Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Robots and AI

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2013 7:18:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I want them to create a quantum powered computer!

The idea of AI gives me the willies to be quite honest. I don't want my computer thinking for itself.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 5:54:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 7:18:29 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I want them to create a quantum powered computer!

Quantum powered? I assume you just mean a quantum computer. I'm not aware of one that is actually powered through any quantum means.

A quantum computer does exist, depending on who you talk to. http://www.wired.com...


The idea of AI gives me the willies to be quite honest. I don't want my computer thinking for itself.

It would be an interesting concept. Dangerous, but interesting.

You could get something like Sonny, from IRobot. Alternatively, you could get something like V.I.K.I, also from IRobot.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 2:46:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 4:44:29 PM, pozessed wrote:
http://www-03.ibm.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

This stuff is very exciting for me. It seems that robots are on the verge of being able to perform the basic manual labour tasks necessary to human survival such as being able to build houses, cultivate and harvest food and extract natural resources from the earth. If we get to that point, a technological welfare state would have to be arranged, and work would be optional since the basics of survival will have all been automated. Additionally, with robotic labourers working day and night growing food and build house, starvation and homelessness would be eliminated. Political disputes involving access to resources, such as border disputes, would be eliminated as well. I think that governments should invest heavily in robotics to help hasten this utopia.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 9:15:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 2:46:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/13/2013 4:44:29 PM, pozessed wrote:
http://www-03.ibm.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

This stuff is very exciting for me. It seems that robots are on the verge of being able to perform the basic manual labour tasks necessary to human survival such as being able to build houses, cultivate and harvest food and extract natural resources from the earth.
Ergo, a TON more unemployment as an enormous number of people are displaced by robots in the workforce. I am not saying that it should not happen, but let's not kid ourselves about this fact. Of course, there will be many new jobs related to manufacture and maintenance of labor-robots, but no where near as many jobs as will be taken up by labor-robots; and let's face it, not everyone will be capable of maintaining labor-robots. This not only means that more and more human jobs will be taken by labor-robots, but it also means the amount of available jobs for humans will also decrease.

If we get to that point, a technological welfare state would have to be arranged, and work would be optional since the basics of survival will have all been automated.
A welfare state will be the end of liberty and civilization as we know it. Any ways, how can you trust the "evil corporations" to make these robots? Also, operating and manufacturing robots contributes to Global Warming ehrrr I mean Climate Change.

Additionally, with robotic labourers working day and night growing food and build house, starvation and homelessness would be eliminated.
What? If you think "cheap labor" solves all economic problems, then you know nothing about economics. There is already cheap labor that's cheaper than ANY robot yet economic problems still persist.

Political disputes involving access to resources, such as border disputes, would be eliminated as well.
Cheap labor doesn't solve these issues; if that were the case China, India, Pakistan, etc. would have no political disputes involving access to resources.

I think that governments should invest heavily in robotics to help hasten this utopia.
Lol! Utopias are as real and possible as square-circles! The only thing you've described above is a dystopia.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 9:32:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/13/2013 7:18:29 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I want them to create a quantum powered computer!

The idea of AI gives me the willies to be quite honest. I don't want my computer thinking for itself.

Don't worry, they are still machines, still just an aggregate of many simple gates. If they include random numbers somehow, that's still just a sensor, but one turned on it's head to maximize noise over signal.

Thought, in my opinion, is something metaphysical. It can be emulated on computers, but at the end of the day they are still physical machines.
This space for rent.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 1:17:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 9:15:20 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/14/2013 2:46:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/13/2013 4:44:29 PM, pozessed wrote:
http://www-03.ibm.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

This stuff is very exciting for me. It seems that robots are on the verge of being able to perform the basic manual labour tasks necessary to human survival such as being able to build houses, cultivate and harvest food and extract natural resources from the earth.
Ergo, a TON more unemployment as an enormous number of people are displaced by robots in the workforce. I am not saying that it should not happen, but let's not kid ourselves about this fact. Of course, there will be many new jobs related to manufacture and maintenance of labor-robots, but no where near as many jobs as will be taken up by labor-robots; and let's face it, not everyone will be capable of maintaining labor-robots. This not only means that more and more human jobs will be taken by labor-robots, but it also means the amount of available jobs for humans will also decrease.

You say that like it's a bad thing. That's the point: work is optional when robots can produce food, build houses and so on.


If we get to that point, a technological welfare state would have to be arranged, and work would be optional since the basics of survival will have all been automated.

A welfare state will be the end of liberty and civilization as we know it.

Liberty and civilization, as we know it, could be improved - don't you think?

Any ways, how can you trust the "evil corporations" to make these robots?

I don't think corporations are necessarily evil. I said a welfare state would have to be arranged to ensure that the wealth that the robots create (meaning food and housing, etc) would be justly distributed.

Also, operating and manufacturing robots contributes to Global Warming ehrrr I mean Climate Change.

It's not a perfect solution, therefore it's not a good solution? That's the nirvana fallacy.


Additionally, with robotic labourers working day and night growing food and build house, starvation and homelessness would be eliminated.

What? If you think "cheap labor" solves all economic problems, then you know nothing about economics.

Well, I didn't say "all" economic problems. If robots can build houses and extract resources from the earth, then that's not cheap labor, that's basically free labor. If people are ensured free food and free housing, a lot of problems will be solved.

There is already cheap labor that's cheaper than ANY robot yet economic problems still persist.

I'm talking about virutally free labor. Cheap labor is still a large expense to corporations (and, therefore, society as a whole) when taken in the aggregate.


Political disputes involving access to resources, such as border disputes, would be eliminated as well.
Cheap labor doesn't solve these issues; if that were the case China, India, Pakistan, etc. would have no political disputes involving access to resources.


Virtually free labor. The only expense would be an administrative body to oversee the proper deployment of this robotic workforce and to ensure their yields are justly distributed.

I think that governments should invest heavily in robotics to help hasten this utopia.

Lol! Utopias are as real and possible as square-circles! The only thing you've described above is a dystopia.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Of course you could adduce the utopian efforts of the past, but that would be an appeal to ignorance. In other words, it would be fallacious to argue that, since the utopians of the past failed, a utopia can't exist.

Anyway, I was using "utopia" in a sort of a off-handed manner. However, I think that most people would agree that if robots were doing almost all the manual work, at virtually no expense to society, we would be living in a pretty wonderful world.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 2:37:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 1:17:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/17/2013 9:15:20 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/14/2013 2:46:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/13/2013 4:44:29 PM, pozessed wrote:
http://www-03.ibm.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

This stuff is very exciting for me. It seems that robots are on the verge of being able to perform the basic manual labour tasks necessary to human survival such as being able to build houses, cultivate and harvest food and extract natural resources from the earth.
Ergo, a TON more unemployment as an enormous number of people are displaced by robots in the workforce. I am not saying that it should not happen, but let's not kid ourselves about this fact. Of course, there will be many new jobs related to manufacture and maintenance of labor-robots, but no where near as many jobs as will be taken up by labor-robots; and let's face it, not everyone will be capable of maintaining labor-robots. This not only means that more and more human jobs will be taken by labor-robots, but it also means the amount of available jobs for humans will also decrease.
You say that like it's a bad thing. That's the point: work is optional when robots can produce food, build houses and so on.
Work is never optional and unemployment is indeed a bad thing. If humans don't work then how will they be able to pay for all the things they need: food, housing, and so on? Answer: they will not be able to.

If we get to that point, a technological welfare state would have to be arranged, and work would be optional since the basics of survival will have all been automated.
A welfare state will be the end of liberty and civilization as we know it.
Liberty and civilization, as we know it, could be improved - don't you think?
Absolutely, but judging by the direction that things are going today, I'd say we are getting away from that goal. Not to mention the fact that a welfare state is anathema to liberty.

Any ways, how can you trust the "evil corporations" to make these robots?
I don't think corporations are necessarily evil. I said a welfare state would have to be arranged to ensure that the wealth that the robots create (meaning food and housing, etc) would be justly distributed.
There's never a reason to create a welfare state, unless your goal is to thwart liberty. Also, it would be up to the owners and/or operators of the robots to decide what to do with the wealth they create. The free market can be used to justly distribute goods and services.

Also, operating and manufacturing robots contributes to Global Warming ehrrr I mean Climate Change.
It's not a perfect solution, therefore it's not a good solution? That's the nirvana fallacy.
So you are for the more efficient use of fossil fuels & nuclear energy? I am definitely in favor of these imperfect solutions.

Additionally, with robotic labourers working day and night growing food and build house, starvation and homelessness would be eliminated.
What? If you think "cheap labor" solves all economic problems, then you know nothing about economics.
Well, I didn't say "all" economic problems.
No, but it sure seemed implied.

If robots can build houses and extract resources from the earth, then that's not cheap labor, that's basically free labor.
Well, I there isn't really any such thing as free, especially not in the way you described it above. It cost money to: design, build, & maintain robots; materials & property on which to build houses, cost money; extracted resources cost money... As you can see, same old economic problems, only with potentially cheaper labor.

If people are ensured free food and free housing, a lot of problems will be solved.
A lot of problems will be "solved" at the expense of creating bigger problems for others: the "people" that ensure the "free stuff" need to figure out how to pay for it. Cheap labor doesn't make other stuff free.

There is already cheap labor that's cheaper than ANY robot yet economic problems still persist.
I'm talking about virutally free labor. Cheap labor is still a large expense to corporations (and, therefore, society as a whole) when taken in the aggregate.
Cheap labor is NOT a large expense in sweatshops in Pakistan, China, India, etc. Again, robot labor is not free labor; it isn't even necessarily cheap labor.

Political disputes involving access to resources, such as border disputes, would be eliminated as well.
Cheap labor doesn't solve these issues; if that were the case China, India, Pakistan, etc. would have no political disputes involving access to resources.
Virtually free labor.
You keep using that phrase as if it means or implies something that it does not.
http://i3.kym-cdn.com...

The only expense would be an administrative body to oversee the proper deployment of this robotic workforce and to ensure their yields are justly distributed.
Obviously not: robots cost money to design, build, run, maintain, etc. See previous sections above.

I think that governments should invest heavily in robotics to help hasten this utopia.
Lol! Utopias are as real and possible as square-circles! The only thing you've described above is a dystopia.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I did present evidence: the dystopia that you have described.

Of course you could adduce the utopian efforts of the past, but that would be an appeal to ignorance. In other words, it would be fallacious to argue that, since the utopians of the past failed, a utopia can't exist.
Perfection does not exist; you yourself alluded to that earlier.

Anyway, I was using "utopia" in a sort of a off-handed manner. However, I think that most people would agree that if robots were doing almost all the manual work, at virtually no expense to society, we would be living in a pretty wonderful world.
Only those who do not know how the world actually works would agree to that. Why would anyone assume that robots do not incur virtually any expense? Last I checked, robots cost money to design, build, run, and maintain!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 3:47:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What about the AI? Won't the AI be able to help us with economical woes?
What if we have a new means of energy? For shits and giggles assume we can pull electricity out of thin air and everyone is self reliant on easy to build generators.
If robots were made of abundant materials they would be cheap enough for everyone to own one. Especially if they were manufactured with a robot workforce.
Robots will probably be able to build and maintain each other if we program them to. 1 robot can build another robot in a day. 2 robots can build 2 more robots in a day. 4 robots can build 4 more robots, etc. Then they can be programmed to build more or maintain the existing. Not that hard to fathom.
Robots could also gather the materials needed to build more robots. They could even go to the extent of using raw materials and refining them to what they need for maintenance and manufacturing.
Supercomputers could improve upon previous programming specs to ensure our robots AI and labor efficiency are continually increasing compared to previously built robots.
If robots were our labor force and energy was free, the only thing left of value is human life, food, water, and information. Even human life might seem worthless to some, but I doubt that would be the majorities opinion.

It is amazing to think of what could be possible if a robot revolution were to take place. I'm almost positive a revolution like this will take place, whether the majority wants it to or not.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:06:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I forgot, property would have value as well, but not as it does now. Maybe more valuable maybe less valuable. I have no clue.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:34:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 2:37:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2013 1:17:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/17/2013 9:15:20 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/14/2013 2:46:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/13/2013 4:44:29 PM, pozessed wrote:
http://www-03.ibm.com...
Work is never optional and unemployment is indeed a bad thing. If humans don't work then how will they be able to pay for all the things they need: food, housing, and so on? Answer: they will not be able to.

I don't understand how you can be missing so much of what I'm saying.

If robots can produces food, build houses and extract resources from the earth, and there is a body to govern the distribution of the wealth these robots generate, then work will be optional since robots will be tending to the production of life's necessities.

Absolutely, but judging by the direction that things are going today, I'd say we are getting away from that goal. Not to mention the fact that a welfare state is anathema to liberty.

If robots are taking care of the basics of survival, there will be more liberty since people will have more time to pursue their owe interests.

There's never a reason to create a welfare state, unless your goal is to thwart liberty. Also, it would be up to the owners and/or operators of the robots to decide what to do with the wealth they create. The free market can be used to justly distribute goods and services.

If you left it up to the free market, then we probably would be in trouble. People really would be out of work.

I think the reason you are arguing in the manner you are is because you are thinking within a pre-robotic mentality. Sure, welfare states in our world are detrimental to the creation of wealth. But when we reach a point where robots can do almost all manual jobs, a governing body will need to be created to ensure that robots serve the whole of humanity; not just the handful of capitalists who own the robots.

So you are for the more efficient use of fossil fuels & nuclear energy? I am definitely in favor of these imperfect solutions.

I don't really see the relevance of fossil fuels to this discussion. Autonomous robots will use fuels just like any other machine. It will still probably be a problem, and there will still be people trying to solve it.

No, but it sure seemed implied.


Well, I there isn't really any such thing as free, especially not in the way you described it above. It cost money to: design, build, & maintain robots; materials & property on which to build houses, cost money; extracted resources cost money... As you can see, same old economic problems, only with potentially cheaper labor.

Yes, it cost money to design robots. That's not a manual task though. If robots can extract resources from the earth and build houses, we should expect them to be able build replicas of themselves from the raw materials they've extracted. That would be a free cost. If robots can build houses then they can build the factories they 'reproduce' in. So no: not the same old economic problems at all.

A lot of problems will be "solved" at the expense of creating bigger problems for others: the "people" that ensure the "free stuff" need to figure out how to pay for it. Cheap labor doesn't make other stuff free.

Not sure what you mean.

I had said that work will be optional. However, there will still be jobs, just not many manual ones. These workers may be taxed to pay for the administrative overhead of running a robotic welfare state. This may sound unfair or even undoable. However, when robots are able to preform these manual tasks, society is going to have to come up with something that doesn't leave half of humanity pennyless. What do you propose would be the proper solution to having a free robotic working force such as the one I'm saying is likely to come into existence.

Cheap labor is NOT a large expense in sweatshops in Pakistan, China, India, etc. Again, robot labor is not free labor; it isn't even necessarily cheap labor.

You keep using that phrase as if it means or implies something that it does not.
http://i3.kym-cdn.com...

I mean to say that robots won't ask for a pay check. I qualify it with "virtual" because I understand that a body will have to be created to oversee that the robotic labour is deployed correctly and that the distribution of the wealth they create is just.

Obviously not: robots cost money to design, build, run, maintain, etc. See previous sections above.

I covered this.

I did present evidence: the dystopia that you have described.

Perfection does not exist; you yourself alluded to that earlier.

Why are we talking about "perfection"? I said I used "utopia" in an off-handed way.

Only those who do not know how the world actually works would agree to that. Why would anyone assume that robots do not incur virtually any expense? Last I checked, robots cost money to design, build, run, and maintain!

The next time you want to say this, read the following:

I (vbaculum) am proposing that one day, robotic technology will develop to a point where they can produce food, build buildings, and extract resources from the earth in an almost completely autonomous way. I said all this in my original post. Given these assumptions, we can conlude that they will extract their own fuel, and reproduce and maintain themselves, Designing better robots will be done by a tiny force of engineers who will be dwarfed by size of the robotic populations that they create.

***

Please try to understand my arguments and don't make assumption about what I'm saying. I'd like to continue talking to you about this but I don't want to have to continue repeating myself. Thanks.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:40:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I may sound like a doofus for saying this, but I've wondered if a zero mass computer is possible in physics. The idea is that zero mass computing would transcend time because it's computation would move infinitely fast. The benefit would be that it would operate as if it had 1000 years to crunch data but express it instantly.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:49:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 3:47:27 PM, pozessed wrote:
What about the AI? Won't the AI be able to help us with economical woes?

Definitely. In the future, AI will have a major impact on the world. My conjectures about robots in this thread didn't involve much AI other than the improvements to computer vision and machine learning algorithms that will need to be improved on before robots can really replace manual laborers on the scale I've been suggesting.

AI is very interesting because eventually we will be able to create an AI that can create a better AI than we can. Then the new AI will create a better AI than the old one did, and so on. Once that happens, forget about it.

What if we have a new means of energy? For shits and giggles assume we can pull electricity out of thin air and everyone is self reliant on easy to build generators.
If robots were made of abundant materials they would be cheap enough for everyone to own one. Especially if they were manufactured with a robot workforce.
Robots will probably be able to build and maintain each other if we program them to. 1 robot can build another robot in a day. 2 robots can build 2 more robots in a day. 4 robots can build 4 more robots, etc. Then they can be programmed to build more or maintain the existing. Not that hard to fathom.
Robots could also gather the materials needed to build more robots. They could even go to the extent of using raw materials and refining them to what they need for maintenance and manufacturing.
Supercomputers could improve upon previous programming specs to ensure our robots AI and labor efficiency are continually increasing compared to previously built robots.
If robots were our labor force and energy was free, the only thing left of value is human life, food, water, and information. Even human life might seem worthless to some, but I doubt that would be the majorities opinion.


It is amazing to think of what could be possible if a robot revolution were to take place. I'm almost positive a revolution like this will take place, whether the majority wants it to or not.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:52:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:40:18 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
I may sound like a doofus for saying this, but I've wondered if a zero mass computer is possible in physics. The idea is that zero mass computing would transcend time because it's computation would move infinitely fast. The benefit would be that it would operate as if it had 1000 years to crunch data but express it instantly.

I've never heard of one being envisioned. I think the next step in that direction would be quantum computing.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 5:43:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 3:47:27 PM, pozessed wrote:
What about the AI? Won't the AI be able to help us with economical woes?
Yes, but it won't make the laws of economics disappear no more than an airplane doesn't make the law of gravity disappear.

What if we have a new means of energy? For shits and giggles assume we can pull electricity out of thin air and everyone is self reliant on easy to build generators.
Assuming we are not violating the laws of thermodynamics...let's say it was "cold fusion". So this would bring the price of energy way down. It would be very beneficial to an economy.

If robots were made of abundant materials they would be cheap enough for everyone to own one.
Well, the materials to make them might be cheap, but that doesn't mean the design and rest of the manufacturing process would be. Nor does it mean that any holders of intellectual property that might be required to implement said robots, be willing to license the technology. There are so many materials that go into robotics that it is very difficult for all of them to be cheap.

Especially if they were manufactured with a robot workforce.
Well, they already are in a sense, but this too doesn't change the realities of economics.

Robots will probably be able to build and maintain each other if we program them to.
Up to a certain point: there will always be a human in the loop, though.

1 robot can build another robot in a day. 2 robots can build 2 more robots in a day. 4 robots can build 4 more robots, etc. Then they can be programmed to build more or maintain the existing. Not that hard to fathom.
All this means is that efficiency goes up and so profits go up!

Robots could also gather the materials needed to build more robots. They could even go to the extent of using raw materials and refining them to what they need for maintenance and manufacturing.
Yep.

Supercomputers could improve upon previous programming specs to ensure our robots AI and labor efficiency are continually increasing compared to previously built robots.
Yep.

If robots were our labor force and energy was free, the only thing left of value is human life, food, water, and information. Even human life might seem worthless to some, but I doubt that would be the majorities opinion.
Energy still wouldn't be free, just very cheap. Regardless, none of this changes the fact that we still need to pay for stuff. Someone's gotta pay for all of that stuff you "dreamed up" above.

It is amazing to think of what could be possible if a robot revolution were to take place. I'm almost positive a revolution like this will take place, whether the majority wants it to or not.
It will be a very long time before that could ever happen. Certainly not within the next 50 to 100 years.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 6:16:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:34:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/17/2013 2:37:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Work is never optional and unemployment is indeed a bad thing. If humans don't work then how will they be able to pay for all the things they need: food, housing, and so on? Answer: they will not be able to.
I don't understand how you can be missing so much of what I'm saying.
Perhaps because what I am missing is what you are IMPLYING and not actually saying? Erroneously implying, I might add.

If robots can produces food, build houses and extract resources from the earth, and there is a body to govern the distribution of the wealth these robots generate, then work will be optional since robots will be tending to the production of life's necessities.
Where would this body get the money to pay for the design, production, sometimes failure, maintenance, of robots? Where would they get the money to run them? Where would they get the money to pay for the property on which to build houses? Where would they get the money to pay for the resources they extract from other's property? If "they" don't work then where do "they" get the money to do all those wonderful things? They can't.

If robots are taking care of the basics of survival, there will be more liberty since people will have more time to pursue their owe interests.
Well if people don't work, then they wouldn't have the means to be able to pursue their interests. Not to mention that peoples lives would depend fully on the paradoxical "governing body" in your statements above. Said governing body would dictate to you what wealth you can and cannot have. Like I said: anathema to liberty.

If you left it up to the free market, then we probably would be in trouble. People really would be out of work.
Unfortunately, history doesn't reflect your point of view. It's when markets are allowed to flourish without government masterminds, that we tend to have prosperity and plenty of work. Just look at what happened with the masterminds under Bush and now Obama.

I think the reason you are arguing in the manner you are is because you are thinking within a pre-robotic mentality.
Never heard that one before!

Sure, welfare states in our world are detrimental to the creation of wealth. But when we reach a point where robots can do almost all manual jobs, a governing body will need to be created to ensure that robots serve the whole of humanity; not just the handful of capitalists who own the robots.
Right. The masterminds that have created nothing must steal from those that created such great things, because the masterminds know better. What a wonderful example of liberty!

So you are for the more efficient use of fossil fuels & nuclear energy? I am definitely in favor of these imperfect solutions.
I don't really see the relevance of fossil fuels to this discussion.
They are an imperfect solution to the energy problem. I thought I made that quite clear?

Autonomous robots will use fuels just like any other machine. It will still probably be a problem, and there will still be people trying to solve it.
Funny, you never answered my question.

Well, there isn't really any such thing as free, especially not in the way you described it above. It costs money to: design, build, & maintain robots; materials & property on which to build houses, cost money; extracted resources cost money... As you can see, same old economic problems, only with potentially cheaper labor.
Yes, it cost money to design robots. That's not a manual task though.
Semantics rears its ugly head! It is a job that a person needs to do and would get paid for. We were talking about jobs & employment.

If robots can extract resources from the earth and build houses, we should expect them to be able build replicas of themselves from the raw materials they've extracted. That would be a free cost.
Really? I think you need to talk to the owners of the properties where you want to extract raw materials from to see how much you owe them for said materials IF they even allowed you so to begin with. You also need to buy land to build a house on and need to find out what size house or houses said home purchaser can afford. Also, you need to buy and pay for robots that can replicate other robots, and then you need to pay for the materials that those robots use to build other robots, and so forth and so on...

If robots can build houses then they can build the factories they 'reproduce' in. So no: not the same old economic problems at all.
And you need to pay for the factory-building robots and also for the land where to build the factory as well as the materials necessary to build the factory. Once that's done, then you need to pay for the robot-building robots to put them in the factory, and then you need to pay for the raw materials necessary to keep the factory running. Indeed the same old same old.

A lot of problems will be "solved" at the expense of creating bigger problems for others: the "people" that ensure the "free stuff" need to figure out how to pay for it. Cheap labor doesn't make other stuff free.
Not sure what you mean.
Of course not, if you did understand what I meant then you'd know basic economics.

I had said that work will be optional.
Works already optional...it's just not as undesirable as it would be in your dystopia.

However, there will still be jobs, just not many manual ones. These workers may be taxed to pay for the administrative overhead of running a robotic welfare state.

With such a tiny work force and no impetus or need to work, there wouldn't be any where near enough of a tax base to support such a leviathan! The cost of that welfare state would be orders of magnitude above what little it could take in with your model.

This may sound unfair or even undoable.
About as doable as creation ex nihilo or a making a square-circle.

However, when robots are able to preform these manual tasks, society is going to have to come up with something that doesn't leave half of humanity pennyless.
Why would robots make half of humanity penniless?

What do you propose would be the proper solution to having a free robotic working force such as the one I'm saying is likely to come into existence.
What you've described is a total dream from start to finish; there's no way to pay for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what you have dreamed up! You still haven't addressed ANY of the costs associated with your dystopia.

Cheap labor is NOT a large expense in sweatshops in Pakistan, China, India, etc. Again, robot labor is not free labor; it isn't even necessarily cheap labor.
You keep using that phrase as if it means or implies something that it does not.
http://i3.kym-cdn.com...
I mean to say that robots won't ask for a pay check.
They don't have to, but they do cost money to operate.

I qualify it with "virtual" because I understand that a body will have to be created to oversee that the robotic labour is deployed correctly and that the distribution of the wealth they create is just.
Again, you still haven't addressed ANY of the costs associated with your dystopia.

Obviously not: robots cost money to design, build, run, maintain, etc. See previous sections above.
I covered this.
No you didn't. You have yet to address the costs.

(Continued...)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 6:16:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 4:34:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/17/2013 2:37:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

(...Continued)

Only those who do not know how the world actually works would agree to that. Why would anyone assume that robots do not incur virtually any expense? Last I checked, robots cost money to design, build, run, and maintain!
The next time you want to say this, read the following:

I (vbaculum) am proposing that one day, robotic technology will develop to a point where they can produce food
Robots cannot magically produce food, this costs money. The property has an owner who needs to get paid. The seed needs to be bought from some where. The water needs to come from some where. How long are you going to go without addressing these points?

build buildings
The property that a building is built on costs money. The materials necessary to build buildings cost money; the larger the structure, the higher the materials cost.

and extract resources from the earth in an almost completely autonomous way.
The properties where the resources are extracted have owners that need to get paid IF they even allow for such a thing.

I said all this in my original post.
And you still haven't explained how you are going to pay for all of this!

Given these assumptions, we can conclude that they will extract their own fuel
From where, la la land? They need to pay the owner of the resource they want to extract.

and reproduce and maintain themselves
They need to pay the owners of the raw materials necessary for that.

Designing better robots will be done by a tiny force of engineers who will be dwarfed by size of the robotic populations that they create.
What motivation would they have to be engineers or anything for that matter, if work is optional? You're also assuming that the owners of such robotic technology will allow it to be used that way without proper remuneration. Regardless, you have yet to explain where you get the money to pay for all of this.

Please try to understand my arguments and don't make assumption about what I'm saying. I'd like to continue talking to you about this but I don't want to have to continue repeating myself. Thanks
Please try to understand that your arguments don't exist in a vacuum and that the laws of economics come into play.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 8:53:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 6:16:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2013 4:34:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 7/17/2013 2:37:52 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

(...Continued)

Only those who do not know how the world actually works would agree to that. Why would anyone assume that robots do not incur virtually any expense? Last I checked, robots cost money to design, build, run, and maintain!
The next time you want to say this, read the following:

I (vbaculum) am proposing that one day, robotic technology will develop to a point where they can produce food
Robots cannot magically produce food, this costs money. The property has an owner who needs to get paid. The seed needs to be bought from some where. The water needs to come from some where. How long are you going to go without addressing these points?

build buildings
The property that a building is built on costs money. The materials necessary to build buildings cost money; the larger the structure, the higher the materials cost.

and extract resources from the earth in an almost completely autonomous way.
The properties where the resources are extracted have owners that need to get paid IF they even allow for such a thing.

I said all this in my original post.
And you still haven't explained how you are going to pay for all of this!

Given these assumptions, we can conclude that they will extract their own fuel
From where, la la land? They need to pay the owner of the resource they want to extract.

and reproduce and maintain themselves
They need to pay the owners of the raw materials necessary for that.

Designing better robots will be done by a tiny force of engineers who will be dwarfed by size of the robotic populations that they create.
What motivation would they have to be engineers or anything for that matter, if work is optional? You're also assuming that the owners of such robotic technology will allow it to be used that way without proper remuneration. Regardless, you have yet to explain where you get the money to pay for all of this.

Please try to understand my arguments and don't make assumption about what I'm saying. I'd like to continue talking to you about this but I don't want to have to continue repeating myself. Thanks
Please try to understand that your arguments don't exist in a vacuum and that the laws of economics come into play.

That was fun.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 9:19:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 5:43:27 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2013 3:47:27 PM, pozessed wrote:
Splash, welcome to the deep end.

What about the AI? Won't the AI be able to help us with economical woes?
Yes, but it won't make the laws of economics disappear no more than an airplane doesn't make the law of gravity disappear.

I don't expect AI to make economics disapear. I would expect AI to depict us a better alternative than the economies that we humans have fathomed.
The cool thing about algorithms is they can create and process scenarios that we could have a better means of economical stability. As long as we asked the machine to process the right information.
I doubt that we could fathom what type of answers an AI would come up with as the best means of economical reason. One thing I am certain of though, unless the machine is programmed to approve of greed in its economical infrastructures, greed would be nonexistent in the answer it grants us.

What if we have a new means of energy? For shits and giggles assume we can pull electricity out of thin air and everyone is self reliant on easy to build generators.

Assuming we are not violating the laws of thermodynamics...let's say it was "cold fusion". So this would bring the price of energy way down. It would be very beneficial to an economy.

Yes it would, it would also be a dramatic decrease in the cost of living. When I think of social dependency on "dirt cheap" energy, I think of how cheap things used to be when people used horses as main transportation.
Is that wrong?

If robots were made of abundant materials they would be cheap enough for everyone to own one.
Well, the materials to make them might be cheap, but that doesn't mean the design and rest of the manufacturing process would be. Nor does it mean that any holders of intellectual property that might be required to implement said robots, be willing to license the technology. There are so many materials that go into robotics that it is very difficult for all of them to be cheap.
I would hope that at this point in the future people would realize their intellectual properties should be used to help humanity progress. Look at all the free information available on the internet. It may not always be correct, but if you research enough information and ask enough people, a correct answer will eventually emerge free of charge.

Especially if they were manufactured with a robot workforce.

That's exactly what I am proposing. This would drive down the cost of the robots as well as the cost of anything these robots are used to create. Essentially a robot workforce would be another dramatic decrease in the cost of living.
If my proposal above was not flawed, how much cheaper can we get than when we were riding horses as a means of transportation?

Well, they already are in a sense, but this too doesn't change the realities of economics.

I don't expect that people will not need to be innovative and constructive during this time. Only that the innovations and constructiveness would be put towards personal needs and social goals.
If nobody had to go to an undesired job, they could learn and create anything they do desire. I know people claim that this type of "utopia" makes people unmotivated and content, however I don't think we have reached anything like this anywhere in our history.

Robots will probably be able to build and maintain each other if we program them to.
Up to a certain point: there will always be a human in the loop, though.
Totally agree. I believe that if we got to this point, almost everyone would have basic robotic engineering skills in order to build and maintain the robots they possess.

1 robot can build another robot in a day. 2 robots can build 2 more robots in a day. 4 robots can build 4 more robots, etc. Then they can be programmed to build more or maintain the existing. Not that hard to fathom.
All this means is that efficiency goes up and so profits go up!

Profits for whom is the question. If we as a society would all share information about how to build and program them efficiently, who is gaining what profits?

Robots could also gather the materials needed to build more robots. They could even go to the extent of using raw materials and refining them to what they need for maintenance and manufacturing.
Yep.

Supercomputers could improve upon previous programming specs to ensure our robots AI and labor efficiency are continually increasing compared to previously built robots.
Yep.

If robots were our labor force and energy was free, the only thing left of value is human life, food, water, and information. Even human life might seem worthless to some, but I doubt that would be the majorities opinion.

Energy still wouldn't be free, just very cheap. Regardless, none of this changes the fact that we still need to pay for stuff. Someone's gotta pay for all of that stuff you "dreamed up" above.

I agree, but I think it would be a unanimous public decision to integrate robots into society for the improvements listed above. If the robots we're deemed a social "necessity"; I assume society would find a way to govern a program that would effectively compensate laborers until the robots could do all the labor as to reach the goals necessary for further progression.

It is amazing to think of what could be possible if a robot revolution were to take place. I'm almost positive a revolution like this will take place, whether the majority wants it to or not.

It will be a very long time before that could ever happen. Certainly not within the next 50 to 100 years.
With the advancements of technology and communication, that is hard to speculate.
When the cell phone was invented the internet was just a baby. Cell phones have become 1000x more advanced since their conception. Now the internet is an unstoppable knowledge base between continents. If you compare how fast technology leaped with telephones, radio, newspapers, and televisions as the means of communication to make cellphones possible, once we start using the internet more effectively our technological world is going to hit a galactic warp.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 10:25:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What rules would super AI have to abide?

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

A robot must never interfere with human beings liberties, even if ordered to.

What do you think?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 11:35:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 8:53:34 PM, vbaculum wrote:
That was fun.

It's always fun to fantasize, that's one reason why so many children are always so happy. Sometimes when kids grow up, they have a hard time understanding the real world and how things actually work. When you try to explain things to them, they might say things like "but your're not listening to me", tend to repeat themselves, and avoid answering the tough questions; after all, who wouldn't wan't to live in a world of magic and faeries!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:21:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 9:19:25 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/17/2013 5:43:27 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2013 3:47:27 PM, pozessed wrote:
Splash, welcome to the deep end.

Yes, but it won't make the laws of economics disappear no more than an airplane makes the law of gravity disappear.
I don't expect AI to make economics disapear. I would expect AI to depict us a better alternative than the economies that we humans have fathomed.
That's the same thing as making the laws of economics disappear; otherwise, you'll need to be more specific or restate what you are trying to say.

The cool thing about algorithms is they can create and process scenarios that we could have a better means of economical stability. As long as we asked the machine to process the right information.
We already know what leads to the best economic stability: when masterminds stop trying to control the economy. There's nothing wrong with using tools (AI, computers, etc.) to help us analyze data but we're not going to create a crystal ball that gives us all the answers. Besides, an algorithm is simply a list of instructions.

I doubt that we could fathom what type of answers an AI would come up with as the best means of economical reason. One thing I am certain of though, unless the machine is programmed to approve of greed in its economical infrastructures, greed would be nonexistent in the answer it grants us.
There's no such thing as a magic crystal ball with all the answers; that's just being naive. Greed is a human frailty or virtue, depending on who you talk to. Pretending that it doesn't exist or that it can be controlled by others is simply ignoring reality and striping people of their liberties.

Assuming we are not violating the laws of thermodynamics...let's say it was "cold fusion". So this would bring the price of energy way down. It would be very beneficial to an economy.
Yes it would, it would also be a dramatic decrease in the cost of living.
It would have a big impact across many industries; huge affect on pollution; etc.

When I think of social dependency on "dirt cheap" energy, I think of how cheap things used to be when people used horses as main transportation.
I'm not sure if all things would become that cheap but energy does factor into the cost of production of goods. Maybe 20% reduction in some things that are energy intensive and much less in others.

Is that wrong?
Depends what you mean by "that"?

Is that wrong, for things to be cheap? Of course not.

Is that wrong, for people to be denied their liberties? Absolutely.

Well, the materials to make them might be cheap, but that doesn't mean the design and rest of the manufacturing process would be. Nor does it mean that any holders of intellectual property that might be required to implement said robots, be willing to license the technology. There are so many materials that go into robotics that it is very difficult for all of them to be cheap.
I would hope that at this point in the future people would realize their intellectual properties should be used to help humanity progress.
What do you mean "at this point"? You speak as if your opinion of what people should do with their property (intellectual or otherwise) is somehow more valid in the future? It's not. Stealing from people and stripping them of their liberties is NEVER a good thing; not before, not now, and not in the future. If you want to use your intellect and property to help humanity progress, then you are free to do so; but you are not free to force someone else to do so.

Look at all the free information available on the internet.
That information is not as "free" as you think. Don't you pay for your internet? Unless you "steal" it from someone else, you do pay for it. The "free" information you speak of is on a server, that server costs money to buy, maintain, and run. The power company that supplies the electricity costs money to build, maintain, and run. The telecommunications company that supplies the telecommunications (ie network) costs money to build, maintain, and run. The computer company that supplies the computers costs money to build, maintain, and run. The components that go into all of the above...This all seems pretty far from free.

I suggest for you to see what goes into making something as simple as a pencil: http://www.econlib.org...

It may not always be correct, but if you research enough information and ask enough people, a correct answer will eventually emerge free of charge.
Yes, but as I have shown you, not really free of charge.

That's exactly what I am proposing. This would drive down the cost of the robots as well as the cost of anything these robots are used to create. Essentially a robot workforce would be another dramatic decrease in the cost of living.
Well, not necessarily. A robot will supply cheap labor, this will greatly affect things that are labor intensive but NOT things that are not. Computers, for example, are not labor intensive. As I said before, cheap labor only gets you so far, it is not a "magic" solution. We are currently benefiting from cheap labor by buying stuff from China, India, etc. Having robots do that work wouldn't be that much different than now; perhaps better quality and slightly lower prices. That's it.

If my proposal above was not flawed, how much cheaper can we get than when we were riding horses as a means of transportation?
I don't see what riding horses has to do with this? If you are just using "a long time ago" as a reference to when things were "cheaper", I'd say "no". This is because the value of money has gone down significantly since then and unless the US Dollar were to become a stronger currency, this wont happen. But it is moot point.

Well, they already are in a sense, but this too doesn't change the realities of economics.
I don't expect that people will not need to be innovative and constructive during this time. Only that the innovations and constructiveness would be put towards personal needs and social goals.
It's up to the individual to decide what to do with their innovations and constructiveness: some may do as you say and some may not. The point is that they are free to do as they please with what belongs to them.

If nobody had to go to an undesired job, they could learn and create anything they do desire.
That's already the case today: that option is available if you wish to take it and have the means to do whatever alternative you choose. The same would apply in the future.

I know people claim that this type of "utopia" makes people unmotivated and content, however I don't think we have reached anything like this anywhere in our history.
That's what they all say! Utopias are no different than a faerie tale: in the end they are basically an impossibility not for lack of trying but for lack of it being possible. It is akin to a square-circle.

Totally agree. I believe that if we got to this point, almost everyone would have basic robotic engineering skills in order to build and maintain the robots they possess.
I'm not so sure. Not everyone likes science or math and not everyone is capable of being an engineer. People would be free to choose and build upon the skills they desire.

All this means is that efficiency goes up and so profits go up!
Profits for whom is the question.
Not a question at all: profits for the owners of the profit-producing entity.

If we as a society would all share information about how to build and program them efficiently, who is gaining what profits?
Only those who wish to share, will share; those that don't, will not. Those that own profitable companies will enjoy their profits; those that don't will not.

(Continued...)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:21:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 9:19:25 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/17/2013 5:43:27 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/17/2013 3:47:27 PM, pozessed wrote:

(...Continued)

Energy still wouldn't be free, just very cheap. Regardless, none of this changes the fact that we still need to pay for stuff. Someone's gotta pay for all of that stuff you "dreamed up" above.
I agree, but I think it would be a unanimous public decision to integrate robots into society for the improvements listed above.
You can think all you want, but it is up to individuals to decide what to do with their respective property, capital, and labor.

If the robots we're deemed a social "necessity";
Anyone can deem them whatever they like...

I assume society would find a way to govern a program that would effectively compensate laborers until the robots could do all the labor as to reach the goals necessary for further progression.
That's a totalitarian mindset and a complete violation of people's liberties. Laborers are compensated by market wages for labor just like the owners of labor robots would be.

It will be a very long time before that could ever happen. Certainly not within the next 50 to 100 years.
With the advancements of technology and communication, that is hard to speculate.
Advancements in technology and communications are rather stagnant now, but that's because many of the major world economies are doing very poorly; too many masterminds tried to control the markets! However, if we get back on track, we might be able to make some strides within the next 50 to 100 years, otherwise it will take much longer.

When the cell phone was invented the internet was just a baby. Cell phones have become 1000x more advanced since their conception. Now the internet is an unstoppable knowledge base between continents. If you compare how fast technology leaped with telephones, radio, newspapers, and televisions as the means of communication to make cellphones possible, once we start using the internet more effectively our technological world is going to hit a galactic warp.
The internet also advanced 1000x more during the same time that cellphones did. But internet advancement isn't so important per se, it's actually computer advancement that matters more. At least for the AI part of it, I think quantum computing is a big part needed to it happen. That technology is realistically at least 50 years away for private use. Perhaps in 50 to 100 years we will have a 12-qbit computer at our disposal!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2013 8:42:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.personalityforge.com... is a website dedicated to people who wish to create a smart chatbot using A.I.
The overall findings there were interesting to me and helped me stumble upon a fun little program called A.L.I.C.E.
I recommend checking out Alice at her website and having a conversation. http://alice.pandorabots.com...
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 2:01:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/31/2013 8:42:58 PM, pozessed wrote:
http://www.personalityforge.com... is a website dedicated to people who wish to create a smart chatbot using A.I.
The overall findings there were interesting to me and helped me stumble upon a fun little program called A.L.I.C.E.
I recommend checking out Alice at her website and having a conversation. http://alice.pandorabots.com...

judge: hey
ALICE: Groovy.
judge: Lisp
ALICE: By the way, do you mind if I ask you a personal question?
judge: Derp.
ALICE: By the way, do you mind if I ask you a personal question?
judge: Yes
ALICE: So?
judge: How is that a personal question?
ALICE: Fine as far as I know.


I thought she would at least get that Groovy and Lisp were the same types of things (programming languages).

I've played with a few of these things and they are never very good. Too bad there isn't an online version of Watson (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it