Jobs that robots can't do

[dystopian]

Dude, on-line porn is older than the internet. I found some back in '89, by dialling into the right message board.

Online in the common vernacular specifically refers to being connected to the internet (instead of just being connected to another computer/device), so BBS porn isn't what we'd call online porn.

/pedantic porn-related retort

 

[Keith&Co.]

An artificial sperm donor is certainly possible, in principle. It is highly unlikely ever to compete with the natural version on price, but might be able to compete effectively on quality.

Wel, I wasn't thinking 'price' as much as 'possible.'
And as the liberal socialist atheist effort continues to turn everyone gay or at least feminize all men, eventually any woman wanting a child will have the options of either artificial donors or seducing an insanely conservative real-he-man. You know, someone like Starman.

 

[Togo]

Is there anything robots can do that people can't do?

Or is that, for some vague and undefined reason, the wrong question?

Because it strikes me that the only way to argue that robots will replace humans if it they can be adapted to every task. And given the same resources, humans can be adapted to every task. So what's the advantage of a robot?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So what's the advantage of a robot?

They don't drink beer. If I have a human come over and do some work around my house, proper manners obliges me to give him some of my beer. If I get a robot to help, I can keep all the beer for myself.

 

[Jayjay]

Is there anything robots can do that people can't do?

Or is that, for some vague and undefined reason, the wrong question?

Because it strikes me that the only way to argue that robots will replace humans if it they can be adapted to every task. And given the same resources, humans can be adapted to every task. So what's the advantage of a robot?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. If robots can be adapted to every task, it doesn't follow that humans can be adapted to every task with the same resources. The whole point of automation is that it takes less resources to use robots for given task, or that robots can do more with given resources.

Think of the progression of chess computers. For a long time, it was obvious that human chess champions would beat any computer. Then for a short period of time, they were both at the same level, and there was actual competition. But now it's fairly obvious that top chess-playing program can beat any huan and it's not likely to reverse, ever. The moment in time when humans and computers were at equal footing was just a blink of an eye... and the same pattern has repeated and will repeat with any task when humans are replaced by robots and automation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there anything robots can do that people can't do?

Or is that, for some vague and undefined reason, the wrong question?

Because it strikes me that the only way to argue that robots will replace humans if it they can be adapted to every task. And given the same resources, humans can be adapted to every task. So what's the advantage of a robot?

Robots can survive in environments that would kill humans.

Some can be protected against at great cost (consider how much more expensive it would have been to send a geologist rather than Curiosity), some simply aren't survivable. (For example, a reactor core. The necessary shielding is simply too big and heavy--while in theory you could make a suit that would protect you everything would have to be servo controlled, fitting shields around body parts would be impossible. Thus why have the suit in the first place??)

 

[Togo]

Is there anything robots can do that people can't do?

Or is that, for some vague and undefined reason, the wrong question?

Because it strikes me that the only way to argue that robots will replace humans if it they can be adapted to every task. And given the same resources, humans can be adapted to every task. So what's the advantage of a robot?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. If robots can be adapted to every task, it doesn't follow that humans can be adapted to every task with the same resources. The whole point of automation is that it takes less resources to use robots for given task, or that robots can do more with given resources.

At the moment sure. Except for jobs that robots can't presently do. But if you are talking about the theoretical limits of robotics, and suggesting they may be infinite, then you're not talking about cheap robots, you're talking about really very expensive robots. You can theoretically build a robot prostitute, but what reason is there to suppose that it will ever be cheaper than a human doing the same job?

If we're talking about now, then there is plenty robots can't do, and a vast amount robots can't do without a lot of human assistance. If we're talking about a potential future, then you can always theorise a specialist robot to compete with a human doing the same job, but there is no reason to suppose that such a robot will be cheaper, longer lived, or more effective than a human given the same advantages.

Think of the progression of chess computers. For a long time, it was obvious that human chess champions would beat any computer. Then for a short period of time, they were both at the same level, and there was actual competition. But now it's fairly obvious that top chess-playing program can beat any huan and it's not likely to reverse, ever.

Well yes and no. Humans are still the best self-propelled chess computers around. You can't arrange a chess match with a super-computer without an awful lot of human assistance and set up. And even then it's still not inconceivable that a grandmaster chess player with a supercomputer, could beat a robot with a supercomputer. Being a robot has no inherent advantage there.

The moment in time when humans and computers were at equal footing was just a blink of an eye... and the same pattern has repeated and will repeat with any task when humans are replaced by robots and automation.

Well, sort of. The robots are still trained, very closely managed, and regularly reprogrammed by humans, and humans still sort out the problems that the robots miss. And again, this is the pattern you see time and time again - robots taking over repetitive well defined tasks while being managed by humans.

 

[Jayjay]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. If robots can be adapted to every task, it doesn't follow that humans can be adapted to every task with the same resources. The whole point of automation is that it takes less resources to use robots for given task, or that robots can do more with given resources.

At the moment sure. Except for jobs that robots can't presently do. But if you are talking about the theoretical limits of robotics, and suggesting they may be infinite, then you're not talking about cheap robots, you're talking about really very expensive robots. You can theoretically build a robot prostitute, but what reason is there to suppose that it will ever be cheaper than a human doing the same job?

A robot specialized to do a task is always theoretically more efficient than a human, because humans waste energy and resources on things other than that particular task. In case of prostitution for example, the human prostitude would have dreams and aspirations other than being a prostitute, would probably not work 24/7 and would take 18 years (give or take) to be "built", and likely lose his or her suitability for the job in less time than that (though that can be worked around with technology). A sex robot could be purpose-built for that particular task only, made in less time than a human, and be more durable.

As for cost, there is always an up-front cost to develop given technology which would be enormous, but after that reducing manufacturing costs per unit is just an engineering problem to be solved. Of course, if we think of theoretical limits of technology, at some point the distinction between a "human" and a "robot" gets blurred... for example, human prostitutes could be adapted with sufficiently advanced technology to not need any sleep, or have any desires outside of performing well in that particular job, but would they still be "human"? And vice versa, if someday we build robots that exceed human abilities in every possible way, is it fair to call them "robots"?

I suppose the question as to whether robots can replace humans should not be open ended, because ultimately the answer is going to obviously be "yes". But will it take 1000 years, 100 years, or 10 years? How long until we can automate any particular task that only humans can do? Those are the interesting questions.

If we're talking about now, then there is plenty robots can't do, and a vast amount robots can't do without a lot of human assistance. If we're talking about a potential future, then you can always theorise a specialist robot to compete with a human doing the same job, but there is no reason to suppose that such a robot will be cheaper, longer lived, or more effective than a human given the same advantages.

The problem isn't as much about advantages that humans have, but disadvantages. For example working in hostile environments in space or deep sea would require pressurized environments to support human presence that's just an additional cost compared to robots.

Think of the progression of chess computers. For a long time, it was obvious that human chess champions would beat any computer. Then for a short period of time, they were both at the same level, and there was actual competition. But now it's fairly obvious that top chess-playing program can beat any huan and it's not likely to reverse, ever.

Well yes and no. Humans are still the best self-propelled chess computers around. You can't arrange a chess match with a super-computer without an awful lot of human assistance and set up. And even then it's still not inconceivable that a grandmaster chess player with a supercomputer, could beat a robot with a supercomputer. Being a robot has no inherent advantage there.

The key here is the supercomputer, not the automaton that moves the pieces.

The moment in time when humans and computers were at equal footing was just a blink of an eye... and the same pattern has repeated and will repeat with any task when humans are replaced by robots and automation.

Well, sort of. The robots are still trained, very closely managed, and regularly reprogrammed by humans, and humans still sort out the problems that the robots miss. And again, this is the pattern you see time and time again - robots taking over repetitive well defined tasks while being managed by humans.

What is "a job" if not a "repetitive, well-defined task"?

 

[dystopian]

At the moment sure. Except for jobs that robots can't presently do. But if you are talking about the theoretical limits of robotics, and suggesting they may be infinite, then you're not talking about cheap robots, you're talking about really very expensive robots.

Why do you assume that these robots would be very expensive? The initial development cost may be high, but there's really no reason to assume that such hypercapable robots would have to be expensive; and plenty of reasons to assume the exact opposite. The first robot capable of performing all the tasks a human can but better might be really expensive to design and build... but after that the robot itself can design and build the next generation for a fraction of the price. All of the costs related to humans (ie; most of them) suddenly drop to zero... plus the robot is more efficient at the job so you likely eliminate resource wise as well.

You can theoretically build a robot prostitute, but what reason is there to suppose that it will ever be cheaper than a human doing the same job?

1. Robots prostitutes don't get STD's.
2. Human prostitutes can only be 'upgraded' a few times before they lose favor with the clientele.
3. Robot prostitutes can change their look much more easily than a human prostitute can, in order to please clientele.
4. Robot prostitutes can change their entire personality in ways a human can't, in order to please clientele.
5. A robot prostitute doesn't need anywhere near the same kind of downtime as a human prostitute in order to keep functioning, meaning it can make money while human prostitutes would be forced to sleep and do other things.
6. Maintenance on a broken robot is cheaper than maintenance on a broken human.
7. A robot prostitute doesn't require 18 years of feeding, taking care of, and schooling in order to have it reach the point where it can start fucking for money.

These are just out of the top of my head.

The real question is why would you suppose that they WOULDN'T be cheaper?

If we're talking about now, then there is plenty robots can't do, and a vast amount robots can't do without a lot of human assistance. If we're talking about a potential future, then you can always theorise a specialist robot to compete with a human doing the same job, but there is no reason to suppose that such a robot will be cheaper, longer lived, or more effective than a human given the same advantages.

Nonsense. There's *every* reason to suppose that. Humans are limited by biology, robots are not (and could even incorporate biology if it were necessary).

Well, sort of. The robots are still trained, very closely managed, and regularly reprogrammed by humans, and humans still sort out the problems that the robots miss. And again, this is the pattern you see time and time again - robots taking over repetitive well defined tasks while being managed by humans.

No, this is not always the case even today. There *are* examples of self-programming robots, and robots capable of creative problem solving without human intervention. There are also examples of autonomous robot swarms that can construct complex shapes on their own (these robots are worthless on their own, but as a swarm become far more capable), and robots that can construct and repair other robots. Yes, these are all in relatively early stages... however, progress IS being made, and there's no reason to think that progress won't *continue* to be made.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also, if you have a robot prostitute, you don't have to worry about it saying "Ya ... I don't do things like that, you weirdo freak. I'm running away now and if you follow me, I'll have my pimp break your legs". The robot does do things like that and it doesn't have a problem with it.

Given that my research into the matter has found that this happens in approximately 80% of all visits to prostitutes, that's a significant point in favour of robot hookers.

 

[Togo]

Why do you assume that these robots would be very expensive? The initial development cost may be high, but there's really no reason to assume that such hypercapable robots would have to be expensive; and plenty of reasons to assume the exact opposite. The first robot capable of performing all the tasks a human can but better might be really expensive to design and build... but after that the robot itself can design and build the next generation for a fraction of the price. All of the costs related to humans (ie; most of them) suddenly drop to zero...

Eh? Why? I mean if you have a crude robot that's basically a hunk of metal driven by large gears, then sure, the robot is cheap and durable. But if you have a sophisticated piece of electronics with the same capabilities as the human body, why would it be cheaper to maintain, or any more durable than people? You're not leaving anything out to get that reduction, without losing capability.

You can theoretically build a robot prostitute, but what reason is there to suppose that it will ever be cheaper than a human doing the same job?

1. Robots prostitutes don't get STD's.

Yeah, they do. You can get a yeast infection from a sex toy. The more sophisticated the robot, and the more closely it resembles a human in function and appearance, the more likely it will be able to pass on disease.

2. Human prostitutes can only be 'upgraded' a few times before they lose favor with the clientele.

They're also self-repairing on the cellular level. If you get the technology to create a self-repairing robot, you probably have the technology for an infinitely upgradeable human.

3. Robot prostitutes can change their look much more easily than a human prostitute can, in order to please clientele.

Only if the robot modular, which implies only a loose connection between a mental and physical function. That has quality implications.

4. Robot prostitutes can change their entire personality in ways a human can't, in order to please clientele.

Is it cheaper to get multiple personalities for an android, or to get acting lessons?

5. A robot prostitute doesn't need anywhere near the same kind of downtime as a human prostitute in order to keep functioning, meaning it can make money while human prostitutes would be forced to sleep and do other things.

How do you know? Human downtime is healing and reprogramming time. A robot as sophisticated will have similar requirements. Giving a robot the impression of having hobbies and interest may be harder than simply giving it time off to the develop them.

6. Maintenance on a broken robot is cheaper than maintenance on a broken human.

Questionable assumption.

7. A robot prostitute doesn't require 18 years of feeding, taking care of, and schooling in order to have it reach the point where it can start fucking for money.

How do you know? Have you built one?

The real question is why would you suppose that they WOULDN'T be cheaper?

Because they are mirroring the functions and designs of a human. You're airily assuming that wouldn't come with downsides like it does in humans, but I can't see any principle that you're following to reach that conclusion. It takes people 18 years to reach the stage of acting like adults. On what basis do you assume that a robot designed to achieve the same functions as a human wouldn't take the same time?

If we're talking about now, then there is plenty robots can't do, and a vast amount robots can't do without a lot of human assistance. If we're talking about a potential future, then you can always theorise a specialist robot to compete with a human doing the same job, but there is no reason to suppose that such a robot will be cheaper, longer lived, or more effective than a human given the same advantages.

Nonsense. There's *every* reason to suppose that. Humans are limited by biology,

But biology is just very complicated construction, nothing more. What makes you think that your equally complicated construction will be better? 'Made of plastic' isn't a superpower.

Well, sort of. The robots are still trained, very closely managed, and regularly reprogrammed by humans, and humans still sort out the problems that the robots miss. And again, this is the pattern you see time and time again - robots taking over repetitive well defined tasks while being managed by humans.

No, this is not always the case even today. There *are* examples of self-programming robots, and robots capable of creative problem solving without human intervention.

For short periods of time. But they are still watched, maintained and supervised by humans who can reprogram them as necessary. Unless you have an example otherwise?

There are also examples of autonomous robot swarms that can construct complex shapes on their own (these robots are worthless on their own, but as a swarm become far more capable), and robots that can construct and repair other robots. Yes, these are all in relatively early stages... however, progress IS being made, and there's no reason to think that progress won't *continue* to be made.

I'm sure there will, but there's a long way to go. Humans are largely limited by the laws of physics, and their performance is far higher than cheap durable materials will take you. It's possible that robots will find ways to consistently exceed human performance, but there's no particular reason to assume that they will, particularly if humans further augment themselves.

 

[Jayjay]

Eh? Why? I mean if you have a crude robot that's basically a hunk of metal driven by large gears, then sure, the robot is cheap and durable. But if you have a sophisticated piece of electronics with the same capabilities as the human body, why would it be cheaper to maintain, or any more durable than people? You're not leaving anything out to get that reduction, without losing capability.

Humans came about via evolution, which is more of a throwing everything to the wall and then seeing what sticks. A lot of the features that humans have are by-products of this process, and clearly can be improved upon.

Take the wheel for example. It's a rather simple technology, and an efficient way to move around, but there are hardly any animals that have evolved wheels (I'd say "none" but I'd probably be wrong... there are always exceptions) because it's difficult for blood circulation and there are no simple intermediate steps that would improve upon current designs. I have no doubt that with human (or post-human) ingenuity we couldn't optimize robots to be much more durable and cheaper than humans.

Also, the assumptions that we would not be leaving anything out for robots is not true. For example, a sex robot would be more useful if it didn't have feelings of its own or any other aspirations besides pleasing its clients.

You can theoretically build a robot prostitute, but what reason is there to suppose that it will ever be cheaper than a human doing the same job?

1. Robots prostitutes don't get STD's.

Yeah, they do. You can get a yeast infection from a sex toy. The more sophisticated the robot, and the more closely it resembles a human in function and appearance, the more likely it will be able to pass on disease.

2. Human prostitutes can only be 'upgraded' a few times before they lose favor with the clientele.

They're also self-repairing on the cellular level. If you get the technology to create a self-repairing robot, you probably have the technology for an infinitely upgradeable human.

That's when things get hairy. Some jobs don't require an upgrade, they require a downgrade, or would have some penalty if performed by a human that's capable of multitude of other tasks. If the only way for a human to do some job is if he uses a robot to do it, is that really the human or the robot doing the job?

In long enough time-frame I think the distinction becomes meaningless.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The time when robots outperform humans on everything, I don´t think is that far off. But humans still won´t be replaced, because we all need to feel useful somehow. That´s a job a robot can´t do. It can´t do something so that a human feels they´re doing something meaningful. That has to come from the human herself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Take the wheel for example. It's a rather simple technology, and an efficient way to move around, but there are hardly any animals that have evolved wheels (I'd say "none" but I'd probably be wrong... there are always exceptions) because it's difficult for blood circulation and there are no simple intermediate steps that would improve upon current designs. I have no doubt that with human (or post-human) ingenuity we couldn't optimize robots to be much more durable and cheaper than humans.

I'm not aware of any wheel-using animal but around here there is an annoying example of a wheel-using plant. They're called tumbleweeds. They grow into a ball shape, then die and dry out. Eventually they snap off from their roots but the top part survives. Being round it rolls pretty well--when the wind blows they go rolling along. While they are dead when this happens the seeds are not--and they slowly come off as the tumbleweed rolls along.

Now, add man to the picture, going around building things--especially fences--that interfere with this and they can be problematic at times. In extreme cases people have had them piled up on their house to the roof.

Also, the assumptions that we would not be leaving anything out for robots is not true. For example, a sex robot would be more useful if it didn't have feelings of its own or any other aspirations besides pleasing its clients.

Depends on if it was taking the role of prostitute or mistress. In the latter role it would be better if it could at least simulate feelings.

1. Robots prostitutes don't get STD's.

Yeah, they do. You can get a yeast infection from a sex toy. The more sophisticated the robot, and the more closely it resembles a human in function and appearance, the more likely it will be able to pass on disease.

Robots meant for shared use will have suitable disinfection systems.

Remember, for the most part killing pathogens is easy--the hard part is killing the pathogen without harming the person.

 

[dystopian]

Yeah, they do. You can get a yeast infection from a sex toy. The more sophisticated the robot, and the more closely it resembles a human in function and appearance, the more likely it will be able to pass on disease.

Okay, putting a robot through an industrial cleaning process after each job is a lot easier than doing it with a prostitute, though.

They're also self-repairing on the cellular level. If you get the technology to create a self-repairing robot, you probably have the technology for an infinitely upgradeable human.

We already have the technology to create self-repairing robots. We do not have the technology for infinitely upgradeable humans, so there goes that argument.

Plus, that human self-repair is rather limited and slow in what it can do.

Only if the robot modular, which implies only a loose connection between a mental and physical function. That has quality implications.

Not really. There's a different between a robot that is truly modular in all its functions, and one where you can simply slap another chassis on top. The latter isn't really modular, and it's no different than putting a different chassis on a car.

Is it cheaper to get multiple personalities for an android, or to get acting lessons?

The first is obviously cheaper, why would that even be a question?

How do you know? Human downtime is healing and reprogramming time. A robot as sophisticated will have similar requirements.

...and how would *you* know? There's absolutely no reason to think that a robot that sophisticated would have similar requirements.

Giving a robot the impression of having hobbies and interest may be harder than simply giving it time off to the develop them.

But we already have AI's that can do that pretty well. Some have even passed the turing test. So, no, it probably isn't it harder.

Questionable assumption.

Not really. Most of the wear and tear would be a simple matter of slapping on the appropriate replacement part. Those parts are pretty much always going to be cheaper than the equivalent medical procedure on a human being; especially if the replacement parts are produced through automated labor to begin with.

How do you know? Have you built one?

No, but others have. You do realize robots used for sex already exist, right? Sure, they're not quite like what you see in AI movies; but they already exist and don't require 18 years of teaching and feeding. And we can be pretty sure that they're never going to need either unless you're demanding a robot prostitute that's actually sentient instead of just appearing to be; and even then it might not be the case.

Because they are mirroring the functions and designs of a human. You're airily assuming that wouldn't come with downsides like it does in humans, but I can't see any principle that you're following to reach that conclusion. It takes people 18 years to reach the stage of acting like adults. On what basis do you assume that a robot designed to achieve the same functions as a human wouldn't take the same time?

Because our intelligence lets us improve upon flawed designs. We do this all the time. You seem to drawing some bizarre conclusions about these hypothetical robots that only make remote sense if you assume they have to be sentient like us. And even then it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to be honest.

First, for the body of the robot, it obviously wouldn't take 18 years. You just build the hardware, and that won't take anywhere near that long.

So then it's the personality right? The mind capable of doing all we're talking about. Here, it depends on whether or not the AI can be programmed top-down or has to learn from the bottom-up. Right now we simply don't know if it's possible to do it top-down; but we certainly haven't ruled it out. If a top-down approach is possible, then it'd be absurd to throw figures like 18 years around. You just program the thing and it's good to go. If the bottom-up approach is the only viable way however, it doesn't then follow that it would take 18 years just like with a human. After all, by the time we'd be capable of doing this, computing hardware is going to be far faster than the human brain. If you have an AI capable of learning installed on such a platform, there's no reason to think it'd take it anywhere near the same amount of time to learn things as humans learn them. It could very well be the case that it reaches maturity in a matter of months since it would be capable of processing information far faster than we could. However, let's for the sake of argument assume that it still takes 18 years. Okay, well then it just takes 18 years *once*. After that, you can make as many copies of the AI as you want.

But biology is just very complicated construction, nothing more. What makes you think that your equally complicated construction will be better? 'Made of plastic' isn't a superpower.

Because again, we can improve upon nature's flawed designs. We can already create artificial muscles far stronger than human muscles. We can create artificial skin far stronger. We can create materials that regenerate themselves more efficiently than human tissue can. Virtually every material we would conceivably make the robots out of could simply last longer than we humans do. It's the simple difference between random evolution and intelligent design.

For short periods of time. But they are still watched, maintained and supervised by humans who can reprogram them as necessary. Unless you have an example otherwise?

That's moving the goalpost. Of course humans are still watching and supervising the robots; we're still talking about prototype technologies after all. The point is that we have technology demonstrations of robots doing these things on their own.

I'm sure there will, but there's a long way to go.

There is "always" a long way to go. That's because technology is never standing still. But "a long way" is almost certainly not as much as you may think.

Humans are largely limited by the laws of physics, and their performance is far higher than cheap durable materials will take you.

That's a big assumption that is already not true. The performance of the material we're made of is NOT 'far higher' than many cheap durable materials we have today (to say nothing of those we'll have in the future). Human performance is only superior right now as a total package. Once you break us down to our individual components there are very few parts of us that don't have a technological equivalent that has superior performance. It's really only the brain that still holds the title there.

It's possible that robots will find ways to consistently exceed human performance, but there's no particular reason to assume that they will, particularly if humans further augment themselves.

There's every reason to assume it, in fact. There has been a very consistent upward trend in technological progress. So long as humans will keep pushing robotics (and you know they will), there is no doubt that they will eventually exceed us in every way. And in fact, not only does this not become less likely if we augment ourselves, it becomes *even more certain*. There's a reason we build robots in the first place: to do shit we don't want to do and to do it better than we do. If we augment ourselves, then that just means we will want our robots to be that much better. And if we augment our intelligence, then that means we will have a much easier time designing them.

 

[arkirk]

Let's get a little more real here. There seems to be a clear divide between two types of human beings here....those who are technological fundamentalists and those who identify with humanity. It is possible to be deeply involved in robot development without becoming so technologically fundamentalist one starts to plan on replacing humans with these things. This argument has even gone so far as to suggest that robots will ultimately make better prostitutes.

 

[dystopian]

Let's get a little more real here. There seems to be a clear divide between two types of human beings here....those who are technological fundamentalists and those who identify with humanity. It is possible to be deeply involved in robot development without becoming so technologically fundamentalist one starts to plan on replacing humans with these things. This argument has even gone so far as to suggest that robots will ultimately make better prostitutes.

...technological fundamentalist? Really?

There's nothing 'fundamentalist' about planning to replace human labor with robots that are better at it. It's just common sense; and if anything it's a *pro* human plan. The same applies to the suggestion that robots could potentially make for better prostitutes; and if you think that won't happen until pigs will fly then I would propose you are simply ignorant as to both the state of technology as it is, the pace of progress that is being made, and the motivation provided by the insane piles of profit that would result from being the first to design real sex robots.

If planning/suggesting these things is being a "technological fundamentalist", then surely your argument would make you a human fundamentalist.

 

[arkirk]

Let's get a little more real here. There seems to be a clear divide between two types of human beings here....those who are technological fundamentalists and those who identify with humanity. It is possible to be deeply involved in robot development without becoming so technologically fundamentalist one starts to plan on replacing humans with these things. This argument has even gone so far as to suggest that robots will ultimately make better prostitutes.

...technological fundamentalist? Really?

There's nothing 'fundamentalist' about planning to replace human labor with robots that are better at it. It's just common sense; and if anything it's a *pro* human plan. The same applies to the suggestion that robots could potentially make for better prostitutes; and if you think that won't happen until pigs will fly then I would propose you are simply ignorant as to both the state of technology as it is, the pace of progress that is being made, and the motivation provided by the insane piles of profit that would result from being the first to design real sex robots.

If planning/suggesting these things is being a "technological fundamentalist", then surely your argument would make you a human fundamentalist.

Dystopian: It isn't a matter of name calling. You simply are so enthralled by "the insane piles of profit," and other measurements of wealth and well being our system has placed front and center. I have no beef with robots designed to do things human cannot and should not do. I have no beef with technology. Do you think it might be a good idea to build a really strong and coordinated robot to exercise for us too? to eat for us? to fuck our wives? to replace us? What if all these things could be accomplished and great heaps of profit went somewhere? The issue isn't whether or not there should be advanced technology. It is far more a matter of whether or not specific technologies would be good for us. It is far more a matter of the shape our society might assume in a world overrun with pernicious and parasitic technologies. Our species has need of activity and usefulness. There really is not much point in removing too much of this from human living. Maybe you don't see that. I really am not trying to offend either you or people with innovative robot technologies which can benefit us. I am concerned that robotic killing machines are now being made and enter these into evidence...that a person can have a religious like faith that technology can handle all of man's problems. It clearly cannot and indeed already has a backlog of disservices it has performed upon society. It is not technology that is to blame. It is the rabid pursuit of it "for insane piles of profit."

 

[dystopian]

It is far more a matter of whether or not specific technologies would be good for us. It is far more a matter of the shape our society might assume in a world overrun with pernicious and parasitic technologies. Our species has need of activity and usefulness. There really is not much point in removing too much of this from human living. Maybe you don't see that. I really am not trying to offend either you or people with innovative robot technologies which can benefit us. I am concerned that robotic killing machines are now being made and enter these into evidence...that a person can have a religious like faith that technology can handle all of man's problems. It clearly cannot and indeed already has a backlog of disservices it has performed upon society. It is not technology that is to blame. It is the rabid pursuit of it "for insane piles of profit."

Neoluddism at its finest.

Life has never been better for humans than it is today. That's pretty much exclusively thanks to technology. Yes, even thanks to the same technology that kills people. People worried about technology replacing them or having it somehow make our lives worse are people who haven't been paying attention to history. It's fear of the unknown driving such concerns, not realism. For all the fears about technology changing our lives for the worse, it has only ever done the exact opposite. Humans have need of activity and usefulness? A strawman argument; robots replacing human labor don't take away our ability to engage in meaningful activity, it just means we're not forced into doing shit we don't want to do.

And hey, if you're not blaming technology, but rather the rabid pursuit of it for profit; then if anything you should support the development of robots replacing us in every way imaginable. Why? Because the only place it can lead us to is a post-scarcity society in which our lives are no longer ruled by profit. What do you think will happen when 99% of the human race can no longer work for a living? Profit will motivate the development of the technologies that will end its relevance.

Only through the pursuit of technological progress do we stand a chance to create a truly new and better way of life for the human race. Opposing technology development on whatever basis can only lead to things staying exactly the same.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's get a little more real here. There seems to be a clear divide between two types of human beings here....those who are technological fundamentalists and those who identify with humanity. It is possible to be deeply involved in robot development without becoming so technologically fundamentalist one starts to plan on replacing humans with these things. This argument has even gone so far as to suggest that robots will ultimately make better prostitutes.

No. We recognize robots as labor-saving devices.

You obviously accept a lot of labor-saving devices as there's no way you would be on this board otherwise.

Robots are just the next big step in labor saving. They'll probably reduce the labor rate to near zero.