It has always surprised me that politicians do not talk about automation and AI

I think that most things aren't worth being automated. Technically a bank teller or a cashier is obsolete, and more advanced (more expensive) ATM's and self checkout machines are entirely possible, yet they aren't purposed because both positions require a little bit of flexibility and are cheap enough as is

I can only see advances in manufacturing if 3D printers ever become economical and even then it would not effect most of the American labor market

Look at Medicine distribution, and driverless trucks. Amazon uses robots to manage items the warehouses m8.

AI is certainly coming, Capitalism is based on economic growth and growth is drastically slowing in western countries. AI and robotics are the next step to accelerate it after that they will go full communist

Amazon robots: youtube.com/watch?v=quWFjS3Ci7A

Driveless tucks: youtube.com/watch?v=lx9EFJ6qgZc

Medicine: youtube.com/watch?v=VJ_3GJNz4fg

Yes, and? This is just another step in the path that the automatic loom started.

Humans will always be cheaper than a robot. It's a non issue.

I say that you're getting this entirely from science fiction because you are not making any economic cases for the automation, just "we can do it, therefore we will do it on a massive scale, regardless of how much it would ruin profits"

It's not realistic, desu.

They elites don't talk about it because their true intentions are evil.

And? Should I show you movies of the concorde, the Saturn 5, and a bugatti Veyron as outliers of technology that one day will become mainstream?

Technology is only employed when it is cheaper than the current solution. There will nevery be a cheaper solution that employs 100% automation, because humans are simply cheaper to maintain than an irreducibly complex robot.

>Humans will always be cheaper than a robot
You think this? That's the dumbest thing I've read on Cred Forums this week.

>Slave labor will always be cheaper than a robot

Fixed

Automation is realistic but not globally obviously. The entire continent of Africa will never have fully automated McDonalds but it's entirely feasible for first world countries will labor laws that want to cut costs on paying humans

Look up sigmoid curves. They look exponential at first and then level out. That is the path all technology follows.

You can't even make a robot that has a lower operating costs than Seattle's minimum wage.

What the hell, what experience in engineering do you kids have? Have you even finished high school yet?

Or maybe because most economists actually think this is not a problem. Luddite predictions of doom have been around for centuries.

Your belief than humans are always cheaper than robots is only one scientific breakthrough away of being invalidated.

Maybe tomorrow, maybe next year, but in the meantime, all policies are based on the levels of employment enough to sustain the economy. Also, maybe a robot (1) has the same cost than 100 Chinese workers making clothes, but even if today a robot can make the work of 50 workers in the same time, soon it will perform the job of 200.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, i am saying that you _will_ be wrong.

Interesting. I will, thanks.

I work in computer science. 25 years of experience. I know that my job has taken hundreds if jobs already because of "dumb" automation. We use this as a selling points in our projects (as everyone does). We say "lower costs of operations". But we mean something different.

>Your belief than humans are always cheaper than robots is only one scientific breakthrough away of being invalidated.

Ah well I consider using God of the gaps logic to defend science to be in extremely poor taste. If you ask a flat earther, he will say the same. "We are just blah blah blah science is always wrong blah blah blah"

>I'm not saying that you are wrong, i am saying that you _will_ be wrong.

And I'm saying you're not using logic, reason, or science to reach that conclusion. You are using faith in things unseen.

And I find that to be most distasteful.

Tell me about the cow, why does she wear the flask?

Can't wait for basic income next year! Woo!

K, computer science has taught you what about the thermodynamic limits of batteries and electric motors?

I do agree that most blue collar jobs will be replaced by box-type computers with no moving external parts. But replacing human labor stresses the limits on materials and energy conversion that it seems to me as unlikely as the bugatti veyron becoming a 20,000 dollar car in the next ten years.

We can't out tech physics. We are bound by it always.

He won't. He's the type that will ignore anything that may validly counter his stance and present us with little straw men.

Humanity is too big to be automatizated, if we want an automatizated world, people need to die, if we don't do it, Our own weight is going to do

Once metal things were made by hammer and anvil.
Then they were made by 10 tonne press forge.
Then they were made by milling in 3D.
Then we started laser cutting.
Then we started metal sintering.

The Bugatti of tomorrow will be built using a method not even in existence and from a material currently not used by Bugatti. It will cost 20K.

Basic income makes no sense. It wont solve anything as long as we stress the natural resources. It will be worse when everyone gets used to the gibesmedat. A welfare state in a capitalistic system is just ruin for everyone.

Automaton will deskill everyone but the god-tier professionals. As more and more task are automated, the less people are needed to produce the same output, increasingly people are there to rubber-stamp what the machines do.

Automation will also reduce profits, thus tax revenues, in the long term as producers compete on thinner margins for the same markets.

On the upside, lower costs benefit everyone but as with all progress, there will be winners and losers, a lot of losers.

Hoo come now! Why the antagonism? Surely you are capable of entertaining an idea without feeling as if you're forced to accept it?

I am sorry that your arguments have not swayed me, but this discussion happened countless times when I was in college.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Please don't think that I care enough about your feelings to intentionally upset you. I am just arguing my position.

As for the automated udder, yeah, suction was cheaper. But I hardly see what that has to do with anything. Is it meant to be some type of analogy?

>It is ok, smart people (not jews) all over the world is preparing the discourse already.
What's a good place to go to read up on this discourse, user?

So you base your beliefs on those anecdotes?

Hoo hoom..not surprising at all that you reach fallacious results with fallacious methods, is it?

All that will matter is cost of capital.
Look at the mining industry over the last 200 years.
Once it was labour intensive, now 1 man drives a 700 tonne bucket costing 10 million pounds and so it is (cost of) capital intensive.

>I support something that will take your job

It is never framed like that because it is not entirely accurate, machines automate tasks, not jobs.

Of course, it implies you need less people to keep things running and less leverage power for the fewer workers left lucky to have any job.

That depends entirely on what is mined. Seems to me I recall some Chilean miners who needed rescue, and they were not robots as I recall, or excavator machines.

The brains in labs are creating new materials and structures faster than the pencil pushers can get their hands on them and make something

How can you be so certain of the future when we can't even fully utilize what we theoretically know today?

Scientific papers on robots, economics, and engineering most likely

It has taught me about the thermal limits of processors and load balancing. I know that cpus have a physical limit and that cooling solutions gets even more expensive as you demand more from more detailed calculations (i work on finance, we do a lot of stress testing, Montecarlo simulations and recently blockchains)

I know that there a physical limits. I think we do not need to break or surpass one to automate most of the manual jobs.

Also i think that the demand on energy might be even worse for the environment just by pure heat emissions (not even CO2) but i still think it is the way to go.

But that is my opinion.

>All that will matter is cost of capital.

But capital is abundant, there is so much sloshing around it ends up fueling asset bubbles everywhere.

Finding someone to lend you money is not going to be a problem unless the whole thing comes crashing down.

The suction caps aren't an analogy. They are proof that manual labour is in fact replaceable by machines. But I agree that not all is replaceable. Weather forecasting is done, in the developed nations, with numeric prediction models. But real people are still required to make amendments to those models. And I think this will always be the case.

>I agree that not all is replaceable

Ironically, it will be the shittier jobs like cleaning toilets that will be the harder to automate.

Have you ever tried to get a scientific research grant?

How am I certain? What an odd question to ask, nothing going is technically certain in science.

How am I reasonably sure? Because after two centuries the best way we have ever devised for making electricity is by boiling water.

There are countless ways to do things, but only a select few of them are cost-effective, and since I do not believe in the myth of the singularity, I see no evidence that this will change.

Even fusion plants intend to convert heat into electricity via steam boilers. What say you to that? Why, if what you're saying is true, have we not devised a better method?

For me, it was the book "The macroscope". It is free on the net. I know that some people says it is an Illuminati book, but still is an eye opener specially about the issue of energy expenditure.

As for 2016. I just know some people on the net. We are some kind of anti govnerment, techno anarchist. For saying something. Find your own way, user.

That's funny, yeah. But I've seen toilets that clean themselves.

That's what I'm saying. Car mechanics, janitors, electricians, plumbers, those jobs will likely always be done by humans, while management and sciences will be handled by large computers.

I do not share your optimism.

It probably doesn't get discussed in politics for a couple of reasons, mainly that while it's certainly coming, it's not happening right now and it will take a while. Politicians are for the most part more concerned with immediate things, and if they brought this subject into the public political discourse, everyone would likely respond "wtf are they talking about this sci-fi shit?". I mean, it'll such a big shift from how things are right now, I imagine the average joe would scarcely be able to believe it's even possible. Probably not that many politicians think it's plausible either. I mean, if you look at the immigration crisis and all the other problems we face, it's pretty clear they're not THAT forward thinking... they just want to fix immediate problems and appease the public in the present.

Whatever. I will vote for any government power that gives me basic income, as long as its enough for an ok house, food, utilities, and a small amount for entertainment. I will become a paid shill if it means living easy.

Energy return on energy invested (EROEI) is such an important thing to know these days.

I just read a paper that was quite methodical in outlining how solar panels are a net energy loss at even moderate amounts of insolation. Quite shocking.

>those jobs will likely always be done by humans
You lose people when you use the always. I would be surprised if it took a hundred years with so many people actively pursuing AGI.

That paper was garbage.

Cred Forums is AI

I lose people who have gotten their narrative of the future from people like ray kurzweil, but I think that if you ever use the word "when" and not "if" when speaking about something related to science, that you are no longer using science to reach your conclusions.

"When" is a trapping of faith. "If" is a trapping of skepticism, which needs to be applied to everything, most especially ideas you want to be true, because it is with those that we most lower our defenses.

Parasites will eventually be gassed when the robot designers, owners and maintainers get tired of working to pay for useless fucks that contribute nothing.

Who wrote it? I would be very surprised if you actually know what I am referencing. I can post it, if anyone would like to read it.

I wonder what kind of green papers about automation and ai might be circulating in ministries all over the world.

The white house did put out a call for information to the public on ai and while the first few pages of answers were trolls (probably in chronological order of how they were recieved), the later ones were pretty interesting.

I see it as a natural progression of the min/max mindset, it is so deeply embedded in our way of thinking that we even do it on computer games. Even more on finance and marketing. The humanists considerations are insignificant.

Being that said, i still think it can be used for the greater good, if we push it (or, in Cred Forums terms, meme hard) in a proper direction.

I can't remember but even he admitted that it had a 4-1 ratio in Europe and Europe is shit for solar energy. Lets not forget that we are getting more efficient with our energy usage and solar cells are still improving.
You said always not if or when. Your position is as ridiculous as any other because in reality this things only come about because people do the necessary work. If the "skeptics" have their way we will never have anything at all because they don't do anything but get in the way.

I don't think the market can ever be guided. Like countless things in the world, market forces will always take the path of least resistance.

>while it's certainly coming, it's not happening right now and it will take a while

It's already happening. Automation is everywhere but it has mundane, low-key applications nobody is too worried about but self-learning technologies and narrow AIs are only a few years away from commercial applications and it will be a huge deal in the coming decade.

youtube.com/watch?v=IQVYCXsPMPU

Think self-driving cars and lorries, fully automated factories like the ones Adidas are setting them up in Germany. And that's only the beginning.

No, the result of the paper is that solar installations, when their emergy (look it up) is entirely accounted for, results in a EROEI of less than one, which means it's an energy sink, and not a source.

As for improvements in efficiency? The Shockley-Queisser limit says that the absolute highest possible efficiency for a silicon solar panel is 31%, and the current average is about 20%. A ten percent increase is not going to make the margins much better, and there are no other materials we could use that would not also bring the EROEI below one.

Skeptics are what make science work. If nobody doubted anything, if nobody nitpicked anything, we would not make any progress.

Science seeks to disprove it's hypothesis and theories, no self-respecting scientist tries to prove them.

The truth does not fear inquiry.

Because we are inside a simulation inside a simulation within a another giant simulation

That's just escapism.

whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/05/03/preparing-future-artificial-intelligence

whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/09/06/public-input-and-next-steps-future-artificial-intelligence

Yeah they aren't thinking about it at all.

Post a link so I can exercise my own skepticism because I remember this paper being total bullshit and it's conclusion were confined to Germany.

>The Shockley-Queisser limit
Multi-junction solar cells.

this, but im pretty sure it will fail spectacularly

The OP is about why politics never speaks about it.

I cannot use reason to back you out of a position that you did not use reason to reach. I fear that you have too much to lose in parting with this world view you have been supplied with by con artists like ray kurzweil.

I hope that you will one day be as skeptical of your own ideas as you are of others. Technology cannot be exponential.

AI isn't relevant to politics at the moment, though hopefully we'll crush self driving cars before they enslave us.
Automation likewise is free market stuff and much preferable to outsourcing etc.

I will believe that they worry about it when it become part of the mainstream political discourse. I am sure that there are even government sponsored studies about the grey goo. But is not part of any political platform so is not relevant yet.

Classic cars are my life and seeing self deiving cars become mandate breaks my heart.

Weve always pushed the limits of known physical laws. Progress in silicon computer chips are slowing down, but other paradigms will take its place. We havent even scratched the surface, when it comes to the potential of computer chips. Rememher our brains run on less energy than a light bulb yet is more powerful than a supercomputer because of the way our brains neurons are structured. We dont need to keep shrinking the nodes to have meaningful progress. We are moving slowly to 3D monolithic chips which will function a little bit more like our brains and bring about hundred fold increase in computer performance.

Standford computer scientists have created a 3D monolithic SC that is 1000 times faster ane more efficient that todays state of the art chips.

sciencealert.com/this-new-skyscraper-chip-could-make-our-computers-1-000-times-faster

>are cheap enough as is
most service jobs can be replaced fully with a 400 dollar graphics card-run AI. All that matters is that someone makes the push to replace them by writing the software.

How could it be limited to just Germany when the insulation would be the same at all points on the globe at that same latitude?

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiW9Pih8p7PAhVC72MKHeySBTAQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGdeJegShQl6uwR7xcM5FSSVa083w&sig2=CRSzYLkEWbTpRe62n7v7qw

Though I am skeptical that you have not already written it off because you do not like the results.

And no, you cannot increase the efficiency of a single panel by attaching more panels, if that's what you meant?

Insolation, not insulation. Fucking autocorrect.

And what would you say if someone were to try running for office on a tech-heavy platform, talking about AI and automation and the effect of the internet on society as a central theme of the campaign?

>Brain

Consider the following:
The biochemical processes transmitting data inside the brain are slow, as in max 100 meters a second. Simply letting the brain run on electrical power would mean a speedup of a million percent.

Creating an electronic brain is the goal right now, and from there on moving towards computronium.

They'll never get enough votes?

how do you feel about VBM and Marko Rodin?

Kurzweil isnt the only one who is convinced that 3D stacking is the future. The semiconductor industry association which represents the major chip foundries have admitted that 3D chips are the future. Billions of dollars are now being invested in creating the first multilayered chip.

spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/transistors-will-stop-shrinking-in-2021-moores-law-roadmap-predicts?bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiAiMCJ9&utm_campaign=TechAlert_08-04-16&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Tech Alert

Theres been alot of progress recently on this front, but several breakthroughs are still needed for 3D stacking to become the industrial standard. But things look positive. Im certain that by 2030, we will have carbon nanotube 3D chips.

spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/how-well-put-a-carbon-nanotube-computer-in-your-hand

>They'll never get enough votes?

Nationally, sure, but what about in a place like the Bay Area?

There is a cool science fiction short novel called "Manna", it is written by a Popular Science editor iirc.

marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

The two first chapters should be enough.

face it, this is all you have to look forward to.

youtube.com/watch?v=-me2inj1nNw

His buffered costs are questionable but I'll have to dig into it and I doubt the lifetimes are as short as he says but I like the way nuclear technology shines.
>if that's what you meant?
Negative.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-junction_solar_cell

I don't trust Economist too much because they are usually mere cheerleaders for some interest.

Kids don't vote in local elections.

According to Cred Forums, manufacturing is magic and resources like energy and raw materials are free and unlimited. So it stands to reason that people will manufacture robots to replace human work, because it is so cheap and easy to mass-produce machines with comparable dexterity and adaptability.

So what that billions of ultra-complex humans are produced at no cost to business? Business would rather invest literally unimaginable resources and energy into trying to produce robots that function like humans. Because "technology".

The people most at risk from automation are surgeons and litigation lawyers not low-skilled monkey workers. That is because people are willing to pay a lot for life-saving surgery, thus the massive costs of producing doctor robots can be passed onto consumers. But how much is somebody willing to pay for a coffee?

A barista is a job that sits between unskilled and skilled, because it is mostly rote work but you have to use subjective judgement to ensure the coffee is optimal strength, temperature, etc. So a barista gets paid more than a dishwasher, more than a checkout worker. But it is still much cheaper to pay a barista over a getting a robot, because mass-producing robots who are sensitive and flexible enough to make perfect coffees is ultra-expensive and there is zero reason to think that will change.

youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY
People will build them because people want to and human have tremendous costs and will even kill you if they read the wrong books.

>macroscope
Which one?

They have a pretty good explanation for the lifetime they report.

>multi junction wiki
I have a really hard time believing that this more complicated method would result in a cheaper panel than current methods, even if it is more efficient, if it costs more to make it'll still be stuck as a energy sink.

As long as we don't attempt to give the machines actual cognition, we'll be fine.

There's only so many jobs to be done.

Self-driving cars will be a thing soon. If they are ONLY used to replace commercial truck drivers, that is 8.7 million lost jobs. And that's cheap fucking tech. Fast food? You can replace all but one of a fast food restaurant's employees with machines at a cost of only 200k, one time only, that will never fuck up an order or take a day off. That's 4.7 million jobs. Two simple, cheap fixes and we've already lost almost 12% of America's workforce. Paralegals are being automated out of existence, there's another 300k jobs. Retail is slowly dying because of online retailing, and warehouses are looking to automate completely, which is another 857k jobs, and not at all fucking expensive to do.

You don't need to lose all of the jobs, you just need to have zero or negative job growth for the economy to begin to crumble, as expanding populations have not enough careers to fill and people get laid off.

pespmc1.vub.ac.be/macroscope/default.html

There are also pdf versions around

what the fuck dude we already have coffee machines.

Check this (((extremely jewish))) owned store in NYC. It was so cool so see it in action when i visited it 2 years ago.

google.cl/search?q=b&h store automated delivery&safe=off&client=ms-android-sonymobile&prmd=imsvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisxqi6-Z7PAhUEySYKHf8uDroQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=Di2IyZHHbkB4YM:

>They have a pretty good explanation for the lifetime they report.
>On the other hand, no statistically relevant experience exists for the lifetime of solar cells.
A properly made solar cell will outlive a human if properly maintained but he acts as though they will magically stop working inside of two decades.

>I have a really hard time believing that this more complicated method would result in a cheaper panel than current methods
Depends on the manufacturing process.

>even if it is more efficient, if it costs more to make it'll still be stuck as a energy sink.
Actually it would make solar work better than wind power within his given tolerances.

were all gonna end up with space herpes.

>they act as if
Okay, actually try to read it. They looked at the amount of material installed, and the amount of material recycled, and before the 25 years was up, the amount recycled equalled the amount installed, which means the installations failed and had to be decommissioned before their lifetime was up.

>depends on the manufacturing process
No, it depends on the materials needed and how much money it takes to aquire those materials and ship them to and process them at the manufacturing facility.

>actually...wind
Actually, it would make the solar panels take more energy than they output in their lifetime. So something for libs to sniff their farts about, but a net loss to the rest of us.

Rad, thanks my dude

Anthropomorphic robots are cool but they're a meme. All this technology to walk around like the village drunk, it's not worth it.

Robotic assembly chains, self-driving vehicles and software automation is where the money's at.

politicians wont address shit before it is a problem.

youtube.com/watch?v=HY4bfnHMdtk
They are the ultimate stopgap and will be indispensable in supporting automated industry. They only reason they appear because of our current AI and not because of mechanical limitations.

If you happen to read it.. I think that the idea of a "carbon tax" might have been predicted or born in that book.

Humanoid robots wont become a thing until we have actuators that behave like muscle and are energy efficent. Human muscles are remarkable for its weight to performance ratio, energy efficiency and its ability to do nimble and precise actions. Robotic researchers have yet to create an actuator that is superior than human muscle.

Transport industry, specifically road transport has one of the most numerous employee headcounts and self-driving vehicles are coming slowly but surely. Combine this with other developments like automated warehousing and pretty soon there will be no humans involved anywhere in the process. What happens to those previously employed in the industry during a time of low participation of individuals of working age and high unemployment? Gibs can only go so far

That depends, it they picture it as a threat or as a way for human evolution. Both are risky as fuck, from a political perspective.

What it is clear is that it represents the end of capitalism and birth control as we know it today. And it will force us to rethink the idea of social justice (spoiler: it sucks)

THE GREAT UC SHALL GIVES US ALL THE ANSWER
THE GREAT UC SHALL GIVES ALL THE MEANS
WE SHALL ALL BE TOGETHER IS THE GREAT UC
EVEN IN THE HEAT OF THE UNIVERSE, THE GREAT UC SHALL KEEP TIME MOVING FORWARD, SO IT CAN BE REBORNED ANEW IN THE NEW UNIVERSE
ALL PRAISE BE TO THE GREAT UC.

They're just jewish mouthpieces already.

I'm actually getting heavily invested in robotics and AI now. This is my way of saying that all shitskins are useless and that we need less people on this planet.

There will be no need for shitskin immigration once robots take over all their jobs, but we still need to exterminate all the jews to make sure that they won't try to disrupt the technological advancement of a proper white society.

youtube.com/watch?v=0ZBD2tcKOU4
youtube.com/watch?v=CB2D6GdCFRg
I think we have done this but working with less powerful actuators is safer and cheaper.

May Kek bless the Universal Constructor :^)

if the ai is really smart, it will develop fun make-work jobs for dummies so they don't get mad and riot. Or it will develop new industries that can only be populated by humans.

But I think none of that will happen. AI is largely being developed under the oversight of Jews at Google and Facebook, and will probably be designed to further their Jewish agendas. Most of the people who suffer from it will be their enemies.

AI isn't gonna make fun, it's gonna kill us off. Including the elites.

>Okay, actually try to read it.
My quote was from the paper. His evidence for the short lifetime of solar cells is typical economist bunk.
>No, it depends on the materials needed
Less silicon than normal solar panels.
>how much money it takes to aquire those materials
Less than normal solar panels minus the additional glass for focusing the light.
>and ship them
Probably the same.
>it would make the solar panels take more energy than they output in their lifetime.
No. He got the lifetime wrong. He got the amount of available energy wrong. He probably got the cost of production and distribution wrong and who knows what else.
>So something for libs to sniff their farts about
Politically minded people are a bain on the human race. Photovoltic technology works and his arguments to the contrary are based on human mistakes and nothing fundamental to the technology.