4 ms·

No. But there are people with ambitions to create robots that will take over my job and yours and everyone's. It's looking more and more like the inevitable fut

No. But there are people with ambitions to create robots that will take over my job and yours and everyone's. It's looking more and more like the inevitable future and all people talk about in the comments are trivial things like "intellectual property"

CamperBob2 4y ago
No. But there are people with ambitions to create robots that will take over my job and yours and everyone's. Sure hope so. Then I can move even closer to self-actualization than I am now. If there had ever been a single inflection point in history where Luddism was the right answer in the long run, I'd be more sympathetic to the pessimistic point of view. As things stand, though, doesn't their argument amount to a special pleading fallacy? "It's different this time!" No... no, it's not.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  Nothing is different. Everything is the same. You're just blind to what is happening around you. >Sure hope so. Then I can move even closer to self-actualization than I am now. Yeah and then you starve to death because you have some measly salary. Who says you're the owner of the robot who took over your job? It may be possible, but thinking this is the only possibility is not intelligent. Every realistic possibility must be considered. With wealth inequality as it is right now, a Few plutocrats reaping most of the benefits of AI with the majority of people scraping by is not just the more realistic possibility, it is also remarkably similar to the current reality. >If there had ever been a single inflection point in history where Luddism was the right answer in the long run, I'd be more sympathetic to the pessimistic point of view. As things stand, though, doesn't their argument amount to a special pleading fallacy? "It's different this time!" No... no, it's not. Oh there are tons of examples. You just view history through a biased lens. You're unable to see the times when technology did harm the population. I utterly guarantee that your conclusion is not data driven. You simply are unconsciously picking and choosing the data to support your optimism. A big portion of the wealth inequality we see today is the result of a century of technological advancement. But you're partly blind to it because you're on the positive side of the wealth inequality equation.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    Oh there are tons of examples. None of which you seem to be able to cite. As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      >None of which you seem to be able to cite. Able? The examples are obvious. I can cite them though. Once I cite them you should should 180 degree your opinion. But of course you won't. You're so biased you can't even see the obvious examples all around you: https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-plastic-crisis https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-pla... The plastic crisis. The result of the invention of plastic. https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/ https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fo... The discovery of how to extract energy from fossil fuels looks to potentially herald massive damage to society and already has effected the lives of many. https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm Actual civilization destroyed through the introduction of wood based technology to an island resulting in deforestation and complete collapse. https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technology-caused-an-obesity-epidemic/ https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technolo... Obesity epidemic caused by ultra processed food technology. Industrialization and the negative effects. "At least they're not starving and living better than kings" is what I imagine coming out of your privileged mind. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/619008/IPOL_IDA(2018)619008_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/6190... Fake news, misinformation created by social media technology. Before free press and technology people were simply less informed. Now, the current generation of people are likely the most informed but also the most misinformed people who've ever lived. People think they live in a more dangerous world, but in reality crime has gone down. This is all because of the current news cycle. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-of-technology https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-o... health issues with usage of internet related technologies. https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm Nuclear weapons. The discovery of the relationship between energy and mass and other advancements in physics and chemistry led to the development of technology that enables humanity to literally destroy the world if they chose to. This example literally expands the spectrum about the amount of harm technology can do. In less then a day ICBM and nuclear bomb technology can level the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Nuclear power melt downs. There are several. This is the most famous one. Obviously there's nuance to this and I will address it. The net benefit of nuclear power is better then fossil fuels in terms of death and destruction when taken from a statistical standpoint. But you still cannot ignore the fact that a single mistake leveled a whole town. Blindly charging forward because you trust the numbers is equally ignorant. Need I go on? There are OBVIOUS benefits of technology I would be blind to not to see it. But I'm also able to see the OBVIOUS negative side as well. The nuance. I would be wrong if I said you didn't know about each of these things. You know it. These things are obvious. It's just you're not analytical enough to consider the full spectrum of information at your fingertips. You pick and choose data for your own bias. But it's not even conscious picking. You didn't even know you did it. That's why you're so freaking confident about how technology has always benefited society all the time always when it obviously has not. I mean what I expect next is rationalization. You have to logically analyze why you didn't consider these examples and explain your reasoning to me why they don't count. Think really hard when your mind comes to this inflection point. The logic did not previously exist. You are in the process of picking and choosing reasoning to support your current belief. This is Rationalization. Stop yourself before you do this. It's a waste of both of our times to read and write reasoning created as the result of rationalization. >As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that. I'm talking about homeless people who do drugs. I'm talking normal people in the US who have to work 3 jobs to stay alive. You are the reaper of the benefits of wealth inequality, OF COURSE you're ok with that. Or no, you're ok with that because that person who works 3 jobs lives better than a king. Whatever makes you sleep at night. Did the king have 3 jobs? How much better do you think the life of a typical US citizen is compared to a king? I think there's a lot of nuance in the word "better" that you are again ignoring.

CamperBob2 4y ago

No. But there are people with ambitions to create robots that will take over my job and yours and everyone's. Sure hope so. Then I can move even closer to self-actualization than I am now. If there had ever been a single inflection point in history where Luddism was the right answer in the long run, I'd be more sympathetic to the pessimistic point of view. As things stand, though, doesn't their argument amount to a special pleading fallacy? "It's different this time!" No... no, it's not.

deltasevennine 4y ago
Nothing is different. Everything is the same. You're just blind to what is happening around you. >Sure hope so. Then I can move even closer to self-actualization than I am now. Yeah and then you starve to death because you have some measly salary. Who says you're the owner of the robot who took over your job? It may be possible, but thinking this is the only possibility is not intelligent. Every realistic possibility must be considered. With wealth inequality as it is right now, a Few plutocrats reaping most of the benefits of AI with the majority of people scraping by is not just the more realistic possibility, it is also remarkably similar to the current reality. >If there had ever been a single inflection point in history where Luddism was the right answer in the long run, I'd be more sympathetic to the pessimistic point of view. As things stand, though, doesn't their argument amount to a special pleading fallacy? "It's different this time!" No... no, it's not. Oh there are tons of examples. You just view history through a biased lens. You're unable to see the times when technology did harm the population. I utterly guarantee that your conclusion is not data driven. You simply are unconsciously picking and choosing the data to support your optimism. A big portion of the wealth inequality we see today is the result of a century of technological advancement. But you're partly blind to it because you're on the positive side of the wealth inequality equation.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Oh there are tons of examples. None of which you seem to be able to cite. As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    >None of which you seem to be able to cite. Able? The examples are obvious. I can cite them though. Once I cite them you should should 180 degree your opinion. But of course you won't. You're so biased you can't even see the obvious examples all around you: https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-plastic-crisis https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-pla... The plastic crisis. The result of the invention of plastic. https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/ https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fo... The discovery of how to extract energy from fossil fuels looks to potentially herald massive damage to society and already has effected the lives of many. https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm Actual civilization destroyed through the introduction of wood based technology to an island resulting in deforestation and complete collapse. https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technology-caused-an-obesity-epidemic/ https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technolo... Obesity epidemic caused by ultra processed food technology. Industrialization and the negative effects. "At least they're not starving and living better than kings" is what I imagine coming out of your privileged mind. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/619008/IPOL_IDA(2018)619008_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/6190... Fake news, misinformation created by social media technology. Before free press and technology people were simply less informed. Now, the current generation of people are likely the most informed but also the most misinformed people who've ever lived. People think they live in a more dangerous world, but in reality crime has gone down. This is all because of the current news cycle. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-of-technology https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-o... health issues with usage of internet related technologies. https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm Nuclear weapons. The discovery of the relationship between energy and mass and other advancements in physics and chemistry led to the development of technology that enables humanity to literally destroy the world if they chose to. This example literally expands the spectrum about the amount of harm technology can do. In less then a day ICBM and nuclear bomb technology can level the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Nuclear power melt downs. There are several. This is the most famous one. Obviously there's nuance to this and I will address it. The net benefit of nuclear power is better then fossil fuels in terms of death and destruction when taken from a statistical standpoint. But you still cannot ignore the fact that a single mistake leveled a whole town. Blindly charging forward because you trust the numbers is equally ignorant. Need I go on? There are OBVIOUS benefits of technology I would be blind to not to see it. But I'm also able to see the OBVIOUS negative side as well. The nuance. I would be wrong if I said you didn't know about each of these things. You know it. These things are obvious. It's just you're not analytical enough to consider the full spectrum of information at your fingertips. You pick and choose data for your own bias. But it's not even conscious picking. You didn't even know you did it. That's why you're so freaking confident about how technology has always benefited society all the time always when it obviously has not. I mean what I expect next is rationalization. You have to logically analyze why you didn't consider these examples and explain your reasoning to me why they don't count. Think really hard when your mind comes to this inflection point. The logic did not previously exist. You are in the process of picking and choosing reasoning to support your current belief. This is Rationalization. Stop yourself before you do this. It's a waste of both of our times to read and write reasoning created as the result of rationalization. >As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that. I'm talking about homeless people who do drugs. I'm talking normal people in the US who have to work 3 jobs to stay alive. You are the reaper of the benefits of wealth inequality, OF COURSE you're ok with that. Or no, you're ok with that because that person who works 3 jobs lives better than a king. Whatever makes you sleep at night. Did the king have 3 jobs? How much better do you think the life of a typical US citizen is compared to a king? I think there's a lot of nuance in the word "better" that you are again ignoring.