3 ms·

If AI and robotics can do everything cheaper than humans, how is that not the greatest thing ever?

ImSkeptical 10y ago
It would be great. However, it would also obligate us to solve the problem of resource distribution that is currently being solved by the system of working a job for money, then exchanging that money for goods and services.
mattnewton 10y ago
It's great for society and long term, but right now we tie people's ability to participate in society pretty tightly with their economic output. If your output isn't needed, you will have to retrain, and society will have to support that.
- intended 10y ago
  Whats coming out is that retraining doesn't happen often enough.
Houshalter 10y ago
How do you control the AI? If it can do everything we can do, then it doesn't need us...
m12k 10y ago
I it, or at least should be. The problem is with our current socioeconomic structures it would mean that the majority of the population would have no purchasing power whatsoever, since their only valuable resource, their ability to work, would disappear. Mass starvation, rioting, etc. doesn't sound too nice. If we somehow make our way out of that into a Star Trek-esque post-scarcity utopia, then yes, it'd be amazing.
- valuearb 10y ago
  If it's so cheap to build robots/AI that it's cheaper than working, then anyone will be able to afford robots. That's the essential logical test the fear of robots can't pass.
- toexitthedonut 10y ago
  That is the issue that needs to be looked at more closely. And in a fantasy world the consumer is a separate entity from the worker. But a weak workforce means weak consumers. Companies can talk about cost reducing by cutting their workforce all they want, but I wonder how many stop and think how that would negatively impact the purchasing power of their former employees.
te_chris 10y ago
If the United States of America - the wealthiest society the world has ever known - can't even provide healthcare for its citizens, what hope is there that, in a world where all profits accure to the owners of robots (capital), anyone other than these people get any of the benefit? History is not exactly rich with examples of such.
- valuearb 10y ago
  The US obvuisky does provide healthcare for its citizens, we are just in a messy argument over who should pay for it. Reagan mandated over 40 years that hospitals had to offer care to everyone.
  - jmanderley 10y ago
    Being able to visit the emergency room and having to pay whatever they want isn't remotely the same as "provide healthcare for its citizens".
  - webnrrd2k 10y ago
    Hospitals may provide emergency care, but it's a poor substiture for proper long-term care with a primary care physician. It's also a horrible system for dealing with homeless and mentally ill patients, not to mention the chance of going bankrupt, and the overall effectiveness/ cost of the system vs. the benefits. Saying it's only about who pays is not really doing justice to the problems of the American medical system.
- bobbington 10y ago
  Dude this is insane. America provides better healthcare to the poor than the richest got 200 years ago. Don't believe me? Antibiotics are cheap. The thing people don't get about robots is that it will drive the price of everything to so low it's practically free. When Watson can diagnose 99% of diseases from your smartphone, healthcare will be so cheap it's ridiculous

It would be great. However, it would also obligate us to solve the problem of resource distribution that is currently being solved by the system of working a job for money, then exchanging that money for goods and services.

mattnewton 10y ago

It's great for society and long term, but right now we tie people's ability to participate in society pretty tightly with their economic output. If your output isn't needed, you will have to retrain, and society will have to support that.

intended 10y ago
Whats coming out is that retraining doesn't happen often enough.

Houshalter 10y ago

How do you control the AI? If it can do everything we can do, then it doesn't need us...

m12k 10y ago

I it, or at least should be. The problem is with our current socioeconomic structures it would mean that the majority of the population would have no purchasing power whatsoever, since their only valuable resource, their ability to work, would disappear. Mass starvation, rioting, etc. doesn't sound too nice. If we somehow make our way out of that into a Star Trek-esque post-scarcity utopia, then yes, it'd be amazing.

valuearb 10y ago
If it's so cheap to build robots/AI that it's cheaper than working, then anyone will be able to afford robots. That's the essential logical test the fear of robots can't pass.
toexitthedonut 10y ago
That is the issue that needs to be looked at more closely. And in a fantasy world the consumer is a separate entity from the worker. But a weak workforce means weak consumers. Companies can talk about cost reducing by cutting their workforce all they want, but I wonder how many stop and think how that would negatively impact the purchasing power of their former employees.

te_chris 10y ago

If the United States of America - the wealthiest society the world has ever known - can't even provide healthcare for its citizens, what hope is there that, in a world where all profits accure to the owners of robots (capital), anyone other than these people get any of the benefit? History is not exactly rich with examples of such.

valuearb 10y ago
The US obvuisky does provide healthcare for its citizens, we are just in a messy argument over who should pay for it. Reagan mandated over 40 years that hospitals had to offer care to everyone.
- jmanderley 10y ago
  Being able to visit the emergency room and having to pay whatever they want isn't remotely the same as "provide healthcare for its citizens".
- webnrrd2k 10y ago
  Hospitals may provide emergency care, but it's a poor substiture for proper long-term care with a primary care physician. It's also a horrible system for dealing with homeless and mentally ill patients, not to mention the chance of going bankrupt, and the overall effectiveness/ cost of the system vs. the benefits. Saying it's only about who pays is not really doing justice to the problems of the American medical system.
bobbington 10y ago
Dude this is insane. America provides better healthcare to the poor than the richest got 200 years ago. Don't believe me? Antibiotics are cheap. The thing people don't get about robots is that it will drive the price of everything to so low it's practically free. When Watson can diagnose 99% of diseases from your smartphone, healthcare will be so cheap it's ridiculous