeHandThing

TreeHandThing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
Definition of flaming:

Flaming is a hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users, often involving the use of profanity.

I did not flame you.

Whats wrong with a world full of people driven by purpose?

Nothing. But a resource based economy is far more than just people driven by purpose. Since you seemed to ignore my links, I'll post them again:
http://rationalwiki....e_Venus_Project
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=-cBdbw3hsUE

Wow, such flames over a resource based economy? Whats wrong with a world full of people driven by purpose? Whats wrong with nanotehnology and quantum computing? they are very VERY real things. I mean look at what nanotechnology has created so far. There are materials made from nanotechnology that are rigid but dissolve when in contact with water. Biodegradability there is a huge bonus.

and quantum computing has also made quite good leaps in the field of wireless comunication. They transfered what im pretty sure was a kilobyte of information across a room.

Nothing is wrong with those technologies. What is wrong with them is that people like you use them as cure-alls. For example, nanotech has amazing applications in medicine, fuel, information tech, and materials science. It won't be used in industry, nor can you say that it will give us superpowers. Learn more here:
http://www.stardestr...s/Nanotech.html

Evidence man, show evidence. All your other points were just claims.

All my points were claims? Um.....yes. Your points are claims too. I have put up two links as evidence which nobody seems to be looking at.

Why not? Creativity is nothing more than the result of neural activity in our brains, just like motion, or breathing, or thinking. Everything we do is nothing more than electric signals and chemicals, so it can be replicated.

I agree.

I agree with you, it's just that I posted something on another thread that deals with the same topic but he hasn't replied. I didn't want to copy down my whole argument again.

Ok, here:

You're mixing natural language processing (NLP) with AI general intelligence. NLP is your basic chat bot that uses algorithms to give an appropriate response. The Chinese Room thought experiment seems centered around the criticism of the Turing test which I have to say, it is a shit test to evaluate AI intelligence.

It was designed to criticize the Turing Test, but it applies to all artificial intelligences.

Now, according to this textbook (pdf here) the main attributes of AI general intelligence are:

- Reasoning, strategy, solving puzzles, that sort of thing.
- Knowledge representation & Commonsense knowledge representation
- Planning
- Learning
- Natural Communication
- Ability to use skills listed above towards goals

Doesn't matter, because they have no idea what they are doing. There is no evidence presentable that they do.

Then there are the big traits everyone throws around without knowing what they mean because we don't exactly know what they mean as in, they exist strictly in philosophy. But advances in neural researching are uncovering these overrated traits people attach to their brain. These traits are:

- Sapience
- Consciousness
- Self-Awarness
- Sentience
- Anything else that has to do with you realizing that you are you.

- Sapience: "the quality of being wise or showing wisdom"
- Consciousness: "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings"
- Self-Awareness: "the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals"
- Sentience: "able to perceive or feel things"

Those are overrated traits. I'm sure AI have already accomplished them. However, the biggest one of all is understanding what they are doing. AI is programmed. It follows a set of instructions given to it. That's all. We on the other hand are not programmed. We learn through experience.

There are two methods of creating artificial intelligence: the top-down approach and the bottom-up approach. The top-down approach programs all of the intelligence from the beginning. Thus, the AI follows all of the programming. Since all it is doing is following instructions, it is not understanding anything in the human sense. A top-down approach AI is:

Input -> Data Processor -> Output

The bottom-up approach is a neural network, following Hebb's rule. Hebb's rule means that it changes the strength of electrical connections between neurons every time that it completes a task, constantly rewiring itself.

The brain is not a computer.

Only a neural network can understand and learn like a brain can. Thus, to make an AI actually able to compete with a human, you need reverse-engineer the brain: build an artificial neural network.

Robots with ANNs will not be mainstream, as firstly they need time to learn. Whereas programmed robots can just be factory equipped with all the information they need, ANN robots need to learn like a human child. This is time and cost ineffective.

Secondly, there is nothing to stop them from going on a rampage and killing people. Whereas in standard robots you can just program in life preservation programming (such as the Three Laws of Robotics), you can't program an ANN.

You would also need memory storage 500 times the size of the current internet, but I don't actually think that will be a problem in the future.

I'm not saying that ANN robots won't exist. Just that they won't be the mainstream ones. And it's the mainstream ones that will take our jobs.

Reference: Physics of the Future

Strong AI doesn't exist merely because we don't understand how our brain works. EU and USA are currently working hard on fixing that and simulating the brain by 2023. Once you're able to fully understand the brain and simulate each and every function, you're also able to replicate it. As long as it's a finite system, it is possible to simulate it. Second, photorealistic CGI and virtual reality could replace modern porn altogether. It's just an example. Use some imagination when you think about these things. Have you read the timeline at all?

Hm, referring to the timeline as it's an all-knowing precognitive god, eh? The mistake that everyone makes. Another problem that the community on this forum has.

Yep, simulating brain function shall create strong AI. But programmed robots won't. And it's programmed robots that will be mainstream, not ANN robots.

Also, I'm positive that am any rational person would prefer to see real people fucking than "photorealistic CGI".

I studied economics for a bunch of years, capitalism failed multiple times, like for instance in 2008 and in 1929. Also, it's failing even now because most money belong to a very small elite, while the rest of the world is poor. That counts as failure. Also, I don't hate capitalism, I just see it rationally for what it is: an old, hence obsolete system, built by a completely different society

Capitalism is obsolete? Ok, tell me why private ownership of goods and private enterprise is obsolete. The wealth gap is not a problem of capitalism, it is a problem of shitty tax laws. The only downside to capitalism is, yes, the economic downturns. However, that's the price we pay for this system.

You studied economics? Where, the Soviet Union?

Why will humans play to rules against their nature? Avarice isn't going to go away with money. Resources cause avarice. War will continue in the future, whether or not you want it or believe it.

How can a large industrialized economy be centrally planned? Oh, your answer to this is AI? Well, here's a debunk: http://rationalwiki....e_Venus_Project

Shitty-ass Eugene.

+9000

Also thought this was funny, but you people won't: http://gunsandelmo.t...e-a-singularity

COMMUNISM AND A RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY:
All of the following quotes are from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. I think it's funny that the resource based economy wankers basically say the same thing.

"Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."

"Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce."

"Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat."
Hey look, it's just what FutureGuy said as an argument against capitalism.

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."

"Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users