/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15728614
>what are robots

But when all people have become useless, self-prop systems will find no advantage in taking care of anyone. The techies themselves insist that machines will soon surpass humans in intelligence. When that happens, people will be superfluous and natural selection will favor systems that eliminate them-if not abruptly, then in a series of stages so that the risk of rebellion will be minimized.

Even though the technological world-system still needs large numbers of people for the present, there are now more superfluous humans than there have been in the past because technology has replaced people in many jobs and is making inroads even into occupations formerly thought to require human intelligence. Consequently, under the pressure of economic competition, the world's dominant self-prop systems are already allowing a certain degree of callousness to creep into their treatment of superfluous individuals. In the United States and Europe, pensions and other benefits for retired, disabled, unemployed, and other unproductive persons are being substantially reduced; at least in the U. S., poverty is increasing; and these facts may well indicate the general trend of the future, though there will doubtless be ups and downs.

>>10859306
It will be answered that many self-prop systems-governments, corporations, labor unions, etc.-do take care of numerous individuals who are utterly useless to them: old people, people with severe mental or physical disabilities, even criminals serving life sentences. But this is only because the systems in question still need the services of the majority of people in order to function. Humans have been endowed by evolution with feelings of compassion, because hunting-and-gathering bands thrive best when their members show consideration for one another and help one another. As long as self-prop systems still need people, it would be to the systems' disadvantage to offend the compassionate feelings of the useful majority through ruthless treatment of the useless minority. More important than compassion, however, is the self-interest of human individuals: People would bitterly resent any system to which they belonged if they believed that when they grew old, or if they became disabled, they would be thrown on the trash-heap.

But when all people have become useless, self-prop systems will find no advantage in taking care of anyone. The techies themselves insist that machines will soon surpass humans in intelligence. When that happens, people will be superfluous and natural selection will favor systems that eliminate them-if not abruptly, then in a series of stages so that the risk of rebellion will be minimized.

but this was from a paper published in 2013

>>10733952
Biologists are getting automated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Scientist

>>10669358
>implying they wouldn't just kill off the goyim after they become obsolete

I'm currently stuying accounting and I'm hearing all this noise from code monkeys telling me that my job will be automated. This isn't the case, right? I don't want to work with baseboys doing retarded codemonkey shit

Are accountants BTFO by AI?

That Andrew Yang guy keeps talking about this and I thought I'd ask /sci/ if we're actually as fucked as this picture says.

>>10033881
Until their jobs all get automated away.

>>10000678
Automation seems to cancel out the principle of comparative advantage. Robots and AI will eventually do all of the low IQ tasks, and the jobs done by geniuses will be the last to be automated.

Non-STEM fields are getting automated