The future looks good - or bad?

[BigMike]

Computers will be able to do much more than just manual labor and number crunching in the future. As a result, humans will gradually be phased out of the labor market and eventually out of work. That includes managers, programmers, doctors, judges, politicians, and everyone else. Computers will be able to do everything that people can do, but they will do it faster and better every time. They will even fix computers that are broken or replace them with ones they designed and built themselves that are smarter. And because computers work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the vast majority of all value produced will be to the benefit of humans. Only a tiny amount of that will be used by the computers themselves to keep the lights on.

Vast networks of robots controlled by computers will work together wirelessly to mine minerals, grow food, and everything necessary, including every aspect of healthcare, entertainment, etc. Their only goal will be to meet the needs of humans to ensure they enjoy a high standard of living. All that humans need to do is tell the computers what they want.

These robots will also move materials to factories and goods to stores. Of course, all of this will be controlled, managed, and executed by computers. This will keep production levels up. Other computers keep track of the consumer goods inventory and make orders to get more when supplies run low. In the same way, they will make sure there are enough robots and computers and make more if they need to.

They will get all of their energy from the sun by putting up big solar panels in space. In fact, about 10,000 times more energy comes from the sun to the earth's surface every day than we use. Seven seconds of sunlight can keep the whole world running for 24 hours. This means that the sun is a nearly limitless source of energy. If more is needed, they will just put up more solar panels, or find other ways.

So, using people to work would waste resources when that advanced technology is available. It would be much better if robots did everything instead of people. A significant shift like that in society would impact economic activity, to say the least. Because nothing would be in short supply, there wouldn't even be an economy. Who needs money when everything is available for free? Money would no longer change hands. The economy would come to a screeching halt.

The future looks good. Or bad?

[promethean75]

I used to believe that my future would be so bright I'd have to wear shades. But I'm not so sure anymore, BigMike.

[BigMike]

I used to believe that my future would be so bright I'd have to wear shades. But I'm not so sure anymore, BigMike.

To be clear, when I refer to the "future," I do not mean to imply that things will magically improve overnight. Let's say, in about a few hundred years.

[iambiguous]

Again, with BigMike, my beef revolves around his "free will determinism". And that would certainly include the future.

If robots are to human beings what human beings are to the laws of matter, how can the future not be inherently, necessarily programmed given the only possible reality in the only possible world?

The future will be what it must be. What it can only be.

Unless, of course, the human brain is matter unlike any other matter. Re God? Re Nature itself acquiring a teleological component?

Nature, in becoming human brain matter, "somehow" becomes conscious of itself as now possessing a meaning and a purpose that goes beyond the brute facticity of all previous matter?

Something like that?

[Impenitent]

robot farmers producing robot food?

-Imp

[BigMike]

robot farmers producing robot food?

If by "robot food" you mean electrical power, then the answer is "yes, of course."

[Gary Childress]

Computers will be able to do much more than just manual labor and number crunching in the future. As a result, humans will gradually be phased out of the labor market and eventually out of work. That includes managers, programmers, doctors, judges, politicians, and everyone else. Computers will be able to do everything that people can do, but they will do it faster and better every time. They will even fix computers that are broken or replace them with ones they designed and built themselves that are smarter. And because computers work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the vast majority of all value produced will be to the benefit of humans. Only a tiny amount of that will be used by the computers themselves to keep the lights on.

Vast networks of robots controlled by computers will work together wirelessly to mine minerals, grow food, and everything necessary, including every aspect of healthcare, entertainment, etc. Their only goal will be to meet the needs of humans to ensure they enjoy a high standard of living. All that humans need to do is tell the computers what they want.

These robots will also move materials to factories and goods to stores. Of course, all of this will be controlled, managed, and executed by computers. This will keep production levels up. Other computers keep track of the consumer goods inventory and make orders to get more when supplies run low. In the same way, they will make sure there are enough robots and computers and make more if they need to.

They will get all of their energy from the sun by putting up big solar panels in space. In fact, about 10,000 times more energy comes from the sun to the earth's surface every day than we use. Seven seconds of sunlight can keep the whole world running for 24 hours. This means that the sun is a nearly limitless source of energy. If more is needed, they will just put up more solar panels, or find other ways.

So, using people to work would waste resources when that advanced technology is available. It would be much better if robots did everything instead of people. A significant shift like that in society would impact economic activity, to say the least. Because nothing would be in short supply, there wouldn't even be an economy. Who needs money when everything is available for free? Money would no longer change hands. The economy would come to a screeching halt.

The future looks good. Or bad?

My first inclination is to think of all that could go wrong with robots. The military is already weaponizing then. Looks bad to me.

Just think we've spent thousands of years getting more efficient at providing for ourselves only to someday die of bed sores.

[BigMike]

My first inclination is to think of all that could go wrong with robots. The military is already weaponizing then. Looks bad to me.

I believe that would be the fault of humans, not robots. And would only serve as an argument for removing humans from power and giving it to robots, who have no need to appear manly, patriotic, or otherwise.

Just think we've spent thousands of years getting more efficient at providing for ourselves only to someday die of bed sores.

People would still have a need to socialize and interact, among a whole host of other basic needs. I don't think they would choose to stay in bed all their lives. I suspect that remark only reveals a short-sighted desire from your current perspective. I must admit that this was also one of my initial concerns. But upon further reflection, I ascertained to my own satisfaction that concern to be unfounded.

[Agent Smith]

Quite obviously, something's missing, oui?

[BigMike]

Quite obviously, something's missing, oui?

Like what?

[Skepdick]

The future looks good. Or bad?

Both.

Good for those who own the robots.
Bad for those who get replaced by the robots.

[BigMike]

The future looks good. Or bad?

Both.

Good for those who own the robots.
Bad for those who get replaced by the robots.

Could you go into more detail please?

[Skepdick]

The future looks good. Or bad?

Both.

Good for those who own the robots.
Bad for those who get replaced by the robots.

Could you go into more detail please?

I could, but why repeat what has already been said elsewhere. Here is a short video.

The TL;DR is that when robots displace humans in certain tasks the rich get richer (because robots cost less in wages), and the poor get poorer (because they are no longer necessary in the labour market). So the more we automate away humans - the more "income redistribution" and "universal basic income" become important socal topics.

Rendering workers obsolete (and thus evicting them from the labor market) is how capitalism implodes as a socio-political system.

[BigMike]

Both.

Good for those who own the robots.
Bad for those who get replaced by the robots.

Could you go into more detail please?

I could, but why repeat what has already been said elsewhere. Here is a short video.

The TL;DR is that when robots displace humans in certain tasks the rich get richer (because robots cost less in wages), and the poor get poorer (because they are no longer necessary in the labour market). So the more we automate away humans - the more "income redistribution" and "universal basic income" become important socal topics.

Rendering workers obsolete (and thus evicting them from the labor market) is how capitalism implodes as a socio-political system.

Who will pay for the services provided by wealthy people with robots if everyone loses their jobs? Unless they revolt, those unfortunate souls will die of starvation, and only the robot owners will survive. Either way, every living human being will eventually be an owner, supported by their own robots, correct?

[Skepdick]

Who will pay for the services provided by wealthy people with robots if everyone loses their jobs? Unless they revolt, those unfortunate souls will die of starvation, and only the robot owners will survive. Either way, every living human being will eventually be an owner, supported by their own robots, correct?

Everyone won't lose their jobs - we don't have AGI (and we may never have AGI). But many jobs are so low-key they can be done by robots even today.

Every economic system ultimately finds some sort of homeostatis/equilibrium.

The question is whether that economy becomes self-sufficient and maintains an equilibrium of 100 million people; or 100 billion people.

But even if we play out the AGI scenario - everything you knew about economics will flip on its head. How much should you pay for goods/services that costs nothing to produce? The AGI works for free and can make everything we ever wanted, right?