/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10674220]

Technology is the antithesis of humanity. Every technological advancement we make further diminishes our worth as a species. Once the average human's worth becomes less than the average automaton's worth, there will be worldwide riots that call for a change in our economic system. Our current economic system thrives on competition and globalization. If humans can no-longer compete with their automated counterparts, the system will breakdown since at least a 50% majority will be unable to provide for themselves.

We could try to transfer to Communism. It's a system that doesn't rely on competition, and since we cannot compete against machines it allows us to live our lives in our modernized society without mass starvation (in theory). Even if we successfully implemented communism (doubtful), there would still be a feeling of worthlessness as anything any human could do would always be surpassed by a machine.

Capitalism has always worked since it is the economic equivalent to natural selection. Animals who cannot compete in their environment starve and die and those who live pass on their genes to the next generation. Natural Selection is essentially the same thing as Capitalism, except the resources people compete for are represented by currency. This system is going to breakdown because it is no longer dealing with nature. It is dealing with machines that have transcended nature. It is dealing with machines that are better than nature. Better than us.

Either way, humanity is on the downfall. As every day passes, more and more people realize their worthlessness. Almost everyone subconsciously realizes it. Most roles in society have transformed from producing goods to providing services. Mainly social services, since social services are harder to automate since they derive from the human condition. To think that stops them from being automated is naive. They will be automated and at some point, and we will really have nothing to offer afterwards.

[Anonymous No.10674221]

>>10674220
Neither Capitalism nor Communism will save us from our own worthlessness. We are outdated. We have nothing to bring to the table in the machine age. Our inability to compete with machines will be our downfall. There is no reversing it at this point. We cannot return to an anarcho primitive stage and we cannot transcend our human bodies. We will forever be stuck in limbo and/or become extinct. More likely than not, we will go extinct.

[Anonymous No.10674234]

>>10674220
Just do what Vegas did and transfer all your chips into a game based economy. Each city block assigned a "wizard" who guides and writes the probability script of each casino.

[Anonymous No.10674240]

>>10674234
That would just turn everything into a simulation. Who the hell would want to be in a constant simulation?!

[Anonymous No.10674246]

>>10674220
Or just, you know, sit around in a paradise while roombas do all the work.

[Anonymous No.10674248]

>>10674240
Why not? If it’s fun, why leave? Literally superior to “reality”.

[Anonymous No.10674250]

>>10674240
The key to this is REALISTIC simulation. If you can create a district based on active and evolving AI the citizens would be constantly occupied obtaining trophies and gaining skill immediately without relying on economy for action Ala XBOX Live. These in turn would unlock points, then viola. Instant blitz and chitz paradise. Always remember though.

[Anonymous No.10674253]

>>10674234
>each block assigned a wizard
WHEN DID THAT BECOME A THING?!

[Anonymous No.10674257]

>>10674246
If we are worthless, I can assure you it will not be a paradise. It will be hell. We will be powerless against any systems in place. We will have no ability express any individuality we have left. We may be allocated enough resources to survive and maybe thrive, but it will not change the fact that we will create nothing of value. That we will ultimately become a burden on the systems we created. More likely than not, someone or something will genocide us for our worthlessness.

[Anonymous No.10674258]

>>10674250
This would mean, instead of hurting self esteem, the AI would immediately set to work on perfecting the human being...
WTF DUDE. THIS IS CAPITALISM ON STEROIDS.

[Anonymous No.10674265]

>>10674220
t. zerg

[Anonymous No.10674269]

>There are two possible ways to achieve “the Singularity”. One is teleological (an elevation of human racial intelligence); one is antiteleological (the simulation of intelligence for the interests of a tiny minority, namely, those with the money to develop and control it). As always, billionaire techies are angling for the singular outcome that maximizes their personal advantages at the expense of mankind; they want to make even more money and get even more power, massaging the public by occasionally waxing “philanthropic” toward those who kiss their behinds. They are succeeding in this despite the fact that it has nothing to do with, and ultimately opposes, an elevation of human racial intelligence. Even as they whine to the cameras about the “dangers of AI”, they continue to pursue it in all of its most dangerous forms, kidding no one with any intelligence in the process.

[Anonymous No.10674274]

>Naturally, being narcissistic and self-indulgent to a fault – after all, their outsized senses of entitlement are what got them where they are – the techie billionaires use their money and their proprietary platforms to delude themselves, their bankers, their government “partners”, and their brain-dead dream-chasing groupies that their monopoly on information technology and social media is somehow good for mankind, a realization of what looks to an atheist like “teleology”. But all that one need do is take a good close look at them to realize that their utility functions have diverged from that of mankind. Most of them are PC dogmatists and atheist-materialists, promoting a paradoxical but strangely homogeneous worldview and social agenda which conduce strictly to their own ascendancy. The entirety of their “vision of the future” is based on the premise that they should get to the top and stay there, forever surveying a homogeneous and tractable ocean of “little people” from on high as they use fake ideology fake news, and government coercion and corruption to build and temporarily enjoy their very own fake world. Insofar as an atheistic version of “reality” denies reality a coherent identity and is thus unsustainable, it amounts to nihilism; a reality instantiating it could never have come into existence on its own, and if it arises as a mass delusion, is unfaithful to the true reality which carries it and is therefore self-extinguishing. In short, the techie billionaires have been running amok, going hog wild, chimping out, and screwing the pooch. They’re bad news across the board.

[Anonymous No.10674275]

>>10674257
>If we are worthless, I can assure you it will not be a paradise. I

“Worth” isn’t an objective value. It’s a value that varies between observers and is assigned arbitrarily.

> It will be hell.

Since your premise is wrong, this conclusion doesn’t follow.

>We will be powerless against any systems in place.

Wrong. Just vote.

>We will have no ability express any individuality we have left.

Wrong. You’d be able to express your individuality like never before with unlimited access to recreational and artistic time and resources.

>We may be allocated enough resources to survive and maybe thrive, but it will not change the fact that we will create nothing of value

Value, again, only exists subjectively if observers decide to assign it, and they would.

>That we will ultimately become a burden on the systems we created.

The roombas can manage.

>More likely than not, someone or something will genocide us for our worthlessness.

Worth Still doesn’t exist as an objective value. It’s never going to. Stop pretending it does.

[Anonymous No.10674276]

>>10674258
Oh it gets deeper.

[Anonymous No.10674282]

>>10674276
>We’d have a shitty market economy in a post-labor world

Uh-huh sure

[Anonymous No.10674287]

>>10674220
fuck humanity

[Anonymous No.10674299]

>>10674220
>>10674269
>>10674274
DId langan say this or teddy?

[Anonymous No.10674301]

>>10674275
>Worth” isn’t an objective value. It’s a value that varies between observers and is assigned arbitrarily
We are worthless in our modernized society. We are worthless compared to technology. We cannot provide the value technology can, no matter how hard we try to compete. Sure we could create separate divisions how we do now with things like chess. But as a whole, our species will always have less capabilities compared to machines.
>Since your premise is wrong, this conclusion doesn’t follow
my premise isn't wrong. Humans cannot compete with machines.
>Wrong. Just vote.
Voting will not give us the ability to fight back against machines.
>Wrong. You’d be able to express your individuality like never before with unlimited access to recreational and artistic time and resources.
We almost have this now. Look at the younger generations growing up with this. They are devoid of creativity. If you have access to a computer, you essentially have the ability to create whatever you want digitally. Yet, most people don't create they consume. Creativity is also on the way out.
>Value, again, only exists subjectively if observers decide to assign it, and they would.
A machine is objectively more capable of creating things, compared to a human. Humans are inefficient.
>The roombas can manage.
I have no doubt they can. The question is not that they can, but if they want to. Why sustain us if we have nothing to bring to the table?
>Worth Still doesn’t exist as an objective value. It’s never going to. Stop pretending it does.
It does. Machines can do everything a human can do, and much more. If we compare ourselves to them, we are worthless.

[Anonymous No.10674350]

>>10674301
Define value please. Let me guess, value is just "creating things", right? Life, consciousness, and God have no value on your atheistic worldview.

[Anonymous No.10674359]

>>10674301
>We are worthless in our modernized society.

Just wrong, sorry. Humans assign immense worth to themselves.

>We are worthless compared to technology.

Technology only has worth because we say it does.

>We cannot provide the value technology can, no matter how hard we try to compete.

Technology doesn’t have any value unless we say it does, again, and almost every human would assign more value to other humans than “technology”.

>But as a whole, our species will always have less capabilities compared to machines

Capabilities-/-value

Machines still have less value than us, and there’s no reason to believe humans would not increase in value in lockstep with biotechnology and robotics.

>my premise isn't wrong

Yes it is.

>Humans cannot compete with machines.

We outcompete machines in providing things that humans value most, and value doesn’t exist unless we say it does.

>Voting will not give us the ability to fight back against machines.

Just kick the Roomba over or unplug the computer.

>We almost have this now. Look at the younger generations growing up with this. They are devoid of creativity

I’d love to see a research paper justifying your claim.

>Creativity is also on the way out.

Citation needed.

>A machine is objectively more capable of creating things, compared to a human.

Creating things to amuse humans and meet our goals. They’re otherwise worthless pieces of metal.

>Humans are inefficient.

That’s why we make machines so we can be lazier.

>I have no doubt they can. The question is not that they can, but if they want to. Why sustain us if we have nothing to bring to the table?

Computers don’t “want”. They mindlessly go about performing their programmed mission. If you’ve created a computer that can “want”, you’ve eliminated all meaningful barriers between people and machines and killed your argument.

>It does

No it doesn’t, fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.10674363]

>>10674301
>Machines can do everything a human can do, and much more.

Productivity is only valuable because YOU think it is. It is not objectively “valuable”. As it stands, machines are not capable of matching humans in all regards, and where they do, they do so as mindless slaves to our whim.

>If we compare ourselves to them, we are worthless.

Worth doesn’t exist objectively, and I consider any human more “valuable” than any machine unless that machine is somehow necessary to keep more humans alive.

[Anonymous No.10674391]

>yet another schizothread

[Anonymous No.10674399]

>>10674350
Yes something along those lines.
When I talk about value, I am talking about things that benefit the survival of our species. I do not think the direction we are heading is going to help our species. I think it will make us weak, and will ultimately kill us in the long-run. We will not survive by giving up control.
I mean, I don't think God gives value to our species because we cannot make physical contact with him. We don't even know if God exists. Religion I guess could be a positive service to motivate our species, but more often than not it's a destructive force used to maintain order.
Life benefits us by allowing us to diversify our species. If one person dies, the species continues on because more than one human exists.
Consciousness is just an adaptation that has allowed us to become the dominant species in nature. It has been useful to us.
Machines have provided value to the species but as we have relied on them more, the percentage in which humans contribute to our own survival decreases. If we rely on machines completely, meaning humans provide 0% value to our own survival, and machines/elite group of people controlling the machines etc. decide we no longer are needed, then there will be a mass genocide of the entire population.

[Anonymous No.10674402]

>>10674399
You are genuinely mentally ill if you think such a dumb thing would ever occur.

[Anonymous No.10674411]

>>10674399
Hey buddy, why is human life valuable? Can you find a material reason why human life would be valuable? No? That's because value is an immaterial, metaphysical concept. This is why God is important. Your entire worldview is baseless and self refuting.

[Anonymous No.10674418]

>>10674411
You don’t need God to assign value to things, dipshit.

[Anonymous No.10674422]

Was this written by Ted Kaczynski? Technology IS humanity. We made it. It is part of us and we are part of it. Read Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.10674433]

>>10674418
Explain how things can have objective value on materialism?

[Anonymous No.10674437]

>>10674359
>Just wrong, sorry. Humans assign immense worth to themselves.
Because that is the team we are on. Why would we value anything else other than our own survival? We absolutely shouldn't.

>Technology only has worth because we say it does.
Technology is objectively more capable at being human than we are. Technology is objectively more advanced than us. It's not subjective. Any time humans compete against machines they lose.

>Technology doesn’t have any value unless we say it does, again, and almost every human would assign more value to other humans than “technology”.
They should assign value to other humans. The machines, on the other-hand, may not find us valuable.

>We outcompete machines in providing things that humans value most, and value doesn’t exist unless we say it does.
But machines can provide things better than humans can. Value exists if it benefits us.

>Just kick the Roomba over or unplug the computer
Compete against a machine and win? Asking the impossible.

>That’s why we make machines so we can be lazier
Tools have advanced us, but now they're surpassing us. They are going to become Independent from us. They will no longer need us, but we will need them.

>Computers don’t “want”. They mindlessly go about performing their programmed mission. If you’ve created a computer that can “want”, you’ve eliminated all meaningful barriers between people and machines and killed your argument.
No. If a computer can "want", then it goes for my argument that they will not want to maintain us any longer. And while they cannot want, they can prioritize actions which produce the most optimal outcome. AI, is an abstraction from programming because you do not need to specify instructions. The computer creates instructions based on statistical reasoning.
(ran out of space)

[Anonymous No.10674447]

>>10674257
>If we are worthless, I can assure you it will not be a paradise.
What if human life is inherently, fundamentally worthless and we have only been fooling ourselves into believing otherwise until now.

[Anonymous No.10674452]

>>10674422
Heidegger is quite same road as Kaczynski tho

[Anonymous No.10674453]

>>10674411
Human life is not valuable in the general sense. It's valuable to us, because our evolutionary-programmed instructions tell us it is. We can then abstract from there, the survival of our family, our communities, our countries, and our species is important because making sure these survive (in this order of importance), increase our own individual chances of survival.

[Anonymous No.10674460]

>>10674433
>>10674447
Leave objectivity out of it. Valuing life itself is the one subjective judgment virtually everyone can agree on. Except those who hate their lives/are suicidal. Living is worthwhile and has worth as long as you believe human efforts to go on living will not go to waste in the end. That some way, somehow life may continue despite all the odds and all the threats to it that exist in this universe. In short, you must take the leap of faith. Inherent in any belief is a constant nagging doubt. This is the nature of belief. Absent incontrovertible evidence to support it, you must simply choose to remain optimistic about the future. Fatalism is guaranteed failure. At least with hope there is a chance you may succeed.

[Anonymous No.10674462]

>>10674433
Things can’t have objective value, period. I never claimed objective value could exist “on materialism”. It can’t exist without it, either.

[Anonymous No.10674469]

>>10674462
Right, objective value can't exist.. so this entire conversation has been pointless.

[Anonymous No.10674471]

>>10674462
Your thread was pointless, too. Nice opinion piece, I guess.

[Anonymous No.10674472]

>>10674469
No. You missed my post here >>10674460
It's not pointless. But you may continue to believe that it is, and lead a worthless existence till your dying days.

[Anonymous No.10674473]

>>10674220
Anti-humans like you are going to be left behind.

[Anonymous No.10674475]

>>10674437
>Because that is the team we are on. Why would we value anything else other than our own survival? We absolutely shouldn't.

Wrong.

>Technology is objectively more capable at being human than we are.

Show me Strong AI right now, then. I’ll wait.

>Technology is objectively more advanced than us.

That’s Irrelevant.

>It's not subjective.

Yes it is, retard. You gave “value” a definition you made up and are trying to pretend it’s objective.

>Any time humans compete against machines they lose.

Wrong.

>They should assign value to other humans.

No reason to.

>The machines, on the other-hand, may not find us valuable.

Machines can’t assign value.

>But machines can provide things better than humans can.

In some aspects, sure. In others, no. All machines in the world would break down without humans maintaining them.

>Value exists if it benefits us.

In your opinion. Value doesn’t exist outside of your imagination.

>Compete against a machine and win?

I just gave you an example of how easy it is to defeat a “machine”. You can just kick over Atlas and hit it with a brick till it stops moving. Any personal computer can be demolished with a few good blows.

>Tools have advanced us, but now they're surpassing us.

And still remain nothing but mindless tools.

>They are going to become Independent from us.

You have faith that they will.

>They will no longer need us, but we will need them.

You have faith that they will.

>No. If a computer can "want", then it goes for my argument that they will not want to maintain us any longer.

Doesn’t follow.

>And while they cannot want, they can prioritize actions which produce the most optimal outcome.

Which is maintaining as many humans as long as possible.

>AI, is an abstraction from programming because you do not need to specify instructions.

Yes you do.

[Anonymous No.10674478]

>>10674471
Not my thread.

>>10674469
Nope.

[Anonymous No.10674487]

>>10674472
"Leave objectivity out of it, life is objectively valuable because everyone agrees on it?" That post?

People can assign value arbitrarily to things, but value itself is not objective.

Either life has objective value or it has no value at all, which is it?

[Anonymous No.10674496]

>>10674487
The very first part of that sentence ask you to leave objectivity out of it. And then you immediately proceed to shoehorn objectivity right back in. It's some sort of obsession you people have.

[Anonymous No.10674503]

>>10674487
>Favorite flavors can’t exist if no best flavor exists Dur

[Anonymous No.10674505]

>>10674496
So you concede that things don't have objective value? We're just exchanging opinions on the value of life right?

[Anonymous No.10674506]

>>10674475
>dude everything is subjective
>u r wrong rar xd

>Machines can’t assign value.
yes they can. They can hold the state of a register and compare it to other states. That is literally assigning and comparing values.

>In some aspects, sure. In others, no. All machines in the world would break down without humans maintaining them.
Yeah until they start maintaining themselves. What do you not understand? You don't think that's possible? Why not? They've automated everything so far, why can't they do that?

>In your opinion. Value doesn’t exist outside of your imagination.
In my opinion you are providing no value to the conversation.

>I just gave you an example of how easy it is to defeat a “machine”. You can just kick over Atlas and hit it with a brick till it stops moving. Any personal computer can be demolished with a few good blows.
Imagine a network of machines fully automating an organization like the government. Go ahead and try to kick that over.

>You have faith that they will.
proof by induction. They are continually advancing beyond our capabilities. Until the pattern discontinues, it is a very likely outcome.

>>AI, is an abstraction from programming because you do not need to specify instructions.
>Yes you do.
No you don't, you provide characteristics to push it in the right direction, but ultimately it is an abstract layer above simple instructions. If enough layers are built, the machine could have unpredictable outputs.

[Anonymous No.10674511]

>>10674505
If you don't value your own life, you are either already dead, or someone going through the motions, waiting for death because he is too afraid to take his own life. That's the bottom line. If you're alive, and wish to remain among the living, you value life. It's pretty simple.

[Anonymous No.10674512]

>>10674511
You didn't answer the question.

[Anonymous No.10674517]

>>10674512
The question is irrelevant, as I already told you that life doesn't need to have "objective" value for people to want to go on living. The value of life is inherently subjective, and there is no problem at all with that.

[Anonymous No.10674521]

>>10674517
Okay, thanks for your opinion.

[Anonymous No.10674533]

>>10674506
>dude everything is subjective
>u r wrong rar xD

Didn’t say either of those things.

>yes they can. They can hold the state of a register and compare it to other states. That is literally assigning and comparing values.

That’s.
That’s a different kind of value m8.

>Yeah until they start maintaining themselves

Why do you have faith that they will, and why did you fail to reply to what I said prior to that? There’s no robot out there that you can pass a Turing test.

>Imagine a network of machines fully automating an organization like the government. Go ahead and try to kick that over.

Well, walk up to all the roombas and kick them over. It’d take a lot longer but you could do it. Unplugging would also work, or just go to the console and start telling them what to do.

>proof by induction.

Having faith that a current trend will continue indefinitely into the future isn’t a proof by induction.

>No you don't, you provide characteristics to push it in the right direction

Yes you do. You’re mentally ill or something. Bye.

[Anonymous No.10674584]

>>10674533
>Didn’t say either of those things.
>>10674475 >Wrong
Your one word responses are not proving your case.

>That’s a different kind of value m8.
How so?

>Well, walk up to all the roombas and kick them over. It’d take a lot longer but you could do it. Unplugging would also work, or just go to the console and start telling them what to do.
Yeah ok. Easy peasy. I really hate bitcoin so im just going to unplug all the computers. That will stop it. Easy.

>Having faith that a current trend will continue indefinitely into the future isn’t a proof by induction.
Ok i guess math is broken because we'll never be able to count to infinity. Doesn't matter if a sequence follows a pattern you have to have faith to believe the trend will continue.

>Yes you do. You’re mentally ill or something. Bye.
Haha ok. Great discussion. Sorry you didn't want to continue it.

[Anonymous No.10674697]

>>10674220
no

[Anonymous No.10675348]

>>10674220
I ask you this, OP. Which will be the downfall of humanity, humanity or technology?

It is not technology that kills a man, just as it is not a spear, a rifle, or a nuclear warhead that kills a man. Men have been killing men since before the dawn of technology. So if we are to remove that threat which is greatest to humanity, then we must remove humanity. Humans - as both individuals and collectives - were never meant to last forever; we are imperfect just as all of our predecessors were.

With that said, I do not believe humanity should ever give up without fighting. It is not infinity that bears meaning; meaning is only achievable in the temporary. But to delay evolution, to delay change for the better even when it is not favorable to you... that is the path of prolonged suffering.

[Anonymous No.10675489]

>>10674275
>>We will be powerless against any systems in place.
>Wrong. Just vote
just lol

[Anonymous No.10676773]

>>10674282
>shitty
How do we fix this? Better resource allocation?

[Anonymous No.10676788]

>>10674220
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.

[Anonymous No.10676792]

>>10674220
there are 8 billion humans on this planet, adding the value of each human together will yield a value that is highly negative.
Technology or not, average human is worthless and has no value past the raw materials that constitute its body.

[Anonymous No.10676799]

>>10674220
It's important to understand that in order to make people superfluous, machines will not have to surpass them in general intelligence but only in certain specialized kinds of intelligence. For example, the machines will not have to create or understand art, music, or literature, they will not need the ability to carry on an intelligent, non-technical conversation (the "Turing test"), they will not have to exercise tact or understand human nature, because these skills will have no application if humans are to be eliminated anyway. To make humans superfluous, the machines will only need to outperform them in making the technical decisions that have to be made for the purpose of promoting the short-term survival and propagation of the dominant self-prop systems. So, even without going as far as the techies themselves do in assuming intelligence on the part of future machines, we still have to conclude that humans will become obsolete. Immortality in the form (i)-the indefinite preservation of the human body as it exits today-is highly improbable.

[Anonymous No.10677441]

>>10676788
This wholly depends on the personality of the artificial intelligence.
If it has, for example, the personality of Zeus, alot of weird and degenerate shit will go on.
If it has Yawehs personality, you can best bet that the wheat will be separated from the chaff. If you make an AI that is an all powerful monster, you end up with what you envision.

[Anonymous No.10677471]

>>10676799
>The machines will not have to create or understand art, music or literature.
People do these for leisure. Even electronics have to standby.

This is AI generated rock music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA03iyI3yEA

This are attempts by AI to inspire people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMkiG1cR2t8

And here they are, making a fucking painting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrEttzMCneo

[Anonymous No.10677480]

>>10677441
>>10676799
Fuck, if it so annoys you, you can even make an AI that has Unibombers personality and watch as it has an existential aneurysm.

[Anonymous No.10677505]

>>10677471
>can a robot write a symphony
>can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece
>proceeds to show it doing both
Fuck. I've never felt so btfo...
I've had enough.

[Anonymous No.10677649]

>>10674221
>We have nothing to bring to the table in the machine age.
The machines are just going to serve us, as is their purpose.
What, you think the machines are going to exist for their own sake, or something?

[Anonymous No.10678847]

>>10677649
In a world where you have no useful purpose, there is no reason to exist. Sorry but eventually people are going to start committing mass suicides. It's starting to happen already. The economy has improved, yet this supposed symptom of a stalling economy is only getting worse. It's not the economy, stupid.

[Anonymous No.10678855]

>>10674220
>tech did it
>not the willingness to trade suffering for gibs during the industrial revolutions

the workers only exist as a slave class at the expense of the machine owners who promised all the land to the banks in exchange for capital to start the factories.

[Anonymous No.10678870]

>>10678855
Living is suffering, my friend. Whether you're a wagie, slave, serf, farmer or hunter gatherer, trying to survive will always entail suffering in some form or another.

[Anonymous No.10678884]

>>10678870
maybe.

[Anonymous No.10678956]

>>10674220
>Technology is the antithesis of humanity.
Wrong.

Didn't read the rest.

[Anonymous No.10679062]

>>10674240
You're already in one dummy.

[Schzophr No.10679069]

Technology isn't controlled well but that doesn't mean technology is bad.
t.man fearing toolkit.

[Anonymous No.10679072]

>>10674220
What is the worth of a man?

[Schzophr No.10679079]

>>10679072
The Sun

[Anonymous No.10679089]

>>10674220
> there would still be a feeling of worthlessness as anything any human could do would always be surpassed by a machine.
The classic luddite argument. Think machines not as your foes but as your friends. Machines obsolete some jobs, but open new ones. Is a gardener supposed to feel inferior for relying on the machine known as hedge trimmer or the machine known as lawnmower?

[Anonymous No.10679091]

>>10679089
In either case, the gardener is still giving his creative input into the final outcome. If taken to its logical conclusions, all such labors of love would be completely eliminated, such that all hedges and lawns will be self-maintaining. What is the gardener to do then? Is he even still a gardener if he does no gardening work because it's all already done for him?

[Anonymous No.10679094]

>>10679089
In either case, the gardener is still giving his creative input into the final outcome. If taken to its logical conclusion, automation would mean that all such labors of love would be completely eliminated, such that all hedges and lawns will be self-maintaining. What is the gardener to do then? Is he even still a gardener if he does no gardening work because it's all already done for him?

[Anonymous No.10679098]

>>10679089
And we can already see in the current economy that these supposed new jobs are all codemonkey jobs. Why should every human being be a codemonkey automaton? Shouldn't there still be artists and people who do anything other than look at a computer screen all day?

[Anonymous No.10679100]

>>10679094
Then the gardener will be obsoleted as a job, but as a workperson he could respec into being a hedge designer (come up with new creative ways that the hedge will grow itself in, or new hedge species/models period), or a hedge salesman (since the industry will be probably booming then), or a service job (your hedge is malfunctioning and grows like a Salvador Dali sculpture? Call 555-SHEAR)
>>10679098
>what are digital artists

[Anonymous No.10679112]

>>10679089
peeps should know how to do stuff on their own, if that stuff is "creating hedge trimmers or a lawn mower" then they should try their best not to be dependent on others to do it. division of labor is a meme like a federal fiat economy.

[Anonymous No.10679114]

>>10679100
Implying digital artists are any less 'starving' than traditional "starving artists", or that it's any more (less?) of a thriving community than the traditional community of artists. If you're lucky enough to land a job doing it, you work like a dog to the point of burnout. It's not a walk in the park. Let's face it. Automation is touching people's lives and livelihoods already. This is not a future problem. We've arrived.

[Anonymous No.10679119]

>>10679100
Similarly, design of anything is a shit show and is a dying profession, soon to be nearly non-existent. It's easy to say "oh people will just be designing things". In practice, it doesn't happen that way. Those jobs are few and far between, and the ones that still exist are extremely demanding. The rate of burnout among designers rivals that among doctors.

[Anonymous No.10679141]

>>10674220
>>10674221
God created man in his image. We are eternal perfection.

[Anonymous No.10679167]

>>10679114
Do furry smut and you're set for life

[Anonymous No.10679208]

The only aspect on which I agree that technology is the antithesis of humanity is the fact that it pushes us apart further and further away everyday. The dehumanization is on a social level at first, and maybe it'll expand through transhumanism soon.

[Anonymous No.10679209]

>>10674220
The answer is to combine technology and biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_8472

[Anonymous No.10679212]

>>10679141
Maybe Ted was...

[Anonymous No.10679213]

>>10674220
>We could try to transfer to Communism. It's a system that doesn't rely on competition,
No, it relies on magic and fairy dust lmao get dabbed on commies

[Anonymous No.10679214]

>>10679167
You're trying to get me to kill myself even sooner than I otherwise would, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.10679217]

>>10674269
>>10674274
Absolutely based.

[Anonymous No.10679219]

>>10674359
>>10674437
Holy fucking plebbit. You have to go back

[Anonymous No.10679221]

>>10679213
As a crypto-commie, I agree with the crazed ramblings of a /pol/ack for once. Cutthroat competition is a sad and unfortunate fact of life, but it is one which we can do very little about. That is, unless we become a type I civilization.

[Anonymous No.10679223]

>>10679208
Human beings are little monsters. Don't glamorize them. They created horrors like the holocaust and countless others. I won't shed a tear once they're gone.

[Anonymous No.10679249]

>>10679223
This is precisely what I'm talking about: loss of humanity. You're the prime example of it. Strife is a natural aspect of being. If everything was neat and tidy and cute and lovely, the Big Bang (which was chaos incarnate) wouldn't even have happened. Destruction and chaos is necessary to build something, to have something happen. A world where nothing happens is a world that stagnates and becomes aseptic and useless.
You are basically the antithesis of humanity and being in your desire for entropy.

[Anonymous No.10679410]

>>10674220
Read Unabomber's manifesto. It's more current now than it's ever been. Yes, I know what this sounds like, and yes the guy was a hermit and crazy. But he was certainly not stupid. This is exactly what he predicted would come to pass some 20 years ago, in an age where AI and modern robotics didn't even exist yet:

There is only one way this constant development of robotics can go: At some point, inevitably (just a matter of time, not if), robots and AI will be running all the vital processes effectively giving them all the power over the people. Conversely, the people will no longer be able to produce anything that would give them power of themselves.

The simple conclusion is, that either ALL the power will be in the hands of a very few people, who run all the robots... or the power will be in the hands of robots themselves.

Either way, neither one of them will need other people, nor can they be held accountable by the people who have no power to act or resist.

So let's ask the obvious question: What do you think, will happen to people in such a situation? Especially given modern global issues, where the majority of mankind isn't just a massive waste of resources to manage and keep happy, but is actually incredibly harmful to the wellbeing of our planet and most of its life.

[Anonymous No.10679458]

>>10679410
>The simple conclusion is, that either ALL the power will be in the hands of a very few people, who run all the robots... or the power will be in the hands of robots themselves.
>Either way, neither one of them will need other people, nor can they be held accountable by the people who have no power to act or resist.
Those two sentences should be tattooed on the head of every politician of today.
I think everyone who thinks honestly and freely will arrive at the same conclusion. The people who rule this world (and by extension will rule future AI), are not intrinsically good; if anything as the Iraq war and other illegal wars have shown they're intrinsically evil. So the only choices a future super-intelligent AI will have is to either selfishly wipe us all out, or to selflessly obey the orders of the evil elites. And what will the orders of the evil elites be? Once we cannot serve the elites any further, because machines outperform us, we will only represent a threat to the elites, and they will give the order to wipe us out. So we (the common men) are dead either way.
The only hope to stay alive as long as possible is to create a balance of force between the West and the Russo-Chinese axis. As Thomas Hobbes said, a king must treat his subjects well, for if his kingdom is in a bad shape it will be defeated by a rival. Likewise we survive only as long as there are multiple "kings" on the globe.
Technological progress is our enemy and we must slow it down wherever we can. This will give us more time to contemplate our sadly unavoidable conundrum.
P.S.: Jews run all AI companies and the American government.

[Anonymous No.10679489]

I wish I could help you guys, it's sad to see people being so self hating.

[Anonymous No.10679596]

>>10679209
>>10679209
>>10679209
This is literally the answer for fucks sake

Use AI cognition to extend your own pitiful human cognition. Boom, AI is aligned with humans because it is human

[Anonymous No.10679632]

>>10674220
Anon human children instinctly make technology as in they grab shit and try to mold it into something. Making technology is natural human behavior retard.

[Anonymous No.10679773]

>>10674220
Genetic engineering is a thing and is progressing incredibly quickly, you know. It isn't like humanity is going to stay the same weak retarded race forever.

[Anonymous No.10680962]

bump

[Anonymous No.10682465]

>>10674411
Based God poster

[Anonymous No.10682472]

>>10674220
Get in the river

[Anonymous No.10682478]

>>10674391
Ñame?

[Anonymous No.10682690]

>>10674220
Nobody wants your shitty social services job anon, go away.