There is no bubble. We will see years of relative contraction to the growth, merely because technology seems to develop in an S shape when represented graphically.

It'll only become obsolete when automation can replace them, but that isn't a crash.

Now, if you want to see a bubble, look at higher education.

"This video is not available in your country."

Commit suicide you fucking britbong terrorist.

How about now?

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, 05:05:22 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 23, 2014, 05:04:14 PM

That isn't my point. My point is we can prosper without compromising our humanity. Becoming cyborgs is not what we need to do. Nothing is inevitable. I, personally, would fight until my dying breath to stop something like this from happening.

Machines don't deserve rights. I don't care how sentient it is. They're tools.

I'd argue it isn't at all compromising one's humanity.

Directed, self-imposed evolution? It's practically godhood.

The only problem I see is that robots would never do more than what they're programmed to do, even if they're fully capable. Unless they're programmed to self-defend, like humans are programmed to, they're not going to evolve themselves on their own accord.

Part of the reason that automated mental labour will outpace human mental labour is the capacity, not only for them to teach themselves how to accomplish something (as with the stock market), but to actually re-write themselves.

Actually another thing that's incredibly odd is, granted the civilization that relayed the signal does exist, is how it's not that far off from our own technological capability/evolution. Hundreds or thousands of years might seem like a big difference, but there's been 14 billion years of time since the Big Bang. The probability that a species developed just about the same time as us is incredibly odd. It makes you wonder if technologically advanced species really do die off and that's why you don't see any around, just those species that are still developing.

I thought scientists concluded that if the Wow! signal was legit it'd be from quite an advanced civilisation?

Nonetheless, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that once a society produces bona fide artificial general intelligence, if given the opportunity, their creation would destroy them.

Chances are, some race has found us and put a big old NOPE sign on our planet. A planet run by a bunch of hairless apes running around killing each other seems scary if you ask me.

Any enterprising alien race should realise the fantastic opportunity to indoctrinate and breed an army of this bunch of hairless apes.

Oh God. . .

What if we're all currently in training?

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.

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?

Quote from: SoporificSlash on September 23, 2014, 04:52:25 PM

Quote from: Not a Dustbin on September 23, 2014, 04:48:57 PM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on September 23, 2014, 04:28:56 PM

Oh yeah I was wrong earlier. I was thinking of a different intercepted signal. The Wow! signal hasn't been disproved.

But do you personally think it's legit?

If they haven't been able to disprove it after 35 years then I would say it seems like a good sign. I'm probably way too much of an optimist when it comes to the extraterrestrial life discussion.

Is it even optimistic to think that there's intelligent life out there? Is it not pessimistic?

Only if you're religious.

I mean couldn't the government just... ban robots?

Well, no. History is full of examples of unions trying to lobby the State for the expulsion of automation from the economy and they've failed every single time. The business-owners, if forced to lobby the State, would ultimately win out.

Besides, it's too far gone at the moment to even contemplate that, and the government, if it tried, would undoubtedly fuck it up beyond belief.

Nonetheless, I don't want to live in a world where automation doesn't go ahead. I'd rather live in techno-socialist society than our current one, even if the ride is incredibly bumpy.

Just look at nearly everybody glued to their smartphones to the point they're willing to risk their lives and other lives to send a text while driving or take a damn self-shot

That's down to a bias of immediacy, not some fault with technology.

Naw, I done fixed it.

kek x2

All of my kek.

Society wouldn't have to work, the government would supply credits that would go toward the various activities they could do with their time. Only a small few of the most intelligent would be given a job—the reward for them being knowledge.

My concerns lie chiefly in the transitory stage between society now and society following.

Also, intelligence would be of no economic importance - nothing human would be. When the mental capacity of machines outpaces that of humans, the economy will be totally devoid of people. We will, I imagine, end up with some sort of scarcity-based gift economy.

Well, I don't know why I'm speculating. I don't know. I hope I'll get to see the results, though.