The Robotics and A.i integrated economical society

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Tassadar
I dont think capitalism is the ultimate form of governement and thus no evolution is needed.

By going backwards to Communism?

That is like saying automobiles won't last forever, so eventually we need to start using horses again.

Originally posted by Tassadar
The new era ( robotic-economy) which we discuss here will indeed create another form of governement and thus another form of economy. All is related. If we extrapol then no more money is needed and humanity is free ( to study, to learn, to play, ect..), no more poor poeple, no more megalomaniacs-multi $$$$ man.

Is there a point to speculating that far ahead?
Remember in 1950s we'd be living on the moon by now.

Originally posted by Tassadar
I have a dream...

That something can replace capitalism in your lifetime?
Dream on.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
Thank you Tassadar for being objective to this and understanding the potential of this system.

Objectivity = agrees with me?

And there was a SYSTEM hidden in that somewhere? You don't even understand capitalism and you're ready to predict its demise and replace it... how arrogant.

 

[andrewgprv]

You make it sound as if machines will do EVERYTHING! I do not think this is so. I see machines as just another tool. You describe a world where run by machines and AI where humans don't contribute. What basis do you make this assumption on? I picture the future as more Star Trek like, Humans still run things we just use machines as tools so that we can accomplish greater tasks. I just don't see this system you dream up where machines do it all and there's nothing left for humans to do but make quilts and paint.

By your assumptions we would have come to this point long ago. The more technological we become the more jobs people may have. In a tribe there was hunters, warriors, medicine men leaders and women who cooked and reared children. By your logic once techonology had given us the means to get food, heal broken bones and defend ourselves we'd run out of things to do and for some reason have to all be communist.

Give me some sort of basis for this assumption that humans will run out of tasks to perform.

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Greadius
By going backwards to Communism?

That is like saying automobiles won't last forever, so eventually we need to start using horses again.

Or hydrogen-cells, or thermonulear reactor, or high tech solar cells, you said horse hahahah.


Is there a point to speculating that far ahead?
Remember in 1950s we'd be living on the moon by now.

It never hurt to look futher, i love anticipation and the way to manipulate it.

That something can replace capitalism in your lifetime?
Dream on.

Sure i will dream, most of the greatest man did arise from dream and imigination, ty for supporting me in that way.

edit my quote didnt work with french keyboard.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

pff ,it will take some time to reply to all this.

And i'm wondering ,why bother ,aint nooen gonna change his/her oppinion.

anyway:
I'm only reply'ing to the point's that havn't been touched before.

aywers,doctors ,policemen ,firemen ,shopkeepers ,technician's and teacher's ,all these job's can in theory been taken over by AI and robotic's.

Uhm... all of those jobs require creative thinking and unique problem solving. You can't physically program a machine to prepare for all the contingencies involved in being a lawyer, or even shopkeeper.

I disagree on that.Computers can solve problem's to ,on a mathimatical way.Creative thinking ,in it's pure form ,isn't nessecary here.A robo-laywer has acces to a digitalised code of law's for example ,out of wich it can get his information.He uses mathematical logic's and his input system's to mathematicly analyse the situation.If you can simulate a mathematical thinking process ,a computer can think ,analyse ,even filosofise.But it can not create thing's on feeling.

Full employment is impossible. But there has always been unemployment, or unutilized labor.
Remember when America's factories were all leaving oversea's with trade opening up, and naysayers were predicting 30% unemployment.

Yet ,unemployement is rising almost everywhere in the western world.

Ahh, I see. If you can be pessimistic and declare the end of the world unless we embrace Communism, you might have a hope at resurecting the religion because it sure can't compete today.

For the third time ,im not a communist.Why do you view all this with the limmited view that men has on the old failed communist system?This system is no'r pure communism ,no'r capitalism ,its something unique in itself.Sure it devide's robotics produced goods about equally among the people that don't work due to the fact that robotic's taken over their job.But it doesn't mean that there arn't highly qualified people that deserve more than those people.Look at it like this ,about 99% of the population are on welfare ,the ones that society need ,the real creative's ,deserve more than them.

Why would it start to crumble?
If its bad for capitalism, the market won't do it. Its a self-containing self-correcting system.

If it's such a good correcting system ,then why do we have stock market crashes and economic crisises from time to time.
The reason why it would start to crumble is because Robotics create unemployent ,while employement is a cornerstone of economics.And the economy is incorperating robotic's WHEN these robot's are financially more interresting than human's ,at this point Competition betwen company's assure's that company's always go for the cheapest sollution.
But it doesn't happen from one day on the other ,it's an evolution of years.It starts in the lowest layers of the population ,and gruaduatly it make's more educated people obsolete.So over years ,consuming decline's ,wich slowly makes the economy smaller and smaller.

With a better refined system where goods are devided withought the need of capital ,Production can rise that much that it can supply almost anything to it's population in masses.

Thats a utopian pipe dream, not a theory.

Is it?i'm talking about ALMOST everything here.Don't you think that with all these technological evolution's there will NEVER come a time in the future that most production can technicly be taken over by robotic's? Even not with the technoligy of , lets say ,that of 2200 ad?

Well, basically you're saying capitalism is dying and communism works: both fly in the face of conventional wisdom and any economic evidence gathered since the Industrial revolution.

I say Capitalism is dying ,but i'm not saying that communism ,especially how you perceive it ,works.
I'm saying that this system that i'm talking about ,has the potential to work to a certain level ,withought being absolutly perfect.Capitalism isn't perfect neither ,we all know that.It's just a matter of having the best of the worse.
The communism as you perceive it has almost nothing in common with this system.

Is there a point to speculating that far ahead?

I'm just analysing the evolution's that happened the last 100years ,especially the technological ones ,and trying to predict how the next 100 years of technological evolution will shape our system's ,just like the last 100 did.

That something can replace capitalism in your lifetime?

Maybe not ,but that doesn't dimminish this system.

Thank you Tassadar for being objective to this and understanding the potential of this system.

Objectivity = agrees with me?

Granted.I used the wrong word here.It should have been: thank you for being openminded towards this.

And there was a SYSTEM hidden in that somewhere? You don't even understand capitalism and you're ready to predict its demise and replace it... how arrogant.

Youre saying that i am arrogant? Well thank you very much.
I respect youre oppinion's ,although i think differently.I think most american's are pretty scared of by anything that resemble's their view of communism just a bit ,but again it's just an oppinion ,not a fact.But i never called you arrogant because you defended youre pro-capitalism or anti-commie oppinion's.

 

[Tassadar]

I agree with DOL, i will add that old communism ( like russia) were more criminal then anything else, it was far away from the real essence of the ideology.

If we achieve a technical knowledge that allow us to give everyone free education, free health care, free food, free house, ect... by using robots workpower, then where is the problem if it look like communism.

Call it democommunist, where leader are elected but factory goods are evenly distribute.

robot at work dont need to use car everyday and burn oil, so it can even solve our enviromental problem of greenhouse effect.

I hope this futur will come soon.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
I disagree on that.Computers can solve problem's to ,on a mathimatical way.Creative thinking ,in it's pure form ,isn't nessecary here.A robo-laywer has acces to a digitalised code of law's for example ,out of wich it can get his information.He uses mathematical logic's and his input system's to mathematicly analyse the situation.If you can simulate a mathematical thinking process ,a computer can think ,analyse ,even filosofise.But it can not create thing's on feeling.

As long as we don't have a robo-jury, I wouldn't want a robo-lawyer. They can do a lot of the legal research (as computers already do), but thats a distraction from the point.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
Yet ,unemployement is rising almost everywhere in the western world.

In the short term. You're going to measure the decline of capitalism based on a business down-cycle, were you championing the everlasting power of capitalism 4 years ago?
Considering the increase in population and entrance of women into the workforce over the last 40 years, its absolutely amazing that unemployment is LOWER now than it was back then. Of course, at the time there were decries about how women entering the workfield would be a return to the depression, and take away jobs from good men. Oh, and of course the obligatory Malthusian references to the overabundance of labor causing a decline in the standard of living. Don't they look silly now.

But look at the big picture, not the last year, to draw your long term conclusions.

Its amazing how enterprising minds manage to find ways to utilize idle workers.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
This system is no'r pure communism ,no'r capitalism ,its something unique in itself.

There was a system in there?

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
If it's such a good correcting system ,then why do we have stock market crashes and economic crisises from time to time.

The infamous business cycle.
Because humans, and the system, aren't perfect. I called them self-correcting, not perfect, because mistakes happen but they correct themselves in the long term.

Many great minds attempt to create the perfect system, but in any practice we've seen they've been flawed beyond recognition. Imperfect humans that we are, I think we're better suited for a system which allows us to make mistakes but corrects them in the long term.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
The reason why it would start to crumble is because Robotics create unemployent ,while employement is a cornerstone of economics.

Once again, why hasn't this happened from the industrial revolution to the present? Unemployment was much higher back then, around 15% average. A few years ago, it was around 3%.
According to your theory, automation should have caused those people to be unemployed. Many people would have agreed with you 75-100 years ago, but it didn't happen. Why?

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
And the economy is incorperating robotic's WHEN these robot's are financially more interresting than human's ,at this point Competition betwen company's assure's that company's always go for the cheapest sollution.

Capital isn't always cheaper than labor.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
Is it?i'm talking about ALMOST everything here.Don't you think that with all these technological evolution's there will NEVER come a time in the future that most production can technicly be taken over by robotic's? Even not with the technoligy of , lets say ,that of 2200 ad?

Unless I'm writing a sci-fi novel, why would I care what happens in 2200?

But, so I can still answer your question NO, go back and find some predictions from the future written by the greatest minds of the day in 1803.
Humans have proven incapable of predicting their own fate.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
I say Capitalism is dying ,but i'm not saying that communism ,especially how you perceive it ,works.

What do you base the death of capitalism on? The fact that almost every country in the world is attempting to emulate its principles to share in its success, and those that don't are being left behind? Or that there is a cyclical and long predicted blip in economic growth that, for some reason, makes you believe its the end of it all?

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
I'm saying that this system that i'm talking about ,has the potential to work to a certain level ,withought being absolutly perfect.Capitalism isn't perfect neither ,we all know that.It's just a matter of having the best of the worse.

Hopefully by 2200 we'll have come up with a better system for allocating resources.
Remember, in 1803 Adam Smith was all we knew of capitalism and Marx hadn't been born yet. I'm sure people thought we knew it all back then too.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
I'm just analysing the evolution's that happened the last 100years ,especially the technological ones ,and trying to predict how the next 100 years of technological evolution will shape our system's ,just like the last 100 did.

Your analysis is too limited, unless you can explain why the technological evolution over the last 100 years hasn't caused even a noticable decrease (if anything increase) in the employment levels?

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
But i never called you arrogant because you defended youre pro-capitalism or anti-commie oppinion's.

I think most predictions of the future are arrogant.
Particularly those that aren't fully informed or immersed in the areas they are predicting.

That wasn't meant to be an offense, you can have your theory and enjoy the intellectual exercise of trying to handicap the future all you want; I just think its arrogant to assume your mind is the most capable of determining the course of economics. I'll defer to the experts.

Originally posted by Tassadar
I agree with DOL, i will add that old communism ( like russia) were more criminal then anything else, it was far away from the real essence of the ideology.

Actually, they did a pretty thurough job of following the Marxist economic doctrine. Ask the Ukranians of the 1930s, if you can find any that survived the famine.

Originally posted by Tassadar
If we achieve a technical knowledge that allow us to give everyone free education, free health care, free food, free house, ect... by using robots workpower, then where is the problem if it look like communism.

Goods & services will still have value, and unique education, health care, food, houses, ect. will still cause a demand for specific products, and therefore a market. Not everyone can live in Beverly Hills, even if the houses are free. Supply & demand will still rule the day, even if the supply curve is extremely generous.

Originally posted by Tassadar
Call it democommunist, where leader are elected but factory goods are evenly distribute.

And the motivation issue, as always, goes unaddressed.

Originally posted by Tassadar
robot at work dont need to use car everyday and burn oil, so it can even solve our enviromental problem of greenhouse effect.

Machines actually use a lot of energy, and scarce resources to produce.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

There we go again.Yet another chapter in this endless discussion.(afcourse it's endless ,as you said this theory's can't be 100% proven)

Considering the increase in population and entrance of women into the workforce over the last 40 years, its absolutely amazing that unemployment is LOWER now than it was back then. Of course, at the time there were decries about how women entering the workfield would be a return to the depression, and take away jobs from good men. Oh, and of course the obligatory Malthusian references to the overabundance of labor causing a decline in the standard of living. Don't they look silly now.

The rise of employement result's im more demand ,wich create's again more employement.That's pretty obvious.It's a cycle (if i can use that word for that) ,wich can also work the other way around.Decline in unemployement result's in less demand ,wich create's more unemployement.

Once again, why hasn't this happened from the industrial revolution to the present? Unemployment was much higher back then, around 15% average. A few years ago, it was around 3%.
According to your theory, automation should have caused those people to be unemployed. Many people would have agreed with you 75-100 years ago, but it didn't happen. Why?

This easy to explain.First of all you cannot see this into a nation context ,exterior factor's are influence's thing's like this to ,like the rise of demand abroad.
And as i said ,the fact that technoligy must be researched and robot's must be produced ,bring's some employement to.However ,the better the technoligy get's ,the less people it needs to produce these machinery and to research the technoligy ,while the robot's themself take over a bigger ammount of labour.Simply put ,in the past the research and implementation of these technoligy's still added an extra of labour ,but as technoligy evolve's these extra's are shrinking ,until a point that the ammount of labour that is needed to produce these robot's will be less than the ammount of labour that it replaces.

Robot's are not always cheper than labour ,no.but as technoligy progresses ,those machine's and robot's will more and more become cheaper ,until a point that it is chepaer than human labour.Unless human labour will come to cost less ,wich will influence deman though.

Unless I'm writing a sci-fi novel, why would I care what happens in 2200?

You don't have to ,i'm only making the point that the more we are developing these technoligy's ,the more this theory become's possible.

But, so I can still answer your question NO, go back and find some predictions from the future written by the greatest minds of the day in 1803.

I know some people that could make very good prediction's actually.Ever heard of Jules Verne for example?

What do you base the death of capitalism on?

Your analysis is too limited, unless you can explain why the technological evolution over the last 100 years hasn't caused even a noticable decrease (if anything increase) in the employment levels?

I explained these points in this post earlier.

I think most predictions of the future are arrogant.
Particularly those that aren't fully informed or immersed in the areas they are predicting.
That wasn't meant to be an offense, you can have your theory and enjoy the intellectual exercise of trying to handicap the future all you want; I just think its arrogant to assume your mind is the most capable of determining the course of economics. I'll defer to the experts.

LOL ,i laugh at youre so called "experts".Most economist seem to be unable to predict simple short term thing's.And i yet have to know one expert that fully understands capitalism.
Ever heard of the money multiplyer?There is simply no "expert" that can fully explain how this work ,they just use number's and figure's from the economy census to calculate this.
Economy is ,toghether with psychology ,one of the most un-proven (not sure this is the right word) science's.

Machines actually use a lot of energy, and scarce resources to produce.

This is a good point ,though with adequate technoligy in theory energy can be produced for free ,granted that we use automated renewable energy source's.But it would make robotics labour in itself quite free to ,not incalculating the infrastructure cost's ,but operationaly free.If you have masses of Renewable energy source's ,energy could in theory be free.

 

[Tassadar]

1.- You cannot compare ukranian 1930 with a robotic-economic base society, you miss by far my point here, dont stick to old fashion communist.

2.- The problem in today world is lots of poeple are in need while a minority got billion $$$$$, supply and demand are not fullfill in today world, but it will in a robotics-economy world.


3.- You can ask a robot to human ass if they are not motivated enough.


4.- Robot and computer are much more energy effective than car.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
The rise of employement result's im more demand ,wich create's again more employement.That's pretty obvious.It's a cycle (if i can use that word for that) ,wich can also work the other way around.Decline in unemployement result's in less demand ,wich create's more unemployement.

Yeah, its known as the business cylce. The cycle part means it goes up, then down, then up, then down, but in the long run hovers around 2% growth.
You can effectively model the last 100 years of human development using exponential technology growth to recieve the same results. Now, unless you're going to CHANGE an economic factor you've got not compelling reason to assume this is going to change, EXCEPT you believe that technology=lower employment despite every bit of economic data to the contrary since the Industrial revolution.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
And as i said ,the fact that technoligy must be researched and robot's must be produced ,bring's some employement to.However ,the better the technoligy get's ,the less people it needs to produce these machinery and to research the technoligy ,while the robot's themself take over a bigger ammount of labour.Simply put ,in the past the research and implementation of these technoligy's still added an extra of labour ,but as technoligy evolve's these extra's are shrinking ,until a point that the ammount of labour that is needed to produce these robot's will be less than the ammount of labour that it replaces.

Once again, what is this idea based on? And why hasn't it happened yet? Unless you're changing something about the proliferation of technology and evolution of the job market, I don't see a reason your prediction is anymore compelling than predicting better technology will make it easier/more profitable to harness workers and raise employment. Like running a machine off the brain-power of a (formerly) homeless guy for 8 hours a day.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
Robot's are not always cheper than labour ,no.but as technoligy progresses ,those machine's and robot's will more and more become cheaper ,until a point that it is chepaer than human labour.Unless human labour will come to cost less ,wich will influence deman though.

Capital is a much larger investment than labor, plus its more static; you can't just fire a robot. And, once again, you're assuming that all jobs can be done by machines and AI. How many jobs in downtown Manhatten, for example, do you think can be replaced by machines?

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
I know some people that could make very good prediction's actually.Ever heard of Jules Verne for example?

Yeah, I read his work everytime I fly my airship.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
LOL ,i laugh at youre so called "experts".

And they laugh at you

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
Most economist seem to be unable to predict simple short term thing's. And i yet have to know one expert that fully understands capitalism.

Well that is what you get for insulating yourself from real economists.

Fully understanding capitalism is not that difficult. All its nuansces, models & details of course, but most of them specialize. Its more complex than people give it credit for though. You, for example.

And what is that about short-term predictions? When are they NOT on money?

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
Ever heard of the money multiplyer?There is simply no "expert" that can fully explain how this work ,they just use number's and figure's from the economy census to calculate this.

I'd rather have them admit they don't have all the answers than make something up and stick with it just because they hate being wrong

But I'm not sure if you're right. The money multiplier is a pretty simple concept about spreading wealth so that each hand it moves through gains utility from its transaction, and therefor raises their total standard of living even if their bank account doesn't grow.

I think what you mean is we don't know how to calculate a money multiplier without economic data, which is true for everything in economics, from GDP to demand. I don't see the point of being able to do that, since they'd just be numbers in a vaccuum. Why economists are so fond of variables, they're applicable to a number of situations. As soon as you plug in a number, you're limiting the applicability of whatever you're attempting to illustrate.

Originally posted by Tassadar
The problem in today world is lots of poeple are in need while a minority got billion $$$$$, supply and demand are not fullfill in today world, but it will in a robotics-economy world.

Supply & demand has nothing to do with need or income distribution.

 

[SewerStarFish]

If machines do everything and people don't find some new job to do then we can all play Civilization XXV and[dance] :love2: sounds like utopia

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by SewerStarFish
If machines do everything and people don't find some new job to do then we can all play Civilization XXV and[dance] :love2: sounds like utopia

If every governement on earth stop investing in warfare and invest in technology for civilian, then the utopia is close. But human nature is weird and agressive and human prefer to dominate other unsteed of sharing.

So the utopia is not a technological issue neiter a political one but a human nature .

 

[Rodgers]

Hey, I ALREADY get machines to do some pretty crazy stuff you wouldn't have imagined was possible and it sure feels like a utopia to me

 

[ZultanofZex]

yes, Rodgers, but the toaster wasn't supposed to be used in THAT way

 

[Rodgers]

she was asking for it - the shiny whore!

 

[ZultanofZex]

inserted the toast roughly, I see?

 

[Rodgers]

she took two slices at once until they were burnt to a crisp!

 

[ZultanofZex]

Did you butter them too?

 

[Rodgers]

I ran out of butter after the first one

 

[ZultanofZex]

wich slot in the toaster where you using when you ran out of all the butter?

 

[Rodgers]

The one with the brownest bread in it