Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

The future of Automation, and the transition

Comrade_Silly_Otter
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 10:32:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Automation : Replacing Human Labor with Robotics

What will be the future of automation?
How should it be used?
How will the transition period between pre-automation and post-automation will go?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 3:45:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Around 1900, about 90% of the population of the US was engaged in food production. Now, it about 4%. Automation cost 86% of the jobs in the entire country. What happened is that other jobs were created that took the place of those lost by automation. Does anyone think that there should have been a great political fight to keep all those jobs in agriculture by banning machines?

I think the pace of automation puts stress on the education system to keep people current with the skills needed for an increasingly automated society. the US has continuing shortages of trade skills, engineers, and scientists. I think every able-bodies person receiving unemployment compensation or welfare ought to be required to take remedial education if their basic skill set is inadequate for the times.

Perhaps someday robots will do all the work, but not any time soon enough to worry about.
deredo2me
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2014 7:39:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I really find this topic very interesting; as this is my first post you all need to give me a room for improving and expressing my opinion well
I have found AI (Artificial intelligence) very interesting to be specific with in automation this days.Even as my fellow described it very elaborately on how everything is being assisted with it; it is inevitable that take overs will come in the coming years. Movies like Eagle Eye, I- robot can illustrate the point I'm making.
Last time I went to an AI seminary where a Doctor(Electrical Engineering) has presented and really got into my brains; in the midst of his presentation he raised points of the fact that most companies are/will definitely get into an era where with out AI's nothing might be done! Maybe it is shocking fact but it will come one day...if I could get attention maybe I might get further in what I think should be done and what my insights are in general
Thanks
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 10:43:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/1/2014 7:39:17 AM, deredo2me wrote:
I really find this topic very interesting; as this is my first post you all need to give me a room for improving and expressing my opinion well
I have found AI (Artificial intelligence) very interesting to be specific with in automation this days.Even as my fellow described it very elaborately on how everything is being assisted with it; it is inevitable that take overs will come in the coming years. Movies like Eagle Eye, I- robot can illustrate the point I'm making.
Last time I went to an AI seminary where a Doctor(Electrical Engineering) has presented and really got into my brains; in the midst of his presentation he raised points of the fact that most companies are/will definitely get into an era where with out AI's nothing might be done! Maybe it is shocking fact but it will come one day...if I could get attention maybe I might get further in what I think should be done and what my insights are in general
Thanks

Not too long ago I read an article which described a scientific theory about the possibility that too much advancement might very well lead to the extinction of a dominant species like humans. The theory explains that as there are likely billions of planets in our own galaxy capable of supporting life, millions of which are much older than Earth, then there should be a number of civilizations which are superior to us, and yet we have yet to find any shred of them. Not one recognizably intelligent burst of electromagnetism, such as radio or TV, nor any physical evidence anywhere. A single civilization that was a thousand years superior to our own should leave a "fingerprint" very hard to miss, let alone a hundred or more. It may well be that our own cleverness is sowing the seeds of our own demise.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 11:26:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 10:43:48 PM, Idealist wrote:
... A single civilization that was a thousand years superior to our own should leave a "fingerprint" very hard to miss, let alone a hundred or more. It may well be that our own cleverness is sowing the seeds of our own demise.

It's not clear there should be a "fingerprint." Currently, 86% of American homes get television via cable rather than high powered TV transmitters. Cell phones use low-power local transmitters operating at high frequencies. Satellite communications are low power and very directional, so there isn't a lot of extra radiation into space. It seems to me likely that AM and FM radio will eventually move to an internet-like packet system operating at high frequencies -- basically a cell phone transmission. Spewing radiation into space is wasting energy, so maybe the efficiency of advanced technology does away with the fingerprint.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 7:49:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 11:26:25 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:43:48 PM, Idealist wrote:
... A single civilization that was a thousand years superior to our own should leave a "fingerprint" very hard to miss, let alone a hundred or more. It may well be that our own cleverness is sowing the seeds of our own demise.

It's not clear there should be a "fingerprint." Currently, 86% of American homes get television via cable rather than high powered TV transmitters. Cell phones use low-power local transmitters operating at high frequencies. Satellite communications are low power and very directional, so there isn't a lot of extra radiation into space. It seems to me likely that AM and FM radio will eventually move to an internet-like packet system operating at high frequencies -- basically a cell phone transmission. Spewing radiation into space is wasting energy, so maybe the efficiency of advanced technology does away with the fingerprint.

That's stretching things a bit far, and I think you know it. It's hard to imagine a civilization greater than ours which didn't "spew forth" plenty of radiation. We can look back almost to the BB, but we can't detect the radiation of an advanced civilization in our own galaxy, or they can't detect ours? One thing that has become constant throughout history is our penchant for war. Our history is the greatest indicator of what to expect in the future. In every age it is the predators who tend to rise to the top of the pack, not the prey. I would suggest you study the theory a little more before trying to dismiss it with a few random observations.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 11:46:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 7:49:22 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:26:25 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:43:48 PM, Idealist wrote:
That's stretching things a bit far, and I think you know it. It's hard to imagine a civilization greater than ours which didn't "spew forth" plenty of radiation.

It's hard for you, but not to me. There is a sound principle not to waste energy, and sending energy into space is wasteful.

We can look back almost to the BB, but we can't detect the radiation of an advanced civilization in our own galaxy, or they can't detect ours?

I don't pretend to know how civilizations evolve. I simply don't accept that you know either. There are about 200 million stars in our galaxy, and about 100 million other galaxies. That's a lot of turf to examine.

One thing that has become constant throughout history is our penchant for war. Our history is the greatest indicator of what to expect in the future. In every age it is the predators who tend to rise to the top of the pack, not the prey.

The trend on violence is down. Steven Pinker has assembled the statistics on that. What is troubling is that technology is giving nutcases greater power to destroy the world. Iran and North Korea with nukes may be just the start.

I would suggest you study the theory a little more before trying to dismiss it with a few random observations.

I can't tell you much I enjoy your condescension. When superior people talk to me I'm always in awe. If you were really such an expert, you would have heard the low-energy civilization theory before and known that I didn't randomly dream it up.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 2:47:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 11:46:49 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/13/2014 7:49:22 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/11/2014 11:26:25 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/6/2014 10:43:48 PM, Idealist wrote:
That's stretching things a bit far, and I think you know it. It's hard to imagine a civilization greater than ours which didn't "spew forth" plenty of radiation.

It's hard for you, but not to me. There is a sound principle not to waste energy, and sending energy into space is wasteful.

Sending energy into space is necessary during a certain period of a civilization's technological evolution. We use satellites which we must communicate with, and hope to establish colonies on the moon and other planets, etc. By trying to brag about your ability to picture a world without these things you are merely revealing how limited your imagination really is. This is a valid scientific theory, not some idea I cooked-up over beer and popcorn one Saturday night.

We can look back almost to the BB, but we can't detect the radiation of an advanced civilization in our own galaxy, or they can't detect ours?

I don't pretend to know how civilizations evolve. I simply don't accept that you know either. There are about 200 million stars in our galaxy, and about 100 million other galaxies. That's a lot of turf to examine.

Firstly, nobody knows anything, but scientists conjecture all the time based on experimental data. Some theories are stronger than others, but none are absolute. I've never pretended to know everything about how civilizations evolve, but we can tell a lot by studying our own planet. There are many civilizations which developed independently right here on Earth. I get the feeling you haven't even heard of this theory and are merely being obtuse.

One thing that has become constant throughout history is our penchant for war. Our history is the greatest indicator of what to expect in the future. In every age it is the predators who tend to rise to the top of the pack, not the prey.

The trend on violence is down. Steven Pinker has assembled the statistics on that. What is troubling is that technology is giving nutcases greater power to destroy the world. Iran and North Korea with nukes may be just the start.

I've read some of Steven Pinker's work, but as you noted it is highly statistical. Benjamin Disraeli said there were three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. The facts are that there were 1.75 million people living in 1900, yet 1.7 million were killed just during the 20th century. Just because we are reproducing faster than we are killing each other doesn't mean we are killing less.

I would suggest you study the theory a little more before trying to dismiss it with a few random observations.

I can't tell you much I enjoy your condescension. When superior people talk to me I'm always in awe. If you were really such an expert, you would have heard the low-energy civilization theory before and known that I didn't randomly dream it up.

I have no condescension, and I can say that with a straight face. I actually find debating topics like this to be fun, which is why I do it. The day I stop thinking it's fun is the day I will quit. I'm not a superior person, just a person with fair intelligence who has always had a great curiosity. I did read of several different theories on the amount of a thumbprint which would be left by a civilization when I studied the greater theory. Am I supposed to tell you everything I've ever heard about the possibilities? Sorry, but I'm hoping to learn from this discussion, and you should be, too. I'm sure there is plenty you have seen which I haven't, and vice-versa. Did you know that even the best physicists in the world can't agree about the nature of time, and they bicker about it endlessly? It doesn't make them enemies. Einstein and Bohr weren't enemies, though they seemed to lead two different camps of thought during the early years of quantum theory. I think you are taking this all too personally.