>That sounds a lot like the brand of Communism that failed miserably in the U.S.S.R.
So what? One attempt and failure is hardly damning of a philosophy, no matter how disastrous
Never said it was. But OP's talking about how someone is going to pay him to shovel shit in a theoretical society where it's obviously cheaper and more efficient to deploy a shit-shoveling robot.
That's the kind of stupid communism that played a part in the fall of the U.S.S.R., and a completely ridiculous, unworkable proposition in this post-work utopia we're currently hypothesizing about.
But, that's not to say communism itself is a bad system; it has the same inherent flaws as any other socio-economic system we've devised thus far - the human element.
I would say: till yesterday you did not even know that ou could "consider" jap. till that time comunistic (even as it was not on paper or by strict definition)
Now you already know "Because it wasn't working".
That is impressive! Can you teach me?
Yea, it's easy:
Someone says, "yea, well, until (some time period), (Culture A) was doing (something) (a certain way), and it worked great!"
To which you respond, "Well, if it was such a great system, why don't they use it today?"
Regardless of what Someone replies, the answer is pretty much always, without exception, "Because it wasn't working."
I think they call it "causality." Or something to that effect. Pretty elementary stuff, really.
Examples:
"Yea, well, until (the advent of the cotton gin), (America) was (picking cotton) (with slave labor,) and it worked great!"
"Yea, well, until (the automobile), (people) were (traveling) (primarily by horse-drawn carriage), and it worked great!"
"Yea, well, until (computers were invented), (people) were (doing math) (with slide rules), and it worked great!"
We've also tried capitalism - that didn't work out as well as it did on paper either. And we've tried it a lot more often, and it always seems to break down in much the same way, so the evidence suggests that it's a systemic flaw rather than any implementation details (or feature, if you're one of the 0.1% that reaps most of the rewards).
No disagreement there. Capitalism only works for those with capital.
Communism works great on a small scale, and in fact is usually the default economic system for personal households and many tribe-sized social organizations like monasteries, etc. We've only tried a few times on a large scale and the results are heavily mixed - The Soviet Union didn't do so well, China on the other hand has incorporated a few capitalistic principles as well and seems to be doing quite well, though the proof will be what happens once it can't profitably siphon wealth from richer nations.
I wouldn't go so far as to call China a communist country; far too many capitalistic elements present.
And we have never, ever, even had the option before of trying Communism supplemented by a massive robotic workforce without desires or needs beyond energy and routine maintenance. We can say pretty certainly though that Capitalism will be an utter failure in such a scenario - a man can't survive in a capitalist society without some kind of capital of his own - take from him even the value of the sweat of his brow and he will starve to death.
Interesting idea, but from the sounds of it, we need to work on fixing the anti-Communism stigma that pervades the collective unconscious before we start replacing all the workers with robots.
We're discussing a society in which it's cheaper to automate tasks with robots than to have humans perform them.
Your premise does not fit the narrative.
I don't see anything in the discussion that:
1) implies a complete elimination of the workforce (meaning my contribution still fits), and
2) implies that the GP's argument (someone must be willing to maintain the robots) is an invalid concern. It is relevant and it can be handled by a funded job.
You're talking about "sweeping rubbish." Not only is that considered a "less desirable job," (OP's words), it's exactly the kind of work that would be cheaper to automate than to pay humans to do.
Seriously, what makes you think anyone in this situation would ever pay a human a premium to do "robot's work?" Just to give that person something to do?
That's counter to the premise.
Why do you insist on thinking that all jobs will be handled by robots? Certainly there will be instances where robots are not always cheaper.
Did I say anything about "all jobs?" No; I said that the specific job cleaning up refuse would not be a paid position because it would be cheaper to have a robot do. How you've extrapolated what I've said directly to you, about a specific topic, into universalism is something I apparently cannot comprehend.
So, are you suggesting that playground perverts are being stymied today by a lack of suitable surreptitious videography gear?
Well, since I didn't actually say that...
Or that even in its current form factor that it is acceptable to walk up to people whom you deem "pervy" and demand they leave a public place because of their google glass?
Huh?
I could have said something like "I would like to not advertise an expensive wearable computer on my face to the unwashed masses on the subway train, since it would only lead to me being robbed"
Then don't wear an expensive computer on your face when you're in public.
I'd respond the same way if you had substituted "expensive wearable computer on my face" with, say, "expensive Versace purse on my arm."
The fact that her face wear drew knowledgeable attention should be indicator enough.
Right, the same way that walking around flashing a $3,500, diamond-studded wristwatch will draw a certain kind of attention. Thing is, if you don't want that kind of attention, don't do whatever it is that's causing people to pay attention to you. Expecting society to magically and instantly change just because you have a new toy you want to play with completely unrestricted is just ridiculously unreasonable.
Other reasons to have it surreptitious? How about witness to a crime, intentional or otherwise??
No idea what you mean by that. I will say that "because law enforcement could use it" is a really piss-poor reason for doing something that may violate the rights of other people, however I couldn't tell you if that's a relevant response.
If you are really a parent concerned with your child's privacy at the playground, I would suggest things that are actually under your control, like not letting them play where the hoodlum teenagers broke the vodka bottle by the jungle gym, or keeping them from putting foreign objects in their mouths. That is time well spent.
I allude to the fact that technology such as Google Glass will have its nefarious uses, and you kinda flew off on an almost completely unrelated tangent.
Well, yea. That's evident by the fact they offered him money, instead of signing the contract, getting him drunk, then peeing on the contract up as they steal all his land.
To be fair, they *did* do that ca. 1600 to the entire Indian subcontinent, at the behest of a corporation, no less ("The British East India Company"). Took ~300 years before they could be overthrown, only to end up with a much more dangerous problem (India and Pakistan, both with nuclear capabilities).
As An American, I refuse to take credit or blame for stuff the British Empire did.
We have plenty of fucked up behavior in our own history, thankyouverymuch.
Because a jap. company with a branch in america that only gets taxed there by 12% consideres to move completely off country? No idea. OTOH america made pressure on Japan to stop the MITI funding jap. research in the way they did. I'm not an expert on global economics or current jap. economics for that matter. Perhaps if america would leave other countries alone and would stop putting their view on how an economy or trade or other research should work onto them, those countries would prosper?
That seems like a really wordy way to say, "Because it wasn't working."
Yes we need it. That shouldn't even be a question. Did we need transistors? Did we need the keyboard, the mouse, the gui, the network, the Internet, modern web browsers, tablets, cell phones?
Guess that depends on how one defines "need," doesn't it?
Response is the same: The only reason for an 'automation society' to exist would be because it would be cheaper for machines to do the work than to pay a human for it. Regardless of how much it costs to run the robot, it's presumed that doing so is still cheaper than paying a human to perform the same task.
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Way I see things, you now have two options: consider the errors in your hypothesis and adjust accordingly, or double down on being wrong.
Yes I know what we're discussing. You seem to presume the solution I provide is one I subscribe to, which is wrong. I simple provided a potential solution.
To respond to the important part of your question, who said everyone can afford the robots? I'm sure there are plenty of situations where someone would decide that the amount of rubbish needing shoveling is not worth the cost of the robot, thus enabling an opportunity for work.
We're discussing a society in which it's cheaper to automate tasks with robots than to have humans perform them.
Yes they did. They feed the chickens, the pigs and grew a garden which produced food which was required for the "wage" to be enough to feed the family.
... C'mon now.
That is the kind of reaching statement that makes Stretch Armstrong wince.
FYI, you don't get to redefine a term just so you can feel that your position is justified. Try to stay focused.
It would help if they could design that into a form factor that isn't blatantly a pair of google glasses. I would want my wearable tech to be as inconspicuous and non-intrusive as possible, both to my experience and the public around me.
Yea, don't want to let the parents at that playground know you're secretly videotaping their kids, eh? That could end badly.
BTW, I'm only half-joking (specifically, the half where I suggest you're a pervert - I don't know you well enough to make that determination)
Well, Japan was till late 1980s 'communistic', but no one noticed. Or how do you call 80%-85% 'income'/corporate taxes, state controlled research and development., guranteed employmemt by keiretsu, etc. ?
If it was working out so well for them, why haven't they used that system for the last 30 years?
I agree that people would find something to do in their own terms. I wonder though what would happen to the less desirable jobs. If everyone becomes a poet, who will clean and maintain the robots that deal with waste? It is robots all the way down?
The easy solution to that is to keep money around via a standard income. Anyone who wants to bring home more than the standard income is welcome to take a job doing something, such as shoveling rubbish.
2 things:
1) That sounds a lot like the brand of Communism that failed miserably in the U.S.S.R.
2) What makes you think that "shoveling rubbish" job won't already be taken by a robot? Why the hell would anyone pay a human to do something they can get a robot to do for free?
Seriously, dude, are you even sure you know what we're discussing in this thread?
It never ceases to amaze me how someone can write this kind of science fiction with a firm belief that things would actually work out that way, never realizing how ridiculously fantastic it really is.
Cool story, tho. PS, we already tried Communism, and found out it doesn't work out as well in practice as it looks on paper.
Depends what the endgame is. If you imagine a world where each person has his own personal robot/s that could go out to work for him, then he would be entitled to retain the fruits of that labour? My robot would probably have better social skills than me, for sure, and if that's what's holding me back, he'd probably be more successful than I am.
Methinks you've seen Bicentennial Man a few too many times.
Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal?
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Ain't gonna happen. Robots/AI owners have no reason to share their wealth.
Many people said the same thing about cars and computers: that only "the rich" would have them. It didn't turn out that way.
It was that way at first, you know.
But consider why it didn't stay that way - most people have jobs that provide them income with which they can purchase products like cars and computers.
We're currently discussing the concept of no one having a job because machines do all the work. So how, precisely, are people supposed to own production machines if they have no income?
Slashdot Mirror
You should learn some history.
OK, teach me some.
Or is that asking too much? Better to just criticize someone for not having the exact same outlook on life as you, amirite?
Hint: change is not necessarily positive in the short OR even the long term.
Maybe, maybe not, but fact is very often, change occurs because the current way of doing things isn't working anymore. For whatever reason.
the enlightenment, a recovery after millenia of decline.
"Millenia of decline?" Really?
And you've got the hojo's to tell me that I don't know enough about history?
>That sounds a lot like the brand of Communism that failed miserably in the U.S.S.R.
So what? One attempt and failure is hardly damning of a philosophy, no matter how disastrous
Never said it was. But OP's talking about how someone is going to pay him to shovel shit in a theoretical society where it's obviously cheaper and more efficient to deploy a shit-shoveling robot.
That's the kind of stupid communism that played a part in the fall of the U.S.S.R., and a completely ridiculous, unworkable proposition in this post-work utopia we're currently hypothesizing about.
But, that's not to say communism itself is a bad system; it has the same inherent flaws as any other socio-economic system we've devised thus far - the human element.
So how, precisely, are people supposed to own production machines if they have no income?
During the industrial revolution, few people owned factories. But nearly everyone's life improved.
I can't even begin to tell you how factually and historically incorrect that last sentence is.
Seriously, dude, go read a book about the Industrial Revolution. It was, by far, not even close to the utopia of equality you seem to think it was.
Then show me one attempt of a country with a communistic society, a democratic government and a free market.
I'm not aware of any that ever tried it ...
You claim simply makes no sense.
Well, sure it makes no sense when you re-arrange the goalposts to include democracy and the mythological free market.
Taken on it's face, however, my statement is completely factual, backed by historical example.
I would say: till yesterday you did not even know that ou could "consider" jap. till that time comunistic (even as it was not on paper or by strict definition)
Now you already know "Because it wasn't working".
That is impressive! Can you teach me?
Yea, it's easy:
Someone says, "yea, well, until (some time period), (Culture A) was doing (something) (a certain way), and it worked great!"
To which you respond, "Well, if it was such a great system, why don't they use it today?"
Regardless of what Someone replies, the answer is pretty much always, without exception, "Because it wasn't working."
I think they call it "causality." Or something to that effect. Pretty elementary stuff, really.
Examples:
"Yea, well, until (the advent of the cotton gin), (America) was (picking cotton) (with slave labor,) and it worked great!"
"Yea, well, until (the automobile), (people) were (traveling) (primarily by horse-drawn carriage), and it worked great!"
"Yea, well, until (computers were invented), (people) were (doing math) (with slide rules), and it worked great!"
and so on, and so forth.
Regardless of how much it costs to run the robot, it's presumed that doing so is still cheaper than paying a human to perform the same task.
Your presumption assumes that ALL tasks will ALWAYS be handled by robots. I don't see that realistically happening.
No, my presumption is that ALL RUBBISH REMOVAL tasks will ALWAYS be handled by robots.
Because it would be idiotic to pay a premium of dollars to have a human sweep shit up, when a robot does it for pennies.
Do you not read your own posts before hitting Submit or something?
We've also tried capitalism - that didn't work out as well as it did on paper either. And we've tried it a lot more often, and it always seems to break down in much the same way, so the evidence suggests that it's a systemic flaw rather than any implementation details (or feature, if you're one of the 0.1% that reaps most of the rewards).
No disagreement there. Capitalism only works for those with capital.
Communism works great on a small scale, and in fact is usually the default economic system for personal households and many tribe-sized social organizations like monasteries, etc. We've only tried a few times on a large scale and the results are heavily mixed - The Soviet Union didn't do so well, China on the other hand has incorporated a few capitalistic principles as well and seems to be doing quite well, though the proof will be what happens once it can't profitably siphon wealth from richer nations.
I wouldn't go so far as to call China a communist country; far too many capitalistic elements present.
And we have never, ever, even had the option before of trying Communism supplemented by a massive robotic workforce without desires or needs beyond energy and routine maintenance. We can say pretty certainly though that Capitalism will be an utter failure in such a scenario - a man can't survive in a capitalist society without some kind of capital of his own - take from him even the value of the sweat of his brow and he will starve to death.
Interesting idea, but from the sounds of it, we need to work on fixing the anti-Communism stigma that pervades the collective unconscious before we start replacing all the workers with robots.
We're discussing a society in which it's cheaper to automate tasks with robots than to have humans perform them.
Your premise does not fit the narrative.
I don't see anything in the discussion that:
1) implies a complete elimination of the workforce (meaning my contribution still fits), and
2) implies that the GP's argument (someone must be willing to maintain the robots) is an invalid concern. It is relevant and it can be handled by a funded job.
You're talking about "sweeping rubbish." Not only is that considered a "less desirable job," (OP's words), it's exactly the kind of work that would be cheaper to automate than to pay humans to do.
Seriously, what makes you think anyone in this situation would ever pay a human a premium to do "robot's work?" Just to give that person something to do?
That's counter to the premise.
Why do you insist on thinking that all jobs will be handled by robots? Certainly there will be instances where robots are not always cheaper.
Did I say anything about "all jobs?" No; I said that the specific job cleaning up refuse would not be a paid position because it would be cheaper to have a robot do. How you've extrapolated what I've said directly to you, about a specific topic, into universalism is something I apparently cannot comprehend.
So, are you suggesting that playground perverts are being stymied today by a lack of suitable surreptitious videography gear?
Well, since I didn't actually say that...
Or that even in its current form factor that it is acceptable to walk up to people whom you deem "pervy" and demand they leave a public place because of their google glass?
Huh?
I could have said something like "I would like to not advertise an expensive wearable computer on my face to the unwashed masses on the subway train, since it would only lead to me being robbed"
Then don't wear an expensive computer on your face when you're in public.
I'd respond the same way if you had substituted "expensive wearable computer on my face" with, say, "expensive Versace purse on my arm."
The fact that her face wear drew knowledgeable attention should be indicator enough.
Right, the same way that walking around flashing a $3,500, diamond-studded wristwatch will draw a certain kind of attention. Thing is, if you don't want that kind of attention, don't do whatever it is that's causing people to pay attention to you. Expecting society to magically and instantly change just because you have a new toy you want to play with completely unrestricted is just ridiculously unreasonable.
Other reasons to have it surreptitious? How about witness to a crime, intentional or otherwise??
No idea what you mean by that. I will say that "because law enforcement could use it" is a really piss-poor reason for doing something that may violate the rights of other people, however I couldn't tell you if that's a relevant response.
If you are really a parent concerned with your child's privacy at the playground, I would suggest things that are actually under your control, like not letting them play where the hoodlum teenagers broke the vodka bottle by the jungle gym, or keeping them from putting foreign objects in their mouths. That is time well spent.
I allude to the fact that technology such as Google Glass will have its nefarious uses, and you kinda flew off on an almost completely unrelated tangent.
Really not sure what to think about that...
To be fair, they *did* do that ca. 1600 to the entire Indian subcontinent, at the behest of a corporation, no less ("The British East India Company"). Took ~300 years before they could be overthrown, only to end up with a much more dangerous problem (India and Pakistan, both with nuclear capabilities).
As An American, I refuse to take credit or blame for stuff the British Empire did.
We have plenty of fucked up behavior in our own history, thankyouverymuch.
Because a jap. company with a branch in america that only gets taxed there by 12% consideres to move completely off country? No idea. OTOH america made pressure on Japan to stop the MITI funding jap. research in the way they did.
I'm not an expert on global economics or current jap. economics for that matter.
Perhaps if america would leave other countries alone and would stop putting their view on how an economy or trade or other research should work onto them, those countries would prosper?
That seems like a really wordy way to say, "Because it wasn't working."
Yes we need it. That shouldn't even be a question. Did we need transistors? Did we need the keyboard, the mouse, the gui, the network, the Internet, modern web browsers, tablets, cell phones?
Guess that depends on how one defines "need," doesn't it?
Is your face so awful that it needs to be hidden?
No, but I'm sick of your mother Photo-chopping me into pictures with her.
Bitch is obsessed with my junk, yo.
Response is the same: The only reason for an 'automation society' to exist would be because it would be cheaper for machines to do the work than to pay a human for it. Regardless of how much it costs to run the robot, it's presumed that doing so is still cheaper than paying a human to perform the same task.
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Way I see things, you now have two options: consider the errors in your hypothesis and adjust accordingly, or double down on being wrong.
The choice is yours.
Yes I know what we're discussing. You seem to presume the solution I provide is one I subscribe to, which is wrong. I simple provided a potential solution.
To respond to the important part of your question, who said everyone can afford the robots? I'm sure there are plenty of situations where someone would decide that the amount of rubbish needing shoveling is not worth the cost of the robot, thus enabling an opportunity for work.
We're discussing a society in which it's cheaper to automate tasks with robots than to have humans perform them.
Your premise does not fit the narrative.
We did not try communism.
Some dictators used it as a schem to be a dectator.
Yes, we did, and it didn't work out for reasons, one of which you mentioned.
Hence why I said that communism doesn't work out as well in practice as it looks on paper.
Yes they did. They feed the chickens, the pigs and grew a garden which produced food which was required for the "wage" to be enough to feed the family.
... C'mon now.
That is the kind of reaching statement that makes Stretch Armstrong wince.
FYI, you don't get to redefine a term just so you can feel that your position is justified. Try to stay focused.
It would help if they could design that into a form factor that isn't blatantly a pair of google glasses. I would want my wearable tech to be as inconspicuous and non-intrusive as possible, both to my experience and the public around me.
Yea, don't want to let the parents at that playground know you're secretly videotaping their kids, eh? That could end badly.
BTW, I'm only half-joking (specifically, the half where I suggest you're a pervert - I don't know you well enough to make that determination)
speaking of robots, suppose I wear a tee shirt with 'robots.txt' printed on it and some wildcards below it.
I wonder: will that render me invisible to google glass wearers?
Doubtful.
Similarly, I wonder how effectively some high-powered infrared LEDs sewn into the lapels of my shirts would hide my face from the built-in camera...
Well, Japan was till late 1980s 'communistic', but no one noticed.
Or how do you call 80%-85% 'income'/corporate taxes, state controlled research and development., guranteed employmemt by keiretsu, etc. ?
If it was working out so well for them, why haven't they used that system for the last 30 years?
I agree that people would find something to do in their own terms. I wonder though what would happen to the less desirable jobs. If everyone becomes a poet, who will clean and maintain the robots that deal with waste? It is robots all the way down?
The easy solution to that is to keep money around via a standard income. Anyone who wants to bring home more than the standard income is welcome to take a job doing something, such as shoveling rubbish.
2 things:
1) That sounds a lot like the brand of Communism that failed miserably in the U.S.S.R.
2) What makes you think that "shoveling rubbish" job won't already be taken by a robot? Why the hell would anyone pay a human to do something they can get a robot to do for free?
Seriously, dude, are you even sure you know what we're discussing in this thread?
It never ceases to amaze me how someone can write this kind of science fiction with a firm belief that things would actually work out that way, never realizing how ridiculously fantastic it really is.
Cool story, tho. PS, we already tried Communism, and found out it doesn't work out as well in practice as it looks on paper.
But apparently since they didn't receive a salary for that, they didn't really "work".
In context of this discussion, which is specifically about work for pay, no, they didn't. Hence GP's repeated use of the word, "wage."
Depends what the endgame is. If you imagine a world where each person has his own personal robot/s that could go out to work for him, then he would be entitled to retain the fruits of that labour? My robot would probably have better social skills than me, for sure, and if that's what's holding me back, he'd probably be more successful than I am.
Methinks you've seen Bicentennial Man a few too many times.
Ain't gonna happen. Robots/AI owners have no reason to share their wealth.
Many people said the same thing about cars and computers: that only "the rich" would have them. It didn't turn out that way.
It was that way at first, you know.
But consider why it didn't stay that way - most people have jobs that provide them income with which they can purchase products like cars and computers.
We're currently discussing the concept of no one having a job because machines do all the work. So how, precisely, are people supposed to own production machines if they have no income?