3 ms·

You're basically stating a tautology though. "Robots haven't taken all jobs because we haven't invented a robot that can do all jobs yet." The point is, we ha

You're basically stating a tautology though. "Robots haven't taken all jobs because we haven't invented a robot that can do all jobs yet." The point is, we have no reason to believe that such a robot is even possible. The most compelling argument I've heard is, "they're getting smarter faster, so eventually they'll be infinity smart." But... the logic is flawed. Another good argument is "humans exist that could do any job, and humans are just biological robots, so a mechanical robot could do it too." But that one is just as flawed. I will concede a sufficiently human-like AI could do any job, but a sufficiently human-like AI isn't necessarily meaningfully different from a human with an iPhone, which means it doesn't free employers from the human rights burdens that make AIs such attractive employees.

pdimitar 9y ago
> The most compelling argument I've heard is, "they're getting smarter faster, so eventually they'll be infinity smart." I am not saying that though. No, robots aren't getting smarter at all. Just a corporation investing a bit more in 2000+ if/elses that they sell as "intelligent home cleaner". We all know it. > But... the logic is flawed. Another good argument is "humans exist that could do any job, and humans are just biological robots, so a mechanical robot could do it too." Not sure what your argument is. I know I am not saying that quote either. All I was saying is that the article is meaningless. It basically goes like this: "hey people, don't you get so worried, nothing happened so far, so it won't ever happen". This is children's logic and serves no purpose except for laughing at the author, really. Maybe what I said is tautology. Not sure. But what the author is saying is "what comes after is caused by what came before", which is basically the first thing any logic law will forbid you to conclude. Practically the first law of logic is: "after doesn't mean because of". No, we're not safe just because nothing happened so far. That will never be true. We're safe because our robots are just as dumb as the time the first robot was invented. And that might change at any moment.

pdimitar 9y ago

> The most compelling argument I've heard is, "they're getting smarter faster, so eventually they'll be infinity smart." I am not saying that though. No, robots aren't getting smarter at all. Just a corporation investing a bit more in 2000+ if/elses that they sell as "intelligent home cleaner". We all know it. > But... the logic is flawed. Another good argument is "humans exist that could do any job, and humans are just biological robots, so a mechanical robot could do it too." Not sure what your argument is. I know I am not saying that quote either. All I was saying is that the article is meaningless. It basically goes like this: "hey people, don't you get so worried, nothing happened so far, so it won't ever happen". This is children's logic and serves no purpose except for laughing at the author, really. Maybe what I said is tautology. Not sure. But what the author is saying is "what comes after is caused by what came before", which is basically the first thing any logic law will forbid you to conclude. Practically the first law of logic is: "after doesn't mean because of". No, we're not safe just because nothing happened so far. That will never be true. We're safe because our robots are just as dumb as the time the first robot was invented. And that might change at any moment.