Get Ready for Killer Robot Technology.

[Crazy Eddie]

Alot of those services are ALREADY dirty cheap and efficient. Some of the most expensive products on the market right now are manufactured by third-world sweatshop labor and sold with a 900% markup. This isn't going to change when the sweatshop workers are replaced by robots.

There's also the fact that manufacturers of labor robots will be well aware of the value of their products; they aren't going to be selling the ROBOTS cheaply either.

The pool of actual buying power will contract until it is concentrated into a group of people more and more closely related to the investor class.

Competition will not allow to keep robots expensive.

Of course it will. Competition in electronics rarely if ever involves a reduction of price. Manufacturers try to push a machine with superior capabilities for the same price as their competitors. Two competing robot makers would produce a similar product and get into an arms race over who can make their robots faster, smarter, less error prone and easier to operate. The price never actually comes down because each successive product release doubles the number of features available.

The same sort of thing that happened with the auto-industry. Competition among car makers didn't cause cars to become more affordable -- quite the opposite, in fact -- but it did result in cars having newer and more advanced features, to the point that some cars now have as standard features integrated computer systems, onboard GPS and self-diagnostic systems in their engines.

Most of the manufacturing would not require much logistics and will be very local.

You can't manufacture anything without raw materials, and you've no reason to manufacture anything without a buyer. Both of those things require long-range access to non-local markets in order to justify large scale automation. In short, the kinds of people who will sell their products at the local level aren't the kinds of people who would benefit the most from robot labor.

The national and global commodities markets are difficult to penetrate without investor support; the high overhead and logistics requirements for wide scale distribution aren't affected by robotics. The only change would be that the investor class becomes MORE important to the small business owner; if he wants to keep his prices down, he no longer has the option to hire and train new employees to replace old ones. As his machines reach obsolescence, he has to buy new ones, upgraded with new hardware and software, and that will require him to either spend his own money or seek continued investment in his company.

Conventional capitalists would have no use in the future because they will be replaced by robots first.

Why would robots replace CAPITALISTS? They're not the ones working the assembly lines, gluing pieces together, checking products for quality. The capitalists would be (and historically, HAVE BEEN) the ones who BUY the robots and then find ways to replace their workers with them.

You're talking about this like it's an "anything goes" science fiction story. It's not. Large companies are ALREADY using robotics and automation to replace their workforce and it is ALREADY reducing their prices by huge margins. We are not seeing the same explosion of automation at the local level, and this is because it is cheaper for your corner diner to hire a frycook to make cheeseburgers than it is for them to buy an automatic burger-flipping machine like McDonalds has.

 

[Will Wiley]

No not the kind of drones that give operators PTSD, but real autonomous killer robots that seek and kill people.

What craziness will they come up with next. Robots that save people lives?

 

[barbos]

Competition will not allow to keep robots expensive.

Of course it will. Competition in electronics rarely if ever involves a reduction of price. Manufacturers try to push a machine with superior capabilities for the same price as their competitors.

Not true, since 90s computer prices dropped at least an order of magnitude nominally, and if you take into account inflation even more.
And this is when Intel has a quasi monopoly. In the market other than x86 drop is even bigger.

Two competing robot makers would produce a similar product and get into an arms race over who can make their robots faster, smarter, less error prone and easier to operate. The price never actually comes down because each successive product release doubles the number of features available.

New features are what makes people buy new things, manufacturers are obviously are interested in selling stuff to you. Also they would not be able to get from you more than you have, that's why they can sell robots at ridiculous prices and expect large market.

The same sort of thing that happened with the auto-industry. Competition among car makers didn't cause cars to become more affordable -- quite the opposite, in fact -- but it did result in cars having newer and more advanced features, to the point that some cars now have as standard features integrated computer systems, onboard GPS and self-diagnostic systems in their engines.

Most of the manufacturing would not require much logistics and will be very local.

You can't manufacture anything without raw materials, and you've no reason to manufacture anything without a buyer. Both of those things require long-range access to non-local markets in order to justify large scale automation.

Raw materials are tiny part of manufacturing when we talk about computers and stuff and they are very basic and never the problem.

In short, the kinds of people who will sell their products at the local level aren't the kinds of people who would benefit the most from robot labor.

If people can't benefit from robots then they will tell these people who benefit from them "Go and fuck yourself with your robots".

The national and global commodities markets are difficult to penetrate without investor support; the high overhead and logistics requirements for wide scale distribution aren't affected by robotics.

Logistics goes to hell when you can have robots taking freshly harvested cotton and making t-shirts, jeans or whatever you ordered in minutes.
No need to send this crap to Bangladesh and bribe local businessmen for some slave labor.

The only change would be that the investor class becomes MORE important to the small business owner;

How?

if he wants to keep his prices down, he no longer has the option to hire and train new employees to replace old ones. As his machines reach obsolescence, he has to buy new ones, upgraded with new hardware and software, and that will require him to either spend his own money or seek continued investment in his company.

Conventional capitalists would have no use in the future because they will be replaced by robots first.

Why would robots replace CAPITALISTS?

Because they don't do anything complicated. The same way computer replaced day traders and accountants.

They're not the ones working the assembly lines, gluing pieces together, checking products for quality. The capitalists would be (and historically, HAVE BEEN) the ones who BUY the robots and then find ways to replace their workers with them.

You're talking about this like it's an "anything goes" science fiction story. It's not. Large companies are ALREADY using robotics and automation to replace their workforce and it is ALREADY reducing their prices by huge margins. We are not seeing the same explosion of automation at the local level, and this is because it is cheaper for your corner diner to hire a frycook to make cheeseburgers than it is for them to buy an automatic burger-flipping machine like McDonalds has.

The moment robot is able to learn how to make pair of jeans by simply watching, conventional large corporations model of manufacturing is gone. Nobody will be able to prevent people from having that robot at home.

 

[braces_for_impact]

How much they cost? I wish to exercise my 2nd amendment rights to defend myself and my property! Plus, I don't even have to pull a trigger!

Does it have a warranty?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Of course it will. Competition in electronics rarely if ever involves a reduction of price. Manufacturers try to push a machine with superior capabilities for the same price as their competitors.

Not true, since 90s computer prices dropped at least an order of magnitude nominally

An "order of magnitude?" That's not literally true, it's not even figuratively true. A desktop computer in 1995 cost about the same as a desktop computer in 2015. The difference between them isn't price, but relative storage and computing power; your 1990s Power PC is a tip calculator compared to its 21st century equivalent.

What DID happen was that the cost of a computer with equivalent 1990s specs dropped precipitously. Not by an "order of magnitude" or even close to it, but in some cases by a full decimal point (your average $200 laptop is equivalent to a $2000 computer from 20 years ago). The demand for these low-end machines is relatively small, however, because their capabilities are so limited.

Most of the manufacturing would not require much logistics and will be very local.

You can't manufacture anything without raw materials, and you've no reason to manufacture anything without a buyer. Both of those things require long-range access to non-local markets in order to justify large scale automation.

Raw materials are tiny part of manufacturing when we talk about computers and stuff and they are very basic and never the problem.

How does "computers and stuff" change the nature of raw materials needing to be provided by a third party?

Your pizza restaurant in the Suburbs isn't going to invest in farming robots on the other side of the country to grow their wheat, tomatoes, peppers and veggies; they aren't going to milking robot or a cheese-making robot and manufacture those products themselves. So their recurring operating cost along with labor (waiters, cooks, managers, etc) is the cost of ingredients for the food they sell. The ability to replace the cook and/or waiters with robots doesn't affect their supply chain at all.

This is also holds true of printers, factories, fisheries, meat packers, manufacturers of aviation equipment, etc. The materials they use to create the products they sell have to come from a third party normally, and using robots doesn't change the origin of those materials. Only huge transnational companies like McDonalds or Maytag that have their own in-house supply chain would be able to benefit directly from that.

The national and global commodities markets are difficult to penetrate without investor support; the high overhead and logistics requirements for wide scale distribution aren't affected by robotics.

Logistics goes to hell when you can have robots taking freshly harvested cotton and making t-shirts, jeans or whatever you ordered in minutes.

No, that's manufacturing. Logistics is what happens when the cotton farmer in Tennessee tries to SELL the T-shirts he just made to anyone ever. Thanks to the internet, Billy Bob can put his clothes on Amazon or ebay and sell to anyone in the world...

Just one problem: nobody's ever heard of Billy Bob's T-shirt Emporium, and the few people who HAVE heard of him will need some compelling reason to buy his t-shirts instead of, say, GAP or Champion or Under Armor. So Billy Bob needs to advertise, and he needs to convince people to buy his products. Once the demand is there; he needs to convince distributors to carry his products; once the distributors are on board, he needs to be able to produce enough T-shirts to satisfy those distributors once the deal is in place, and he needs to be able to pay the cost of transportation for those orders. All these things require knowledge, money and connections that Billy Bob may or may not actually have.

Robots are helpful with NONE of that. Billy Bob's robots can manufacture a thousand T-shirts, but they can't convince anyone to buy them. And this before you consider that his robots also can't produce on their own all the dyes he needs to make the shirts, can't produce the polyester filaments he needs to sew them or the material for tags and stitching. They cannot produce his boxes, his shipping labels, his signs or advertising, and they definitely cannot produce the extra energy he will need just to be able to run the robots for manufacturing purposes.

So having a bunch of manufacturing robots on his cotton farm actually solves the ones problem Billy Bob doesn't actually have. He doesn't need to be able to manufacture T-shirts on his own; he needs to be able to sell his cotton more efficiently and get a better price for it. Robots can reduce his labor costs and increase his productivity, so when he sells his cotton to textile companies on the other side of the country (who ALSO are using robots to increase productivity) he takes home a slightly bigger share of the profits.

No need to send this crap to Bangladesh and bribe local businessmen for some slave labor.

That, again, is not something local businessmen have EVER needed to do. The kinds of companies that are large enough to negotiate with manufacturers in Bangladesh are the same companies that have already started adopting automation to streamline domestic production.

Why would robots replace CAPITALISTS?

Because they don't do anything complicated. The same way computer replaced day traders and accountants.

But computers DIDN'T replace day traders and accountants. They just made day traders and accountants alot more productive.

The moment robot is able to learn how to make pair of jeans by simply watching, conventional large corporations model of manufacturing is gone. Nobody will be able to prevent people from having that robot at home.

Because the only thing preventing people from making their own jeans at home is their not having a really smart robot in their living room?

 

[bilby]

Not true, since 90s computer prices dropped at least an order of magnitude nominally

An "order of magnitude?" That's not literally true, it's not even figuratively true. A desktop computer in 1995 cost about the same as a desktop computer in 2015. The difference between them isn't price, but relative storage and computing power; your 1990s Power PC is a tip calculator compared to its 21st century equivalent.

What DID happen was that the cost of a computer with equivalent 1990s specs dropped precipitously. Not by an "order of magnitude" or even close to it, but in some cases by a full decimal point (your average $200 laptop is equivalent to a $2000 computer from 20 years ago). The demand for these low-end machines is relatively small, however, because their capabilities are so limited.

I am interested to know what you think the difference is between "an order of magnitude" and "a full decimal point".

Could you explain that for me?

 

[barbos]

Logistics goes to hell when you can have robots taking freshly harvested cotton and making t-shirts, jeans or whatever you ordered in minutes.

No, that's manufacturing. Logistics is what happens when the cotton farmer in Tennessee tries to SELL the T-shirts he just made to anyone ever.

That's not logistics, that's marketing. Logistics is indeed a part of manufacturing and as I said, logistics becomes a non issue with robots.
T-shirt business are going to crash once people realize that they don't need to pay for all that logistics, they would simply come to a robot and tell him, "make me a t-shirt and a pair of jeans, you know the ones I like". There are going to be whole industries which would simply disappear, the same way phone switchboard operators have disappeared.

As for historical computer prices, then I remember a time around 1990-1995 (beginning of modern era) when desktop was a minimum $2000, and notebooks were $10k when they were first introduced. You know current prices.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, that's manufacturing. Logistics is what happens when the cotton farmer in Tennessee tries to SELL the T-shirts he just made to anyone ever.

That's not logistics, that's marketing.

Marketing doesn't move products or promotional materials from one place to another. The actual work of getting those materials to where they're supposed to be is the logistics side of a business, to which the use of robotics in manufacturing is irrelevant (unless, of course, you have robots driving the delivery trucks).

T-shirt business are going to crash once people realize that they don't need to pay for all that logistics, they would simply come to a robot and tell him, "make me a t-shirt and a pair of jeans, you know the ones I like"

You still haven't made it clear what prevents people from making their own T-shirt and jeans RIGHT NOW. If, after all, the only thing a would-be customer lacks is a robot that can be trained to do the job, what prevents those same customers from training THEMSELVES to do that job?

There are going to be whole industries which will simply disappear, the same way phone switchboard operators have disappeared.

That's a really good analogy, because you're basically suggesting that the invention of the automated switchboard system would somehow eliminate the need for telephones.

It's clear that the manufacturing side of the equation will eliminate a lot of labor. Factory workers and farmers will require fewer man hours to get the same amount of productivity while also requiring greater and greater specialization (and switchboard operators were replaced with sysadmins and technicians). But you're claiming that that level of automation will be adopted by end users, not just manufacturers. This is a very interesting claim, but history doesn't bear this out; I don't have an automated switchboard in my house, and my company's website (which I wrote) doesn't even reside on a sever on the premises. Robotics eliminated 70% of the labor that was used to make cars 100 years ago, but I don't have a car-making robot in my garage; I own a $400 laser printer that I use for making brochures, posters, flyers and knocknock jokes, but every book that I own -- even the ones I wrote myself -- were printed by someone else better equipped and more highly specialized in book publishing than I am (and logistics -- that is, the ability to deliver dozens of books to dozens and dozens of customers who have ordered them -- would still be an issue even if I COULD print those books in my basement).

You are simply making claims about automation that are not reflected in history or reality.

 

[barbos]

That's not logistics, that's marketing.

Marketing doesn't move products or promotional materials from one place to another. The actual work of getting those materials to where they're supposed to be is the logistics side of a business, to which the use of robotics in manufacturing is irrelevant (unless, of course, you have robots driving the delivery trucks).

You mean "logistics of marketing"? You seem to be confused about what is what.

T-shirt business are going to crash once people realize that they don't need to pay for all that logistics, they would simply come to a robot and tell him, "make me a t-shirt and a pair of jeans, you know the ones I like"

You still haven't made it clear what prevents people from making their own T-shirt and jeans RIGHT NOW.

Well, most people are not even capable to make them, and these who capable are not interested because that would be awfully expensive.

If, after all, the only thing a would-be customer lacks is a robot that can be trained to do the job, what prevents those same customers from training THEMSELVES to do that job?

People are horrible at learning.

There are going to be whole industries which will simply disappear, the same way phone switchboard operators have disappeared.

That's a really good analogy, because you're basically suggesting that the invention of the automated switchboard system would somehow eliminate the need for telephones.

I never promised elimination of a need for telephones or t-shirts.

It's clear that the manufacturing side of the equation will eliminate a lot of labor.

Yes, and that in turn will eliminate or at least heavily transform associated business. In t-shirt business for example it will literally destroy the current model where cotton is being shipped to malaria to make cloth which is subsequently shipped to Bangladesh to make these t-shirts.

Factory workers and farmers will require fewer man hours to get the same amount of productivity while also requiring greater and greater specialization (and switchboard operators were replaced with sysadmins and technicians). But you're claiming that that level of automation will be adopted by end users, not just manufacturers.

I am claiming that that manufacturing will become so cheap that it would simply be pointless to even think of making a business out of it.

This is a very interesting claim, but history doesn't bear this out; I don't have an automated switchboard in my house, and my company's website (which I wrote) doesn't even reside on a sever on the premises.

That's irrelevant.

Robotics eliminated 70% of the labor that was used to make cars 100 years ago, but I don't have a car-making robot in my garage; I own a $400 laser printer that I use for making brochures, posters, flyers and knocknock jokes, but every book that I own -- even the ones I wrote myself -- were printed by someone else better equipped and more highly specialized in book publishing than I am (and logistics -- that is, the ability to deliver dozens of books to dozens and dozens of customers who have ordered them -- would still be an issue even if I COULD print those books in my basement).

You are simply making claims about automation that are not reflected in history or reality.

My claims ARE reflected in the history and reality. You yourself with your laser printer is an example of that.
Another example would be electronic books publishing, or music. It became so simple that you don't need anybody to sign you up.
Your example with website is also example of that. It's so easy now that you don't need to think about it.
Fact is, manufacturing is becoming smaller and smaller part of the whole economy

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Marketing doesn't move products or promotional materials from one place to another. The actual work of getting those materials to where they're supposed to be is the logistics side of a business, to which the use of robotics in manufacturing is irrelevant (unless, of course, you have robots driving the delivery trucks).

You mean "logistics of marketing"? You seem to be confused about what is what.

Marketing requires a certain amount of logistics too, but that's not specifically what I'm talking about.

More importantly, the logistics of ANY endeavor -- marketing or sales -- is not hugely affected by automation.

Well, most people are not even capable to make them, and these who capable are not interested because that would be awfully expensive.

Yes it would. So exactly what portion of the expense of t-shirt and jeans making would be eliminated by the possession of a robot?

People are horrible at learning.

So are robots.

Yes, and that in turn will eliminate or at least heavily transform associated business. In t-shirt business for example it will literally destroy the current model where cotton is being shipped to malaria to make cloth which is subsequently shipped to Bangladesh to make these t-shirts.

I get that part... it would put a lot of Bnagladeshis and Malarians (people with Malaria? ) out of a job. I see the streamlining of MANUFACTURING and the fact that Nike, Adidas, Under Armor etc will replace sweatshop labor with robot labor.

I missed the part where this leads to people buying t-shirt droids and making their own shirts at home. I don't see that connection AT ALL.

I am claiming that that manufacturing will become so cheap that it would simply be pointless to even think of making a business out of it.

You live in a country where people pay up to $2.00 for a bottle of water. Do you really want to stand by that claim?

My claims ARE reflected in the history and reality. You yourself with your laser printer is an example of that.

An example of WHAT? You are claiming that manufacturing will be "so cheap it would be pointless to even think about making a business out of it."

But newspapers still exist; professionally printed and bound books still exist; hardcopy books still exist, even at a time when digital copies of books have eliminated the NEED to print books in the first place.

In other words, the technology you describe ALREADY EXISTS for printed books, and your prediction did not come true. There's either something wrong with your prediction, or there's something wrong with reality.

Fact is, manufacturing is becoming smaller and smaller part of the whole economy

No, not smaller. Just more efficient.

 

[barbos]

You mean "logistics of marketing"? You seem to be confused about what is what.

Marketing requires a certain amount of logistics too, but that's not specifically what I'm talking about.

More importantly, the logistics of ANY endeavor -- marketing or sales -- is not hugely affected by automation.

But there will be no endeavor, not t-shirt endeavor anyway.

Well, most people are not even capable to make them, and these who capable are not interested because that would be awfully expensive.

Yes it would. So exactly what portion of the expense of t-shirt and jeans making would be eliminated by the possession of a robot?

shipping, and manufacturing.

People are horrible at learning.

So are robots.

Not for long.

Yes, and that in turn will eliminate or at least heavily transform associated business. In t-shirt business for example it will literally destroy the current model where cotton is being shipped to malaria to make cloth which is subsequently shipped to Bangladesh to make these t-shirts.

I get that part... it would put a lot of Bnagladeshis and Malarians (people with Malaria? ) out of a job. I see the streamlining of MANUFACTURING and the fact that Nike, Adidas, Under Armor etc will replace sweatshop labor with robot labor.

More than that.

I missed the part where this leads to people buying t-shirt droids and making their own shirts at home. I don't see that connection AT ALL.

I did not mean literally at home, I mean more less locally. You would still have to go to a local shop or something like that.
Important thing that it will be not be made in Bangladesh.

I am claiming that that manufacturing will become so cheap that it would simply be pointless to even think of making a business out of it.

You live in a country where people pay up to $2.00 for a bottle of water. Do you really want to stand by that claim?

I don't see how is that relevant to anything.

My claims ARE reflected in the history and reality. You yourself with your laser printer is an example of that.

An example of WHAT? You are claiming that manufacturing will be "so cheap it would be pointless to even think about making a business out of it."

But newspapers still exist; professionally printed and bound books still exist; hardcopy books still exist, even at a time when digital copies of books have eliminated the NEED to print books in the first place.

newspapers are dying

In other words, the technology you describe ALREADY EXISTS for printed books, and your prediction did not come true. There's either something wrong with your prediction, or there's something wrong with reality.

Nothing is wrong with my predictions, Tape recorders are dead.

Fact is, manufacturing is becoming smaller and smaller part of the whole economy

No, not smaller. Just more efficient.

Yes, smaller overall and more importantly it will become less concentrated.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

shipping, and manufacturing.

How much does it cost to manufacture a T-shirt in your living room?
How much does it cost to ship a box of T-shirts from your house?
How does owning a robot eliminate these costs?

Not for long.

Longer than you think.

I did not mean literally at home, I mean more less locally. You would still have to go to a local shop or something like that.

Same question. You've given me NO reason to think local clothing stores will go through the trouble of manufacturing products on-site instead of centralizing the manufacturing task to someone who specializes at that.

The same exact thing continues to happen with computer technology: a Windows 95 equivalent computer is cheap enough that an eight year old could buy one with his allowance. But IBM's "Watson" isn't running on a dollar store computer, and "Siri" isn't taking jobs as a medical consultant. The same technology that might allow your local Old Navy store to manufacture jeans on site for $5 a pair allows the main plant in, say, upstate New York to manufacture them for 20 cents and complete them to a higher standard of quality.

I don't see how is that relevant to anything.

You don't see how people paying around $4.00 per liter for a product that comes out of your kitchen sink is relevant to anything?

You're predicting that the ease of manufacturing locally will put big manufacturers out of business. I'm pointing out to you that we have entire businesses that manufacture BOTTLED WATER and still manage to be profitable. They accomplish this by providing nothing whatsoever except for the perception of improved quality and the convenience of being portable, and that for most Americans is worth $4.00 a liter.

The reason why the existence of tap water didn't put Evian or Aquafina out of business is EXACTLY the reason why robotic manufacturing won't put big manufacturers out of business, and exactly the reason why an increase in automation will not directly benefit local businesses. Nobody buys a dozen inkjet printers and says "Hurray, I'm a publisher now!"

In other words, the technology you describe ALREADY EXISTS for printed books, and your prediction did not come true. There's either something wrong with your prediction, or there's something wrong with reality.

Nothing is wrong with my predictions

Other than the fact that their basic premises have been proven COMPLETELY wrong?

Yes, smaller overall and more importantly it will become less concentrated.

Again, that is exactly what DIDN'T happen when this technology became available for printed documents, cars and bottled water. Hell, we've had the technology to manufacture meals in our own homes for CENTURIES, but that didn't prevent the creation of pre-cooked microwave dinners or "just add water" instant noodles. But even now, years after the invention of the electric food processor, most people don't make applesauce from scratch, they go to the store and buy Motts applesauce in a jar.

All of the things you claim SHOULD have happened already. But they haven't, and they aren't going to, because the logistics of large-scale manufacturing still strongly favor large, specialized, centralized manufacturers even in the age of automation and thinking machines.

Show me a technology that allows you to manufacture any product you want out of the contents of your dumpster, and you might have something. Until then, this is just another "soon we'll have flying cars!" non-prediction.

 

[barbos]

Bottled water business is a scam. And by the way, that water is made very locally and using tap water. These are not big enterprises.
The fact that this kind of "business" works is just a testament to how gullible people are.

You seem to confuse automation with robots. Automation have been going on for centuries already. These "robots" they use in car manufacturing
are not really robots, they are highly specialized and computerized tools. You need to create the whole infrastructure with different "robots" and then program them for that to work, In the end it will be cheaper than to use humans of course, but you need huge production volumes to achieve that because investment in infrastructure is huge. When I talk about robots I mean the ones which can literally replace humans in every regard, they can think, learn and don't need any more programming, that will lower a threshold for robot use significantly to the point where they can be used for jobs other than huge volume productions. Right now, humans are simply cheaper for low volume productions.

 

[ZiprHead]

Bottled water business is a scam. And by the way, that water is made very locally and using tap water. These are not big enterprises.

" Ice Mountain sources their water from two groundwater wells at Sanctuary Spring in Mecosta County, Michigan and/or Evart Spring in Evart, Michigan."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Mountain_(water)

 

[barbos]

Bottled water business is a scam. And by the way, that water is made very locally and using tap water. These are not big enterprises.

" Ice Mountain sources their water from two groundwater wells at Sanctuary Spring in Mecosta County, Michigan and/or Evart Spring in Evart, Michigan."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Mountain_(water)

Kinda makes the name "Ice Mountain" name meaningless. On the other hand I am kinda glad they are not using ice mountain water cause that would still be pointless and more wasteful.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

These "robots" they use in car manufacturing
are not really robots,

Then your use of the word "robots" refers to something other than the standard definition of the term.

What ARE you talking about, then? Smart AIs? Sentient machines? Humanoid androids? HumanLIKE androids? Surrogate humans? All of those have further implications you have clearly not taken any time whatsoever to consider.

When I talk about robots I mean the ones which can literally replace humans in every regard, they can think, learn and don't need any more programming

In other words, imaginary scifi robots that don't really exist, aren't likely to EVER exist, and in any case would not exist in any society we would currently recognize or any economy that functions in a way we are now familiar with.

Which, in any case, is not actually a "robot" but is technically an "android" or "artificial person." The utility of which becomes quite dubious when you consider that a machine of sufficient intelligence to be able to replace a human being is a machine intelligent enough to ask the question "Why am I taking orders from YOU?"

 

[barbos]

Then your use of the word "robots" refers to something other than the standard definition of the term.

What ARE you talking about, then? Smart AIs? Sentient machines? Humanoid androids? HumanLIKE androids? Surrogate humans? All of those have further implications you have clearly not taken any time whatsoever to consider.

When I talk about robots I mean the ones which can literally replace humans in every regard, they can think, learn and don't need any more programming

In other words, imaginary scifi robots that don't really exist, aren't likely to EVER exist, and in any case would not exist in any society we would currently recognize or any economy that functions in a way we are now familiar with.

Which, in any case, is not actually a "robot" but is technically an "android" or "artificial person." The utility of which becomes quite dubious when you consider that a machine of sufficient intelligence to be able to replace a human being is a machine intelligent enough to ask the question "Why am I taking orders from YOU?"

I think I explained rather well the difference between "robots" currently used by car makers and robots which are about to kick humans ass.
Yes, they don't exist yet, but they will pretty soon.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Then your use of the word "robots" refers to something other than the standard definition of the term.

What ARE you talking about, then? Smart AIs? Sentient machines? Humanoid androids? HumanLIKE androids? Surrogate humans? All of those have further implications you have clearly not taken any time whatsoever to consider.


In other words, imaginary scifi robots that don't really exist, aren't likely to EVER exist, and in any case would not exist in any society we would currently recognize or any economy that functions in a way we are now familiar with.

Which, in any case, is not actually a "robot" but is technically an "android" or "artificial person." The utility of which becomes quite dubious when you consider that a machine of sufficient intelligence to be able to replace a human being is a machine intelligent enough to ask the question "Why am I taking orders from YOU?"

I think I explained rather well the difference between "robots" currently used by car makers and robots which are about to kick humans ass.

Yes. The latter is a figment of your imagination, the former is what I and the rest of the English-speaking world call "robots."

And no, they will not exist "pretty soon." It will be a miracle if anything remotely like that was out of the prototype stage by the time my grandchildren reach retirement.

 

[barbos]

I think I explained rather well the difference between "robots" currently used by car makers and robots which are about to kick humans ass.

Yes. The latter is a figment of your imagination, the former is what I and the rest of the English-speaking world call "robots."

No, they are not a figment. Companies like IBM are actually working on it.

And no, they will not exist "pretty soon." It will be a miracle if anything remotely like that was out of the prototype stage by the time my grandchildren reach retirement.

You are pretty blind then.

 

[bilby]

Multi-purpose robots are not an efficient way to do anything - a purpose built robot will almost always be a better option.

Shit, our entire educational system is designed around taking multi-purpose humans, and getting them specialised.

The guy who performs heart transplants doesn't also mop the operating theatre floor, and for the exact same reasons, the robot that performs heart transplants won't also be used to mop the floor of the operating theatre.

Diverse abilities are only good when there is not enough specialist work to fill a robot's (or a human specialist's) time. If there are only enough cardiac surgery patients to fill half of a surgeon's working hours though, it still makes more sense to have half as many surgeons working, than it does to have the surgeon spend half his time operating, and the other half cleaning.
In a world of 7.5 billion humans, there is enough work to occupy at least one robot 24x7x365 doing pretty much anything - even the most infrequently required tasks start to be needed continuously when you multiply the frequency of need by 7.5 billion.

Containerised shipping is INCREDIBLY cheap, even with a big labour element in the cost - although that has fallen dramatically in recent decades, and big container ships now circumnavigate the world with only a handful of crew.

Automated (self-driving) trucks will cut shipping costs even more dramatically in a few years; the cost of truck drivers is a large fraction of the cost of shipping an item from, say, London to Sydney, despite the vast majority of that trip being by sea - the cost per tonne from Harwich Dock to the docks at Port Botany is somewhat less than the cost of trucking the goods from London to Harwich, and then from Port Botany into Sydney.

As transport becomes more automated, and therefore cheaper, the benefit of having a handful of factories for any given product, manufacturing in bulk goods for shipment worldwide, will only increase; manufacturing locally can't compete, as the economies of scale when making a million units in a 24x7x365 mega factory will always outweigh the transport cost savings for a local factory making a few dozen units a month.

Interestingly, as the automation of production progresses, factories will move away from the cheap labour of the developing world, and back to the high-tech and reliable infrastructure of the first world. But this move won't bring many jobs with it - a tiny number of engineers are needed to maintain the factories, but not a single worker is needed in the manufacturing process.

In such a scenario, it is crazy to expect people to find work; and it is inhuman to give the whole (or even majority) of the proceeds of the manufacture of goods to the owners of the means of production. Most people will be unemployable; and society will be able to afford to keep them in comfort regardless. If society chooses not to do so, civil unrest is the inevitable result. Our entire economic system will need to be re-modelled to handle the idea that huge swathes of humanity cannot work, and should not be expected to.

This should already be happening.