Removing the need for relaxation/stress though, I wouldn't. You can give up parts of your humanity without losing it entirely, the things that aren't broken don't necessarily need replacing - Like Love/Happiness/Loyalty. I would be strongly opposed to any hyper edgy twat that was willing to remove those things from their personality in favour of clinical logic.

This is true.

But what does the automation of humanity need to exclude such a thing. The greatest moral philosophers and psychologists in history (Hume, Russell and Haidt) have almost conclusively shown that morality is known via intuition and logic is only post hoc.

Automation needn't remove that, or any other emotion.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 23, 2014, 04:53:19 PM

I'd rather live in techno-socialist society than our current one

>can't tell if real meta or not

Nobody seriously thinks capitalism would work in an economy where there is general abundance and no need for human labour.

Nobody.

I'm just saying don't let the government fuck it up now so it perhaps isn't as bad when the really interesting shit starts happening.

Although, I only use the word socialist because I imagine a completely automated workforce could only operate when owned socially. What's the point of private property if nobody is earning wages to compensate you for it?

If privacy is maintained in communal housing just as if it were private, then it probably couldn't be too bad. But I'm really not all that interested in having people walk in on me taking a shit.

And free love... *shivers in fear*

Private property =/= personal property.

The latter is shit like your car, your house, your possessions.

Private property are things like businesses, capital, et cetera.

You can't have a functioning society without the first one.

You have to look at the long run. Doing something now that may not seems like it changes anything could result in a huge change over the years.

I suppose it depends on your perception of it. It seems like a worthwhile trade-off to mine eyes.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 23, 2014, 05:10:45 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 23, 2014, 05:09:26 PM

You have to look at the long run. Doing something now that may not seems like it changes anything could result in a huge change over the years.

I suppose it depends on your perception of it. It seems like a worthwhile trade-off to mine eyes.

Some things aren't.

What's the point of anything if we aren't us anymore?

"Us" is such an abstract concept to me as to be inconsequential.

I am me, and you are you. Whether or not my perception/mind/intelligence is in my skull or in a metal case  or somewhere between the two, it makes no difference to me.

But there's programming behind that. Why would any programmer give a robot the function to defend itself? Self defense if the only real reason why it would bother to evolve itself. I can understand a robot that's programmed to adapt to the ever-changing stock market, but that's different from evolving to where it'll protect itself from a human trying to deactivate it.

Don't get me wrong, the gulf between our current state and artificial intelligence is huge; we're off on a tangent here.

The problem, however, isn't that we would "disallow" it to improve itself, it simply might not be an option when you reach a threshold of machine intelligence. That said, there are ideas that, if we ever do create an artificial general intelligence, to ensure it is "human friendly" and then putting it in charge of the development of all other intelligences.

However, the only situation where I could ever, ever see such a limitation working is where humans are part machine instead of just inefficient meatbags. You can have as many programmers as you want, but the more intelligent the machine is, the smaller the ability of humans to restrain it.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on September 23, 2014, 02:37:21 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 23, 2014, 02:35:42 PM

There's nothing we can do short of destroying the robots and factories.

Fuck that.

I want my super-abundance.

Fuck robots.

Hasn't anybody read Asimov? The man knows what he's talking about. He's a prophet I tell you. A PROPHEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

Iain Banks would like a word.

Yep. My money's on revolution.

That's a bit of a leap.