(really a bell shape if you include the first half)

Except we already have the capacity to create incredibly intelligent robots (see: Watson).

The thrust of innovation comes not from our ability to programme, but the robots' ability to learn. I think you're underestimating the rate at which we can replace human labour which is more "intellectual".

And, even if we can't, such jobs only and can only form a fraction of the economy. The socioeconomic impact will be virtually identical, either way.

Isn't that sentence a tad redundant? You have to program robots to learn, they don't just evolve on their own.

Well, if you had a robot intelligent enough to re-write its source-code, it could.

That wasn't my point, however. My point is that the human labour involved in programming a robot to learn is miniscule in comparison to programming a robot to be a doctor - if you see my point. You're creating a bit of kit with the capacity to develop, not one rolling off the assembly line already developed. And, of course, it should go without saying that the labour involved in creating such robots could itself be automated.

Oh, and if you want a little bit of encouragement Dustin towards the idea that I'm not over-stating the development of technology, Ray Kurzweil, a prominent computer scientist, reckons computers will be as smart as humans by 2029.

I actually find this to be an incredibly optimistic estimate, and don't expect to see it for decades after 2030, but it won't take even 100-150 years to displace most of human labour.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 28, 2014, 07:16:11 PM

Quote from: DustinTimeForBed on October 28, 2014, 07:11:11 PM

Isn't that sentence a tad redundant? You have to program robots to learn, they don't just evolve on their own.

Well, if you had a robot intelligent enough to re-write its source-code, it could.

That wasn't my point, however. My point is that the human labour involved in programming a robot to learn is miniscule in comparison to programming a robot to be a doctor - if you see my point. You're creating a bit of kit with the capacity to develop, not one rolling off the assembly line already developed. And, of course, it should go without saying that the labour involved in creating such robots could itself be automated.

Intelligence doesn't correlate with creativity.

Well, it is, if only minimally.

However, I don't exactly understand what your point is.

tl;dr China circlejerked to the Communist Manifesto and the government used it as a tool of subjugation, tiptoed into socialism, realized it wasn't working and now is begrudgingly accepting capitalism under the control of a largely authoritarian "meritocracy".

I thought the video was funny, though I wouldn't recommend anyone takes it too seriously since the entire premise is that liberalism is a blonde college chick holding a dumb sign. I liked the explosion effects, though.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on October 28, 2014, 07:58:54 PM

My original, and only, assertion is that we will see the abolition of a substantial portion of the labour force in the next half-century.

I don't disagree with that. But I'm still leaving it at a few hundred to a thousand years before we fully automate, at least in my amateur opinion.

Full automation seems like a bit of an inconsequential bar to measure, well, anything by really.

The only things I can imagine staying "human" for that length of time is things like the police force and the courts. Even then, a lot of the work would probably still be automated, with humans being there for the sake of social necessity.

Nonetheless, it remains a question as to how much economic benefit such "jobs" would bring. Considering the removal of at least half of the workforce would push capitalism to collapse, I'm not sure what sort of monetary system you could use which would represent the higher value generated by these workers. But that's just an aside consideration.