4 ms·

All the remaining jobs you mention involve physical labor. Those can not be taken by AI alone, obviously. They will be taken by robots, however. The question i

All the remaining jobs you mention involve physical labor. Those can not be taken by AI alone, obviously. They will be taken by robots, however. The question is when. Robotics is in a worse shape than AI when compared to humans, but the industry is now rapidly integrating modern AI into both the process and the actual products. It's hard to say, but there might be a 'ChatGPT moment' for robotics soon.

grues-dinner 1y ago
They don't only require physical work. Only recently and quite briefly has any business been even potentially entirely non-physical. Maybe that's the aberration. If you replace all people at all levels with robots (and the robots and their tasks don't require people to design, maintain or direct) then the "in safety" aspect of the final paragraph will probably become the important part. If you can, say, design and build and run a railway network entirely automatically then we're well into singularity territory and there's literally no point guessing. The result could equally be infinite luxury space communism or all humans fed into the algae disgestors.
- dinfinity 1y ago
  You previously said this: "They only way work [for humans] as a concept runs out is if we as a species decide we want it to" Do you now agree that that is false? Because I think I've shown it to be false. There is nothing unique about humans that precludes robots/AI/inorganics from doing every job a human can better and cheaper at some point in the future.
  - grues-dinner 1y ago
    Read the rest of the sentence. Pretty sure that would be covered by the last clause. Also the second sentence of the whole thing. Also it can't infinitely be cheaper because money is fundamentally based on human time. If you can do everything without humans then the concept of money is fatally wounded. What that would mean is anyone's guess.
    - dinfinity 1y ago
      Fair point. My apologies, I did not read your initial post carefully enough.

grues-dinner 1y ago

They don't only require physical work. Only recently and quite briefly has any business been even potentially entirely non-physical. Maybe that's the aberration. If you replace all people at all levels with robots (and the robots and their tasks don't require people to design, maintain or direct) then the "in safety" aspect of the final paragraph will probably become the important part. If you can, say, design and build and run a railway network entirely automatically then we're well into singularity territory and there's literally no point guessing. The result could equally be infinite luxury space communism or all humans fed into the algae disgestors.

dinfinity 1y ago
You previously said this: "They only way work [for humans] as a concept runs out is if we as a species decide we want it to" Do you now agree that that is false? Because I think I've shown it to be false. There is nothing unique about humans that precludes robots/AI/inorganics from doing every job a human can better and cheaper at some point in the future.
- grues-dinner 1y ago
  Read the rest of the sentence. Pretty sure that would be covered by the last clause. Also the second sentence of the whole thing. Also it can't infinitely be cheaper because money is fundamentally based on human time. If you can do everything without humans then the concept of money is fatally wounded. What that would mean is anyone's guess.
  - dinfinity 1y ago
    Fair point. My apologies, I did not read your initial post carefully enough.