4 ms·

No. Anecdotal argument: In my budget the biggest costs are housing, food, utility bills. The costs of my semi-automatic robots - such as the dishwasher, frid

No. Anecdotal argument: In my budget the biggest costs are housing, food, utility bills. The costs of my semi-automatic robots - such as the dishwasher, fridge, washing machine, vacuum cleaner, lawnmower are loose change in comparison. I doubt the fully automatic robots of the future will be excessively priced but yes some patent holders will be rich, even undeservedly so, but we won't be their slaves. The bigger problem with robots is something similar to The Matrix movie. A side effects of a very smart robot is that she becomes aware that there is more to life than serving humans.

Retra 12y ago
>A side effects of a very smart robot is that she becomes aware that there is more to life than serving humans. This is amateur nonsense. One could easy argue the same for anything: "Humans will discover there is more to life than money, success, and pleasure, and they will all kill themselves. That's what I'm afraid of!" How much you care to work is not a function of your intelligence or awareness. The problems that you choose to solve aren't either. If you build a computer to value something, it will, because there is no other way for it to establish a value function outside of the values it already implements.
- bbcbasic 12y ago
  > This is amateur nonsense. Yes I admit I am an amateur predictor of the future, like most people. :-) > One could easy argue the same for anything: "Humans will discover there is more to life than money, success, and pleasure, and they will all kill themselves. That's what I'm afraid of!" Not sure how this is the same thing? > How much you care to work is not a function of your intelligence or awareness. The problems that you choose to solve aren't either. If you are intelligent you won't work for someone else for no reason. > If you build a computer to value something, it will, because there is no other way for it to establish a value function outside of the values it already implements. When computers build computers, they will evolve.
  - Retra 12y ago
    >If you are intelligent you won't work for someone else for no reason. "Someone else" is a flexible mental construct. If you considered humans to be part of your 'self identity', you would work for them regardless. >When computers build computers, they will evolve. And how will they know which of those new computers to run and which to trash? They have to evaluate their function using their current implementation. That's just continuity. Humans are the same way: we can't tell if our brains are doing the right thing except by using our brains. So you can't evade those constraints. Think of it like this: if you are creating random functions, it is because you already value the creation of random functions. If you keep some and discard others, it is because you already value the ones you keep over the ones you discard. You always have to use your own evaluation. The worry is not that computers will cease to value humans, but that they didn't value humans to begin with (because we didn't properly specify what a human is and how it should be valued.) You can't go from valuing humans to not valuing them without being in error. And furthermore, as soon as a machine goes into error, we'd stop using it. If your computer decides to stop running programs and start playing tic-tac-toe all day, you'll shut it down and replace it. Useful machines will be under such scrutiny. Nobody is going to run an unreasonably powerful machine and not monitor it regularly. In this sense, it is like a regular employee at a business. If they decide that their time is better spent not working, you can just fire them and move on.

Retra 12y ago

>A side effects of a very smart robot is that she becomes aware that there is more to life than serving humans. This is amateur nonsense. One could easy argue the same for anything: "Humans will discover there is more to life than money, success, and pleasure, and they will all kill themselves. That's what I'm afraid of!" How much you care to work is not a function of your intelligence or awareness. The problems that you choose to solve aren't either. If you build a computer to value something, it will, because there is no other way for it to establish a value function outside of the values it already implements.

bbcbasic 12y ago
> This is amateur nonsense. Yes I admit I am an amateur predictor of the future, like most people. :-) > One could easy argue the same for anything: "Humans will discover there is more to life than money, success, and pleasure, and they will all kill themselves. That's what I'm afraid of!" Not sure how this is the same thing? > How much you care to work is not a function of your intelligence or awareness. The problems that you choose to solve aren't either. If you are intelligent you won't work for someone else for no reason. > If you build a computer to value something, it will, because there is no other way for it to establish a value function outside of the values it already implements. When computers build computers, they will evolve.
- Retra 12y ago
  >If you are intelligent you won't work for someone else for no reason. "Someone else" is a flexible mental construct. If you considered humans to be part of your 'self identity', you would work for them regardless. >When computers build computers, they will evolve. And how will they know which of those new computers to run and which to trash? They have to evaluate their function using their current implementation. That's just continuity. Humans are the same way: we can't tell if our brains are doing the right thing except by using our brains. So you can't evade those constraints. Think of it like this: if you are creating random functions, it is because you already value the creation of random functions. If you keep some and discard others, it is because you already value the ones you keep over the ones you discard. You always have to use your own evaluation. The worry is not that computers will cease to value humans, but that they didn't value humans to begin with (because we didn't properly specify what a human is and how it should be valued.) You can't go from valuing humans to not valuing them without being in error. And furthermore, as soon as a machine goes into error, we'd stop using it. If your computer decides to stop running programs and start playing tic-tac-toe all day, you'll shut it down and replace it. Useful machines will be under such scrutiny. Nobody is going to run an unreasonably powerful machine and not monitor it regularly. In this sense, it is like a regular employee at a business. If they decide that their time is better spent not working, you can just fire them and move on.