Robots Will Kill Us All

[Jim]

Marshall Brain wrote this article about how he believes that sometime around 2050, robots will have become so advanced as to replace 50% of the workforce in America (mostly menial, minimum-wage jobs). He also wrote two other somewhat-redundant articles about Robots in 2015, and about solving the problems created by 50% unemployment in an industrialized society.

While his timescale may be off, his conclusion isn't: robots are going to drastically change the global economy.

His article on solving the problems caused by a robotic workforce called Robotic Freedom is unfortunately horrible. Marshall Brain is no economist, and it shows. He is also writing a novel called Manna about a computer system that increases worker efficiency, but over time turns into a strict control device that makes employees work in conditions similar to the 1920s. It's so focused on this fictional system that he ignores the possibility that the future could be drastically different, and that the problems inherent in Manna might not happen in a real-life version. I wouldn't have a problem with this normally, if it were a good-ol' science fiction novel, but it's being touted as if it's his honest analysis of future occurances.

What are your thoughts on a robotic workforce? On his articles?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I happen to agree with you, but if we open a topic for every piece of badly written fiction, we will soon be up to our ears in them...

[Jim]

Not every badly written piece of fiction comes along with an excellent futurist analysis. But, for clarity, this thread should be about the problems with a robot-run economy.

On that note, here is the article about Stephen Hawking's theory that humans must modify themselves genetically and mechanically to keep up with robots. This is what inspired my quest into this concept.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

While I will agree that Hawkings has a great scientific mind. Accepting his observations on either socialogical effects or physical abilities is somewhat like asking a mentally handicapped basketball star about quantum physics. While I would not hold either ones handicaps against them, I do think it wise to ask advise in areas where they cannot have much expertise.

[Jim]

No argument here, the article just intruiged me.

[Fallen Angel]

Robots should only be used for factory work which is incredibly boring, Robot is a czech word which means 'drudgery'.
It would be a mistake to keep advancing them into every facet of our lives, people are starting to get fat and lazy enough as it is.
Also if we remove all dangerous activities from our lives and have robots take up the lead for us, even fight our wars(which is happening already) we might start to question what is the point of our existance without sacrifice.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

The problem does not result from advancing technology. The problem will result if they ever decide to design machines to advance technology. While there are a lot of negative things attributed to technological development many positive things also result. Trying to slow or turn around tech advance will destroy the human race. The inovation of the few is the only thing keeping society from sinking into sabriate existence, it always has been, it always will be. When an empire stops advancing it eats itself, and humanity is the ultimate empire.

[greendeath]

Robots will always have weaknesses, and considering it will take a human being or beings to create highly-intellectual take-over-the-world 'bots, i believe that records will be kept regarding information on how to disable them. Thus, proving this theory entirely wrong.

[G. Adams]

If half of the US workforce is robotic, I think you should be more worried about the unemployed humans turning militant. I don't think the technology of robotic sentience would be achieved before all the robots are taken apart to create jobs.

Workers do not have any property, owning nothing but their own labour, and if that is given to robots, are we all meant to go die in the corner quietly?

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by greendeath@Sep 1 2003, 06:11 AM Robots will always have weaknesses, and considering it will take a human being or beings to create highly-intellectual take-over-the-world 'bots, i believe that records will be kept regarding information on how to disable them. Thus, proving this theory entirely wrong.

If we create robots intelligent enough to achieve sentience, which would be neccesary for them to choose to take over the world, then we have no right to take destroy them unless they do break laws. They may be made of metal but any sentient creature has rights, be it human, dolphin or robotic.

[Um Yeah]

Creepy, This reminds me of that episode of Sealab 2021.

[indierockboy]

unfortunetly, corporations are assured the same rights as individuals. as such, if they choose to replace workers with robots, the workers do not have any additional rights that would protect them from being replaced.

however, one thing that a robot cannot do (that is, until artificial intelligence is realized (thankfully, most scientists are going about ai incorrectly)) is think creatively. so artists, designers and decorators will still have jobs.

...even if it's only to decorate the robot's houses.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Um Yeah@Sep 1 2003, 11:28 AM Creepy, This reminds me of that episode of Sealab 2021.

See you on the robot reservation suckers!

[G. Adams]

If companies replaced humans for robots, it would be speciesist, and at least in Europe where we have proper workers rights (not that they are properly defended) we could sue if they fired us for another species.

[indierockboy]

i was speaking from the perspective of north american rights. but you are correct, the EU does try to protect worker rights.

[The Maestro]

Kind of reminds me of that film from the Animatrix whose name escapes me at the moment. I think you know the one I'm talking about (with the robot revolution and all).

Like greendeath mentioned, as long as we don't do anything immensely stupid (like not leaving us some sort of last resort that would allow us to destroy them) we should know how to control them. However, I don't think that this is an issue that will concern us in our lifetimes; I don't see truly advanced robotic technology forming for a long time.

-The Maestro

[Jim]

Robots will always have weaknesses, and considering it will take a human being or beings to create highly-intellectual take-over-the-world 'bots, i believe that records will be kept regarding information on how to disable them. Thus, proving this theory entirely wrong.

Suppose the military makes a robot that's designed to be autonomous, and thus cannot be disabled? This is plausible. Or worse, they can be disabled, but only by a few people with access codes, and those people want to kill a lot of other people.

[Pooeypants]

I wonder at what "IQ" level, a computer will gain self awareness. Perhaps it never will. But we really can't tell these days with technology advancing at such a rapid rate.
And as for the person talking about robots being inferior because humans made them, think about evolution, how the old obsolete species are outcompeted by the new ones.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 1 2003, 07:40 AM While I will agree that Hawkings has a great scientific mind. Accepting his observations on either socialogical effects or physical abilities is somewhat like asking a mentally handicapped basketball star about quantum physics. While I would not hold either ones handicaps against them, I do think it wise to ask advise in areas where they cannot have much expertise.

This man has an IQ of around 220, give him some respect!!

[The Maestro]

Originally posted by Pooeypants@Sep 2 2003, 09:39 AM This man has an IQ of around 220, give him some respect!!

Damn right. Hawking in the hizzy!

-The Maestro