How would this destroy us, exactly?

That sounds pretty good to me, tbh.

Yeah, I mean, I don't really think I'd be into heroin, and I'd like to stay somewhat fit, but this doesn't really seem like a problem? Like, if we don't need people to produce, and they want to become "heroin junky fat idiots who get high and have sex with hot ass robots" all day then more power to 'em.

Okay, fine, it's like this except that if he gets the cancer in 20 years all of his descendants also have the cancer forever and they all die after spreading it to everyone else on earth.

good post Jason.

Most likely, change will come more slowly than imagined. It' a lot easier to imagine the future than to build it. Also economic slowdown might slow the pace of change.

I'm not sure humans will adapt quickly enough to avoid negative effects such as rioting and recession, but in the end it should create some new investment in entertainment such as Art, Music, Travel, Food, Sports. (POKER!!!) Sounds pretty Awesome.

I'm unsure why I'm the only one who is apprehensive about this. All through human history we've had "stuff to do" to survive. Whether that's hunting buffalo or farming or getting an education and trying to make a living, we as humans have always had work to do. Why should we think being idle while robots do our work for us would be a good thing?

What would happen to the birth rate if we sat around all day? Hell, we have winter storms and mini baby booms occur. How about if we had virtual reality sex available and our drive to attract mates diminished? Would we die out?

I have no idea what automation will bring us, and I don't see why people are so optimistic about it. Anything that messes with human nature should be looked at as a threat in my book. If welfare is any indication of what it will do to human beings, I see no reason to think UBI should be looked as a "good" thing. It's actually horrifying to me. When I say I hope I'm dead when this occurs, I mean it.

Ubi should only cover so much, barely enough to survive. If you don't work you get bare minimum. Do no give out too much to discourage working. I prefer to actually give out free services like fitness centers, healthy food, some restaurant services, free bus rides, free bicycle, clothes etc. Something that helps people get better in life and encourage effort. Too much free money is bad, a tiny tiny tiny bit might be okay though. Free services are better.

I was thinking more when the robots can do most of the labor. Driving/transportation, food production, all manual labor, etc. If that day ever comes, we simply don't need many humans to do much work except for maybe extremely complicated tasks like in the medical field.

Automation could possibly be the great filter in the universe when it comes to intelligent life.

The medical field is ultra simple/low intelligence. Coding, lawyering, etc will probably be the last jobs to go - jobs that require consciousness for full semantic understanding. 90% of doctor jobs can be done by a non-conscious subhuman intelligence with perfect precision and vast databases.

Well, i was thinking more in terms of surgery and diagnosis. Although diagnosis doesn't seem like magic, the more complicated stuff might be. Ehh. Maybe you're right come to think about it.

Computers are already better at diagnosing than doctors in some areas.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5983991/comp...s-than-doctors

Lol, I feel like I'm in the matrix myself. I'm woke, just the other way. I feel like I'm losing my mind.

Even with full automation possible, people still want the option of human production.
What robots create are neutral emotions, no positive vibe compare to say someone who happily makes a product. Inferior in quality and design but superior in emotions. We humans have emotions and if you say that does not play a part in life I think you are cold blooded. I would pay x more for a product that was made by a happy person than a robot or a unhappy person. How do you know that? It's call being more social conscious, human will feel more sense of the vibes in the future. Earth heartbeat is going through a change. Not saying the case in all scenario for all but there will be new markets we have not thought of. That is why I think it would be easier to adapt for woman than man is because women are more emotional and robots can not replace that. The people who will be better than someone who has a higher sense of emotions are the ultra smart who produce the programs. Maybe they will be the ultra happy emotional people, probably not though. You can not be the best at both side of the brains?


For example automation in truck driving is good for society, driving long hours are stressful and unhealthy. With the extra hours truck drivers can learn a new skill with help from AI learning programs that is not available right now. Sing, draw, make more emotional connections, culture and more etc that I have not thought about.
I am not worry, we human with the help of God will be able to figure the solutions.
Robots will never be able to give a human touch.
If you can not adjust than you get left behind, have to stay helpful or what is the point of life.

Just my thought, there will be a lot more artist and singers.

I feel exactly the same way lol.

Robots will eventually crush humans for emotional manipulation, creativity, soothsaying, painting, spirituality, music, sex, etc etc

That's just idle speculation from a point of low comprehension.

As the purpose of the arts is to explore/describe the relationship between humans and the world around them it's dubious that any machine could make good art. Pretty pictures, maybe, but not actual art.

Your ignorance is stunning. This isn't even debatable, you are hilariously wrong and have a mindless pop culture view of AI. Robots aren't going to be Commander Data.

If creativity and consciousness is seated in a non-quantum physical brain (high probability), then robots will crush us in all endeavors in a couple of generations at most. They will make music more beautiful and meaningful, art more richly emotional, and so on.

Is anyone here against having sex with a hot robot?

Asking for a friend.

It's not debatable that you have a low brow view of what art is.

Who do you think makes better art:

A 150 IQ, worldly, scholarly, and healthy 30 year old, or a 70 IQ, unworldly, lame, and unhealthy 8 year old?

I don't think IQ necessarily plays a part - some great visual artists haven't been conventionally bright.

Some young prodigies have been able to produce good art - Picasso was able to paint immaculate Renaissance-style paintings while still a child.

I don't think your question has an answer.

Somewhat serious answer: If I'm convinced/persuaded/fooled that the robot is actually human, then probably yes. Eventually the sex-robots/AI will be sufficiently talented to convince me (and my predictable brain) of that. Over a longer time frame, the internal/unconscious "icky-ness" of "having sex with a robot instead of a human" could diminish (if not disappear).

Who knows, it's possible I've already had sex with a hot robot but didn't know it at the time.

How do you define 'better?' I can view either w/ an eye towards understanding what the art's creator is trying to convey.

So that's a yes.

I don't even have to ask Howard.