Would you bet against sex robots? AI 'could leave half of world unemployed'

UK Guardian ^ | February 13, 2016 | Alan Yuhas

[jjsheridan5]

People have infinite unmet needs.

If people have infinite unmet needs, than they are dead. But even if you meant to say "wants", then that ignores the decreasing utility that we get, the more we have. I would submit that, if almost every "product" or service could be delivered to you at zero cost, we will find that our level of demand for what we don't currently have will drop off the cliff.

To take a simple example, if I have 50 cars, and have the ability to have any number I want at zero cost, my incentive to work for a 51st car is zero.

In the end, a computer, robot, automated piece of machinery is always a tool employed by someone with will and imagination.

Actually, in the end, these things will be quite capable of doing what they do with no input, other than a spoken "demand." At that point, they aren't tools, since the cooperation between man and machine will be rendered unnecessary. At that point, they are servants, not tools.

If people are stripped of their imagination and creative drive, you’ll have a socialist paradise where everyone sits waiting for someone to feed them and tell them what to do.

It won't be a socialist paradise, since it is not the government taking what they have. And people will have no reason to wait for someone to feed them, since zero-cost machines will do that at zero marginal cost. As far as waiting for someone to tell them what to do, humanity is going to have no choice but to find purpose and value outside of "labor".

But that does not have to be whole story. There is a moral component; freed from the need to work to eat, would you sit or would you find something creative to do? Economics is creation and creative people.

Out of necessity, economics has historically been the primary source of creativity and value. But there is no law that I know of that says that economics is the only possible source of these things. Freed from the constraints of labor, the opportunity to pursue things of value increases, it doesn't inherently decrease. Economics may be "creation and creative people". But those people, freed from the practical constraints of having to labor to meet their needs and desires, will have their creative opportunities skyrocket. For those who cannot handle free time, and who would descend into things like substance abuse, are not going to be better off doing "make-work", especially given that it will be clear to everyone that what they do has no real value or purpose. Quite the opposite, "make-work" would strip them of the very things that a "work ethic" has historically provided.

[savagesusie]

Yep. It is total dehumanization and destroying all ability for human beings to be able to relate to one another-—especially to the mature and be able to “love” the “Other” (male/female/Natural Family), the diversity that takes Love and Maturity possible (Flourishing/true happiness). Homosexuals remain narcissists and fixated in Latency usually from being raped or severely emasculated (no father figures, etc).

All homosexual cultures (like ours today/SCOTUS forced) were extremely sexist and brutal....and the ONLY “worldview” which elevated women and created Individiuality and Free Will is Christianity.

That is why ONLY the Faith of Christianity is banned from the schools and public square. All other faiths are being normalized, particularly satanism with sodomy/baby-killing and selling babies to homosexuals, etc. to severely warp all perceptions in children to remove Reason and understanding of Reality (Natural Law Theory/Common Sense—which created the USA Constitution).

This WHOLE movement by the super elite and controllers of the Minds and Attitudes of our children-—is to move us to what Julian Huxley stated-—”trans-humanism”. So that they could completely destroy all human interactions-—(remove Reason and reduce us to material only—godlless rutting animals) with no Higher Being.

To make us into compliant slaves for the elites and to make a system so they can kill off the useless eaters without any “outrage” or “protests”, they need us all like little programmed “Bots”-—their programming, of course, which will remove Free Will and Individualism and only allow “collective State “thinking”.

[DoughtyOne]

I don’t know. Are sex robots good gamblers?

[DannyTN]

"bet against sex robots?"

You mean like strip poker?

[virgil]

Or go back to a barter economy because large swathes of the population won’t be able to buy the crap they’re making. There’s liable to be multiple economies caused by this. Economies for those who can afford the crap, and economies for those who can’t. Maybe that’s always been around (like yard sales), but I could see it expanding. Then govt will really have a hissy fit, and will want more control over us because a lot of activity will be hard to tax. I think a lot of the wealth these machines produce will be out of reach of a lot more people, and demand will drop, unless prices go to the basement. It’s hard to predict what will happen. I wonder if their machines will be as innovative as people can be.

[Do the math]

I remember in the 70’s it was said that computers would make our lives easier. The problem with that is the technology allowed us to do more work. And of course more work was expected of us by our employers, since we had computers to help us to be more productive. In mathematics problems that would never have been attempted are now routinely solved by CAS programs (Computer Algebra Systems). I imagine that AI systems will allow us mathematicians to greatly expand our ability to do research.

[Chainmail]

“It allows you to multiply yourself”.

Uh, no: having “sex” with a machine pretty much guarantees you’ll never multiply.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

In the farm world, AI means Artificial insemination.

In the steel shop world it means Authorized Inspector.

[Travis McGee]

(Link to the full-length Free Republic thread)

[Daniel Ramsey]

Build an army of drop dead gorgeous female sex robots but instead send them naked against Isis.

How humiliating for a Muslim to be killed by a warrior fembot.

[Pollster1]

Throughout all of human history, people, especially men, have been better off with work . . . you cannot think that having 49.5% of the population digging ditches, and 49.5% filling them in again, is either plausible or desirable.

We agree that people are better off with work. I don't think make-work is desirable, but it's a whole lot better than paying them to be parasitic. I'd rather see people develop skill as entertainers, as artists, in massage, or as something else productive that robots cannot do as well.

Our standard of living now is so much higher than it was 200 years ago because of machines. Rather than saying "well, a machine can make furniture, firearms, and fabric and do farm work so much better, so I'll sit at home on welfare instead of doing those jobs", the people displaced from those occupations found work that didn't exist before. We can do the same again; it just takes motivation.

[jjsheridan5]

We agree that people are better off with work. I don't think make-work is desirable, but it's a whole lot better than paying them to be parasitic.

I am not talking about paying them to be parasitic. I am talking about the marginal cost (in terms of labor, including labor of input) of things dropping towards zero. There is a big difference, between those two things. Air has no marginal cost. I consume it freely, and am not being parasitic in doing so. What I am talking about is the very real, certain future in which everything that we currently desire (essentially all) are similarly of zero cost, and of unlimited supply. So your choice isn't quite right. The choice is make-work, vs. people choosing to not work and consume things that are of zero cost (not, as you said, make-work vs. paying them to be parasitic).

I'd rather see people develop skill as entertainers, as artists, in massage, or as something else productive that robots cannot do as well.

First off, you make the assumption that automatic, self-sufficient machines, couldn't do these things in a manner vastly superior to what humans can do. I disagree with this premise. More importantly, if everything those artists (et al) people demand are similarly free (in other words, their costs of meeting their demands are also zero), then their primary incentive is not to meet some latent demand, but rather because they like doing art. It is a hobby, not a job. If some do it because they are meeting some latent demand, they will be outcompeted by those who do it as a hobby, but have no outstanding demand, and can therefore do it freely.

In this, I agree with you, that people can and should find pursuits that give them, and others, value. But this isn't an economy in the historical sense of the word, but something more akin to the intersection of charity and past-time. But for others, they may find pursuits that are not giving others value, but are purely for their own satisfaction. Nothing wrong with that, either. But in no case, is it what we know of as an "economy".

Our standard of living now is so much higher than it was 200 years ago because of machines. Rather than saying "well, a machine can make furniture, firearms, and fabric and do farm work so much better, so I'll sit at home on welfare instead of doing those jobs", the people displaced from those occupations found work that didn't exist before. We can do the same again; it just takes motivation.

There were several, very big differences between previous technological changes, and this one. While prior changes reduced the marginal cost of things, it didn't eliminate that cost. That meant that there still was a labor demand in these industries. The second is that while some industries saw a reduction in labor demand, in other industries, there was little change. This meant that much of the labor supply simply shifted to another industry, where the demand was higher. And third, this technological change will affect virtually every known industry and service similarly. Meaning that, unless there are demands currently unknown to us, there is nowhere for this labor supply to go. While prior technological changes resulted in new industries, those newly created industries were not without labor costs. In this particular technological change that has recently begun, it is quite reasonable to expect that any newly created industry will not come with a new demand for labor.

The only way that new sources of labor demand can be created is if there are things that humans can do better than machines will be able to (in the next few decades), and that these things are so desired that they act as an incentive for others to work for them (and, in a testament to how much things are going to change, these people who demand such products must be able to find another industry in which labor is still in demand -- no mean feat).

It won't take "motivation". We are going to be running into the end of labor as a significant component of human existence. Any effort placed in trying to artificially reintroduce the concept of labor would be effort far more productively placed elsewhere, like giving someone a free massage, or painting a picture.

[jjsheridan5]

I forgot the biggest difference between these changes now, versus changes in the past: the changes now make choosing not to work a very real and practical decision. In the past, the cost of things went down, but not nearly enough, and not nearly across enough industries, to make it a viable or practical response. A farm laborer who lost his job would have had a very low standard of living if he left the labor force. His equivalent today (or in a matter of a few decades), could retain his current standard of living solely by consuming things that have (or will have) no cost.

A huge difference.

In addition, while some may want to remain working, an economy cannot function unless a sufficient percentage of the population are sufficiently unsatisfied with a standard of living provided by consuming things that have zero cost and either own something inherently scarce, like land, or are able to find an industry lacking in labor.

While currently, our economy can function, because most people either need to work, or are sufficiently motivated by demand. An economy, at least as we know it, simply cannot exist if 90+% simply drop out.

[cpdiii]

Per the article He said that virtually no human profession is totally immune: “Are you going to bet against sex robots? I would not.”

I would suspect he has had a relationship with my ex wife and wisely decided in favor of the sex robot. Perhaps sex robots have a off switch and a on switch.

Upon close examination of my ex the only switch I could find was the off switch. In fact if the switch was on or off it was actually off.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

So, why are “western” nations still so keen on importing low-skilled workers? I’m betting that Japan has the best strategy on immigration; and it won’t be long before that becomes painfully obvious to the rest of us.

[JoeFromSidney]

The assembly line made it possible for a moron to earn a living. That day is coming to an end. We may end up with fewer morons.