Artificial Intelligence

Okay, so we create a bunch of robots, right. They possess physical thought and feelings like the rest of us, but they are smarter and they become more powerful than us. They end up enslaving us! We fight back and find their weakness, which happens to be sea water!! We throw all of them in the sea water and they die! But some of them are not evil, some of them mean no harm, but we don't trust them so we put them in concentration camps. Eventually we have no use for them and we are tired of paying taxes on feeding them so we dump a giant bucket of sea water on them as well. All is peaceful now, and decades later our children and our children's children only learn of these 'Robot Times' in our history books. We reflect and tell stories of how they raped us and treated us like dirt, but eventually we overcame them in the end and never try to create A.I. ever again.

Now, flash forward to the year 2630. A young scuba diver named Jerry Winkles finds a dead robot at the bottom of the sea. He digs it up and finds more! He digs so deep that he actually finds one robot that is still alive! He secretly brings it home and cares for it, teaches it things . . . it becomes smarter. It kills Jerry and spawns another beginning to the robot race, but this time the species is immune to sea water. We as humans die and are wiped from the face of history!

Folks, Tired Hiker here, please help me stop the creation of Artificial Intelligence so that doesn't happen. Thanks. -Hiker.

😐

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I don't support slavery.

But you do support taking sentient beings and forcing them to labor without pay or legal rights.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"Investing in a free market"...classic.

Sorry, this is just to pathetic to me, I am sure someone else will hand you your ass some more in due time.

I don't get it.

Why is investing in a free market, pathetic? I interpret it one of two ways.

1. Because one lives in a free market, he can invest under its reach.

2. One is investing in free markets in the hopes of propagating the idea of free markets.

The two are different.

An example would be investing in a country in hopes of helping the country succeed because the nascent country represents your idea of a state(#2) or another would be investing in Wal-Mart because, incidentally, you have the right to do so(#1).

Does he mean both at the same time?

DAMNIT! I don't understand what you mean by pathetic. I'm probably wrong on both accounts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't get it.

Why is investing in a free market, pathetic? I interpret it one of two ways.

1. Because one lives in a free market, he can invest under its reach.

2. One is investing in free markets in the hopes of propagating the idea of free markets.

The two are different.

An example would be investing in a country in hopes of helping the country succeed because the nascent country represents your idea of a state(#2) or another would be investing in Wal-Mart because, incidentally, you have the right to do so(#1).

Does he mean both at the same time?

DAMNIT! I don't understand what you mean by pathetic. I'm probably wrong on both accounts.

The argument with him was pathetic (because of him).

The "I'm a capitalist, I support investing in a free market" is just ridiculous and funny.

[edit]

Originally posted by Bardock42
The argument with him was pathetic (because of him).

The "I'm a capitalist, I support investing in a free market" is just ridiculous and funny.

Okay..I think I get it.

You are saying that his arguing a case for himself as being capitalist by claiming to invest in a free market is pathetic only because you believe his arguments are pathetic or rather, of the things you two arguing about, his arguments are pathetic. Right?

Meaning, it has nothing to do with investing in free markets being a capitalist privilege. (Hence, his using that as an example.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay..I think I get it.

You are saying that his arguing a case for himself as being capitalist by claiming to invest in a free market is pathetic only because you believe his arguments are pathetic or rather, of the things you two arguing about, his arguments are pathetic. Right?

Meaning, it has nothing to do with investing in free markets being a capitalist privilege. (Hence, his using that as an example.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay..I think I get it.

You are saying that his arguing a case for himself as being capitalist by claiming to invest in a free market is pathetic only because you believe his arguments are pathetic or rather, of the things you two arguing about, his arguments are pathetic. Right?

Meaning, it has nothing to do with investing in free markets being a capitalist privilege. (Hence, his using that as an example.)

Don't bother to split hairs. When Bardock have no arguments he goes Ad hominem or character assasination.

That's why I told him not waste my precious time.

Anywhoo....As much as I oppose giving a job to a robot over a human. That does not translate to "I'm agaisnt technology". I like technology very much. I think it's helpful and necessary for our world and society. I just don't think it should be use to replace us. That is all...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Don't bother to split hairs. When Bardock have no arguments he goes Ad hominem or character assasination.

Ironic.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Anywhoo....As much as I oppose giving a job to a robot over a human. That doesn't mean I'm agaisnt technology. I like technology very much. I think it's helpful and necessary for our world and society. I just don't think it should be use to replace us. That is all...

But it already does. Think of unskilled workers, typists, professional calculators (yes it was a job), litter carriers, seamstresses and tailors all of them have lost their jobs to technology without the remotest capacity for thought. The idea that you can accept all of that so gladly but have something against doing the same thing when the robots can appreciate what they're doing is astounding.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But it already does. Think of unskilled workers, typists, professional calculators (yes it was a job), litter carriers, seamstresses and tailors all of them have lost their jobs to technology without the remotest capacity for thought. The idea that you can accept all of that so gladly but have something against doing the same thing when the robots can appreciate what they're doing is astounding.

They can be trained for other jobs. People still should be giving the right to support themselves. As a matter of fact, certain new jobs do require special training. Which is what I'm fine with, since it's giving people a chance to improve themselves. Educate them, train them, and provide them with the means to survive. I'm sure you can see that quite clearly.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
They can be trained for other jobs. People still should be giving the right to support themselves. As a matter of fact, certain new jobs do require special training. Which is what I'm fine with, since it's giving people a chance to improve themselves. Educate them, train them, and provide them with the means to survive. I'm sure you can see that quite clearly.

The exact same conditions apply to sentient robots. People who lose their jobs to them will simply be train to do something else.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I never said that saying that he supports investing in a free market is pathetic.

Nor did I conclude that that is what you were saying. 🙂

Edit-

On topic-

According to Ray Kurzweil, we will eventually become one with AI. As in, the same entity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nor did I conclude that that is what you were saying. 🙂

Fair enough. Suppose I misunderstood "You are saying that his arguing a case for himself as being capitalist by claiming to invest in a free market is pathetic" then.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough. Suppose I misunderstood "You are saying that his arguing a case for himself as being capitalist by claiming to invest in a free market is pathetic" then.

Correct, because, singularly, an interpretation of that phrase alone would not lend itself to the conclusion I had drawn. The other half of that sentence is required to make sense of what I was making sense of.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Correct, because, singularly, an interpretation of that phrase alone would not lend itself to the conclusion I had drawn. The other half of that sentence is required to make sense of what I was making sense of.

I believe that the other half doesn't change that you said that you think that I called him calling himself capitalist, because he believes in investing in the free market, pathetic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe that the other half doesn't change that you said that you think that I called him calling himself capitalist, because he believes in investing in the free market, pathetic.

To me, its quite obvious what I said was not what you think I said. (replace "said" with "posted".)

Even if you left the first sentence with that erroneous conclusion (confusingly enough, which was a conclusion about your conclusion), you could draw the correct context of my intentions from the following:

"Meaning, it has nothing to do with investing in free markets being a capitalist privilege. (Hence, his using that as an example.)"

If you are still covering this point simply because you want to show why you erroneously interpreted my post because you don't want myself or others to think that you couldn't/didn't understand my post. No worries. I didn't think that because I could care less about that. You're still the same old smart Bardock42...regardless if you "don't get something". I'm not sitting on this end thinking that you're an idiot. Besides, English isn't your first language...it would be utter dick of me to think you're an idiot for not getting my post. However, not in your favor, you have a better grasp on English than most native English speakers do.

Remember, this all started because I didn't get what you were saying.

I don't have a problem to admit that I misunderstood your post, I just still don't see a different interpretation. I get what you were saying in the whole context (I think), but I don't see how it changes the fact of what seems to be said in that first sentence. Could you explain it to me like I was a five year old.

Thanks for your asskissing, btw, positively noted.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am sorry, but "Workers would lose jobs, boo hoo" is not a good reason to take suffering things as slaves. In fact, it's very similar to arguments Slave owners would use against negros...oh well, I guess makes sense, you are more conservative than libertarian anyways. (also explains why you think you are a capitalist).

Comparing human "negros" with AI is moronic to me. First off, if you understood how labor worked in the U.S. at that time (slaves were not able to do the more dangerous jobs that say an immigrant from Eastern Europe was sent to do because the negro slave was worth too much money) you probably would not say such ignorant stuff. Just look into it in your own time.

What Dwarf is getting at is AI replacing humans in the work force. A machine would be able to do things more efficiently than a very capable human being because that would be what they are specifically programmed to do.

When the technology is available, all humans could be replaced with machines that are much better at the job than a hard working human. The "economist" would cut cost and hire the robot without having to worry about salary(unless robots start having living expenses but that's another topic altogether). It would have to be a serious, serious concern.

And this:

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The exact same conditions apply to sentient robots. People who lose their jobs to them will simply be train to do something else.

is greatly oversimplifying the issue.