User Controls
Communism
-
2017-07-03 at 3:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Fundamentally it's not different. Humans have limitless desires and machines aren't going to be able to meet them all any time soon.
The simple point there is that while machines won't be able to accurately predict what people want, they WILL eventually replace the entire workforce that was previously required to meet that goal. Instead of a director and a team of workers, all that will be required is a planner that is able to break his abstract goal down into tasks for the machines to complete.
As machine-learning and AI progresses, the skill required for a person to break an abstract objective into machine instructions will be less and less until at some point, anyone will be able to realise their desires that way. At that point there will be no need for any labour; even machine building and maintenance will be conducted by other machines.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-07-03 at 3:53 AM UTCJust kidding, prepare for nuclear winter.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-07-03 at 4:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Fundamentally it's not different. Humans have limitless desires and machines aren't going to be able to meet them all any time soon.
I'm not sure what spurred you to make such a jaw droppingly idiotic statement.
Neither machines, nor humans, will ever be able to meet all of the desires of human beings. That doesn't change, whether industrial activity is handled by humans or not. So this is just an irrelevant and retarded interjection.
Machines WILL learn to perform the functions of human operators. What goes into making the newest iPhone?
The engineering? We literally already have antennas created using evolutionary algorithms that run designs through thousands of cycles and find unorthodox, unintuitive but highly effective antenna designs for different environments and conditions
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/EVCO_a_00005
There will be no need for inspiration in engineering; we can brute force that shit. And eventually we can brute force the shit that will design what else to brute force.
The manufacturing? The people literally working for slave wages in factories with nets to catch them if they try to commit suicide and end their miserable existence, are losing their jobs to automation in manufacturing.
The materials? Resource extraction is already fucking 90% automated, what are left are human operators that are present for liability reasons, and because technology hasn't reached a level where people aren't useful for navigating EVERY situation... Yet.
In the post you linked, there was one important line; technology increases productivity. That's not an easy way to dismiss the issue though. The basic problem is, you don't need 5 people to run a McDonalds. You don't even need 1. And if you have 0, you can actually run your McDonalds a billion times better than with shitty workers operating your grills. We will be productive enough to where the needs and to some extent the basic WANTS of people will be more than taken care of. Clothing, housing, groceries, all types of products will be of much higher quality than ever before, cheap and plentiful.
And for the most part people won't need to be employes to do it. Put 2 and 2 together.
People will lose their jobs, and their jobs won't be needed. It makes no sense to do anything but to tax the fuck out of profits from it, redistribute that money, then let the same market forces take care of what sinks or floats. It's a winning hybrid of market economics and socialistic ideals.
Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-07-03T04:19:49.094124+00:00 -
2017-07-03 at 4:25 AM UTCtechnology is the end game with A.I.
The people programing A.I. are laughing at middle class blue collar. saying it's the fault of them for not educating themselves and finding something they can offer.
but soon the A.I. will develop on it's own at a faster pace, relieving the A.I. coder team and researchers. it will be like Frankenstein Monster turning on Dr Frankenstein
sure you can have machines do stuff for you but the point of living is to experience what it is you do. so perhaps self driving cars will become more of a novelty rather than a real need. ? how about just having A.I. exist to keep a driver from killing himself by being distracted but allow him or her continue to drive.. perhaps even at a faster yet safer and more effeniant way that there is no traffic from moron or old people braking too much or driving less then the speed limit in the fast lanes. suddenly their car will take over and drive until there in a non traffic region and hand it back over to them. -
2017-07-03 at 4:30 AM UTC
Originally posted by Totse 2001 technology is the end game with A.I.
The people programing A.I. are laughing at middle class blue collar. saying it's the fault of them for not educating themselves and finding something they can offer.
but soon the A.I. will develop on it's own at a faster pace, relieving the A.I. coder team and researchers. it will be like Frankenstein Monster turning on Dr Frankenstein
sure you can have machines do stuff for you but the point of living is to experience what it is you do. so perhaps self driving cars will become more of a novelty rather than a real need. ? how about just having A.I. exist to keep a driver from killing himself by being distracted but allow him or her continue to drive.. perhaps even at a faster yet safer and more effeniant way that there is no traffic from moron or old people braking too much or driving less then the speed limit in the fast lanes. suddenly their car will take over and drive until there in a non traffic region and hand it back over to them.
You are mentally ill -
2017-07-03 at 4:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I'm not sure what spurred you to make such a jaw droppingly idiotic statement.
Neither machines, nor humans, will ever be able to meet all of the desires of human beings. That doesn't change, whether industrial activity is handled by humans or not. So this is just an irrelevant and retarded interjection.
Machines WILL learn to perform the functions of human operators. What goes into making the newest iPhone?
The engineering? We literally already have antennas created using evolutionary algorithms that run designs through thousands of cycles and find unorthodox, unintuitive but highly effective antenna designs for different environments and conditions
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/EVCO_a_00005
There will be no need for inspiration in engineering; we can brute force that shit. And eventually we can brute force the shit that will design what else to brute force.
The manufacturing? The people literally working for slave wages in factories with nets to catch them if they try to commit suicide and end their miserable existence, are losing their jobs to automation in manufacturing.
The materials? Resource extraction is already fucking 90% automated, what are left are human operators that are present for liability reasons, and because technology hasn't reached a level where people aren't useful for navigating EVERY situation… Yet.
In the post you linked, there was one important line; technology increases productivity. That's not an easy way to dismiss the issue though. The basic problem is, you don't need 5 people to run a McDonalds. You don't even need 1. And if you have 0, you can actually run your McDonalds a billion times better than with shitty workers operating your grills. We will be productive enough to where the needs and to some extent the basic WANTS of people will be more than taken care of. Clothing, housing, groceries, all types of products will be of much higher quality than ever before, cheap and plentiful.
And for the most part people won't need to be employes to do it. Put 2 and 2 together.
People will lose their jobs, and their jobs won't be needed. It makes no sense to do anything but to tax the fuck out of profits from it, redistribute that money, then let the same market forces take care of what sinks or floats. It's a winning hybrid of market economics and socialistic ideals.
Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-07-03T04:19:49.094124+00:00
But the people in power won't raise the tax brackets of the wealthy. and if much of the industry is outsourced to other nations.. then less money for redisrebution will be given to the people in westernize nations such as here in the USA>
The old addage/proverb "Idle hands are the devils workshop". what do you expect people to do in society.. play golf? there will be a bunch of out of work, taken care of assholes causing trouble way more than there are now. people need to experience life in some way.. they need to be busy with something. I mean we could all become entertainers and write stories and make our own films to stay busy.. but there would be a flood of media that people will get angry that they're not being viewed enough.. and do more drastic things to get media attention and then more crime for viewing pleasures. we will all be victim of pranks and crimes .. but not playful pranks.. more like having a car roll into us or something just to push that envelope.
GOT DAMN YOU TECHNOLOGY THAT IS SELF DRIVEN -
2017-07-03 at 11:20 AM UTCCaptain and aldra, exactly how long do you expect that to take? It's completely unrealistic to expect this anytime soon, you're speculating about things that will occur decades from now. You have absolutely no idea what will occur in the interim. The political developments, advancements in economic understanding, and, most importantly, technological developments that could radically alter human society. One critical factor you overlook is that problems inevitably lead to demands for solutions, which aren't exclusively solvable by statist policy. If what you predict is true the demands of the vast majority of people will be to find a solution to these issues.
I don't recall the name of the book, but it was written on the subject of automation and the concerns you two have. The libertarian author offered the simple solution (Of course it was greatly expounded upon) that the masses should simply own the automation technology, the robots, through shares, and have the profits distributed among them. This would preserve the capitalist structure, attenuate inequality, and prevent the enormous problems and risks from the massive increase in political authority, in statist power/the size and scope of government, that an increasingly socialist state and policies would present. This is a far superior method than high levels of taxation and the large scale economic distortions they consistently produce.
Advocating for actual socialist ideals, shame on you. I thought you were better than that. And you chide me for your view that I lack an understanding of economics. -
2017-07-03 at 12:07 PM UTCNobody is saying it'll happen soon. But it is the endgame. This is really just something you're refusing to acknowledge out of ideological dogma tbh. Capitalism is a superior system as an interim solution. But all roads point to a socialist society, where market forces are still present.
-
2017-07-03 at 12:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Nobody is saying it'll happen soon. But it is the endgame. This is really just something you're refusing to acknowledge out of ideological dogma tbh. Capitalism is a superior system as an interim solution. But all roads point to a socialist society, where market forces are still present.
What do you expect during the transition of people who lose their Jobs by the millions to do?
be unemployed waiting for some majical payout of redistribution of wealth to people not working? sort of a fancy Unemployment benefit to Welfare program? -
2017-07-03 at 12:20 PM UTCSomehow, some way, hundreds of millions will have to die. The longer we put it off, the higher the death toll will be
-
2017-07-03 at 12:22 PM UTC
-
2017-07-03 at 12:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kolokol-1 Somehow, some way, hundreds of millions will have to die. The longer we put it off, the higher the death toll will be
Not really. We have many times the resources needed to sustain a population much larger than it already is. The issue is waste and distribution. But a smaller population would be good though. With technological advancements, we will eventually be able to overcome the problems of aging populations, and peacefully bring down the population over multiple generations with family planning. -
2017-07-03 at 12:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Totse 2001 What do you expect during the transition of people who lose their Jobs by the millions to do?
be unemployed waiting for some majical payout of redistribution of wealth to people not working? sort of a fancy Unemployment benefit to Welfare program?
Ideally, we would be geared to redistribute the wealth created by their job loss. Realistically, I expect that won't happen, and there will be widespread political unrest in the USA, and therefore a shift to fiscal liberalism across the board parties. I also expect government spending on infrastructure to increase as an easy jobs creation program.
It's not going to be pretty. Low skill jobs will go first; they're already in a tenuous position because they do not pay a livable wage, and yet there is no justification for raising their wage whatsoever (for example, there is simply not enough money in the business model of a McDonalds franchise to justify the Retard Sanders idea of a $15 minimum wage. So there will need to be a way to keep these people from starving, then rioting. These jobs are at the boiling point, just itching to evaporate. The logical solution is section 8 housing, food stamps and so on.
Post last edited by Captain Falcon at 2017-07-03T13:03:39.737403+00:00 -
2017-07-03 at 7:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Nobody is saying it'll happen soon. But it is the endgame. This is really just something you're refusing to acknowledge out of ideological dogma tbh. Capitalism is a superior system as an interim solution. But all roads point to a socialist society, where market forces are still present.
You cannot predict the endgame. The world, human society, is unbelievably complex and by that point the complexity will have dramatically increased even further. Even I'm not arrogant and pretentious enough to believe I can predict what will happen at the end.
By that point the creation of artificial general intelligence and assimilation may be so close by that it won't even matter, there won't be any need for economic systems at that point because there will no longer be scarcity, no need for any system to allocate resources efficiently. It won't matter if capitalism ends and Marxism will never come about. Capitalism is simply a means, not an end. I won't lament its passing as if it's the death of a religion or god. -
2017-07-03 at 7:07 PM UTCOh, one more thing. Prior to the sharp and rapid drop in unemployment many people were predicting that unemployment levels may have developed a permanently higher set point due to automation. That clearly wasn't the case. Japan is one of the best examples of this, with a historically very low unemployment rate despite high levels of automation.
Automation is already occurring. If it's going to lead to mass job loss, where's the real world evidence of this? Properly functioning economies are highly dynamic.
Post last edited by Malice at 2017-07-03T19:09:37.279251+00:00 -
2017-07-03 at 7:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Malice You cannot predict the endgame.
Nigger do you even know what Economics is.The world, human society, is unbelievably complex and by that point the complexity will have dramatically increased even further. Even I'm not arrogant and pretentious enough to believe I can predict what will happen at the end.
By that point the creation of artificial general intelligence and assimilation may be so close by that it won't even matter, there won't be any need for economic systems at that point because there will no longer be scarcity, no need for any system to allocate resources efficiently. It won't matter if capitalism ends and Marxism will never come about. Capitalism is simply a means, not an end. I won't lament its passing as if it's the death of a religion or god.
you're essentially describing technologically assisted socialism, which is exactly what I'm saying the end game is. It's the only logical conclusion to technological progress, shjoirt of the machines just murdering us. -
2017-07-03 at 7:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Oh, one more thing. Prior to the sharp and rapid drop in unemployment many people were predicting that unemployment levels may have developed a permanently higher set point due to automation. That clearly wasn't the case. Japan is one of the best examples of this, with a historically very low unemployment rate despite high levels of automation.
Automation is already occurring. If it's going to lead to mass job loss, where's the real world evidence of this? Properly functioning economies are highly dynamic.
Post last edited by Malice at 2017-07-03T19:09:37.279251+00:00
As stated before, the automation we are talking about is absolutely incomparable to anything we have ever seen in history. I'm not sure why you're still trying to argue with the functional fact that humans are not special in their industrial abilities, and sufficiently advanced machines will inevitably be superior in terms of cost vs productivity, and unless there is a point in history where we have absolute technical stagnation we will eventually reach a point of absolute automation. Even if the rate is 0.0001%, it will eventually happen. -
2017-07-03 at 7:38 PM UTC
-
2017-07-03 at 7:41 PM UTC
-
2017-07-03 at 7:44 PM UTC
