Robot and AI, why make them human?

[Nimos]

All new technologies kill jobs and people, and don't try to convince me that people care about it.

I think people care. But I think you are right that they don't care enough to raise a voice about it before it is too late. As I mentioned to @Stevicus there is a limit to where you can relocate humans too. You can't simply relocate a factory working to be a robotic engineer or a scientist, it's simply not possible.
But a lot of people will like these new technologies, as you mentioned with the printing service, how awesome is it that you don't have to wait for them anymore and you can get fast feedback etc. And that is the "trap" we are getting ourselves into, because the moment one company manages to replace all supporters with AI, everyone is going to do the same. The moment someone makes a perfect self-driving car, all taxi, and truck services will want this. So where in the past it might have affected certain industries, it still took time a lot of time to develop, design and roll out these new technologies. But we can do that at an alarming rate today, most of the time we as consumers are probably not even aware, because there is being developed so many things.

One hundred years from now you won't be able to find a job anywhere, but you will be able to buy robots that can help you make due. Perhaps you will lease them out to businesses, or perhaps they will grow vegetables for you and make your clothes and repair your home with materials they grow. Two hundred years from now our way of life will be a zany film about what humans used to be like and how silly we were and desperate and about how we filled the world with our garbage.

Many not in 100 years, but at some point money as we know it now is going to be obsolete as I see it and will be replaced but something else, not even sure what. But to me, it doesn't make sense to rent/lease out robots if they can all do whatever is needed, imagine what ChatGPT is in 100 years if everyone has access to it, given how fast it is developing just now. 100 years is an insane amount of human time, try to go back just 100 years and compare what was possible back then to now and what new technologies and science is going faster than ever before

90% of All the Scientists That Ever Lived Are Alive Today

90% of All the Scientists That Ever Lived Are Alive Today - Future of Life Institute

The study of science has grown exponentially in the past 100 years. Did you know that 90% of All the Scientists that ever lived are alive today?

futureoflife.org

That is insane but makes sense, but also explains why things are going so fast.

 

[Nimos]

I thought my comment conveyed that it is desirable. I’ve played that game.

Can you elaborate on it? Why do you find it desirable? Not that I disagree, but mostly because I don't really think we have much of a choice here

 

[Alien826]

That's why we have to get rid of the notion that one has to work to get money to buy things. Preferably before we all lose our jobs and society collapses.

Yes.

I society where robots did all the work would not be sustainable unless our approach to work and rewards is dramatically changed. Fortunately, I feel we would be forced into that. Let's say we did have such a society, and all the robots were owned by a few people. They could live well themselves, but they couldn't become "rich" in the conventional sense, because nobody else is getting paid so they can buy the goods that the robots create. We can imagine some kind of slavery where the poor serve the rich in return for food and so on, but serve them doing what? The robots already provide the rich with everything they want. And they would always be in danger of the poor simply rising up and taking it all away from them.

I see some kind of tipping point, where the old paradigm is seen to to unsupportable and the new paradigm (where we all live in comfort with no need to work) grows into its full form. What we do with all the leisure is another question, but solvable, I think.

Or climate change takes us back to the stone age before that can happen.

 

[Nimos]

I see some kind of tipping point, where the old paradigm is seen to to unsupportable and the new paradigm (where we all live in comfort with no need to work) grows into its full form. What we do with all the leisure is another question, but solvable, I think.

Agree, the problem is that those people in power, have a tendency to work towards maintaining the status quo. Any major political changes in history seem to have come by through revolutions or war.
But even then the outcome has always been working off the same basic idea, meaning a more equal distribution of wealth within a monetary system. So how exactly a change is supposed to come about I'm not really sure of, also because it needs to be global and I'm not sure that humans are capable of doing that, because there are way too many interests involved.

 

[Heyo]

I agree, that it will eventually end like that because I think it is obvious that if a society built on a cash flow and profit, doesn't have this then things will go wrong and it will happen fast. But my fear is that we as humans are going to act as fast as we did with the climate crisis, meaning that we act when it is close to being too late But where the climate doesn't starve or as such suffer from it and doesn't complain, that is not the same with humans.

It's the other way around. Climate change can starve us by destroying our food sources, robots don't take away anything, in fact they add more things. They "only" destroy our culture, an intangible idea we created ourselves anyway. So, societies which made the change to a post scarcity culture before the robot revolution will transition smoothly. In other societies the change will be forced, probably with a bloody revolution.

 

[Nimos]

It's the other way around. Climate change can starve us by destroying our food sources, robots don't take away anything, in fact they add more things.

What I meant is, that we can ruin the climate all we want and it will not complain, because it is obviously not sentient, so it doesn't care how much we ruin it. But humans that are starving or are being treated unfairly etc. will react. So we might neglect climate issues due to human stupidity because the effect is not as straight in our faces compared to not being able to get food on the table tomorrow. So where the politicians seem to have huge issues getting to an agreement about climate and years after years go on with non-binding agreements, that is not going to fly with humans.

And I think what we are going to experience in the next many years is extreme competition or advancement in AI and robotics because no one can afford to lose or be left behind in this race. And I'm not talking about AI's that can generate images or answer some questions etc. But AI's capable of hacking and defending against hacking, for instance, the US/EU, China or Russia can't afford to be left vulnerable and we know all these countries are very active in doing these covert operations, given that they are constantly caught doing it one way or another. And one can only assume that the US, EU etc. seek to improve their economies and businesses and if AI's etc can help with that, then that is what will happen because it has always been like that. As it is a way of getting an advantage.

But my fear is that the political system is not as fast or maybe have the time to really understand what effect this is going to have on society and how we as humans do things, it might be noticeable or seem like a huge deal now, but I think problems will surface rather rapidly.

 

[Nimos]

Just for those that cares. This is someone testing ChatGPT 4 with Midjourney, meaning that he is teaching ChatGPT 4 how to use another AI

Midjourney is an AI that makes images and is currently also under developement. I think they are pretty damn cool

 

[Heyo]

Just for those that cares. This is someone testing ChatGPT 4 with Midjourney, meaning that he is teaching ChatGPT 4 how to use another AI

Midjourney is an AI that makes images and is currently also under developement. I think they are pretty damn cool

:informative:

 

[kadzbiz]

Can you elaborate on it? Why do you find it desirable? Not that I disagree, but mostly because I don't really think we have much of a choice here

I didn't say I find it desirable, but that humans probably feel more comfortable talking with a humanoid shaped entity rather than a toaster. Personally I'm not in favour of robots or AI.

 

[Stevicus]

I ran across this article somewhat related to the topic: Being Horny Increases Likelihood People (Particularly Men) Will Sleep With Robots

“Robots designed to elicit sexual arousal are coming,” write the authors.

“Sexual arousal can increase our willingness to engage in risky or unconventional sexual behaviors. However, researchers have yet to examine whether this effect extends to robots. Hence, this study provides the first empirical evidence that state sexual arousal can increase our willingness to engage erotically with robots.”

While sex robots are undoubtedly coming (if they haven’t already), no research has actually explored whether sexual arousal will open humans up to their use.



In order to do so, researchers recruited a cohort of 321 people over the age of 18 through the internet and word-of-mouth and asked them to complete a two-part online survey. First, they filled out how likely they would be to do various things with a robot, including being friends with one, being in a relationship with one, and getting intimate with one.

One week later, they were shown a 10-minute sexually explicit video and asked to repeat the survey, with the researchers expecting to see a difference in how they responded once aroused.

On almost all accounts, sexual arousal increased the willingness of participants to engage in sexual activity and have romantic (or platonic) relationships with a robot – the only metric that didn’t go up was whether they were willing to love a robot.

Men were found to be more likely to give a robot a chance compared to women when it came to getting intimate with them, but there were no differences between genders when it came to whether they would befriend or fall in love with a robot.

The study is not perfect in its design. It utilizes a small sample size of ethnically similar people, of which most were educated and white, and the fact that it is a self-reported, online survey leaves the chance for inaccuracies. It does, however, mark the first study to delve into the topic, so future studies can look to improve on the design.

So, if their arousal is high enough, men are more likely to have sex with robots.

 

[kadzbiz]

I ran across this article somewhat related to the topic: Being Horny Increases Likelihood People (Particularly Men) Will Sleep With Robots



So, if their arousal is high enough, men are more likely to have sex with robots.

Why wouldn’t they? Men already use adult toys to get off.

 

[Nimos]

So, if their arousal is high enough, men are more likely to have sex with robots.

I think this applies to both genders, if/when they reach a point where they are human-like, it will probably also be possible to make them look like you prefer so my guess is that they will be quite good-looking in general.

But also that it will be considered rather normal after it has gone through a phase of being taboo, then there will be the first human / robot married that will get a headline, and slowly it will be normal, maybe even to the point where there is little difference between whether one is married with a robot vs a human. Kind of Bladerunner style or something like that.

And one could argue that if the robot makes one happy and that is important, is there really a huge difference? I don't think ChatGPT is not that far away to be able to at least solve the social aspects of communication, so if one imagined that it was thrown into a functional humanoid body, I think we would already have a robot/human relationship.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Many not in 100 years, but at some point money as we know it now is going to be obsolete as I see it and will be replaced but something else, not even sure what.

Energy is the ultimate limiting component. If that becomes scarce it becomes a potential currency, but like you I am not sure what. I don't think anybody will care about my opinion though. I will be gone.

But uh we may be facing a time where money is replaced by land shares or timeshares in land. Gold is a failure as currency. So is paper. One thing people can always value is land, but as there is a limited amount of land the new currency might be paper that is backed by land or by timeshares in land.

 

[Nimos]

Energy is the ultimate limiting component. If that becomes scarce it becomes a potential currency, but like you I am not sure what. I don't think anybody will care about my opinion though. I will be gone.

I don't think we will ever reach a point where energy is a currency, we do have a star which creates lots of it, we are just not very good at using it at the moment.

For anything to have any value there needs to be a lack of abundance, and even though we use a lot of energy now I don't get the impression that we couldn't expand it a whole great deal if we were forced to do it due to whatever reason, but we don't do it, because countries lack the money.

But uh we may be facing a time where money is replaced by land shares or timeshares in land. Gold is a failure as currency. So is paper. One thing people can always value is land, but as there is a limited amount of land the new currency might be paper that is backed by land or by timeshares in land.

Land does always have value, but it is not something you can go buy stuff with, like food or everyday stuff

What form the currency takes is irrelevant I think, because it requires that people can earn and spend them, but then we are back at things actually having a value.