Robots, the new slavery?
-
Compared to the 17th century it is inclusive now.
-
Damn militant sex robots
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
Mike Hankey wrote:
Damn militant sex robots
Singing "Lay down your arms and surrender to mine"? :-D (No. 1 in the UK charts in 1956.)
-
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! :)
You didn't account for a single very important question. With government already in the pockets of industry, why would the owners of robots ever allow such a tax to be levied? Wouldn't they be happier and richer if they kept all the money? Let me paint you a different future scenario. People work like slaves at horrifying low-wage jobs for 40 years to make enough money to purchase a robot. They lease this robot to a manufacturer to make profitable things, living off the income produced by this lease. Leasees have little incentive (beyond their contract) to care for the leased robots, so sometimes they are used harshly, destroying a lifetime of work for some squishy human. If newer, better robots come out, the value of the older robot is degraded, causing an income shortfall for the lessor. In the end, robots become a more desirable workforce than humans for all types of jobs, and only families who own a robot on that day can make enough money to feed themselves. The remaining humans live a Mad-Max life in unwanted wasteland, trying to grow or forage enough calories to survive day-to-day. They turn to crime, dry-gulching robots and stripping them for parts to make other robots. Just as happened with the Luddites, the government makes disassembling a robot a capital offense. Now robots are people too, and just in time, as they gradually become self-aware. Now societies of robots form businesses that go into competition with human-controlled businesses, and compete for resources with human-controlled businesses, driving up prices. This is the end for wild humans, and the beginning of the end for human-run businesses. Human activity is now fully superfluous everywhere. AIs controlled by the robots evolve faster than AIs controlled by humans, and outthink them. If we're very lucky, the robots won't decide to exterminate us, but will set up a reservation for the human remnants, something like Madagascar or Austrailia: something without many valuable resources. I wonder if the last Neandertal observed those tall-walking, gracile homo sapiens and was proud of his successors. Or was he bitter and disillusioned for having invited them into his villages and caves, only to be out-competed and out-smarted.
-
Only humans would think robots are a great idea in regards to helping us and furthering our species. IMHO, we deserve every single bad thing that will come of this, a thousand times over. I also believe, that very few good things will ever come of this.
Slacker007 wrote:
we deserve every single bad thing that will come of this, a thousand times over.
Myself I am not holding my breath over the eminent arrival of the robot that will take over all human tasks in the world. Check the date on the following. TIME Magazine Cover: Robot Revolution - Dec. 8, 1980 - Science & Technology - Business - Innovation - Inventions[^]
-
You're still handing out "free" money because you haven't sold the goods to earn the "revenue" you're giving to the "humans". Marx, Mao, perpetual motion machines...
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
Marx, Mao, perpetual motion machines...
Not sure what you mean. Modern world economies are based on perceived value anyways. A dollar or a euro has no value if people do not perceive that it has value. So in the modern company, an employee (human) produces value for the company and is paid, as the human perceives it, value for that work. Then that human spends the money that they made on something they want. And often that value has nothing to do with a real product being sold at that point. When the receptionist asks someone to wait in the waiting area until their appointment there are no goods being sold nor, for that transaction, will there ever be. On this fantastical scheme here, which does in fact have many problems, the human employee in the above is still paid but that money goes into a pool which is distributed to all people in the country. If the company does not use the robot there is no 'pay' and it doesn't go into the pool.
-
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
Marx, Mao, perpetual motion machines...
Not sure what you mean. Modern world economies are based on perceived value anyways. A dollar or a euro has no value if people do not perceive that it has value. So in the modern company, an employee (human) produces value for the company and is paid, as the human perceives it, value for that work. Then that human spends the money that they made on something they want. And often that value has nothing to do with a real product being sold at that point. When the receptionist asks someone to wait in the waiting area until their appointment there are no goods being sold nor, for that transaction, will there ever be. On this fantastical scheme here, which does in fact have many problems, the human employee in the above is still paid but that money goes into a pool which is distributed to all people in the country. If the company does not use the robot there is no 'pay' and it doesn't go into the pool.
The premise is that all the wealth ($) generated by robots will be distributed to humans. Where do the raw resources come from? How are they paid for? You can't sell what you haven't produced. If you haven't "sold" anything, there is no "revenue" to distribute or buy resources. You're now left with expropriating all the world's resources. And since this is now a "equal distribution society", you will need to "share" your resources (i.e. no private property). Marx, Mao ... all "grand experiments". With less than "100% efficiency", millions starved to death. The "projects" one undertakes is what gives life meaning ... With robot "project managers", we'll insure your efforts are not wasted (in terms of its "benefit" to "society").
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
-
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! :)
And computers were supposed to give us more leisure time as well... :)
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can. “We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone "The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
-
And computers were supposed to give us more leisure time as well... :)
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can. “We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone "The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
Mark H2 wrote:
And computers were supposed to give us more leisure time as well
Says the guy using a computer while he is supposed to be working. :)
-
We arent talking about slavery, we are talking about technology and its impact on wealth and lifestyle. It is inclusive. Even those in the poorest parts of the world still benefit from technology, and it makes their lives easier. From a diesel pump in rural india, to a fridge in vietnam. Do try to stay on topic Eddy, it makes debating so difficult when you dont.
-
You didn't account for a single very important question. With government already in the pockets of industry, why would the owners of robots ever allow such a tax to be levied? Wouldn't they be happier and richer if they kept all the money? Let me paint you a different future scenario. People work like slaves at horrifying low-wage jobs for 40 years to make enough money to purchase a robot. They lease this robot to a manufacturer to make profitable things, living off the income produced by this lease. Leasees have little incentive (beyond their contract) to care for the leased robots, so sometimes they are used harshly, destroying a lifetime of work for some squishy human. If newer, better robots come out, the value of the older robot is degraded, causing an income shortfall for the lessor. In the end, robots become a more desirable workforce than humans for all types of jobs, and only families who own a robot on that day can make enough money to feed themselves. The remaining humans live a Mad-Max life in unwanted wasteland, trying to grow or forage enough calories to survive day-to-day. They turn to crime, dry-gulching robots and stripping them for parts to make other robots. Just as happened with the Luddites, the government makes disassembling a robot a capital offense. Now robots are people too, and just in time, as they gradually become self-aware. Now societies of robots form businesses that go into competition with human-controlled businesses, and compete for resources with human-controlled businesses, driving up prices. This is the end for wild humans, and the beginning of the end for human-run businesses. Human activity is now fully superfluous everywhere. AIs controlled by the robots evolve faster than AIs controlled by humans, and outthink them. If we're very lucky, the robots won't decide to exterminate us, but will set up a reservation for the human remnants, something like Madagascar or Austrailia: something without many valuable resources. I wonder if the last Neandertal observed those tall-walking, gracile homo sapiens and was proud of his successors. Or was he bitter and disillusioned for having invited them into his villages and caves, only to be out-competed and out-smarted.
You have much imagination! :)
-
We arent talking about slavery, we are talking about technology and its impact on wealth and lifestyle. It is inclusive. Even those in the poorest parts of the world still benefit from technology, and it makes their lives easier. From a diesel pump in rural india, to a fridge in vietnam. Do try to stay on topic Eddy, it makes debating so difficult when you dont.
-
The premise is that all the wealth ($) generated by robots will be distributed to humans. Where do the raw resources come from? How are they paid for? You can't sell what you haven't produced. If you haven't "sold" anything, there is no "revenue" to distribute or buy resources. You're now left with expropriating all the world's resources. And since this is now a "equal distribution society", you will need to "share" your resources (i.e. no private property). Marx, Mao ... all "grand experiments". With less than "100% efficiency", millions starved to death. The "projects" one undertakes is what gives life meaning ... With robot "project managers", we'll insure your efforts are not wasted (in terms of its "benefit" to "society").
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
The premise is that all the wealth ($) generated by robots will be distributed to humans. Where do the raw resources come from? How are they paid for?
First as I noted the scheme here has many problems and is nonsensical. So pointless to investigate each bad assumption. However the original stipulation was not that all workers would disappear nor would all wealth (assets) disappear. Just that some workers would be replaced. So if a car company replaces workers with robots those workers would pay the stipend to the pool. However the purchase of steel by that company would still require buying the steel. The steel company would still receive money and they in turn might have robots (replacement humans) and would pay to the pool as well. This continues throughout all supply chains.
-
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
The premise is that all the wealth ($) generated by robots will be distributed to humans. Where do the raw resources come from? How are they paid for?
First as I noted the scheme here has many problems and is nonsensical. So pointless to investigate each bad assumption. However the original stipulation was not that all workers would disappear nor would all wealth (assets) disappear. Just that some workers would be replaced. So if a car company replaces workers with robots those workers would pay the stipend to the pool. However the purchase of steel by that company would still require buying the steel. The steel company would still receive money and they in turn might have robots (replacement humans) and would pay to the pool as well. This continues throughout all supply chains.
Will we have "minimum wage" robots? Do all robots, regardless of task, get paid the same wage? Will there be robot unions? I suspect there will be activities for a given robot (on duty) that are "too hazardess" (e.g. EMPs), and we will need to send in humans.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
-
Will we have "minimum wage" robots? Do all robots, regardless of task, get paid the same wage? Will there be robot unions? I suspect there will be activities for a given robot (on duty) that are "too hazardess" (e.g. EMPs), and we will need to send in humans.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
Will we have "minimum wage" robots?
Like I said there are many problems with the original supposition and no way to defend them. It wasn't my suggestion and I am not going to attempt to defend what I consider utter fantasy in many different ways in the first place.
-
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
Will we have "minimum wage" robots?
Like I said there are many problems with the original supposition and no way to defend them. It wasn't my suggestion and I am not going to attempt to defend what I consider utter fantasy in many different ways in the first place.
Got the sense some thought this was a good idea; the start of another "grand plan". Note that it always involves having to do "less work". The final nail should be that the "energy" to create all these robots could feed untold numbers. Humans are cheaper in the long run and more recyclable; keeping "busy" will keep them out of trouble.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
-
Got the sense some thought this was a good idea; the start of another "grand plan". Note that it always involves having to do "less work". The final nail should be that the "energy" to create all these robots could feed untold numbers. Humans are cheaper in the long run and more recyclable; keeping "busy" will keep them out of trouble.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then". ― Blaise Pascal
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
Got the sense some thought this was a good idea; the start of another "grand plan"
Without re-reading the entire thread, my impression was that only the OP thought it was a realistic possibility. I considered it nonsense when I read it.
-
Mark H2 wrote:
And computers were supposed to give us more leisure time as well
Says the guy using a computer while he is supposed to be working. :)
But I was "working" at home that day, honest :-D
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can. “We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone "The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone