usmbguest5318
Gold Member
I don't think 85% (or more) of the population is that inept, but if it be so that 85% are, well then, yes.
No, I don't.So that is your threshold; beat the AI or be declared inept?
Then Gary Kasperov is inept at chess, for Gawds sake.
You seriously need to rethunk your grok here, dude.
Absurd is the notion that if one is not supreme, one is therefore inept. With regard to any endeavor and in any community, there is always someone who's the best at it and scads of others who, though not the best, add value to the pursuit and are thus not inept.
There is no respite here for the competent or the inept as people will be far more expensive than robotic labor.
There is a need for the community of working class people to see to our interests, and damn anyone that gets in our way.
BTW, there's a huge gap between "loosing one's job" and "perishing." Even now, were the matter of who has a job and who does not so binary as you've implied with your chess model, very few people would today have a job.
All that rhetorical poop aside, in todays economy, having a job is the difference between keeping ones home and family secure vrs living on the street.
I thought you had some compassion and I am very disappointed to see you do not.
Good day sir.There is no respite here for the competent or the inept as people will be far more expensive than robotic labor.
There is a need for the community of working class people to see to our interests, and damn anyone that gets in our way.
Your assertions/expectations about whether producers/capitalists will purchase capital rather than labor in order to produce their outputs ignores the concepts of comparative and absolute advantage. Those concepts apply every bit as much to whether one will produce cups rather than plates as it does to whether one will use labor or capital to produce the "cups" or "plates."
To see some examples of how those concepts play out even now, watch an Ovation Network program called Style Factory. Time and time again, what you'll observe is that in the "rag trade," even though it is possible to build machines that can perform pretty much any task, producers do not use machines to perform every task.
I observe another "rag trade" example when I buy a suit. Is it possible to build and implement a machine that suit producers might use to take my measurements? Sure it is. Do tailors use such machines? No. Why not? The answer is found in applying the concepts of absolute and comparative advantage to whether to buy labor or capital. No matter how much such a machine costs, it's not worth it to do so. Maybe there will someday be a tailor who has a high enough volume that s/he will find it economically sound to purchase a machine to do that, but I doubt it. Could there come a time when common be "walk-up" measurement stations where people go in, let the machine take their measurements and send them to a production facility that in turn produces the garment and mails it to the customer? Maybe, but that day is a long way off, if it even arrives.
Ultimately, however, the question of the role of robots comes down to one thing: there is no basis for thinking robots will obtain person status such they can be capitalists, owners of businesses and other productive organizations. It should come as a shock to nobody that being a capitalist is what will matter for when our nation was founded, everything about the model the Founders envisioned and implemented was geared to favor the owners of business. (The current and hotly debated GOP tax bill is yet another manifestation of the very same notions.) Quite simply, if one cannot find a way to be a business owner and thrive as such, yes, one will likely be among those who perish.
I have compassion, but its nature apparently differs from what you may wish it were.I thought you had some compassion and I am very disappointed to see you do not.
If you have no business owners then you have no employees, at least in the private sector. Or maybe you are advocating for the socialist/communist society where the gov't owns and runs everything. Which maybe sounds nice in theory but has never worked out well in reality.
So those who are not business owners will perish? Who's going to do the work then?
Or maybe you are advocating for the socialist/communist society where the gov't owns and runs everything.
I wasn't. Did you not read the part where I made clear that the economic system/enviroment implicit to my remarks is capitalism?
If you have no business owners then you have no employees, at least in the private sector.
In what capitalist environment be there no business owners?
So those who are not business owners will perish? Who's going to do the work then?
Is the answer to that question not obvious by what I wrote? What part of the following statements and linked content did you make no effort to understand?
Your assertions/expectations about whether producers/capitalists will purchase capital rather than labor in order to produce their outputs ignores the concepts of comparative and absolute advantage. Those concepts apply every bit as much to whether one will produce cups rather than plates as it does to whether one will use labor or capital to produce the "cups" or "plates."
Is it possible to build and implement a machine that suit producers might use to take my measurements? Sure it is. Do tailors use such machines? No. Why not? The answer is found in applying the concepts of absolute and comparative advantage to whether to buy labor or capital.
there is no basis for thinking robots will obtain person status such they can be capitalists, owners of businesses and other productive organizations.