Robots, the new slavery?
-
And then comes child robot labor laws, then unions, then anarchy?
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
This is where it gets interesting. Do we decide that machines have feelings? If they provoke an empathetic reaction in us, then we might well do, regardless of how ridiculous it is. But the CAGW is ridiculous, yet that doesnt stop moronic left wing cretins believing in it. :)
-
This is where it gets interesting. Do we decide that machines have feelings? If they provoke an empathetic reaction in us, then we might well do, regardless of how ridiculous it is. But the CAGW is ridiculous, yet that doesnt stop moronic left wing cretins believing in it. :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Do we decide that machines have feelings?
I think it depends a lot on their function. Industrial robots: probably not, domestic robots: maybe? Or maybe it's not their function as much as the way we percieve them?
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Do we decide that machines have feelings?
I think it depends a lot on their function. Industrial robots: probably not, domestic robots: maybe? Or maybe it's not their function as much as the way we percieve them?
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
Yes, and one of the first use of robots, as we see today, is in the sex industry, where relationships are by mature much closer with man, and such feelings more likely to arise. Given mans tendency to anthropomorphise this is probably a cert to happen.
-
Nathan Minier wrote:
has exactly the same moral equivalency
I did say 'without the moral implications' of slavery. So no, I am not.
Yeah, you did say that, but what basically defined a plantation owner (as opposed to a farmer) was exactly those moral implications. I'm wrestling with any way to make that equivalency, to be honest. I think a better metaphor might be in order.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
Yeah, you did say that, but what basically defined a plantation owner (as opposed to a farmer) was exactly those moral implications. I'm wrestling with any way to make that equivalency, to be honest. I think a better metaphor might be in order.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
If the use of a term defines the morality of a practice and not the practice itself then you are on trouble. No wonder you are wrestling!
-
If the use of a term defines the morality of a practice and not the practice itself then you are on trouble. No wonder you are wrestling!
The term does not exist in a vacuum, especially when the literal definition is tied explicitly to a practice. Someone is not dubbed a "Murderer" because they made coffee this morning; it's because they murdered someone.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
Yes, and one of the first use of robots, as we see today, is in the sex industry, where relationships are by mature much closer with man, and such feelings more likely to arise. Given mans tendency to anthropomorphise this is probably a cert to happen.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Yes, and one of the first use of robots, as we see today, is in the sex industry, where relationships are by mature much closer with man, and such feelings more likely to arise.
First military then you're probably right about the sex aspect. God help us!
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Yes, and one of the first use of robots, as we see today, is in the sex industry, where relationships are by mature much closer with man, and such feelings more likely to arise.
First military then you're probably right about the sex aspect. God help us!
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
-
You on Santa's hit list eh?
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
-
Yes, that is what I said. Redundant completely. Did you not understand?
-
Saw this on TV recently on a program about robots: [^] I can envision a future where robots do almost all the manual work, and crucially, they are payed a wage and taxed at 100% on it. ie, the company employing them pays, at a reduced rate, the commensurate wage a person would have received, direct to the government as tax. Of course this payment has to reflect the costs of the robot to the company but given the robot works a 3 shift day its productivity is much higher than a human's, so this revenue is substantial. This revenue is then paid out to the public at a fixed amount per month per person, regardless of whether they work or not. Products produced by robots are much cheaper, allowing for greater consumption. Many people would therefore lead a life of leisure, maintained by the state. Others who either enjoy work, want to earn more money, or cant be replaced by robots, such as professionals, ie us lot, doctors, lawyers etc continue as before, but perhaps with reduced hours. An interesting side effect is that cheap labour in the third world, which increasingly becomes less cheap as more and more companies try to exploit it, is undercut, and the labour floods back to the advanced countries that can best implement robotics. So we all effectively live like a plantation owner of the past, off the backs of the labour of slaves, just metal in this case, and free of the moral implications. Not a bad lifestyle. When do we start! :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Not a bad lifestyle. When do we start! :)
You will do no such thing! The tinmen will have captains who defend their rights[^].
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
-
The term does not exist in a vacuum, especially when the literal definition is tied explicitly to a practice. Someone is not dubbed a "Murderer" because they made coffee this morning; it's because they murdered someone.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
But a robot is no more related to plantation ownership than coffee is to murder.
-
But a robot is no more related to plantation ownership than coffee is to murder.
And there we shall agree to disagree.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
-
Saw this on TV recently on a program about robots: [^] I can envision a future where robots do almost all the manual work, and crucially, they are payed a wage and taxed at 100% on it. ie, the company employing them pays, at a reduced rate, the commensurate wage a person would have received, direct to the government as tax. Of course this payment has to reflect the costs of the robot to the company but given the robot works a 3 shift day its productivity is much higher than a human's, so this revenue is substantial. This revenue is then paid out to the public at a fixed amount per month per person, regardless of whether they work or not. Products produced by robots are much cheaper, allowing for greater consumption. Many people would therefore lead a life of leisure, maintained by the state. Others who either enjoy work, want to earn more money, or cant be replaced by robots, such as professionals, ie us lot, doctors, lawyers etc continue as before, but perhaps with reduced hours. An interesting side effect is that cheap labour in the third world, which increasingly becomes less cheap as more and more companies try to exploit it, is undercut, and the labour floods back to the advanced countries that can best implement robotics. So we all effectively live like a plantation owner of the past, off the backs of the labour of slaves, just metal in this case, and free of the moral implications. Not a bad lifestyle. When do we start! :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Not a bad lifestyle. When do we start!
We?? I don't know. I think I'll be living a life of leisure. So you go on build the robots and start sending checks via the government. Cheerio. T.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Yes, and one of the first use of robots, as we see today, is in the sex industry, where relationships are by mature much closer with man, and such feelings more likely to arise.
First military then you're probably right about the sex aspect. God help us!
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
I think sex robots are getting there first. sex robots - Google Search[^]
-
They would have to be, and can be, on the income generated by the robots.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Not a bad lifestyle. When do we start!
We?? I don't know. I think I'll be living a life of leisure. So you go on build the robots and start sending checks via the government. Cheerio. T.
Those who do work will get paid of course, in addition to the basic maintenance cash every one gets.
-
And there we shall agree to disagree.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
WTF are you on? HOw is a robot actually like slavery? Do you actually think machines have rights, have feelings?
-
They would have to be, and can be, on the income generated by the robots.
-
Depends on how much it is taxed. You did read what I wrote didnt you?
