You are incorrect. As AI improves robots will most certainly be able to figure out how to both improve themselves, and develop better robots for needs that WE haven't foreseen, but that the robots do.
Red:
And what credible evidence have you to show that you are correct? You will notice that I didn't just respond to you with merely my opinion. I presented a conclusion shown by rigorously developed research. And to that your reply is, "You are incorrect." Based on what? Your saying so? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
320, 'Strong AI' is able to do that,
in theory, and the software is coming along that will allow programs to not only design programs (given the specs) but to also devise what the specs should be, what the problem is and what it's solution requires.
That is the goal of people advancing 'Strong AI' and why so many others deeply oppose and conjure up stories and comparisons to the Terminators 'Sky Net'.
Blue:
I think you have missed the thesis point I made with regard to the foreseeable limits of robotic technology/AI:
The one thing a robot or software program cannot and will at no point in the foreseeable future be able to do is figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted, and in turn act to design, build and deploy it/them.
The critical element in that statement is "figure out that some other kind of robot is needed or wanted."
Other:
There's good reason for why that 52% see things as they do. I suggest folks not among them read this:
There is little doubt in my mind that over time machines will come about that can more effectively perform many of the tasks humans today perform for compensation. As I said earlier, the thing for humans to do is focus their skills on performing those tasks that machines cannot, not worry about not preparing for and finding a job doing those things a machine that is, in the near term (within the span of one's career), foreseeably among the things a machine can perform.
While finding areas where machines cannot outperform humans is good advice. There is
a much larger problem that that advice does not solve. And that is around 50% of vocations vanishing almost at once. Jobs that a lot of people have put themselves in a large amount of debt through a college education to get. A lot of these people are struggling with other debt as well, and living paycheck to paycheck. What happens to the economy when no one can afford the goods and services that the robots produce, when these folks default on their debt, loose their houses?
Just because a robot cannot preform a certain task, it does not mean that that job will become high in demand. And now you'll have a lot more people jockeying for those jobs
Don't get me wrong I am excited about the coming age of robotics. If we handle it correctly it can be very good for us, but also very bad if we handle it incorrectly. A universal government salary is not the answer, look at the folks who are essentially on a government salary in your nearest section 8 housing district. Not the best solution, especially when you take into consideration that almost half of the US does not pay into taxes, imagine cutting those who do pay taxes in half once again. Where is that money going to come from? And how much value will that money actually have?
Red:
TY for recognizing that and saying as much.
Blue:
Well seeking
a career vocation rather than a career profession is part of the problem.
- I don't know of anyone who goes to college/grad school for the purpose of acquiring the skills for a vocation, except perhaps clergy, and specifically Jesuit priests for I don't know that any other clerics are required without exception to have at least a master's degree in something.
- I don't know anyone who was/is a high performer (3.7 or higher GPA) in college and who, assuming they didn't "screw up" somehow, is having the problems you've noted.
- I do know of plenty of mediocre performers who have the challenges you noted.
The key point, however, is that it's clear most vocational careers will be replaced in the not too far off future by technology, robots and software will eventually will do that to some aspects of some professions. The professions that AI won't be able to do that to are those that design and innovate new robots and software based upon one's having noticed a need for "something new/different" as goes the technology itself. Other professions that AI/robots won't be able to replace are those that call for an understanding of human nature, that understanding being used to make judgment calls that derive from and depend upon more than pure logic, in order to perform them.
Put another way, fields that require strong analytical and idea development skills not executional ability are the ones that are not at risk of becoming, at least in the near term, obsolete due to AI/robotics. Those careers require higher education, but they also pay very well. Just ask any successful attorney, investment banker, product designer, advertising manager, B2B account/sales manager, artist (static or performing), etc. In short jobs that call for one work with/on things and provide solutions driven by examining them, that is, by examining the physical world, and applying a rote mode of problem solving can and will be made obsolete by technology. For example, I can't say when, but the time will come (probably no time soon) when some types of surgery, for example, will not need a human surgeon; however, it'll be a very long time before machines of any sort will be able to analyze what's wrong with a patient and determine that surgery is needed.
Green:
??? If a robot can perform the task and some do so now, it's all but certain that in the foreseeable future that task will be demanded in roughly the same proportion and that robots will most likely perform it. It is only the tasks that robots cannot or won't in the foreseeable future efficiently perform that will be in demand. For example, take the customer facing jobs in retail stores -- food or garments, for example. The only reason those tasks aren't "robotized" now is because the labor cost is so low. If/when the labor cost becomes high enough, it'll become
economically more efficient/beneficial for the business owner to replace labor with capital. Recognizing that really obvious reality of economics is among the "writings on the wall" of which I've referred to over and over in this forum.
Note:
Above I've vastly simplified the calculus behind economic substitution of capital for labor. Folks who want to get a better understanding of the concept, the math that shows when a business owner would make the move to replace their workers with machines can be found in the following reference documents as well as in the one noted at the link in the preceding paragraph (The one linked above is from the 1960s and its conclusions now comprise a meaningful share of the instruction/content B-School and economics students must master. Thus one can see the economic realities aren't poorly understood or even unknown, only ignored or poorly applied by folks who don't know of them or understand them).
Lastly, thank you,
sakinago, for taking the cues, moving beyond the purely "knee jerk" level of banter, and introducing a line of economic discussion -- substitution and elasticity -- commensurate with the topic.
