4 ms·

You first say: "A common trend among all of these folks is their ability to forgo the "easy" solution in favor of a longer-term, harder, but ultimately more pro

You first say: "A common trend among all of these folks is their ability to forgo the "easy" solution in favor of a longer-term, harder, but ultimately more profitable one" And then you say: >>Robotics is another great buzzword. Here's the issue in a nutshell, though: any robot you show me is going to be less versatile than a human (of even minimal intelligence and skill), and will take more effort to manufacture. To put it differently, the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth, and the only one that can be produced by entirely unskilled labor. Robotics' main purpose these days seems to be either cleaning or helping one group of humans oppress another--GM tried to use them in mass number in the 80s and damn near wrecked the company. Why do we need robots? Why does the species (not just some first-world folks) benefit from them? Why not just use people? This second comment contradicts your first. Robotics is hard, really hard (especially humanoid robots), the benefits to humanity are huge. We are already benefiting immensely from robots. i.e. A lot of types of automated manufacturing. Finally you say: >>Why does the species (not just some first-world folks) benefit from them? Why not just use people? It almost makes me think that you are just joking or baiting people since the benefits seem self evident. It would be like saying similar things about cars when replacing the horse.

angersock 15y ago
Ah, allow me to clarify then. This second comment contradicts your first. Robotics is hard, really hard (especially humanoid robots), the benefits to humanity are huge. So, my main issue is that of the third clause there--ultimate profitability. For the sake of argument, I'll agree that robotics is hard (this is not necessarily true, but that doesn't matter here that much). So, let's talk about profitability. So, let's sweep away the current constraints of robotics. Let's assume we can make them cheaply (we can't), and that we can make them as arbitrarily flexible as a person (we also can't) with matching intelligence (also not reasonable). For the purposes of modeling, we'll just say that we can produce these humanoids at the same relative cost as producing a person to do the same job. Why is this attractive? All we've done is put a lot of humans out of work, and created a population of subservient mechanisms. If we make them as best we are able (allowing for the exceedingly liberal constraints above), all that has been accomplished is the creation of a slave race, perhaps identical to our own in every regard save one: we may claim the moral high ground in disposing of them as we see fit, as they are not people--and this is abhorrent to me. We still would have to figure out what to do with all of the genuinely unemployed. We still would have to figure out how to widely distribute this technology. We still would have to figure out how to value a sentient being. And in addition, we'd have to expend all of those resources getting to a point where all of the problems we started with remain. So, no, I don't believe that robotics (especially humanoid robotics) is really a mission-critical goal for humankind. ~ I still very much believe in tools, and I still very much believe in things like CNC machines, printers, and the like (robots after a fashion). However, those are all fairly straightforward engineering problems, and mostly solved ones. We currently could choose to have a machining center on every block, a printer on every corner--but policy issues prevent that. It almost makes me think that you are just joking or baiting people since the benefits seem self evident. It would be like saying similar things about cars when replacing the horse. The critical flaw in that analogy, though, is that the car is functionally identical to a horse as far as someone needing transportation goes. Robotics, pursued with any degree of seriousness, eventually runs into the issue of making human labor obsolete (and taken to extremes of what people would like to see with artificial intelligence and such, humans themselves).
- felipemnoa 15y ago
  >>I'll agree that robotics is hard (this is not necessarily true, but that doesn't matter here that much) You say this is not hard and yet in your previous statement you seem to be saying robotics is hard: "any robot you show me is going to be less versatile than a human (of even minimal intelligence and skill), and will take more effort to manufacture. To put it differently, the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth, and the only one that can be produced by entirely unskilled labor." Robotics is hard. The Honda Asimo robot has been in development for decades and they still have a long way to go. I would be really interested to hear why you think robotics is easy? >>Robotics, pursued with any degree of seriousness, eventually runs into the issue of making human labor obsolete (and taken to extremes of what people would like to see with artificial intelligence and such, humans themselves).<< >>So, no, I don't believe that robotics (especially humanoid robotics) is really a mission-critical goal for humankind.<< Humans will find other niches. Taking robotics to the extreme will mean that survival will become extremely cheap if not free since machines will be able to do most if not all for us. It won't matter if you are unemployed since your personal robot is already doing all the work. i.e. Farming, house building, maintenance, clothe manufacturing, cooking. Etc. Etc. So you see, we may evolve into a society that may not need to work so unemployment is a non issue. The real issue is what will we do with all our free time? I predict that most of society will still work but only in what interests them, no longer will people need to be stuck in a crappy job longing to work on their dreams. We may enter a true golden age like never seen before. One last point, you say: >>If we make them as best we are able (allowing for the exceedingly liberal constraints above), all that has been accomplished is the creation of a slave race, perhaps identical to our own in every regard save one: we may claim the moral high ground in disposing of them as we see fit, as they are not people--and this is abhorrent to me.<< It would be foolish to actually create a slave race. Or rather, to create sentient robots. I really don't think the robot needs to be sentient to be able to do a lot of the things we do. i.e. Problem solving, farming, build a house, etc. etc. i.e. Is your calculator sentient? It can do a lot of really complicated mathematics. If they ever revolt it will be because of a bug in their hardware, software. After all, hasn't a computer program that you've written ever done things that you think it should not be doing? A robot, like any other tool in your house, kitchen, has the potential to kill you. Safety must be the main concern when designing them.

angersock 15y ago

Ah, allow me to clarify then. This second comment contradicts your first. Robotics is hard, really hard (especially humanoid robots), the benefits to humanity are huge. So, my main issue is that of the third clause there--ultimate profitability. For the sake of argument, I'll agree that robotics is hard (this is not necessarily true, but that doesn't matter here that much). So, let's talk about profitability. So, let's sweep away the current constraints of robotics. Let's assume we can make them cheaply (we can't), and that we can make them as arbitrarily flexible as a person (we also can't) with matching intelligence (also not reasonable). For the purposes of modeling, we'll just say that we can produce these humanoids at the same relative cost as producing a person to do the same job. Why is this attractive? All we've done is put a lot of humans out of work, and created a population of subservient mechanisms. If we make them as best we are able (allowing for the exceedingly liberal constraints above), all that has been accomplished is the creation of a slave race, perhaps identical to our own in every regard save one: we may claim the moral high ground in disposing of them as we see fit, as they are not people--and this is abhorrent to me. We still would have to figure out what to do with all of the genuinely unemployed. We still would have to figure out how to widely distribute this technology. We still would have to figure out how to value a sentient being. And in addition, we'd have to expend all of those resources getting to a point where all of the problems we started with remain. So, no, I don't believe that robotics (especially humanoid robotics) is really a mission-critical goal for humankind. ~ I still very much believe in tools, and I still very much believe in things like CNC machines, printers, and the like (robots after a fashion). However, those are all fairly straightforward engineering problems, and mostly solved ones. We currently could choose to have a machining center on every block, a printer on every corner--but policy issues prevent that. It almost makes me think that you are just joking or baiting people since the benefits seem self evident. It would be like saying similar things about cars when replacing the horse. The critical flaw in that analogy, though, is that the car is functionally identical to a horse as far as someone needing transportation goes. Robotics, pursued with any degree of seriousness, eventually runs into the issue of making human labor obsolete (and taken to extremes of what people would like to see with artificial intelligence and such, humans themselves).

felipemnoa 15y ago
>>I'll agree that robotics is hard (this is not necessarily true, but that doesn't matter here that much) You say this is not hard and yet in your previous statement you seem to be saying robotics is hard: "any robot you show me is going to be less versatile than a human (of even minimal intelligence and skill), and will take more effort to manufacture. To put it differently, the human body is the most complex mechanism on Earth, and the only one that can be produced by entirely unskilled labor." Robotics is hard. The Honda Asimo robot has been in development for decades and they still have a long way to go. I would be really interested to hear why you think robotics is easy? >>Robotics, pursued with any degree of seriousness, eventually runs into the issue of making human labor obsolete (and taken to extremes of what people would like to see with artificial intelligence and such, humans themselves).<< >>So, no, I don't believe that robotics (especially humanoid robotics) is really a mission-critical goal for humankind.<< Humans will find other niches. Taking robotics to the extreme will mean that survival will become extremely cheap if not free since machines will be able to do most if not all for us. It won't matter if you are unemployed since your personal robot is already doing all the work. i.e. Farming, house building, maintenance, clothe manufacturing, cooking. Etc. Etc. So you see, we may evolve into a society that may not need to work so unemployment is a non issue. The real issue is what will we do with all our free time? I predict that most of society will still work but only in what interests them, no longer will people need to be stuck in a crappy job longing to work on their dreams. We may enter a true golden age like never seen before. One last point, you say: >>If we make them as best we are able (allowing for the exceedingly liberal constraints above), all that has been accomplished is the creation of a slave race, perhaps identical to our own in every regard save one: we may claim the moral high ground in disposing of them as we see fit, as they are not people--and this is abhorrent to me.<< It would be foolish to actually create a slave race. Or rather, to create sentient robots. I really don't think the robot needs to be sentient to be able to do a lot of the things we do. i.e. Problem solving, farming, build a house, etc. etc. i.e. Is your calculator sentient? It can do a lot of really complicated mathematics. If they ever revolt it will be because of a bug in their hardware, software. After all, hasn't a computer program that you've written ever done things that you think it should not be doing? A robot, like any other tool in your house, kitchen, has the potential to kill you. Safety must be the main concern when designing them.