Replacing labor workers with machines

What are your thoughts on this?

I think you guys should be interested.

This will happen naturally and we have very little time to prepare. I think in order to prevent the problems associated with it. We should heavily restrict immigration while simultaneously implementing a basic mi imum income. Why the democrats failed to nomi are Yang, the o ly person who can pull blue collar voters and beat Trump and the o ly person with the platform to actually implement a BMI before it is too late is a mystery to me. 

It is probably honestly because Yang was not an ideologue. Republicans have no problem electing pragmatists like Trump,but it seems to be something liberals are incapable of doing

My opinion

hell yeah 

Sometimes the solution to a problem is more of the problem. Put simply, as sympathetic as I am towards Kaczynski" he was wrong

he was absolutely correct, full stop end of discussion, ill give you some of his quotes and do you think he was right or wrong?

“Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction It is already happening to some extent in our own society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.”

“Our society tends to regard as a sickness any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system and this is plausible because when an individual doesn't fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a cure for a sickness and therefore as good.”

“Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society.”

“The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.”

There is so much truth

Not without training those workers for higher functions, such as auditing the automated process, because no process is perfect, nor will a one of them produce indefinitely without maintenance, and continuous improvement. Unemplyment should not be the result of automation, and ned not be.

The slow creep of labour automation is ongoing and has been for some time. On the one hand it's a utopian dream and on the other it's a dystopian nightmare. It all depends upon where the human is able to find it's niche, and if population continues to grows as it currently is, then niches are going to be harder to come by.

For me It's more about how humanity  fits into the future, bigger picture.

And as Faux suggests, will our overall purpose actually be the facilitation of the machine/technology and it's development, rather than about technology making our lives easier.

That is to ask, what is the real purpose of material development/evolution?

What do I think of implementing improved production processes that reduce the cost of goods?

Well I am a bit biased on the matter because I have to pay for said goods with money from my own pocket but personally I am in favor of such a thing.

Honestly I am not sure what all the fuss is about.

I think:

1. We are already making machines do human work. From the industrial revolution or as early as the 1700s, mills already exists and it requires less work from fewer workers. We'd have royal families listening to huge concerts that would play the same songs every single week, and in the 1800s record players became popular so all the orchestras would only need to play once and let the vinyl do the repetition. From the 1900s, mills are replaced with factories with even fewer workers needed to produce the same products consider factories are more efficient. Now in the 2000s, we have workers replaced with robots and no labor workers are needed for high-ended factories. In Tesla, robots are assembling cars. We have more clerks and 3d-modelers in such companies than labor workers consider some of the factories have no labor workers.

2. AI is growing. We should use machines to the point where they will benefit us but not to the point where they make us worse, whether by automating our lives and makes us spoiled, or gain sentience and disobey us because their neurons are so dense that our inputs mean nothing to them. We should make machines to repetitive works such as assembling car components and washing milk bottles, but not use them to generate new drawings, write poems, or just make them run a government(As Fauxlaw and several other people noted on my other forum topic). 

3. Paragraph 2 is the optimal environment, but what if machines really become more sentient, and takes all jobs from humans? That would be very bad as machines would cut off the supplies of money for humans because they have all access to Wall Street Data, and they could even flip the market with these boys. Machines' inexperience of doing human things could destroy the world, and whoever makes machines to things that only humans can do will end up with a horrible reputation.

Impossible, it wouldn't be in our control anymore-its the WIRING of the device that is the issue and there is no way around it

Lets say the goal of the AI is to create paper from trees, a factory tool

It completes that by completely deforesting the world causing us to go extinct

The program is the issue and its out of our control

The computer programs are out of humanities control?

Then we are assigning a quota on the trees cut. Like you should not cut over 1000 trees this day.

Impossible, we cant control it

Compared to a super quadrillion iq computer? No

yeah they are

If I offer to debate you on that will you accept?

no lol

frankie say no no

Full automation, imo, will be the end of capitalism. I see 2 possible outcomes. Economic communism where everyone shares in the exponentially growing gains (utopia); or super feudalism where a small class hordes all the gains whereas the rest of humanity is not even needed for their labor and are completely discarded (dystopia).

Whether automation will be good or not will depend on our political choices. 

So this is what my country says that communism could work. Communism could work if the humans are nice and the machines are nice, however, little corruption would make the system go dead.

Are you trolling? I made no reference to nice people or nice machines.

1. Not nice machines is an apocalypse scenario that has nothing to do with what economic system you choose. Lol.

2. Whether people are nice has nothing to do with it. Corruption is currently destroying capitalism, so what? They are human systems. They are flawed, but thats why we keep improving them. Do you think capitalism can function in a world without income? What will you do? Universal Basic income? Well that's practically communism! At that point what's the point of money? Once you eliminate money, you have communism. 

Im not endorsing this today, I'm saying it's inevitable in the not that distant future. That or the dystopian alternative.  Relevant thoughts?

Its an intresting idea, but machines will not replace all humans. Too many tasks, too much thought needed. 

We will not be seeing that day.

What jobs do you think are safe? I can name 2.

Ruling the world and ruling the religion.

That's it? I can add scientists and artists to the list, but that still leaves the vast majority of humanity unemployed. How exactly will capitalism survive without customers? How will the people survive without income?

The solution is to let the machines do all the endless, tireless, perfect labor. Skyrocket our GDP. And use the newfound wealth to distribute yang's universal income, or ditch the now (in the future) meaningless concept of money altogether.

I think if religion is perfect, it would not be religion at all, but common sense.