Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 25, 2014, 10:24:38 AM

Those considerations aren't "human". Merely ethical.

If doctors can operate under a code of ethics, then I don't see why artificial intelligences cannot.

Perhaps you are right, although I still feel that certain decisions should be up to humans. Replacing all surgeons with AI that end up being supervised by medical professionals who make the tough calls just seems like a better idea to me.

I've no doubt that will be an intermediary stage. I'm just convinced that, following such a situation, it would be eventually phased out.

I don't find that particularly desirable, merely inevitable.

I wonder how much that'll slow employment growth, if not cause downright job losses.

Well, that's different then. As long as it (he? they?) can adapt and learn, and isn't just executing pre-programmed tasks.

Well, of course it's executing pre-programmed tasks. How could it not? It just isn't programmed to act mindlessly and continue performing a series of events. It's programmed to learn and adapt and change to different situations.

An AI might be, but a robot is an automaton. They can't adapt to unexpected situations. If something happens while I'm on the surgery table I wouldn't want the robot to continue without a care in the world.

Well, it isn't a dichotomy, there's a massive gap between an artificial general intelligence and a mindless drone. The robots we have now, while not AGIs, are exceedingly intelligent. I'm not saying the surgeon robot might be better than humans, I'm fairly confident it already is in the same fashion automated cars are already better than drivers.

I'm not sure if Watson - the robot - has actually been put to genuine surgery yet, however, I'm merely stating it is most definitely superior to humans. And when you say artificial intelligence? Watson constitutes an AI.

EDIT: Hue, my bad, Watson is a doctor, not a surgeon.

I agree with what Sandtrap says. But I think I'm in a field of expertise that is never going to be replaced by robots, so I'll be safe.

Everything will inevitably be automated.

Such is the nature of progress. Law firms have begun using software to sift through paperwork, and I can imagine the remit of automation expanding beyond that in the future.

I have no answer to this, it's quite a scary thought although fortunately it won't happen in my lifetime

About 45% of jobs are in danger of being automated over the next two decades.

I'd fuck 1,000 people.

For the bragging rights more than anything else.

Invent new jobs.

Impossible.

The robots are better at everything.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 24, 2014, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: Iberian Husky on September 24, 2014, 05:50:13 PM

extremely conservative, die hard Libertarian

what

Libertarians are conservative, are they not?

Oh, fuck that's a complication question.

If you mean conservative in the sense of wanting to conserve the constitution - Ron Paul, say - then yes, I suppose you could say conservatives are libertarian.

Current Republican conservatives, neocons and traditionalists? Perhaps not so much.

Absolutely. Unless she is severely mentally retarded, she is morally responsible. Her state of mind means jack shit when she has the circumstantial freedom to make the proper decision. Humans are condemned to freedom. She is responsible for every single one of her actions. I have zero sympathy for the depressed and mentally ill.

Thank God I don't have sympathy for the stupid.

Meta, you've asked perhaps the scariest question known to modern society today. And I'll answer it. Are you ready for some spooky fucking shit?

Spoiler

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Spoiler

Fucking really now, you'll have a heart attack.

Spoiler

Why do I write? Why do I draw? Why does my mother like to care for her garden? Why does her friend bake? Why does my sister's husband do pottery?

The very simple answer is, because we all like to. It's something that brings us joy, gives us purpose and fun, and keeps our respective minds in shape with the task or idea at hand.

In a society where Humans don't need to work, they'd have to figure out how to do something that's been lost in modern society. How to lead a life that you enjoy, doing what you want to do, when you want to do it, and how you want to do it.

I'm asking for concretes, not an abstract. Saying people would need to figure out how to lead a life you enjoy is a tautology.

People can't tend to their garden, write or bake for every waking hour. I'm asking if I) we have the capacity to fill our time besides employment II) what sort of social programmes could arise, if they would arise, from this paradigm and III) what are the political implications of that?

Well, look at Star Trek. They're post-scarcity, and pretty much everyone is a scientist, an artist, or a member of the military. I'm sure it'd be kinda like that.

And what about when robots take over those jobs too?

I'm on a technology kick at the moment, just roll with me.

So, let's assume we've reached a point where most jobs are automated and the civil unrest of mass unemployment has been solved by some sort of governmental implementation. The only people we really see having "jobs" are the likes of politicians, police officers, and a few engineers and scientists, although in ever-dwindling numbers.

With this in mind, everybody's end goal of employment - consumption - is effectively fulfilled despite not having a job. A lot of people would probably go "great", but the more pragmatic and conservative will ask "what about this. . .?"

Obviously, employment provides a sense of fulfillment and a profitable way of passing the time. A few people on here would relish the chance to read more and have more time for general self-reflection, however, among most of society it could promote mental illness, boredom, suicide and lawlessness.

Basically, how would we fill our time when we don't need to work? How would people keep socially engaged? Would the government need to encourage this? How would they encourage it?

So, why is Kinder bant?

You should be educated, idiot. Robots are not fucking alive. They are a hunk of metal and wires. Animals are living and deserve more rights. If you're actually supporting the idea to give pieces of metal rights then give rocks, sand, fire, etc equal rights

Humans are an amalgamation of factors which gives rise to intelligence and emotion. If a robot is capable of reaching such a conclusion with a different amalgamation, the situation remains the same.