Robots

It will make capitalism obsolete, since it will not be needed to count every grain in a post-scarcity society.

it's gonna come in and it's not going to be discussed you'll have to get used to it, just like your computer spying on you

Stay poor then.

Literally the only options are some STEM fields, or becoming part of the elite. You're making shit threads on Veeky Forums so I doubt you're part of the elite.

You know that the robots will be able to code, repair themselves, iterate upgrades autonomously etc. STEM field people won't even be needed.

The only professions that will stay, are artistic ones that robots cannot imitate. Like writing, painting, music, theatre and so on.

Unless you are worth 100 million or more, and well connected, then it will be you vs swarms of armed drones with facial recognition.
The elite are hoping we'll all be hung up on our stupid identity politics/racism/sexism and infighting so that we never organise an effective response. So far we are living right down to expectations.

>The only professions that will stay, are artistic ones that robots cannot imitate. Like writing, painting, music, theatre and so on.

damn, what an ironic societal mindfuck.
thanks for the thought, user

Get an EMP ya dingus

I dont know anyone who is paranoid about it.

youtube.com/watch?v=SacogDL_4JU

there's nothing to suggest that creativity can't be engineered

>Like writing, painting, music, theatre and so on.

Unfortunately, since the rest of us will have reverted to cannibalism in order to survive, their won't be much demand for the fine arts.

Young people will try to start a war against rich people. They will all die. Why do you need so many humans when you don’t need so many humans?

>What is a Faraday cage?
>What is shielding?

You do know that all military equipment is fairly EMP-resistant now right user?

...

I'm not even gonna have to open that link to know that it's a shitty imitation of a Beethoven composition, or a painting in the style of Van Gogh.

In reality, artistry comes from humanity. Art cannot be interesting if it's engineered.

A argument that I've heard somewhere goes like this:

If at your wedding, your father would give the most beautiful speech imaginable. People start crying, then they laugh, and finally they applaud. Everybody is thoroughly entertained and touched by this inspirational speech and you yourself feel even more touched by your fathers words.

After the wedding, your father tells you "My computer synthesized that speech from spying on my life through my devices :) ". Would that change your view of that speech? Probably, right?

Dude, I wear a faraday cage on my head all the time.

You'll just have to pierce their armor with argon lasers, then you penetrate the hull with the emp. EZ!

dey mechanical turk our jerbs

“Working class” being the bottom 99.9% in this case

Hah! It was Bach! Oh well.

I know it's Mozart, but imagine Für Elize wasn't composed for a girl that a real human really loved, wouldn't that take out most of the emotional attachment from the piece? When I play it (I know, it's like kindergarten level of piano but it's still soo touching) I feel his love in my whole person. If it just was a output from a recurrent neural net, it wouldn't have half the effect on me.

It's not real, it's like this scene from Nathan 4 u:
youtube.com/watch?v=xtEmJeojY0I&t=63s

Imagine a world where “My humps” wasnt inspired by some whores body fat.

I shudder.

We're talking about art, not propaganda

The important part of the video is not the quality of the composition, but the method of it learning to create original pieces based on a source. An analogy might be drawn to early cave paintings of animals which reflect the original animals themselves.

It's a bit strange to think that only humans can appreciate or create art. Sure, a neural network doesn't feel anything about the music its processing or creating, but there's nothing to say that emotions can't be engineered either.

In fact, if conscious AI is possible, there is perhaps even greater art that we don't have the facilities of appreciating. We are still at a very early time for this technology to say with certainty what the limits of AI will be.

As far as your speech example, if the words spoken were arranged and placed in such a way as to result in such strong emotions, the quality of the speech itself is not in question. You might have a change of opinion about your father though.

What if the human brain was a network of recurrent neural networks, each with their own acute specialization and with networks higher in the hierarchy representing abstract ideas such as irony and beauty? Does that invalidate any emotions that Fur Elize was created with? Does that invalidate any appreciation for art?

There is nothing to suggest that the brain and its processes can't be replicated mechanically.

yeah, the timeline from futurists who seem to have ample amounts of self-hatred and a barely disguised hardon for collapse is optimistic, but AI and automation will be ubiquitous by this century. for youngfags here born in the 90s, before ~2007 it was completely normal for your private life to be mostly isolated from public view, and privacy rights were important. in less than half a generation social media flipped that around to the point you can be looked at as suspicious for not having an active facebook account. cultural norms can be inverted fast when money is on the line

There's already algorithms writing music and painting art, in fact it's exceedingly likely music will be a solved problem before autonomous AI becomes a thing

seems like a 105s way of thinking ("people" > "event" > "idea")
the correct way to evaluate importance is "idea" > "event" > "people". emotional answers to effort doesn't paint a very flattering picture of the people involved

is that anime worth seeing?

Kek, that's because you dont work in AI.

Do you know how long it takes to train an AI? Lets say we want to make it play check. You set the rules, create 2 instances of the AI and let it play millions and millions of times againts itself, voila, world champion in a couple of days.

If you dont believe me take a look at alphazero.
Also, AI cars are driving millions and millions of miles in simulated roads everyday, we simply can't compete.

Artist and writers will be the first to go. We can already make an AI paint following the style of the great masters and it wont be long until we are able to feed the whole bibliography of say, Shakespeare, to and AI and it will start creating pieces of the same quality as him.
Or you though that every new piece is a complete new thing? We could say for example that we want a science fiction novel, written in the style of camus, with characters a la chejov, why the hell not...

Even if AI and robots dont take over humans the excess of media resulting from AI creations will lead to total cultural apathy. Who will care to see the 10th masterpiece of the week, film n° 188463#0? Think of marvel movies and multiply*millions

can't wait til an AI makes the perfect anime

But space dandy already exist user

Kinda confusing but I guess you can give it a shot if you got nothing better to do

I get your point, "everything is a remix", and it's valid. I'm just saying that I don't feel anything by listening to software generated music. I cannot imagine what the composer might've thought of while he was writing the piece and so on, which makes the art too flat.

I think also that you have a great point about robots appreciating art, and I think that they will absolutely appreciate their own art - and we might too - but we will still value human art.

We almost hit on the topic of solipsism; would an artificial universe that only you could experience be as interesting as one inhabited by a multitude of souls? Is VR as good as, or even better than, the "real" world? Do you think people will leave this plane indefinitely when the technology makes it possible?

>You might have a change of opinion about your father though.
This is a really good point, actually. Perhaps that's what I'm trying to express.. That art is a relationship between two people, an artist and an audience. Human relationships _cannot_ be replaced by roboships.

Sorry, this must be dumbest comment ever posted Veeky Forums. Unskilled labour will be first one to go (well it's going out already), including drivers, carpenters, cooks, etc;
Artists and creators will be last ones to go.

Sorry to dismiss your delusions.

ok thanks i'll give it a shot

Hmm.. sry to bust your bubble but you have no idea how creativity works. What you are talking about (me thinks) is bio-mimickry which so far only lifeforms can achieve. You have no understanding on the complexities that make you you.. learn and question more.

Checked and correct

Every creation process in based on existing ideas, you are a fool if you believe an AI can't take influences from fucking everywhere and the human reactions to these sources and create something completelly new that.will tickle the same part of our psique.

Unskilled labour replacement needs robotics and indrustry which take time, multimedia needs just lots info and processing power. Mark my words: In less than 10 years we will see the first successful novel written by an AI, and it will go ballistic from there.

There is already good enough AI to produce art, writing & painting at least.

lol, let me guess, statistician background (no offense to the rest of you out there) Your post reminds me of the guys that used to reduce everything that goes in the universe to a clockwork universe, keep adding more variables in there bud and your model will fit.. lol,

My fellow lainposting nigguh

LETS
ALL
LOVE
LAIN

2/2 lain OC

I work everyday with AIs, and you'd be surprised of the "creative" solutions they come up with.

I dont need to argue with you, just wait some years

someone who works everyday with AIs would not say that, so you are just a larping new fag

>"creative"
You mean not creative, then? They merely make educated guesses and iterate solutions to improve them. Just because you didn't think about it, doesn't mean it's creative.

>That art is a relationship between two people, an artist and an audience

Yes, definitely agree, but I see it as more of communicating information. Visual information, audio information. Any value put to what that information means in a broader context is done by processing in your brain. This context is developed by evolution and shaped by culture. Initial resistance to artificially created art is expected at such an early time, when our culture has produced much more meaning dense information. By meaning dense, I mean that it reflects either one of our biologically developed pathways, or our culturally shaped ones.

Imagine an AI trying to create literature. Right now it can mimic certain writing styles, and even predict what you'll type next. But now imagine it can meta-write, so not just coherent sentences, or coherent paragraphs, but it can mimick themes and actually create a cohesive and unique story.

But, it might only have done that because we instructed it to. I think the issue might be would an AI ever choose to create art. Any communication it needs to make with other AI could be done by simply transferring it. There would be no reason for it to, other than for being directed to.

>would an artificial universe that only you could experience be as interesting as one inhabited by a multitude of souls?
What do you mean by be as interesting? From an outsider perspective? From the only experiencing person?

>you have no idea
>but i won't give you an actual argument
you're likely consuming and liking content partially produced by AIs right now and you don't know it. most people like things due to consensus, not from any actual direct connection to their mind; of the few that do, breaking down why they like what they like is far from impossible either
it's likely some AI content will be masqueraded as human for people like you to praise it over AI content overtly advertised as AI

You can say the same of the human mind

pretty much etherbots.io

fixed basic income for all

Check out Eve no Jikan.