https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nt8lD06q7k

i have seen the future

i'm scared

the way that hand is shaking is fucking creepy holy shit

My favorite part is that this isn't even creating domestic EE jobs in robotics because hardware design & fabbing is outsourced offshore.

pop quiz: what is the title of the video a reference to?

im ready

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGwz1s1E1aw

https://31.media.tumblr.com/19b2aabb5d3568e2d5baba49155e24c9/tumblr_n6x8pbhAyu1r0xo28o1_400.gif

But can they e-sports?

reminds me of this, seriously scary stuff.

cant imagine humans having jobs anymore in a world where these are widespread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WX58CZwyiU

this video told me i wasn't a special snowflake =[

I was thoroughly convinced this was narrated by tagg the entire time and now I can't unhear it.

Hmm but if all job is tacken up by robots there will be no need for money, i mean everything would be free because robots made it, all the robots need is energy. Maybe solar panels idk. But the point is humans will have no work nobody will. Maybe actors singers, but even that autotune. But we wont all be poor and unemployed we will all have food all have housing because it was created by a robot, and he needs no pay. We might decide who gets to live in the bigger houses by chess games or basketball. Point is, if nobody has a job, nobody will be poor, just really lazy. We will probably put on our virtual reality headsets and live in a world we we still hard and struggle for success.

???

someone translate ulmyxx's post pls

umx are you ok dude

Is it that difficult to understand? Did you read it?

He's saying the entire economy would change with these robots. If everything is made by robots, why should we bother selling stuff for money? Why would we need money anymore? These robots could create an abundance of goods and services for no pay, so instead of worrying about an economy everything could be free, or dealt out to everyone as they need it. The only people left to "work" would be creative minds: artists and singers, etc., and everyone would essentially live their whole life as if they were retired with an endless source of "social security"

Not sure I agree, but that's what he meant.

That would never happen, greedy people are greedy.

I'm a bit cynnical toward the bit on the creative emulation... We marvel at created things not just for their sudden existence or appealing quality, but for the human element that produced it.

For that I think we get into all that sci-fi theorizing of humanizing a robotic mind, but... say for instance I program a computer to recreate the entirety of Picasso's art work. Great! Maybe I can sell the creations for a decent price, but its value is nothing next to the original. Why?

Okay, so what if a computer creates original art work...something visually amazing? Something never before seen but a marvel to be seen. Consider how it is appreciated. A fine work of mechanical art — but always with that stigma, that asterisk: "created by machine." Wouldn't it lack a certain wonder of the human genius that created it?

We turn our noses up to PED users in sports because their accomplishments are artificial. What then if a robot athlete hits 900 career home runs? If a robot writes a poem, what heart does it come from? Most poems are useless without the human connection, experience, autobiographical history behind them. Could a robot even wrote a poem? The video says it can write, sure, but could you teach a computer to do more than info dump with the proper syntax, grammar, tone, and meaning? Technical writing could be done. Could prose? Prose is poetry acting on a timeline. Prose is crafting the human condition with words into an isolated narrative. Even if a computer could do it, it isn't genuine. It isn't genius. It's function. We marvel at the author just as much as we marvel at the story when we read...

The word art comes from artisan. At the center of artisan is the individual. It is the implied value of craft — why we pay extra now for artisan created things. Any computer fabricated creation would just make all human crafted works artisan. Consider the consumer...human. So long as that remains so will the superiority of human creativity/human excellence.

We could all marvel one day in a video game tournament when a computer controlled avatar beats the best human...and then we'd say "great, now lets turn off the A.I. and do a human only tourny." Because that is what we are interested in. Because while function can always be emulated and improved by a machine, we can rest easy knowing we have a monopoly on being human — and so long as we remain the ones holding the reigns that will always be most important. A computer in a game is an aimbot. No matter how well it aims, how well it does, how unbeatable it is, it is an aimbot. Who claps their hands when an aimbot lands a shot?

Well fuck, thanks for the dark thoughts.

On a different note, BLood did you post that in on Grey's page? I'm on mobile so I didn't load the comments but Grey tends to reply somewhere (twitter, podcast, comment back whatever) on the posts that bring up points on topic like yours and it would interesting to see what kind of debate would come up from it.

Straw man. Even if mechanical creativity will never exist because of your seemingly untenable reasoning, the point remains that a large majority of human occupations will be replaced by machines at an exponential rate.

What WOULD we do when unemployment rates are at an all time high? How do we as a collective society prepare for such circumstances?

If this did start to get out of control wouldn't governments just ban/limit robots to protect jobs for their citizens?

You misunderstand, I didn't offer my argument as a counterpoint. The video is alarming and makes good points. As I said in the my first sentence I take umbrage with the creativity portion of the vid, which upon re-watching, you'll see is indeed the weakest part of the proposed doomsday scenario. Machines can create. Great. My point is there is an inherent human undercurrent to created things which give them their worth (I also lumped performers in with this, as the craft of performing inherently appeals to our [the human consumer's] ability to empathize/see ourselves as the performer, and think "if I could do that/wish I could do that/how can they do that").

My argument is A.I. is not a threat to these things because of why these things are created/consumed. The idea of machine-made, processed, or artificial already leaves a bad taste in our mouth, if an A.I. composed a symphony it would be valued for as long as that event remained an anomaly. "Woa, look at that computer doing something creative." If A.I. took over writing symphonies with the ease and whimsy this video suggests, the "real" thing would suddenly be more desired.

You can't say the same thing when it comes to function type vocations.

The real thing could be more desired, but to be honest machines will be able to do it better and cheaper. Which shirt would you buy, a $150 designer hand made piece or a $10 machine made one that looks just as good and will last a third to half as long before breaking? Overwhelmingly these days people will buy the cheaper ones as long as they look okay.

I say this as a 'special snowflake' myself, and most/all of the things I do create are mishmashs of other peoples' techniques and ideas, just put towards making a particular point or highlighting a particular theme. I'm sure we're all familiar with the concept that nothing is original -- I don't flatter myself that the things I make are anything more than a product of my inputs.