Automation is the same thing as the industrial revolution, this has always been happening to us xD

Where did this meme originate, and when will it die?

Other urls found in this thread:

bls.gov/emp/ep_table_101.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

how is that meme? mankind was trying to invent things to make it's life more simple since stone age.
The only difference is that industrial revolution created perfect conditions to implement capitalism. We can hope that automation will make conditions where socialism will be inevitable.

The difference is in the automation of cognitive ability. Previous industrial revolutions largely left manual labor intact while increasing efficiency. There will be a lot of people too dumb for employment.

if technologies would be aimed only on highly intelligent specialists only the technicians/programmers could access the internet.
Of course, people will have to be more educated, but that is not that big problem. If you can teach even some average Joe how to ride a tractor instead of plowing land with hoe, there will be a way to teach another Joe how to inspect the automated agricultural control room or whatever technologies there will be.

right, until they automate those jobs

there will always be jobs, just less of them. jobless society is good, but unachievable goal.

you trust the robots too much comrade

meh, if I had the power I'd gladly genocide everyone who can not write recursive factorial. Robots are not your enemies, the people are.

...

...

goddamn you STEMlords drive me closer to the primmies every day

My goal in life right now is actually to start a mostly automated co-op of some sort. I want to get a movement started that turns every worker into a co-owner of some automated industry. I think its a relatively easy way to seize the means of production

Dumb people are needed to perform certain tasks. You'll have more of a case once automation increases, but even then you're basically one step ahead of.

This is unproductive in so many levels.

it comes from people being slaves to the capitalist emphasis on work


AUTISM


that's a handsome monk

no they are not, the only problem is that killing them is unethical, but so is genocide of the bourgeoisie.

checked
of course not, but we also do not really need everyone to know at least two foreign languages or the fact that there was such thing as Roman Empire. It's just nice indicator to say us if the individual is capable of learning things which would make him productive member of society.


FAGGOTRY

Never underestimate porky's capacity to invent jobs, problem is their going to be mostly bullshit jobs, that you won't want to do and they won't nearly provide a secure and decent standard of living–and there probably won't be enough of them to go around. Rarely in the history of capitalism has there ever been enough jobs to go around.

people like you are why the left is viewed as snobbish

that guys is obviously a right-winger

hey can we more actively spread the word exterminism around and point out how right-wingers will lead to it
maybe we can reach any moderates

...

Or we can avoid the more likely outcome of the bourgies hoarding the resources and killing the bottom feeders by building socialism now by organizing and building co-ops so that we will have a pool of resources and an infrastructure to defend ourselves with.

you are obviously liberal who just found rosa

We need to spread apocalyptic fears then contrast them with a possible "utopian" future.

- Imperialism is producing geopolitical conditions which raise the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear exchange: even a regional exchange would cause nuclear winter and produce a global famine.
- Wasteful capitalist industry is producing climate change and thereby threatening the survival of the species all while public relations specialists spread disinformation about the danger.
- Automation is causing the working class to become superfluous from the point of view of the ruling class: the ruling class will eventually be compelled to exterminate the impoverished and rebellious masses.

As Adam Curtis said in the CTH interview, what needs to happen for a movement to be successful is to bring out all those fears people have already and offer them a release from them.

are you actually pro-technocracy (basically state socialism with value measured in energy credits and energy use)
otherwise what doesn't make you a right-winger

no, but looking down on others for lacking certain skills is pure cuntish

Will apocalytptic/dystopic science-fiction be banned in china?

kek, it always amuses me when someone starts to brag about some trivial shit

I want to dismantle capitalism


I'm not looking down people lacking certain skills, I do lack skills in many areas of life.


you can't even imagine how amused I am when slightly edgy comment made some nice butthurt among these people. also all you have moved goalpost quite nicely

also
So self confidence of children which are learning new stuff at school should be destroyed just because somebody has thought of that stuff and they are "just learning" that?

Yeah right after we kill everyone who can't [largely irrelevant, intuitive trivia from a different 100-level course]

Protip: socialization and specialization of labor are nowhere more crucial than in the actual forefront of scientific research you fucking poser

How bout you define the gamma function for me, buddy. In a language of your choice.

Automation in it's positive and negative connotations a spook based on faith. Prove me wrong, prole tip: you cant.

I don`t understand your enrage. The example I did set is just some basic high-school math. The state already require children to understand much more difficult mathematical problems.

And I am not going to spend time to write for you a function defined for complex numbers.

such as?..

automatrion is impossible as human beings are more efficient than any machine could ever be


and transhumanism will only make things worse

I dunno, facts? Every single time in history somebody has posited some new technology as a job killer, it has been the engine for more new jobs than it "replaced". Case in point, the IT revolution and the dream of the "paperless" office.

On the flipside, transhumanist zealots have an oddly retrograde inability to notice that daily human life is constantly moving forward, and think that if we "automate" the jobs necessary for our current standard of life, people will magically stop wanting more. Instead, people demand all the new forms of construction, home appliances, transportation, replaceable consumer products, modern medicine, entertainment, and the massive industrial base required to produce and improve them. Even comparing American standards of life from the 1950s to now represents an enormous change within the same income strata (note that I'm not making the "poor people wouldn't buy iPhones" classcuck argument, no matter how much new stuff today's poor people have, old things like land and job security are as hard as ever to get).

Fact is, from the late 1800s, we theoretically could've allowed 99% of the population to lay idle if they had been content living like mediaeval monks, but people don't want that.

Also
Nigger, we don't have AI, we have simple single-purpose computer programs that require careful attention by human technicians to operate, maintain, and modify. "Automation" is a misnomer, all that technology can do without AI is multiply the productivity of human labor, not replace it. Until we have general purpose strong AI, it IS JUST A GLORIFIED POWER LOOM.

It's the unearned sense of superiority mostly

Nope, we literally have AI RIGHT NOW. Don't talk on issues you don't understand.

That's just flat out wrong, the power loom (and other steam powered technology) completely destroyed skill artisan work, and most guilds, and replaced them with menial factory work on an assembly line.

we have AI in a weak sense, it's gonna be eons until we can get some fully conscious Shodan of sorts.

I don't think you understand my point. Computers work very nicely once everything is up and running, but new applications, changes in operating conditions, and simple malfunctions, all require human expertise.

Markov chains and neural nets aren't magic pixie dust, they're just ways of allowing less programmers and engineers to do more work, or in the real world, allowing the same number to do far more work.

This. People should try to understand these subjects at a technical level before opining, there's a fuckton of magical thinking on here

Obviously form Porky but let us not distract ourselves chasing ghosts.
It will die when you point out the fundamental differences of a self repairing machine building all our need but being under the control of a few, how much power that gives the one over the many.

Isn't the OP starting this with the premise that sentient AI is nothing like a tool that responds to the movements of humans bodies and is partially powered by human movements?
So why are we discussing less than sentient AI?

when will racism end

The problem with strong AI, is that our understanding of the brain is still in its infancy. The basic signal coding of neurons is the subject of harsh theoretical debate, counts of the cells in the human brain literally vary by trillions. Even worse, the gap between circlejerking AI nerds and physiologists is a yawning chasm, where knowingly inaccurate toy models of biological nervous systems are formulated, "cortical simulations" that fit these strawmen are made, and victory is declared.

Even worse, perhaps, than the divide between programmers and biology, is the divide between programmers and actual computer science. Almost none of the mathematical tools used in AI today are newer than the 1970s, and most date from the 1800s or earlier, because precious few programmers have what would be considered a basic education for a professional mathematician.

We've spent the past four decades leaning on faster hardware and recycled libraries, to the total detriment of fundamentally new ideas.

Strong AI doesn't have to mimic the human brain. It largely won't. The human brain never truly evolved for the sake of intelligence (just for the sake of reproducing itself). Even the span over which the brain did have massive developments is rather small compared to its history as an organ. Our brains do all sorts of things that would be unnecessary for a typical strong AI: coordinate movement, simulate others' emotions, monitor nutrient levels and seek out appropriate foods, etc. I'm not trying to undercut your larger point that strong AI is far off; I just wanted to point out that the part of the human brain that's characteristically human is not that big compared to the whole thing.

...

The shortsightedness of the impression you've subscribed to is obvious for numerous reasons, but easily the most widespread is:

Most people seem to labor under the bizarre misapprehension that emotions are a secondary holdover from before the dawn of sapience, that will eventually be cast off like appendices.

To the contrary, emotions are the core prioritized decisionmaking mechanism that allows us to choose between mutually exclusive options and creatively synthesize new information.

Furthermore, the ability to model the emotions of other minds isn't just useful for social interactions, but for what is hypothesized to be one of the primary distinctions of the human brain, metacognition. Metacognition makes us aware of our own thoughts, actions, and selves, allowing us to critically assess our own behavior, and to intentionally modify it.

Did you even read the post? What I said was
>simulate others' emotions
That's not the same thing as having emotions.

A more simplistic working model would be more efficient for AI, especially something that has to work at a large scale. There is all kinds of research being done right now on behavior patterns that can make accurate predictions without a need to simulate people's mental state.

This is not the same thing as being aware of these things in others.

Uh, no. Machine learning is giving us tech that is literally impossible for programmers and engineers to hand-craft. It would be impossible for us to have machine vision if it weren't for machine learning. And it doesn't fucking matter if it's still a bit rigid and requires extensive training. Fast food, truck driving, shelf stocking, document parsing, and so on are all simple tasks that make up a massive chunk of our current job market. And overseas, there are millions of factory jobs that are based around repetitive tasks but require finesse (such as handling textiles). Machine learning will destroy all these jobs and more in the next twenty years. And THEN we'll start seeing the really advanced AI networks, running on specialized hardware.

The two faculties are very similar in theory, and may overlap within the brain almost entirely.

Machine vision was possible before, it just required more human assistance than now. OCR and speech recognition are two obvious examples dating back to the 1950s and earlier, no fundamental algorithmic change has occurred, merely the accumulation of gradual improvements.

All of your specific examples belie your inability to understand the dynamism of human lifestyles and civilization that enforce Jevons' Paradox:
Restaurants will become smaller, cheaper, more numerous, offer greater options, and in many cases mutate into kitchen appliances. All of this increased demand for volume, variety of feedstocks, dispersal, and idiosyncratic property rights will create massive human labor demands for their service, configuration, restocking, movement, marketing, and resale.
The decreasing cost of delivery will cause numerous things once believed too trivial to ship or mail to be sent by trucks, to exact destinations once believed too trivial to individually address, phenomenally increasing traffic and infrastructure demands. Trucks will shrink in size and grow in volume, as will their operating bases and destinations. Aside from the massive number of mechanics and factory workers needed to produce, maintain, and upgrade them, a new class of meta-trucker akin to an air traffic controller will emerge, with attendant technology reliant on labor from further industries.
Much like fast food, there will be "stores" in every home, office, and park, with attendant demands on human labor.
Already debunked, the IT industry vastly surpassed the labor demands of everything it "replaced"
The price of troublesome materials will plummet, causing them to fit into numerous cheaper and more disposable applications, which will increase demand until capacity is again exhausted.

lol

...

You live up to your flag user, you are a real porky shill.

No, it simply was not possible. There were various attempts at it that were all extremely limited and basically didn't qualify as proper machine vision. Same with speech recognition.

This only works if the restaurants are constantly failing and moving around for no reason. The fact is, we already have tons of restaurants everywhere. You're describing a vague fantasy.

I can already get everything off Amazon and similar services right now. Shipping is already a trivial cost to the consumer.

If anything, shipping services will start using drones for this kind of demand. And self-driving taxis and buses are going to greatly decrease traffic.

Literally all the jobs you just described already exist, and will actually shrink in demand once the self-driving trucks hit the road.

This is just idiotic. There are already corner stores everywhere.

Tell that to the poor SOBs who are getting out of law school just to learn that discovery is getting automated.

The flag is mainly to assert the inevitability of consumerism.

No true Scotsman. Tell it to the industries that have relied on the direct predecessors of the currently hyped technologies for decades, ranging from banks and law enforcement to the first generations of factory robots from the '60s.

But do you? Fresh food, auto oil, paper towels, batteries, window cleaner, socks, toothbrushes… And that doesn't even touch on personal and B2B. It's going to be like interoffice pneumatic tubes on a global scale.

>flying trucksdrones
As for taxis, that will only increase traffic, since it will allow people to multitask things they would otherwise have to do instead of driving. The bus issue is similar to trains, insofar as some people (especially burgers) are too individualitycucked right now to use public transport.


But their selection is extremely limited, and their prices are poor.

Hopefully this won't cause an increase in litigation.

I don't remember the last time I ordered food directly from the cashier at Mcdonalds. It's coming buddy, whether you like it or not. No ones denying that the current technology isn't sufficiently developed enough for AI to do most jobs (which seems to be your argument) , let alone all jobs. It's inevitably going to happen.

pic related
We're going to have more Internet connected devices than humans soon, meanwhile Google employs an absolutely staggering amount of 61,800 people.
Former poster boys of industrialism like US Steel once employed 340,000, now it's more like 37,000.

My argument isn't about the capabilities of technology, but about its patterns of use. If we agree that extant technology can merely multiply, rather than replace, human labor, the only debate is whether or not this will decrease the consumption of labor.

I contend that if, as in every historical instance, the need for human intervention in one task is eliminated, it will only free up labor for something else that would've otherwise been impractical or too marginal to compete. Full employment (minus the capitalists' reserve army, natch) will remain the case.

I understand your point, but the BLS lists about 4 million total jobs in IT, just in the USA, possibly not counting primarily IT-related workers in other occupational codes:
bls.gov/emp/ep_table_101.htm

Also, both of your examples are terrible. Google's primary purpose is to connect together IT services from other companies, and even that is in large part farmed out to subcontractors. Leaving aside the fact that comparing Google to USS is worse than comparing Apple to Foxconn, USS in today's offshored world is a bombed out shell of its once protectionism-bolstered self.

So, not quite yet. If it takes off soon, we'll see what happens when infrastructure load skyrockets.

AI is a misdirection.
The future is in cybernetics.

I don't agree technology can't replace human labour. It can, and has before. The cashier who I would've ordered from at Mcdonalds is replaced by the machine. Eventually it will become sufficient to have no cashier and just some people to cook and deliver the order. Eventually somebody will replace that. Amazon is coming out with a store where the entire cashier/bagger staff is completely absent.

We didn't have mini supercomputers to play games on while we took a shit 30 years ago, just because you can't conceive of a time where the need for human labour is drastically reduced, doesn't mean technological employment is an impossibility. If it used to take 5 people to run something, and now it only takes 1 and this eventually happens to every single industry, where is the need for human labour going to come from? I mean the mass need, which is what you seem to be implying will take place?

You're suggesting the equivalent of re-training horses to work as car mechanics. Horses are fundamentally too stupid to perform maintenance on a car engine. Humans will be fundamentally too stupid to perform maintenance on an artificial mind, or even do the job that it is doing. We are already at the point where no single human could ever fully understand every component in a modern computer.

This sounds more like symantics than an actual point of disagreement.

I don't think it's likely, but I can imagine the necessary conditions. It would need a sea change in mindset, one so abnormal I sincerely suspect it would violate human nature.

For an odd example, look at Holla Forums board culture. In spite of their focus on technology, many reject technological advancement. While this is most urgently motivated among most of them by security paranoia and ideological (nigh religious) commitment to certain licensing schemes, there are increasingly strong tendancies to favor technically outmoded solutions like *N*X, CLI, and even real mode booter autism like Temple OS, purely on the grounds of their simplicity and unity.

This isn't a sentiment I agree with, nor one I suspect could ever become popular, but its ascendancy is theoretically possible.

From the same place as using supercomputers designed for building atom bombs instead of newspaper crosswords for passing the time while you pass gas.

All the additional work needed to achieve a somewhat similar result in a more desirable way doesn't come out of thin air.


No memes, please.

Hence the need for more people with simpler individual responsibilities as they become even more complex.

So what to use? Plan 9?

this sounds very bourgie, exploiting all that robo-labour.

For someone who is into technology, it surprising that you ignore that creating a new OS and make it "production ready" take a few decades.
Let's say you create a new thing, StalinOS. Then people would have to port GCC, Python, OpenJDK, LLVM, MySQL, Firefox, countless drivers, libraries and codecs on it, create a layer for POSIX and Win32 compatibility, make it work on x86, ARM, MIPS, PowerPC and SPARC processors, etc.
You can't do that in a few months, even assuming you have a big community behind it. And you always have to catch up with the constant evolution of technology, which won't wait for you.
And notice that I just talk about reimplementing old technology on it. Making new things is even worse, because no one will agree on how to do it, it takes more effort, and devs won't migrate to your OS if they can't use the things they already worked on for years and years (that's why C++ is a mess).

That, Haiku, QNX, OS-9, ideally any of the swathe of OSs that have been crushed under the *N*X/VMS juggernaut. Speaking realistically, *N*X as commonly employed isn't really *N*X anymore, just a smudge of grout underneath what amounts to an entirely different OS, like OS X, or especially Android.

The people I'm referring to aren't just focused on *N*X, but on using the original 1970s-era standard utilities in lieu of things like IDEs. They're digital amish.


I've always favored the "burn it to the fucking ground" approach taken by the original Macintosh team, but lately, I admit I've fantasized about an exokernel-based OS/hypervisor built around the ability to reuse existing code from inferior systems while keeping its own design methodology pure, hopefully both erasing other OSs and encouraging people to adopt its new paradigms.

Truly a simple person.

Maybe the CCP actually are communists playing the long con because if 77% of the jobs are at risk for automation they're going to have to go with socialism or risk having literally millions of unemployed workers storming the gates to rip them apart.

Plot twist: every member of the bourgeoisie is actually a communist playing the long con.