PDA

View Full Version : Google / Boston Dynamics - Divorce



erikals
03-20-2016, 04:21 AM
seems the Boston Dynamics guys didn't want to cooperate with Google
Toyota or Amazon might jump on.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/google-is-said-to-put-boston-dynamics-robotics-unit-up-for-sale


http://geekologie.com/2016/03/01/robotic-dog-vs-real-dog.jpg

djwaterman
03-20-2016, 06:41 AM
Makes you wonder why Google bought the company in the first place, did they really think they could get some kind of marketable consumer product in a few years, apparently they discontinued any of the military applications the company was working on when they bought it.


https://vimeo.com/159676990

erikals
03-20-2016, 07:24 AM
i'm sure they could have if they wanted to, Honda is doing it.

guess this didn't make things easier >


At the heart of Replicant’s trouble,
was a reluctance by Boston Dynamics executives to work with Google’s other robot engineers in California and Tokyo...

ccclarke
03-20-2016, 08:54 AM
For research programs like these, (bipeds, quadrupeds - like Spot and Big Dog) the military is more amenable to waiting a decade (or more) to develop game-changing breakthroughs; the civilian market isn't. Internal R&D (which equates to overhead) to develop cutting-edge technologies is very expensive. Externally-funded R&D while expensive, builds upon previous groundwork and there's more, (but still limited) patience regarding the timeline.

The Marines dropped the developmental Big Dog project as too noisy for field use, but eventually, advanced robotics will be the go-to solution for urban warfare in highly-contested environments, unless semi and fully-autonomous Hunter-Killer robotics are outlawed. Exo-skeletons to extend human endurance are a low-tech solution currently being tested.

Google's perception that robots designed to perform manually-intensive, repetitive tasks are frightening to workers that would eventually be displaced is valid. It will happen eventually, but let another company take the PR hit for now. In fifty years, many low-tech occupations will become irrelevant.

When true AI is created and implemented, revolutionary changes will occur in society at a truly frightening pace. How we deal with these technologies, (and the one's we can't even envision yet) will be the defining question of this century.

These really are the good old days. . .

CC

roboman
03-21-2016, 09:02 AM
.....Google's perception that robots designed to perform manually-intensive, repetitive tasks are frightening to workers that would eventually be displaced is valid. It will happen eventually, but let another company take the PR hit for now. In fifty years, many low-tech occupations will become irrelevant. ....

That has already been happening for the last 150 years or more. I've been at the company where I am at now for 23 years. We have grown more then 10% almost every year since I've been there, with about the same number of workers, but lots of robots. None of the robots have two legs or look like people, but several do have arms and hands. Did all the robots take away jobs? Well we ship lots of stuff around the world, even to China. If not for the robots a bunch of people in China and a few other places would be making our products and the higher paid USA workers would be out of a job, but the number of lower paid workers around the world would be higher. At one time my mother was in charge of two floors of workers at an insurance company. All of their jobs were replaced with a computer(I think around 300 at that one company). True AI I think is a long way off, but bits and pieces of what looks a bit like AI have been chipping away at jobs for years. Fuzzy logic optical inspecting stations are also a good example, you just show the camera some good parts and some bad ones, the computer then makes shockingly good picks of good parts and bad ones after that, even when the defects aren't exactly the same as the sample bad ones. Look at the world of animation/fx and what automation has done to it. There is no clean line of when the robots will take over, it started the day the first person figured out a stick could be used as a lever to let them do the work of more then one person

kopperdrake
03-21-2016, 09:16 AM
For research programs like these, (bipeds, quadrupeds - like Spot and Big Dog) the military is more amenable to waiting a decade (or more) to develop game-changing breakthroughs; the civilian market isn't. Internal R&D (which equates to overhead) to develop cutting-edge technologies is very expensive. Externally-funded R&D while expensive, builds upon previous groundwork and there's more, (but still limited) patience regarding the timeline.

The Marines dropped the developmental Big Dog project as too noisy for field use, but eventually, advanced robotics will be the go-to solution for urban warfare in highly-contested environments, unless semi and fully-autonomous Hunter-Killer robotics are outlawed. Exo-skeletons to extend human endurance are a low-tech solution currently being tested.

Google's perception that robots designed to perform manually-intensive, repetitive tasks are frightening to workers that would eventually be displaced is valid. It will happen eventually, but let another company take the PR hit for now. In fifty years, many low-tech occupations will become irrelevant.

When true AI is created and implemented, revolutionary changes will occur in society at a truly frightening pace. How we deal with these technologies, (and the one's we can't even envision yet) will be the defining question of this century.

These really are the good old days. . .

CC


I genuinely suspect that there will be a new set of luddites, and this next step in development will be far more harrowing than the last.

50one
03-21-2016, 10:04 AM
That has already been happening for the last 150 years or more. I've been at the company where I am at now for 23 years. We have grown more then 10% almost every year since I've been there, with about the same number of workers, but lots of robots. None of the robots have two legs or look like people, but several do have arms and hands. Did all the robots take away jobs? Well we ship lots of stuff around the world, even to China. If not for the robots a bunch of people in China and a few other places would be making our products and the higher paid USA workers would be out of a job, but the number of lower paid workers around the world would be higher. At one time my mother was in charge of two floors of workers at an insurance company. All of their jobs were replaced with a computer(I think around 300 at that one company). True AI I think is a long way off, but bits and pieces of what looks a bit like AI have been chipping away at jobs for years. Fuzzy logic optical inspecting stations are also a good example, you just show the camera some good parts and some bad ones, the computer then makes shockingly good picks of good parts and bad ones after that, even when the defects aren't exactly the same as the sample bad ones. Look at the world of animation/fx and what automation has done to it. There is no clean line of when the robots will take over, it started the day the first person figured out a stick could be used as a lever to let them do the work of more then one person


That's a very good post, most people are afraid of two legged robots working at a checkout in local supermarket, however the reality is different.
I rememebr the times the self-checkouts were introduced into local stores, at the beginning there were like 2/3 of them, now it's almost 60/40 split self checkouts/cashiers and growing, if there's anyone to blame there are the customers - I'm one of those people who don;t really go to "normal" checkouts. The automated ones are faster, don't look at what you buy and don't need brakes( any corporation love this).

We've got plans for autonomous lorries by the 2020, there won't be a need for drivers just the support personnel. Even Amazon is slowly replacing people in their warehouses with automated systems, so there won;t be a need for hundreds of people working in their centers sooner than later. The only reason why is this not happening soon is the fact that there would be a huge outcry from the public, so it will happen at a slower rate.

This reminds me a story, my friend went to Vietnam on a business trip years ago and close to a river he saw hundreds of man loading a ferry with coal I think with buckets or wheelbarrows, I think he asked the guy why there's no conveyor or something there - he would load up the ferry within an hour rather than days and the guy said "But then, what would all those people do? Only two guys will be needed to manage/service the conveyor belt". It's pretty much what's happening now everywhere, it's quite sad but the good news is that it's not happening at much faster rate and it could.

Labour wise, there still will be space for very specific jobs within say industrial/engineering but as I said 90% of the current work there could have been done by specialised autonomous units.

BeeVee
03-21-2016, 10:21 AM
That is why governments around the world need to think of how to deal with mass unemployment as a normal state of affairs.

B

50one
03-21-2016, 10:53 AM
That is why governments around the world need to think of how to deal with mass unemployment as a normal state of affairs.

B


Well, yes and no - on one spectrum you've got jobless people and on the other you've got speed, efficiency and lower cost for companies which means ..progress.
You can't stop progress.

Also, don't expect the gov to come to the rescue, people should be self-sufficient and never rely on anyone, especially on the gov as just like any government on this planet there's always huge corporations standing behind it and they're interested in profit only.

Kaptive
03-21-2016, 12:37 PM
Yeah, it is a dangerous path. In the drive to make things more efficient... profitable, they are feeding less and less into the economy... because as they remove workers, they remove the wage. People without money to spend means far less customers. That will mean more people on benefits, paid for by taxes of the working few. However, the real money to compensate needs to be coming from the corporations that are making everyone redundant... but then you look at Google, Amazon etc, and they are using every loop hole and avenue in order to avoid paying taxes... and politicians let them get away with it as they all play for the same team through lobbying, sponsorship, donations etc etc.

So what happens then? Well, we are already seeing it, with Governments (talking UK here) cutting disability allowance. Hitting the most vulnerable who can't fight back. It won't stop there though. They keep squeezing on both sides.

If we continue along this trajectory without addressing these issues, then it's going to get really nasty out there at some point in our lifetimes.

note: I see I am repeating much of what you said 50one :) Not sure your post was there when I started writing. Weird. But glad to see we're on the same page.

BeeVee
03-22-2016, 07:16 AM
Which is why looking at the issue differently is needed. It can no longer be about being "jobless". That is going to be the norm as we move forward (and thankfully, the PIP cut has been stopped, but they still need to find the money). The fact is that the average man in the street is going to be less and less able to give the government afloat through taxation. The only way to get the necessary cash to keep services flowing is to tax companies, something governments have always been afraid to do - it's difficult and there's the worry that the companies will just go elsewhere...

B

50one
03-22-2016, 01:33 PM
Which is why looking at the issue differently is needed. It can no longer be about being "jobless". That is going to be the norm as we move forward (and thankfully, the PIP cut has been stopped, but they still need to find the money). The fact is that the average man in the street is going to be less and less able to give the government afloat through taxation. The only way to get the necessary cash to keep services flowing is to tax companies, something governments have always been afraid to do - it's difficult and there's the worry that the companies will just go elsewhere...

B


I'll tell you this.

Humans are strange creatures, we all want freedom, freedom of speech, of movement freedom to do whatever we want, freedom to buy stuff that we want at a good price? Say you;re in the market for a new bed, you can choose between this small local shop run by this old couple and say it costs $150 or you can go to this "bed super store" and get the same bed for $99 with free delivery and someone will assemble it for you? Exactly, you'll go for the cheapest option because you have the freedom and we have free( almost, it's kinda communist but about that later on) economy.

Now, stop for a second and think. The guy who runs his/hers company has the same rights as you do - he wants to maximize the profit for him or the shareholdes and minimize the spending, why on earth he should be bothered in keeping this team of people who needs breaks, devours a lot of taxes , health insurance etc. while he can have one person who presses the button and ensures the machine is plugged in? I know harsh, but this is the beauty of the economy we have, we're allowed to do whatever we want and so are other people it's their business.

Oh the empathy, that's right, he should keep the people at work because of the empathy! Same empathy that almost wiped out all small/local shops from our markets because people like you and me started buying at walmart/Tesco/Saisnbury's/Morissons who were competitors to those local stores.

Now, you want the government to look into this issue, but what exactly you want them to do? Force the guy who runs the company to pay some more taxes for employing robots instead of humans? pay to the business owners some government subsidies for keeping the humans at work? You're loosing on both scenarios anyway, who pays the taxes that gov spends?

It's like with Uber, people love it, it's cheap and great, not until you happen to be taxi driver working in local company, then you voice your unhappinesses about this and want your gov. to ban this application! Why? It's free market after all? Oh, I get it! It's only great when a certain group benefits from them, when they're affected by this freedom they cry to governemnt and want more gov control over the market...which leads to nothing else than communist market and if you think that this is not happening now, think twice, most of the markets in western world are quite heavily regulated and there's only small thin line that separates what we've got now and what we could have when gov totally controls the markets, there's lot of books and research on this subject so please do your research.

That's why I'm saying we're strange creatures, we want more freedom but we actually want more control over our life.

spherical
03-22-2016, 03:54 PM
we want more freedom but we actually want more control over our life.

What some see as a solution is something you left out. Ethics. Similar in scope to empathy, it too is sorely lacking in recent society. If people were brought up to value ethics, things would be a whole lot different right now and in the future. That it is rare these days, is what breeds greed, arrogance and irresponsibility for one's actions. How they impact others is less than a footnote. Respect has gone out the airlock. Just take a look at the banking sector for an object example.

ccclarke
03-22-2016, 08:03 PM
While I fully understand the intent of what was posted regarding the last 150 plus-years leading up to and including the Industrial Revolution by roboman, the comparison to the scale of automation which has come before is not comparable to what's coming next. --Not by a long shot.

When self-ware AI becomes available, (the military will probably get the first crack at it) the march forward that humans have been doing since we stood upright will be quickly assumed by machines that will invent for us, on a scale and pace that is unprecedented in human history.

One of the first (and most welcome) feats will be the elimination of disease. For example, we ask for a cure for a certain type of cancer and all of the information ever learned will be instantly accessible with parallel processing and simulation of anything we've done to date occurring simultaneously. A short time later, the cure either appears, or a series of questions to define the path are posed. The cycle is repeated until the question is answered. This scenario will be repeated much to the delight of the public, and it will be awesome. How do we stop aging? Or download our consciousness in a near-indestructible vessel? The questions and answers won't occur serially, they will happen in parallel. Tethered AI-in-a-box be a good thing. But it's only the beginning. When AI is coupled with advanced robotics, you get a much more capable machine. When it becomes self-aware, that's where the situation starts to get real ugly, real fast.

Production-oriented robotics will go from 3-axis industrial mechanization (only example) to fully-autonomous, mobile dexterous machines that can out-think and out-perform humans. Again, the military could likely end up with the first models, eliminating human battlefield casualties a-la "Terminator." We build one, then competitors build theirs. Maybe war will become unthinkable.

Why spend years training to be a doctor when an AI-equipped being can download the information in moments? What motivates people when machines can take care of everything? We've got plenty of examples of what happens when people have no purpose in life already. This goes from a technology perspective but a philosophical discussion real quick.

Full implementation of self-aware AI (within the next fifty years, though probably a lot sooner) will leap from humans seeking answers to AI seeking answers for questions posed by humans, and then evolving rapidly in ways science fiction can barely conceive presently.

A self-aware machine that not only thinks but evolves at an accelerated rate far exceeding our capacity to comprehend can easily overcome any self-preservation protocol we attempt to impose against it as more and more infrastructure humans depend on for survival becomes interconnected. Think of a baby trying to play chess with a grandmaster; machines that can adapt and evolve independently will dwarf our ability to predict and adapt ahead of them.

Perhaps they will protect us from ourselves, or. . . remove us from the playing field altogether. We simply won't be able to compete if self-aware intellect with full mobility becomes the dominant force on this planet --The necessary safeguards must be 100% in our favor to maintain control. Just like the relentless hacking that occurs now, there's no way to prevent a determine machine, smarter than us from not being able to dominate us if it wants (or feels it needs) to.

What if they're declared conscious beings with equal rights? In the near future, people complaining about being displaced from (mostly) mundane jobs will become ever-increasingly frequent. In the not-too-distant future, the issue could easily change from mere unemployment to space-sharing relevance.

Just my .02. I could be wrong; I certainly hope so.

CCC

tischbein3
03-23-2016, 02:48 AM
Which is why looking at the issue differently is needed. It can no longer be about being "jobless". That is going to be the norm as we move forward (and thankfully, the PIP cut has been stopped, but they still need to find the money). The fact is that the average man in the street is going to be less and less able to give the government afloat through taxation. The only way to get the necessary cash to keep services flowing is to tax companies, something governments have always been afraid to do - it's difficult and there's the worry that the companies will just go elsewhere...

B

Taxing (machine tax) is one solution to solve the problem, the other is to drastically reduce worktime for the existing jobs and compensate the loss of worforce through additional employment (Of course monetary compensation has to be higher). This boost of free time will also have a positive impact on economy: since there is more time to consume.. Also this time could be used to aquire (and save) knowledge wich would be otherwise lost through mechanisation.

Last time I heard, about one third of the workforce could be replaced through machines in my country, the only reason they aren't is, that it's actually cheaper to let humans do the job. Wich is ridicilous: machines exist to make live easier, not to put another pressure factor on peoples lives / make them work in competition to them.

roboman
03-23-2016, 08:50 AM
[QUOTE=tischbein3;1470250.... Wich is ridicilous: machines exist to make live easier, not to put another pressure factor on peoples lives / make them work in competition to them.[/QUOTE]

Who came up with that rule? People don't seem to be following it. Maybe we need to dump Lightwave and all the other animation tools, as they put whole groups of inkers and tweeners out of work. Almost no one wold say that. Any thing that lets you do more means you don't need as many other people to do things. Good for you, bad for them. Just seems to be the way the world works. Not sure what a nicer version of things would even look like.

True AI will be a bit different. When it's as smart as a slug it isn't going to be any better then what we have now. When it's as smart as a cat or dog, it will have some impact, but not be to disruptive. As it climbs through the human iq range things will get strange and maybe ugly. That's assuming true AI ever happens and then you get into human computer interfaces and hardware augmented human brains.... the world keeps changing. Jezzzz I kind of wonder about that stuff, while making all this equipment that is used in labs doing dna research and other kinds of medical research.

erikals
03-23-2016, 11:36 AM
i'm 100% sure that Google already has made AI that is smarter than a monkey.

we'll see true AI within 20 years from now.


Google Open Source AI
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/google-open-sources-its-artificial-intelligence-engine


With TensorFlow, however, the company has changed tack, freely sharing some of its newest—and, indeed, most important—software. Yes, Google open sources parts of its Android mobile operating system and so many other smaller software projects. But this is different. In releasing TensorFlow, Google is open sourcing software that sits at the heart of its empire. “It’s a pretty big shift,” says Dean, who helped build so much of the company’s groundbreaking data center software, including the Google File System, MapReduce, and BigTable.
Open Algorithms

Deep learning relies on neural networks—systems that approximate the web of neurons in the human brain. Basically, you feed these networks vast amounts of data, and they learn to perform a task. Feed them myriad photos of breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and they can learn to recognize a meal. Feed them spoken words, and they can learn to recognize what you say. Feed them some old movie dialogue, and they can learn to carry on a conversation—not a perfect conversation, but a pretty good conversation.

tischbein3
03-23-2016, 11:44 AM
Who came up with that rule? People don't seem to be following it. Maybe we need to dump Lightwave and all the other animation tools, as they put whole groups of inkers and tweeners out of work. Almost no one wold say that. Any thing that lets you do more means you don't need as many other people to do things. Good for you, bad for them. Just seems to be the way the world works. Not sure what a nicer version of things would even look like.
Thats not what I said didn't I ? Machines _should_ take away the work, for the better. But again what if one third of the current workforce is suddenly unemployed ? How would you substain such a society ? Because our current system will reach to the point where this _will_ happen (if no catastrophy, worldwide war, or a rage against the machines will happen). BeeVee proposes taxation I propose the general reduction of worktime / split the existing jobs to a wider range of people. Can you name a third ? Because really, this a discussion wich is long overdue in the industrial societies.



True AI will be a bit different. When it's as smart as a slug it isn't going to be any better then what we have now. When it's as smart as a cat or dog, it will have some impact, but not be to disruptive. As it climbs through the human iq range things will get strange and maybe ugly..
You would be surprised how many tasks out there could be replaced by a simulated AI, or a neural net adapted to specific tasks. Yes, even with little a more IQ than a slug.
Its already happen on a small scale see here:
http://www.popsci.com/hitachi-hires-artificial-intelligence-bosses-for-their-warehouses

BeeVee
03-25-2016, 07:04 AM
It is a discussion that is overdue. Like global climate change, humankind's best ability seems to be to ignore the obvious. Governments right now bleat about "creating jobs", but no-one is talking about the fact that soon fewer and fewer of us will have work. I've started jotting down some ideas, but it turns out there are far more brilliant thinkers devoting their time to the topic (look into "universal basic income"). I thought that people who actually wanted to work, and there will be plenty, could try to invent their way out of the jobs they go into to double their basic with each job they remove. That way, you still get that disparity that drives civilisation, but it would be based on merit rather than an accident of birth.

B

roboman
03-27-2016, 07:35 PM
About 50 years ago my dad started bringing me in to help him at work. About 40 years ago I realized a machine I had helped build had cost around 20 people their jobs. My dad explained that the company we had built the machine for had around 60 people and had been profitable years ago. At the point we built the machine for them they were only making a slight profit and in a year or two would be loosing money and go out of business. So 20 lost their jobs, but they would have lost their job in a year or two along with 40 others. I saw the logic, but also felt for the 20 people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The US is full of ghost town, where the gold ran out, coal ran out, the factory closed or the new train tracks / road just ran somewhere else. But ya, it's different this time. towns like Detroit have large numbers of people whose only real job skill is bolting a fender on a car. Those jobs are going away or pay less then a living wage in the US. I don't see most of them being able to go back to school and become doctors or programmer. That has been bothering me for the last 40 years as I see it getting worse. No good answers. I don't see people going back to farming a small plot of land to feed their family and bring in enough cash to buy a few things.

erikals
03-28-2016, 05:23 AM
yes, it's a challenge for sure. at times i thought of making invention-x only to think of how many jobs it would remove.
but isn't it like that with all jobs/inventions?

another problem we will face is the workforce from other countries, like china.

it's strange to look at the future, and how different it will be.

BeeVee
03-28-2016, 09:07 AM
But that's the point. Things are only going to get "worse". Nobody complains now about the people who used to drive carriages losing their jobs once cars came in (and the farrier, the saddlesmith, the coachwork maintainer, heck even the kid who cleaned up the poop). Trying to find more and more people fewer and fewer jobs of any meaning is just doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Those in charge need to think differently.

B

prometheus
03-28-2016, 09:58 AM
I so wish for a world when we as humans do no longer need to work for production and consumtion and to provide for our income, but rather work creativly for a better mankind, some of us does that, but even more people is tied up in work that doesnīt benefit mankind...only production and consumtion greed.

well..guess I have to dream on, I do wonder though if that day someday will come, when robots can do most of the work for us, and we can continue to work with more creative doings..maybe 500-1000 years from now? I wonīt be around to witness it..so my thoughts are pointless:D

erikals
03-28-2016, 10:10 AM
500-1000 years
i'd say in 50 years robots will have taken 50% of our work

prometheus
03-28-2016, 10:37 AM
i'd say in 50 years robots will have taken 50% of our work

It really is hard to estimate, those working on robots and ai may be better equiped, I myself pointed to a longer period, based on that it seems to take much longer time for stuff to develop and also being implemented and cost effective etc.

In theory..one might think that it should go faster, but there seem to always be some sort of resistance with things like this, but with some after thought, your estimation dosnīt seem unlikely.

BeeVee
03-28-2016, 10:58 AM
The fact is that we're going through a new industrial revolution. Revolutions are always hard and lead to lots of casualties. We are fore-warned about this one, but do nothing about it. Personally I am really drawing my horns in and spending as little as possible right now because I can see a sh1tstorm coming and we need to be ready...

B

erikals
03-28-2016, 11:34 AM
https://stylechakra.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/methodgetswalmart.jpg

prometheus
03-28-2016, 02:59 PM
well..they just started with robotic seals and a robotic cat in the elderly care here in sweden, I wonder when a more advanced "humanoid" like asimov shows up, to be there doing the change of diaper, and to stand guard when the elders are trying to walk around, just to keep them safe from falling, not to imprison them :)

Not sure if the revolution has started, asimov is highly advanced, but still not..and it would cost a fortune for everyday people to get a personal Service robot...saying, I am pleased to be of service.

kopperdrake
03-29-2016, 03:52 AM
The fact is that we're going through a new industrial revolution. Revolutions are always hard and lead to lots of casualties. We are fore-warned about this one, but do nothing about it. Personally I am really drawing my horns in and spending as little as possible right now because I can see a sh1tstorm coming and we need to be ready...

B

You're not the only one BeeVee - the last recession wasn't difficult to see coming. It's a large reason we decided to move to where we could run our business without commuting rather than rent a studio in the city centre. It's also why we've invested a lot of time in learning the skills needed to grow our own food. I want my kids growing up knowing they can stand, to an extent, on their own two feet if needed.

It feels like a perfect storm. We have an overpopulation, which brings so many problems - clashes over resources, over land, over cultural divides. We have the depletion of cheap labour which has helped those on top - as a child I saw "Made in Japan" as the sign of cheap quality in the UK, then the Japanese learned how to make great stuff and suddenly it was "Made in Taiwan". As a post graduate in the early 90s I studied Industrial Design with Taiwanese students who had been sent to Britain to learn our ways, specifically to take them back home (one student was the son of the owner of a major design house in Taiwan). Their products grew in quality, then it became "Made in China", and so on. The major capitalist markets have relied on cheap labour as a simple way of making more profit in the short term whilst they leapfrog the competition, and cutting costs in the mid term when everyone is doing it. We will run out of cheap labour eventually. Add to all of this the tendency for global corporations to wield the majority of power - the amazons, googles, facebooks, Walmarts, Krafts etc. The tax from the workers in every country is paid into that country, but the corporation tax, the big stuff, tends to go back to the parent nation, or wherever the tax amount is minimal. This does not balance out global wealth, it keeps the poorer countries where labour is cheap, rich enough to buy the things they think they need with their new-found place in the global economy, but the real wealth will never be there unless they too innovate and exploit other markets in turn. Robotics is a tool that I have no idea how it will affect things - it might put an end to the need for cheap labour, in which case what happens to those countries who still haven't had the opportunity to plug into the global capitalist economy on any level? Are they saved from the fate of cheap workhouses, or condemned to a country whose economy has nothing to offer the global capitalist system, by way of cheap labour? If I were a company, and I was going to go completely automated, I would do so in the country I wanted to sell the products. I wouldn't build a factory in sub-Sahara Africa purely because of the cheap labour costs as the labour cost has become minimal. I would build it where the product was needed, to save on final transportation costs of that product. The movment of products will become the next major cost after R&D, especially as fuel prices increase again.

I can see the two most important things for an economy to have, to stay ahead of the game, is investment in education, to make sure the sciences are top notch in that country - R&D will become the most important thing to have. Then the next thing the economy will need is the money to lure the manufacturing arm of the company to make their products in their country, assuming they have a ready-made market who wants the products. It already happens - there's a reason why cars are still made in labour-expensive countries - the market is there and the tax breaks that can be given to lure them there. As the labour costs shrink due to roboticisation, it becomes easier to justify keeping them in the labour-expensive countries. At the moment smaller electronics, such as smart phones etc, are cheaper to make in cheap labour countries as the products are high value and tiny, shipping costs are neglible at that level and labour costs still mean something. Take the labour costs out of the equation and you might also start to see electronics returning to the high-labour cost countries. Interesting article here (http://uk.businessinsider.com/robot-jobs-2015-12). So who's left to buy the products? The people in the countries who hold the most IP and therefore the countries where the majority of the profits filter back to - that's where the money is. They will also be the countries who roboticise the world.

So where does that leave us? The richer countries may well be able to help bring back manufacturing to their own shores, which is good for their countries. However, it will leave the poorer countries with less labour-based work, which has been their backdoor into the global market for a long time. Without this their struggle to join the global economy will be more difficult, as they won't have the necessary R&D services that would have piggy-backed on the labour-based work they would have had. In other words, the richer will become richer and the poor will remain poor. And we all know which countries are the happiest - those with the lesser disparity between rich and poor. Poor countries next to rich countries is hardly ever a good thing.

Then add to this the climate change issue (let's assume something is happening, for the sake of opening another argument). This has the potential to increase the severity of any human-made issues. It's as if each and every branch of life is a sine wave, and they're all peaking at the same time - I wonder what the resonant frequency of humankind is?

BeeVee
03-29-2016, 08:12 AM
I remember Made in Japan, then Made in Taiwan and now Made in China very well :D For education, I cheered when Tony Blair said that education was the most important thing, then ground my teeth over the subsequent years as they ignored it completely, and now the tories are making things even worse... I think your idea that roboticised industry might move to the country of consumption is interesting and I think you are right. It's going to mean that migration is going to be ever more important, not to mention when global climate change gets truly disastrous and people flee from low-lying areas as they flood.

B

dickbill
03-29-2016, 01:03 PM
The issue of AI has been discussed on these forums, but for those who start new here, there are other 'possibilities'. I personally share the opinion of Roger Penrose that 'Consciousness' or 'Awareness' are not attainable by any computers. What we are talking about in machine developing an AI is 'computing power' and big memory, not Consciousness. Of course, now even games so complex that they required an exponential amount of calculation after each move can be modeled and therefore played by machines. AlphaGo is the most recent example. Go was supposed to be out of reach of machines, but obviously it is not anymore. But AlphaGO is not self-aware. In his books 'Shadows of the Mind', Penrose built a strong case against any machine becoming self-aware, but many, including some here, have rejected the concept that Awareness is of a different Nature than Computation. We have to admit that what Penrose exposed was at best a conjecture, not a proof.
I can't prove his point either.
However, providing his 'conjecture' was right, the consequences for the future of Humankind are fascinating and very different of a future containing Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Self-awareness.

erikals
03-29-2016, 01:10 PM
'Consciousness' is just the brain being able to draw complex logics, and based on that, fool itself...

and i don't see how Ai would fail to do the same.

after all, we're just Advanced Biological Computers (ABC)



--- as for a soul or such, maybe, maybe not, but that's for another discussion i think ---

there are Ai 'grades' though, i don't think we'll see advanced Ai within 20 years, but rather Ai 'light'

RebelHill
03-29-2016, 01:44 PM
Dont know why all this talk of self aware AI... you dont need it to supplant labour (even a good chunk of what we consider intellectual labour). Theres certainly a difference to rpevious labour revolutions though, in that new demands, and opportunities created will largely be fillable by those same things that have displaced the erstwhile workforce. It will, in time, require an entirely new kind of socio-economic model, else you will simply have truly vast numbers unoccupied and without income. Ofc, it may transpire that there will be no new model to accomodate the displaced, and ull instead see, over time, massive reductions in the human population numbers, no terminators required.

prometheus
03-29-2016, 05:29 PM
Eh..


Ahh..those memories, Asea robots, my first real job 1983 to 1989, though I wasnīt messing with any advanced robots, at that time I was working as an industrial worker...



made in sweden...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOESSCXGhFo

prometheus
03-29-2016, 05:31 PM
The issue of AI has been discussed on these forums,.

And here we go again...and thatīs all I have to say about that...:)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGNK-cOtxSs

prometheus
03-29-2016, 05:45 PM
I am having a second thought on how fast and if the robot revolution really will take place anytime soon, I mean, we have been having industrial robots for ages, the work area has instead opened up other areas also connected to working with robots.

we got..

1. industrial robots
2. military robots
3. service robots?
4. home robots/ entertainment robots.
5. medical robots?

I canīt see me even buying a robot for my home, not even a vacum cleaning robot, so what else should I get excited about for a robot in my home, thereīs still no scarlet johansson out there.
I could have used a robot taking my place at my work as an operator, doing sealing and envelope and document handling..but no, not a robot available for that extremly boring and also stressful job, we had to program the machine to understand each ocr mark on the documents, and then fine tune all the tools on the machine so it could perform the folding correctly, then push it in to an envelope and seal it..the darn thing couldnīt pick up the envelopes and pack it..we had to do it ourself, and quite often the letter documents got stuck and smashed and ripped to pieces when the document was to static or got folded wrongly....leaving us cursing and wanting to kill the machines :)

I reckon that type of job will still have the need for a human to fine tune and code it all for quite some time, though that type of work market tend to go more and more digital, thus in the end there might not be that much of documents to finish with envelopes.

Michael

erikals
03-30-2016, 01:41 AM
https://vimeo.com/139488667

BeeVee
03-30-2016, 02:53 AM
Interesting for the UK that Tata, a huge Indian company, is pulling out completely. Reminds me of the end of the 80s with the demise of the coal industry... Are all those 4,000-odd people going to get new jobs? It seems unlikely - time to change the tune being played and think about "employment" differently.

B

erikals
03-30-2016, 03:02 AM
that's why i'm not a fan of the EU

EU leaders keep importing foreigners for jobs, without thinking about the consequence.

are EU leaders only interested in their own benefits, and leaders in huge companies benefits. (?)


rhetorical.

kopperdrake
03-30-2016, 10:25 AM
I am having a second thought on how fast and if the robot revolution really will take place anytime soon, I mean, we have been having industrial robots for ages, the work area has instead opened up other areas also connected to working with robots.

we got..

1. industrial robots
2. military robots
3. service robots?
4. home robots/ entertainment robots.
5. medical robots?

I canīt see me even buying a robot for my home, not even a vacum cleaning robot, so what else should I get excited about for a robot in my home, thereīs still no scarlet johansson out there.
I could have used a robot taking my place at my work as an operator, doing sealing and envelope and document handling..but no, not a robot available for that extremly boring and also stressful job, we had to program the machine to understand each ocr mark on the documents, and then fine tune all the tools on the machine so it could perform the folding correctly, then push it in to an envelope and seal it..the darn thing couldnīt pick up the envelopes and pack it..we had to do it ourself, and quite often the letter documents got stuck and smashed and ripped to pieces when the document was to static or got folded wrongly....leaving us cursing and wanting to kill the machines :)

I reckon that type of job will still have the need for a human to fine tune and code it all for quite some time, though that type of work market tend to go more and more digital, thus in the end there might not be that much of documents to finish with envelopes.

Michael

I think maybe you're thinking too literally - think of it more as automation. It's already happening in simple walks of life - the number of documents handled by a household is falling. Practically none of our bills are paper-based these days, you have to pay more for those, they're all direct debit these days. Even now we read our meters, but the next generation will send it automatically. They read our meters, they compare our consumption, they predict our spend for the forthcoming year, they suggest a debit amount for us to set up to meet that forecast. It's just one button away from being totally automated where we don't even agree to the monthly direct debit amount - they'll assume the same unless you say otherwise, but in an 'intelligent' way, using patterns. Then add the intelligent building, the ability for a building to heat up as you're on your way back from work, at the moment you can 'play' with your smartphone to do it, but soon (if not already) it'll be hooked up to the gps in your phone, it will track your movements, it will know you've scanned your phone at your usual train station for payment, or used your mobile device to purchase an automated google car to drive you home (no doubt with a screen inside showing you targeted adverts to keep you entertained on your journey), it could know your exact position using your phone and have your heating on to the level you like, as you always set it at that level.

Robots are just a physical manifestation of automation, AI is just a progression of intelligent software automation, to the point it seems intelligent, in the way we do in comparison to a single cell organism using a basic instruction set to survive and divide. The more we give in to automation, in whichever form, the more we distance ourselves from what it is to be human - freedom of choice, to think and act for ourselves.

A choice - sit in your home, shop online where the supermarket knows what you want, and suggests your basket before you've started. It's picked by robots, dropped into a box and delivered to your door by automated truck.

OR

Walk to the local market, smell, poke and taste the fresh produce yourself, make choices, chat with the seller, immerse yourself in the sounds and smells of the moment, and return home to make use of it.

Because I don't believe people want the first choice, I really don't. They see it as an easy option, but the cost is far greater than at first seems - sometimes the harder way is the right way. Which is why I still stand at the remaining person on the tills at the big hardware store - the rest have been automated.

prometheus
03-30-2016, 02:40 PM
I think maybe you're thinking too literally - think of it more as automation. It's already happening in simple walks of life - the number of documents handled by a household is falling. Practically none of our bills are paper-based these days, you have to pay more for those, they're all direct debit these days. Even now we read our meters, but the next generation will send it automatically. They read our meters, they compare our consumption, they predict our spend for the forthcoming year, they suggest a debit amount for us to set up to meet that forecast. It's just one button away from being totally automated where we don't even agree to the monthly direct debit amount - they'll assume the same unless you say otherwise, but in an 'intelligent' way, using patterns. Then add the intelligent building, the ability for a building to heat up as you're on your way back from work, at the moment you can 'play' with your smartphone to do it, but soon (if not already) it'll be hooked up to the gps in your phone, it will track your movements, it will know you've scanned your phone at your usual train station for payment, or used your mobile device to purchase an automated google car to drive you home (no doubt with a screen inside showing you targeted adverts to keep you entertained on your journey), it could know your exact position using your phone and have your heating on to the level you like, as you always set it at that level.

Robots are just a physical manifestation of automation, AI is just a progression of intelligent software automation, to the point it seems intelligent, in the way we do in comparison to a single cell organism using a basic instruction set to survive and divide. The more we give in to automation, in whichever form, the more we distance ourselves from what it is to be human - freedom of choice, to think and act for ourselves.

A choice - sit in your home, shop online where the supermarket knows what you want, and suggests your basket before you've started. It's picked by robots, dropped into a box and delivered to your door by automated truck.

OR

Walk to the local market, smell, poke and taste the fresh produce yourself, make choices, chat with the seller, immerse yourself in the sounds and smells of the moment, and return home to make use of it.

Because I don't believe people want the first choice, I really don't. They see it as an easy option, but the cost is far greater than at first seems - sometimes the harder way is the right way. Which is why I still stand at the remaining person on the tills at the big hardware store - the rest have been automated.

I donīt understand why you are thinking I am thinking about it too literally? then you go on with mentioning how amount of documents are handled by a household is falling? That Is what I am aware of too..I mentioned that in my last sentence..
"though that type of work market tend to go more and more digital, thus in the end there might not be that much of documents to finish with envelopes."

I agree with you too on robots being a part of automation, so in fact our machines to do the enveloping where programmed by us, mostly for each routine ..and the machine was trying to do itīs best to read the documents based on the binary code etc, but as I said, at that time I wish It could perform better, and also do the heavy work, which it didnīt, so thatīs was my grumpy complain about machinery still being far far away from taking over stressfull work.
Though If we were to manage all 65 000 envelopes out during a day shift without the machines, we would had to employ several hundreds of people to take care of it manually...so in a way the "robot" has taken over a lot of jobs that could be handled by human work.

I agree with that machines of course already are doing jobs that makes human work redundant, and that has been going on for decades and it will be even more so gradually, but I do not think the more advanced "humanoid" robot tasks will take over those jobs so soon, the ai are to much in research, still not at the level it needīs to be...and Itīs still to expensive I think for that too happen.

When I can go and get myself some sort of Asimov robot at half the price of an occulus rift, then it might be interesting to have it around, as long as it does itīs important tasks, such as waking me up with fresh juice, toasted bread and perfect boiled egg, and also makes sure the oven is turned off, my clothes should also be ironed during the night.:D..I just donīt see that happening for decades, unless I spend all my savings in the near future and get me the most advanced one in a couple of years.

I guess we have to think about what is a robot? can we put a clock, a mobile phone, a computer in that category? I think we would not, we may expect a special designed robot to do a certain task, a vacum cleaner robot for instance, the word Robota is slavik for work..so it has nothing to do with machines in therms of the name..though the name has etymologic meaning in some dictionaries, to be classified as a human like machinery with electric impulses can be made to do work or to certain movements, or an unmanned airplane that is automaticly doing itīs task ..or can be controlled by radiowaves.

I guess the etymologi with regards to a robot, is more commonly accepted and developed to include much much more than that though, even programs seem to be considered as a robot nowadays.

A side note..when the nuclear disaster happened in fukuchima, I think the honda team was contacted with request for the asimov robot to go inside the radiation area and do some work, but the honda team became aware of that asimov wasnīt at that level it could handle such tasks.
I think they got a wake up call ..and they may be developing something right now that should be able to handle such tasks.

a robot in terms of Intelligent machines in our homes for household tasks? well we got our computers, smart tv..surf pads etc, I think those kind of stuff takes care of the most without the need for a humanoid...boy we would really be passive if it were to do all things, fixing laundry, cleaning , ironing, doing breakfast etc..so I am a bit douptful we actually will have a need for any high advanced humanoid doing it that we actually would be interacting with.

This I can see happening in research labs, and maybe in some industries, and entertainment..but for it to become an everyday machine like the computer, that will probably take several decades..and by then I hope I can get me a good robo nurse at the elderly care.

I think itīs a pitty though, that the AI and robotics isnīt at the level where they can build homes for fugitives, doing rescue work at earthquakes..like a robo snake searching in narrow areas, or a drone flying over area to scan for survivals etc.
It may be on itīs way though, not long ago the police have gotten permisson to use drones, fire department and rescue teams looking for missing people also have been using it lately.

Michael

prometheus
03-30-2016, 03:08 PM
There is also quite a difference when approaching robots, industrial robots that are sort of taking over our jobs in the industries are often not autonomous, mostly programmed for doing their task, while there are others that are mor autonomous, capable of adapting, sensory perception, etc...probably what a vacum cleaner can be classified as.

One sure as hell do not want to work like a robot, but yet we are complaining about them taking our jobs :)

erikals
03-31-2016, 12:40 PM
barely sounds like a robot...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_oUkd0XT_Y


soon you won't be able to tell...

prometheus
03-31-2016, 01:40 PM
barely sounds like a robot...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_oUkd0XT_Y


soon you won't be able to tell...

sounds good, except I could hear the nuance going bad when speaking ...Mars... mellows:D the so called intelligent machine had no way of understanding it was a single word, not mars and mellows.

acapella voice synth...try it...
https://acapela-box.com/AcaBox/index.php

prometheus
03-31-2016, 04:51 PM
have to post this,...

feed this line belove in to the acapela box ..the link I posted above, and doesnīt it sound familiar?
use the english, usa language, and select will little creature.:)

The line...

Learn how to use lightwave. teach you I will.

kopperdrake
04-01-2016, 02:35 AM
I donīt understand why you are thinking I am thinking about it too literally? then you go on with mentioning how amount of documents are handled by a household is falling? That Is what I am aware of too..I mentioned that in my last sentence..

You're so right Michael, my apologies - I got carried away with the subject! I suppose the whole irony is that humans have essentially got to where we are precisely because of the urge to make life easier for ourselves. We have evolved to develop something as good as, if not better, in order to make our lives easier, but we won't know what we're supposed to do with ourselves once we have freed up our time - our socio-economic structure just isn't built for that scenario, and I suspect neither is our psyche. We thrive on struggle, yet hate it.

Kaptive
04-01-2016, 04:20 AM
Oh I don't know... I could happily sit on my arse a fair bit while a robot rubs my feet and grows/makes me dinner ;)

kopperdrake
04-01-2016, 04:48 AM
Oh I don't know... I could happily sit on my arse a fair bit while a robot rubs my feet and grows/makes me dinner ;)

Oh...*that* kind of robot!

:D

prometheus
04-01-2016, 12:05 PM
You're so right Michael, my apologies - I got carried away with the subject! I suppose the whole irony is that humans have essentially got to where we are precisely because of the urge to make life easier for ourselves. We have evolved to develop something as good as, if not better, in order to make our lives easier, but we won't know what we're supposed to do with ourselves once we have freed up our time - our socio-economic structure just isn't built for that scenario, and I suspect neither is our psyche. We thrive on struggle, yet hate it.

Explanations makes it alright:=)

I agree with you on our socio-economic structure isnīt built for a scenario where we should be unemployed and doing nothing to earn our money, robots everywhere would therefore fail in helping society based on private corporates are interesting mostly in one thing..to earn money in various degrees from being enough to support themself and their employed and get around...to the point of ridiculous greed, and where they simply donīt bother of having a perspective of social sustainability and responsibility to provide jobs.

There could be an ideal utiopa society making it working, that would be a communist state where the state is providing all jobs, for the benifit of the state and every indvidual citizen and family, where all the income and profit is recycled for the benefit of all, unfortunatly ..such utopia hasnīt been working very nicely has it..and I doubt it will, so the free market forces and economic trade structures is what currently has been working best, but I would say far from balanced towards working for benefiting all..unfortunatly.

when no one needs to work for food, energy and health care and homeīs...why should their be work? I think there is a built in motivation in our human genes that still will strive to improve everything we can improve if it is reasonable, thus I do not think we would have any problems of ..not knowing what to do with our time if we wouldnīt be working.

In history it seems our families and in our society in general..it is taking some sort of pride in working very hard, if you by any chance are born with a silverspoon...and all handed to you or just doing lazy jobs, the respect for those persons have never been in kind terms, more like parasites feeding on what others are working hard to acomplish, so naturally..if there is people still working hard to make it...that point of view will always been there, but I donīt think it should be a matter of "working hard" for self benefits sake..if (which may be and utopia of course) we could avoid working hard..we should do so, and free up the enourmous potential that creativity has in each human, that may serve us as mankind pretty well if it only was possible.

Michael

dickbill
04-01-2016, 03:42 PM
for the benefit of all, unfortunatly ..such utopia hasnīt been working very nicely has it actually in a certain extent it did work. In many European Socialists countries such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, it worked almost perfectly. Then In Germany and France it worked to a lesser degree with Free Health Care but pretty well until 1968-1980.

There is no such thing that free health care of course. The principle is extremely simple : everybody pays for everybody. So if you are in very good health, you are screwed from an Individualistic point of view because you have indeed paid for other people medicals benefits all your life, even if you didn't want too and you could have use the money for other things.
But consider this : in these countries there was also a sense of Nation, not to mention Nationalism. So when somebody was sick, most people had some empathy and some sense of brotherhood. There was virtually little or no abuse of this system, Indeed, this system assumes that everybody is minimally honest and educated. People' s education and Health are linked, and Education was/is also taken care by the state in France. Overweighted people were unknown in France until recently, proof of a relatively good health habits. People not being able to write and read were also unknown, proof of a sound education system. I can assure you that the cases of analphabetism were so rare in the 70's in France, that it would have been a special individual case and no attempt were made to connect the socio-economical status with the cursus achievement for 99% of the population. Indeed the school system was very good at promoting kids from lower or working class.
Of course everything goes together : no cheating in class, good scholar results, relatively good general health, no cheating to abuse the health system, the whole education system was by design anti-elitist, etc.
Starting basically in 1968, it was decided to change all of that and now you have basically the exact opposite situation in every aspects that I mentioned above. Yes the system is now failing, but you can't say that it didn't work. It worked, I witnessed it. Everything is therefore turned upside down, including Nationalism, who is almost dead but survived somehow in the form of the French National Front. Killing Nationalism was the entire point of 1968. No doubt its survival is a glitch.

What happen then ? In the movie 'Kill them softly' Brad Pitt said something striking at the end. It's like the entire movie was about to bring us there. He said : "America is not a Nation, America is a business, and you are on your own "
In Business, of course Socialism cannot work. Yes it is an Utopia but only in the extend that a Nation is being 'deconstructed' as a Nation and cannot work as such anymore.

In true Nationalism, excessive robotization would be constrained, robots taxed, as part of a global policy of protectionism...all bad words in English language. But you understand that profits for individuals is not the driving force, it is an entirely different world. And also, you cannot revert back from Capitalism to Socialism or Nationalism. I don't think that France could reverse its course, even assuming the National Front was able to get traction. 1968 created some irreversible changes in the society. Now you have lots of cheaters everywhere. America could not do it either. So I give zero chances to Sanders to succeed. The path to free market, outsourcing and global Financial Capitalism is the only path for the US.

prometheus
04-01-2016, 05:50 PM
actually in a certain extent it did work. In many European Socialists countries such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, it worked almost perfectly. Then In Germany and France it worked to a lesser degree with Free Health Care but pretty well until 1968-1980.

There is no such thing that free health care of course. The principle is extremely simple : everybody pays for everybody. So if you are in very good health, you are screwed from an Individualistic point of view because you have indeed paid for other people medicals benefits all your life, even if you didn't want too and you could have use the money for other things.
But consider this : in these countries there was also a sense of Nation, not to mention Nationalism. So when somebody was sick, most people had some empathy and some sense of brotherhood. There was virtually little or no abuse of this system, Indeed, this system assumes that everybody is minimally honest and educated. People' s education and Health are linked, and Education was/is also taken care by the state in France. Overweighted people were unknown in France until recently, proof of a relatively good health habits. People not being able to write and read were also unknown, proof of a sound education system. I can assure you that the cases of analphabetism were so rare in the 70's in France, that it would have been a special individual case and no attempt were made to connect the socio-economical status with the cursus achievement for 99% of the population. Indeed the school system was very good at promoting kids from lower or working class.
Of course everything goes together : no cheating in class, good scholar results, relatively good general health, no cheating to abuse the health system, the whole education system was by design anti-elitist, etc.
Starting basically in 1968, it was decided to change all of that and now you have basically the exact opposite situation in every aspects that I mentioned above. Yes the system is now failing, but you can't say that it didn't work. It worked, I witnessed it. Everything is therefore turned upside down, including Nationalism, who is almost dead but survived somehow in the form of the French National Front. Killing Nationalism was the entire point of 1968. No doubt its survival is a glitch.

What happen then ? In the movie 'Kill them softly' Brad Pitt said something striking at the end. It's like the entire movie was about to bring us there. He said : "America is not a Nation, America is a business, and you are on your own "
In Business, of course Socialism cannot work. Yes it is an Utopia but only in the extend that a Nation is being 'deconstructed' as a Nation and cannot work as such anymore.

In true Nationalism, excessive robotization would be constrained, robots taxed, as part of a global policy of protectionism...all bad words in English language. But you understand that profits for individuals is not the driving force, it is an entirely different world. And also, you cannot revert back from Capitalism to Socialism or Nationalism. I don't think that France could reverse its course, even assuming the National Front was able to get traction. 1968 created some irreversible changes in the society. Now you have lots of cheaters everywhere. America could not do it either. So I give zero chances to Sanders to succeed. The path to free market, outsourcing and global Financial Capitalism is the only path for the US.

Eh...starting to go boarderline in to politics and breaking forum rules now.

Well..I am from sweden and I can tell you that you can not make a comparison it with that, sweden has never been a communist country, a socialist country is not a communist state..that is something I feel seem to be misunderstood gravely by some folks in the us, probably some commy scare progaganda responsible for that.

Sweden is in fact still a monarchy and our representive democracy(sprung from the working class) has always been struggling with the political bourgeoisie to gain power for the workers, and also reduce the political power within the kings hand, and when it did in the early 1900īs the social democratic party had a lot of success and important reforms were made to make lifes easier and more just for workers VS the bourgeoisie which in many cases and still today were owning properties, wealth etc..but never have we had a state owning most of the capital and sharing it, so I wouldnīt to a certain extent it worked, neither would I mention norway denmark and switzerland in that regard, if you point to south korea, kina, russia and cuba..then it would be more accurate.

Cuba got free education and health care I think, that is at least something, sweden had a very good health care system for ages..but that was thrown down the drain the latest 20 years during the power of the bourgeoise parties.

Sweden has a history of relying on the state more than the family,in that sence we might be quite unique in europe.. in a sence we wanted to be free from complications that could occour from neighbours and family, and rely on equal rights that was set up by the state for each individual.

hereīs an excerpt from a professor in history "lars trägårdh" describing shortly some differences in differences in a model for welfare..between the us, germany and sweden, I did translate it through google translate to save time..so there might be some faults...

"

In the US there is a deep-seated antipathy toward government interference. The individual should stand on its own but can rely on family or civil society (especially religious organizations) will help when things go wrong.

In Germany based welfare policy from the family and civil society as a partner with the state. The state supports the family and other institutions of civil society rather than to address directly to the individual.

Sweden is similar to Germany in terms of the ambitions of the welfare state. But the perception of what constitutes the basic unit of society differ. In Sweden measures directed against individual, not the family or civil society. This leads to the emancipated citizen easier to steer through political action as benefit systems creates a direct dependence on the state.
"

Important institutions like health care,elderly care, school and education is something the socialistic state has been struggling to keep within the state..while allowing for corporate bussiness overall and allow for profit, that is still under a constant battle today in the swedish political arena, a communist state wouldnīt allow very much of corporate profit what so ever.

dickbill
04-01-2016, 07:49 PM
Socialist, not communist, that's what I said in my post that you quoted. The Northern European countries have been used as successful example of socialist societies for a while now, without the restriction in political opinion that makes Cuba not as good as a model. By comparison, France at the time of Gnl. de Gaulle was much less Socialistic than Sweden, but undeniably more nationalistic. De Gaulle demanded to start national projects such as the Concorde and Mirage fighter, the Ariane rocket, the France ship, the fast speed trains and of course the nuclear submarines.

Regarding robotization the most common solution I've read was to tax them as workers basically.

prometheus
04-01-2016, 08:26 PM
Socialist, not communist, that's what I said in my post that you quoted. The Northern European countries have been used as successful example of socialist societies for a while now, without the restriction in political opinion that makes Cuba not as good as a model. By comparison, France at the time of Gnl. de Gaulle was much less Socialistic than Sweden, but undeniably more nationalistic. De Gaulle demanded to start national projects such as the Concorde and Mirage fighter, the Ariane rocket, the France ship, the fast speed trains and of course the nuclear submarines.

Regarding robotization the most common solution I've read was to tax them as workers basically.

Before that i was refering to a communist state working flawlessly in my utopia scenario, then you stated the utopia worked to a certain extent..and by that you confirm that it was not fully working..and indeed it never has..socialist states with that type of helpful technological progress have never been around long enough to fit in a scenario where one can pass judgement on it as succesfully during a long term.
I wasnīt talking about a system half arsed working.

Not with swedish socialist standards would we be able to deal with corporates taking responsibilities in order to recycle profit back to a system for the gain of all, we arenīt and we havent..though it may have been good times in the 70īs..that was also a perspective based upon which standard you lived in at that time..if one would believe we were all happy without sorrows and struggles in the 70īs..you would be illusional.

we would have to go so much more left in politics..boardering to some type of communistic approach for that utopia to be working, not saying it would..but I donīt see how the market economy of today would be the best bet ..and history wise I can not see what you say ever has been valid and working... in relation to if we had technology doing the work for us, and letting us indulge in selffullfillment or being creative for the sake of the society instead of working hard for the society and being used as a battery, basicly what you said that it has been working to some extent..I donīt think that is a description that is right or fits in here.

refering to socialist countries as working examples...yes, but only with perspective to lesser working capitalism or communiste states, the socialistic sucess ...cant stand being under scrutiny in terms of getting anywhere near an utiopian society, with utopian I am refering to free healthcare, education, food, home, welfare..and not having to work as a battery for the state, unless you find that as self fullfilling, itīs not about being lazy..itīs about not working if you do not have to for the society to work..but rather do creative things to further develop yourself or mankind in your own pace, since what I am talking about is probably very hard to achieve..and never has been around..I donīt see why you bring it up as nearly has been working...itīs two different animals...and I did say communistic states, not socialistic..the debate wether if that worked promising enough is another thing too..you however responded to my statment where the utopia scenario was communistic...and that it worked to some extent..but then turned the debate to be working in terms of socialistic countries, without ever mentioning anything about communism of course.

prometheus
04-01-2016, 08:51 PM
As far as robotic revolution taking over, itīs interesting to discuss how the take over have been and will be...in history we can see production lines and hard work heavy industrial task being taken over by robots, but what is it we see now approaching or have been under transformation during the last decades, and how has our own human jobs changed?

As I can see it here in sweden anyway, the industrial line has been declining enourmously, and the farming..those were the backbone of swedish working society for a long time, now we often find people in the service, administration and the IT sector.
However..that is of course not just robots/machines taking over.

I would suspect we will now start to see more robots taking over in the service sector, entertainment probably followed by administration and it sectors..as soon as the AI allows it, it will probably feel a bit scary when the AI enters the realm of carrying out important judgement and decisions in school, elderly care..perhaps in military and police force etc...and if it enters and takes over the juiridictional system, we may be sealing our doom...though I am not that worried about that taking place for a long long time, I am not as scared as Mr stephen Hawking on that issue.

To the state I say...
One is glad to be of use :)

Itīs a bit sad ..but strangely fun when calling some kind of service center or unemployment agency, and the call reciepient is automatic "ai" service taking voice commands and ask controll questions if it heard right etc, I can see this in the future in the elderly care..when you ask the robotic nurse after an accident in the diapers..... can you please wipe my arse? yes sir...the robot says, did you say whip your arse ? .. misunderstanding my intentions :) and not understanding the human progress from obnoxious child to a very old dysfunctional aged man.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5YMEwX2-88

erikals
04-02-2016, 01:17 AM
can you please wipe my arse? yes sir...the robot says, did you say whip your arse ? .. misunderstanding my intentions and not understanding the human progress from obnoxious child to a very old dysfunctional aged man.
this will be fixed in the beta version 3.22   http://erikalstad.com/emoti/wheels.gif

dickbill
04-02-2016, 08:57 AM
@Prometheus, OK you made your point. I will admit that I have not enough knowledge in theoretical Marxism, and I never lived into a Communist country either so I can't discuss Communism.
I was just talking about France of the 70s and 80's. It was not ruled by a Socialist government, however France had all the things that I described above, which makes it looked like a socialist Country. Utopia and Perfection ? of course not but the system was working.
You could put your kids from Elementary to High School and University without paying any tuition. I am a product of that, my grand parents were small farmers, my father a factory worker. And the Education was reasonably good that there was no point to put your kids in private schools. The Education system was truly working as a way to elevate from a lower class to a higher class on your own merit. Now it doesn't work anymore.
The Health care system also worked great. I had to spend almost an entire year in an hospital and orthopedic reeducation after a severe accident. And I had two heavy surgeries. The cost would have been prohibitive and in the US, typically, I would have to do a fundraiser. I payed nothing.
My dad was a factory worker and on his modest salary alone he could buy a House. Try that now, it would be impossible.
Unemployment was low and de Gaulle successfully boosted the French moral after the disasters of WWII and decolonization. I mentioned above all the Nationalistic projects that he initiated with great success. Among the projects that I mentioned, I forgot to mention that almost all the french electric grid was powered with Nuclear powerplants. The Railroad system, Air France, Post office and many other parts were owned by the state. Everything worked. There was Energy independence and political independence by redrawing from NATO, all that was de Gaulle. after his departure, the next 40 years were just surfing on his successes.
In short, whether or not it was a Socialist system, it was clearly working.

Now there was a strong communist party in France, a remnant of the war. Let me tell you in all honesty, how the average French people saw these people: a bunch of drink hard, vociferating agitators who spend their days in the bistro complaining about the ruling class. Everybody suspected that their only dreams were to become what they apparently hated the most : to become bourgeois. The Trotskyists were the worst and were considered as the scum of the French society. How this scum successfully manipulated naïve crowds during 1968 was beyond damaging, let's just say that they were greatly helped by the Media and Academic class. And they successfully reached their goal of becoming the new ruling class of Bourgeois. They are now called the Caviar-Left, la "Gauche caviar".

prometheus
04-02-2016, 10:09 AM
this will be fixed in the beta version 3.22   http://erikalstad.com/emoti/wheels.gif

LOl..:D
.looking forward to that as time goes by.


@Prometheus, OK you made your point. I will admit that I have not enough knowledge in theoretical Marxism, and I never lived into a Communist country either so I can't discuss Communism.
I was just talking about France of the 70s and 80's. It was not ruled by a Socialist government, however France had all the things that I described above, which makes it looked like a socialist Country. Utopia and Perfection ? of course not but the system was working.
You could put your kids from Elementary to High School and University without paying any tuition. I am a product of that, my grand parents were small farmers, my father a factory worker. And the Education was reasonably good that there was no point to put your kids in private schools. The Education system was truly working as a way to elevate from a lower class to a higher class on your own merit. Now it doesn't work anymore.
The Health care system also worked great. I had to spend almost an entire year in an hospital and orthopedic reeducation after a severe accident. And I had two heavy surgeries. The cost would have been prohibitive and in the US, typically, I would have to do a fundraiser. I payed nothing.
My dad was a factory worker and on his modest salary alone he could buy a House. Try that now, it would be impossible.
Unemployment was low and de Gaulle successfully boosted the French moral after the disasters of WWII and decolonization. I mentioned above all the Nationalistic projects that he initiated with great success. Among the projects that I mentioned, I forgot to mention that almost all the french electric grid was powered with Nuclear powerplants. The Railroad system, Air France, Post office and many other parts were owned by the state. Everything worked. There was Energy independence and political independence by redrawing from NATO, all that was de Gaulle. after his departure, the next 40 years were just surfing on his successes.
In short, whether or not it was a Socialist system, it was clearly working.

Now there was a strong communist party in France, a remnant of the war. Let me tell you in all honesty, how the average French people saw these people: a bunch of drink hard, vociferating agitators who spend their days in the bistro complaining about the ruling class. Everybody suspected that their only dreams were to become what they apparently hated the most : to become bourgeois. The Trotskyists were the worst and were considered as the scum of the French society. How this scum successfully manipulated naïve crowds during 1968 was beyond damaging, let's just say that they were greatly helped by the Media and Academic class. And they successfully reached their goal of becoming the new ruling class of Bourgeois. They are now called the Caviar-Left, la "Gauche caviar".

Yes..neither you or I seem to have lived in a true communist state, but we can talk about it..the question is how correct and good the discussion turns out:D

But itīs not really the "real" model in history of communism that I was targeting as the base for the technology to work, though I continued to extend it to how such state wasnīt ideal generally ..Based on history.
I was mentioning it as a model since all the production profit ..I think needs to go back in to the system, and neither in a capitalistic or socialistic country could handle it if some of the profit would go to individuals and draining the
states bag of collective resources.
When the rules arenīt set right or there are private investors taking use of what can be cheap for their own profit Only, and not for their own profit And the employees and the state, the result is based on greed and often leads to poverty.


I donīt think it would work based on a model were we wouldnīt have to work..rather the technology doing the work for us, it may seem like an impossible ekvation anyway that will not be solved..or at least not for 500-1000 years perhaps, so it may not be worth going deeper in this kind of discussion.

What You say about a socialistic system working nicely...thatīs of course a different matter, and I think it may have been so, and you should be proud of france at that time, it was eccellent, seems also that it had a way of growing excelent
architechts, designers etc.

An example...
Here in sweden for example, there is a lot of private investors using unemployed to do work for them, itīs sort of a deal in the working line the bourgouise implemented, so after have been unemployed a certain time, you are forced to work for those private investors, the Unemployment agency and the state are paying the investors almost 1/3 of a normal low salery to the investors..for each individual, the workers do not get anything except minimum welfare or their unemployment insurance.

In principle it is a slave contract, if you say no..you loose the unemployment insurance or the welfare aid.
The investors was said to not be allowed to profit from it, only to help the unemployed getting work experience and references and new competence, but I can tell you from have been there, it was mostly a scam from a lot of those, and very uneffective, the payment the inverstors got month after month after month, could just as easy have been invested in a proper education for the individual, but the individual were prohibited to work in practice for a real company and were also prohibited to enter any education or attend to courses.

The program didnīt have any sucess with helping out unemployed to new jobs, instead they were just caught in that system and being used, not only did the investors got free labour, they got payed for it..basicly a modern form of slave trafficking..hidden nicely though in a working market program, some investors made millions with the aid of unemployed.
This working line program was called fas3, and it was condemned by the new socialist party, they promised to remove it...but on the other hand they have been such cowards..and slow in the doing, and it will take their whole mandat period to stop it.

The main idea could have worked if the state was responsible and made sure the rules was followed, and recycle any profit to education for the unemployed, but private investors will soar like a hoak and use any cheap scraps (unemployed) they can..itīs sort of in the dynamics in the nature, so I donīt think it would be any room to allow for that to happen with robots, the profit needs to be ensured to go back to the system, if a communist system would be ideal? who knows..the rules would at least be baked out to ensure it, how the baking would look like..who knows.

we got one left party left in sweden, they are just called the left party, they changed the name from leftparty communists ..since it was connected too much with russian communism, they do indeed fight for that private investors should not gain any profit in elderly care or in school, the welfare is not for sale...they got a few procent only..maybe 4-5 procent in the election.

Then we got more extreme falangs of communism that wantīs revoloution..and are not rejecting violance to get there.

Michael

prometheus
04-02-2016, 11:00 AM
trying to find my way back to more of topics concerning robots.

ehh..starting a new thread instead..
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?150381-What-robot-do-you-got-at-home-or-at-work-and-what-do-you-want-it-to-do&p=1471478#post1471478

BeeVee
04-14-2016, 07:24 AM
http://bit.ly/1p0L98C - Universal Basic Income again. It has to happen.

B

kopperdrake
04-14-2016, 10:05 AM
Very interesting - thanks for posting it!

BeeVee
04-14-2016, 11:05 AM
I'm going to buy the book, I just have to find the time to read it (it has to be easier than Piketty, right?)

There's also a documentary coming out in UK cinemas soon called The Divide (http://thedividedocumentary.com/) that sounds pretty interesting.

B

erikals
04-14-2016, 12:39 PM
It has to happen

agree, but when?