Glad to hear that we're in the same boat.
But.
I for one do not believe that politics will solve anything. So theres that. I'm on my own here (I don't stand with a government's ability or even desire to solve the problem of automation.) and as long as we keep it focused to what we can personally do for ourselves to avoid the incoming attacks to our social fabric we will be alright (both on-topic wise and meaningfully in the terms of what we should do).
I do believe I have stated once that I intend upon going back to a grass roots living style and being less dependent upon the system that we call society.
It all depends really on your point of view, in your opinion to solve the problem we need to invoke politics. I kindly disagree entirely on that point.
I for one am already bottling food and growing sweet potatoes.
And that my friend is where we have crossed wires someway. I am firmly focused on solving the problem through personal changes in my life. Not through a vote.
Last edited:
The most powerful "vote" that you can make is one that you make for YOURSELF.
The decisions and actions that you make are far more powerful than anything a government can do.
So the best thing to do is to simply walk away from the system, free yourself by keeping yourself alive, well clothed, in good company and well entertained.
Sure, you can still own technology, smart phones, computers. They are so cheap now that even a beggar on the streets of Bombay can afford one. So why are we still working for the man?
We don't need to become fully fledged amish farmers to enjoy life. We need to find a sweet spot whereby technology helps us, instead of putting us in chains.
The decisions and actions that you make are far more powerful than anything a government can do.
So the best thing to do is to simply walk away from the system, free yourself by keeping yourself alive, well clothed, in good company and well entertained.
Sure, you can still own technology, smart phones, computers. They are so cheap now that even a beggar on the streets of Bombay can afford one. So why are we still working for the man?
We don't need to become fully fledged amish farmers to enjoy life. We need to find a sweet spot whereby technology helps us, instead of putting us in chains.
Last edited:
Pass DIY Addict
Joined 2000
Paid Member
Very nice
All familiar concepts... People want to say "We won't let this happen."
My response: "You're too late, it's already going on!"
Between us stupid idi0ts and intelligent idi0ts we ought to remind ourselves on how the ruling class already in ancient times and civilizations used scare tactics and FUD to subdue and control the population, such as predicting celestial events like solar eclipses which would scare the crap out of the people back then.
IMHO that's what the AI FUD of today has become, just that the modern Egyptian high priests are now replaced with PA agents such as Musk, Gates, Hawkins etc who are now conditioning the animal farm through the controlled MSM, how they convinced the last guy I'm not sure of, perhaps the discussion went along the line "...or else we will pull the plug".
The much scarier scenario is, how is the man behind curtain and his frats going to use the divine power of AI on the rest of us disposables, ie. do they have benevolent or nefarious plans in mind? Well, more often than not people in leadership positions are psy*.
VF; are you on a Rumspringa? Besides the religious part got to say there's something amicable about the Amish lifestyle, they are some of the most healthy people today in America, probably very much due to true organic farming.
YouTube
IMHO that's what the AI FUD of today has become, just that the modern Egyptian high priests are now replaced with PA agents such as Musk, Gates, Hawkins etc who are now conditioning the animal farm through the controlled MSM, how they convinced the last guy I'm not sure of, perhaps the discussion went along the line "...or else we will pull the plug".
The much scarier scenario is, how is the man behind curtain and his frats going to use the divine power of AI on the rest of us disposables, ie. do they have benevolent or nefarious plans in mind? Well, more often than not people in leadership positions are psy*.
VF; are you on a Rumspringa?
Besides the religious part got to say there's something amicable about the Amish lifestyle, they are some of the most healthy people today in America, probably very much due to true organic farming.YouTube
Excellent cynicism, but all you need to do is a little historical research back even to the 70's on how AI was going to completely take over medical diagnostics for instance to know the wizard has no clothes.
Pass DIY Addict
Joined 2000
Paid Member
I agree on the cynicism. But, I remember readings for my "Computers and Society" course in the 1980s about how barcode scanners were going to eliminate the grocery store check out clerk. These articles were written in the 1960s. Sounded preposterous at the time.
But now look at us now -the barcode label HAS eliminate jobs. It took longer than was expected for two reasons:
1) technology was expensive and 2) people were cheap.
Fast forward a few decades and we find the exact opposite: Technology is cheap and people are expensive. We simply needed to wait a "short" while for the economics to change. Now that they have, there is no going back.
Connect this to AI and medical diagnostics. Watson is WAY better at recognizing cancer in an image than is the human doctor:
Watson is better than human doctors, Watson diagnoses what doctors can't, and Watson may soon be the best doctor in the world.
I'd say the wizard is finely dressed...
But now look at us now -the barcode label HAS eliminate jobs. It took longer than was expected for two reasons:
1) technology was expensive and 2) people were cheap.
Fast forward a few decades and we find the exact opposite: Technology is cheap and people are expensive. We simply needed to wait a "short" while for the economics to change. Now that they have, there is no going back.
Connect this to AI and medical diagnostics. Watson is WAY better at recognizing cancer in an image than is the human doctor:
Watson is better than human doctors, Watson diagnoses what doctors can't, and Watson may soon be the best doctor in the world.
I'd say the wizard is finely dressed...
Pass DIY Addict
Joined 2000
Paid Member
Pass DIY Addict
Joined 2000
Paid Member
Sure, I get it. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...
My point is that we have a number of examples where Science Fiction becomes Science Reality. Kids grow up awed by what they see on TV, become engineers and inventors, and then turn Fiction into Reality.
Inventions that come from Star Trek: the flip phone (after Kirk's communicator), blue tooth ear pieces (after Lt. Uhura's ear piece), tablet computers (Kirk's captain's log), and 3D printing (food replicator). Not stretches all - just inspirations for young inventors.
Some may not like the progress of AI and robots, but we sure seem to be driving hard to make it happen. You're kidding yourself if you think we won't make it happen.
My point is that we have a number of examples where Science Fiction becomes Science Reality. Kids grow up awed by what they see on TV, become engineers and inventors, and then turn Fiction into Reality.
Inventions that come from Star Trek: the flip phone (after Kirk's communicator), blue tooth ear pieces (after Lt. Uhura's ear piece), tablet computers (Kirk's captain's log), and 3D printing (food replicator). Not stretches all - just inspirations for young inventors.
Some may not like the progress of AI and robots, but we sure seem to be driving hard to make it happen. You're kidding yourself if you think we won't make it happen.
Last edited:
Documents have recently been signed mandating everything into and out of China will incorporate NFC RFID tags.....the rest of the world will soon follow.
Via blockchain ledger system, this will facilitate immediate payment of taxes, duties and levees, supply chain provenance, elimination of counterfeiting, item history and ownership, and staffless stores with payment via biometrics authentication.
You have been told.
Dan.
Who is legally liable for harm or negligence on the part of a robot? Right now it may be the owner or the manufacturer. What about problems due to firmware? How does one do discovery on that? A few big judgments could have a chilling effect. We don't know yet if something like that will happen.
Last edited:
Take the context of the original predictions and putting this capability in the hands of every doctor. These broad predictions have a track record of 40-50yr time lines that's just the way it has been.
Barcodes have nothing to do with AI it is just an instrumentation technology, in fact a lot of what passes for AI these days is very good instrumentation and DSP.
Last edited:
The line must be drawn between sentient-AI and non-sentient-AI.
I personally approve of the use of one (non-sentient) but disapprove of the use of another.
However I disapprove of both when it unnecessarily displaces humans in a job. Unless that human cannot achieve the same level of product quality or result that the machine can.
So cashier tellers should remain human. But the adaptive braking in a car (which requires no fatigue, quick response times, processing of data.) should be non-sentient AI.
Last edited:
But yes, there are four distinct lines.
#1, There are basic computing machines with no AI. ATMs, Cashier tellers, ABS.
#2, There is basic computing machines with little bits of AI designed to improve efficiency in calculative tasks, mostly of which involve small bits of learning code. Such as AMD's Ryzen which uses AI code.
#3, There are non-sentient AI machines which use neural networks to achieve their tasks.
#4, And there are Sentient-AI machines which we have not yet come across.
#1, The first one is perfectly fine with me provided it doesn't unnecessarily replace human beings, however if the task is unable to be performed by a human with the same accuracy and speed of a machine then the job should fall to the machine, especially when safety is a concern.
#2, The second not so much but it still has its place. But the same rules apply as Rule #1
#3, In the third, same rules apply as the rules of #2 but their use should be more restricted.
#4, Same rules apply as #3 but even more restrictions or an outright ban of their use should be in place.
Those parameters which define each ruleset must be carefully selected.
But basically:
All technology is allowed unless it infringes on the following parameters:
No technology when it infringes upon the basic human rights of a human being.
No technology which gathers and stores and transmitts biometric data to a third party of any sort.
- However the person shall always be helpful when it comes to aiding the search of a wanted man/woman by law enforcement.
No technology which is capable of transmitting geolocation data to outside third parties.
- This means celluar data technology is permitted but only if privacy-infringing software or hardware is removed.
- Any and all smart phones must be hardware or software disabled in a way such that any and all geolocation data is not collected and transmitted to a 3rd party.
- However handheld standalone GPS devices are permitted and the sharing of such information to other friends and family (and law enforcement) is permitted, but the transaction must be done in person, no carrier technology is permitted for the traversal of such data.
- If a geolocation device transmitts geolocation data to the owner using radio waves that is permitted, such as dog tracking collars, etc. Provided that it doesn't infringe upon or interfere with local radio frequency spectrum laws.
No automated technologies are permitted wherein a human being is capable of producing the same quality of product or result within certain percentage boundaries of which is capable of by a machine.
- This means no banks where automated teller machines are the only transaction point available and a ratio of 50/50 between automated cashier checkouts and human checkouts, because a human being is fully capable of doing such tasks and it is unreasonable and unfair to replace them with a machine simply because a machine's wage is lower and it would be more efficient financially to do so.
- This includes postal delivery services, truck driving jobs, taxi drivers, etc. A ratio of 50/50 (machine/human) should be applied.
- However this does mean that high prescision tasks which are better suited to a machine doing them is permitted, provided that a human being is incapable of or unable to do the task successfully.
- Non-Sentient AI is permitted however in a supplementary tone, so for example if a safety feature on a car reqiures non-sentient AI to operate then that is permitted.
No technology no matter what it is should displace workers or lower their wages. Or be responsible for the firing/quitting of a human worker.
- This means that if the robot/AI workforce is forcing down the wages of human workers then robot workers should be laid off until humans achieve a financial balance with the robots/AI workforce where the human workforce has satisfied their union-based conditions.
- So if the union says that they refuse to work if the robots/AI workforce is present, then the union wins and maintains job security.
- If these conditions are met and there is still a demand for a robot/AI workforce then a maximum limit of 50/50 (AI/Robot vs Human) workforce should be enforced.
No sentient AI unneccessarily displacing human beings at a task. Unless it is a safety or health risk to do so. Non-Sentient AI is permitted to improve efficiency.
- Sentient Artificial Intelligence or technology has no place, ever, in displacing human jobs. Unless it is deemed a security or safety risk to do so.
- This means replacing Doctors with artificial intelligence is permitted provided that the AI is not Sentient.
Of course this is just a rudimentary ruleset and should be changed to achieve perfection.
#1, There are basic computing machines with no AI. ATMs, Cashier tellers, ABS.
#2, There is basic computing machines with little bits of AI designed to improve efficiency in calculative tasks, mostly of which involve small bits of learning code. Such as AMD's Ryzen which uses AI code.
#3, There are non-sentient AI machines which use neural networks to achieve their tasks.
#4, And there are Sentient-AI machines which we have not yet come across.
#1, The first one is perfectly fine with me provided it doesn't unnecessarily replace human beings, however if the task is unable to be performed by a human with the same accuracy and speed of a machine then the job should fall to the machine, especially when safety is a concern.
#2, The second not so much but it still has its place. But the same rules apply as Rule #1
#3, In the third, same rules apply as the rules of #2 but their use should be more restricted.
#4, Same rules apply as #3 but even more restrictions or an outright ban of their use should be in place.
Those parameters which define each ruleset must be carefully selected.
But basically:
All technology is allowed unless it infringes on the following parameters:
No technology when it infringes upon the basic human rights of a human being.
No technology which gathers and stores and transmitts biometric data to a third party of any sort.
- However the person shall always be helpful when it comes to aiding the search of a wanted man/woman by law enforcement.
No technology which is capable of transmitting geolocation data to outside third parties.
- This means celluar data technology is permitted but only if privacy-infringing software or hardware is removed.
- Any and all smart phones must be hardware or software disabled in a way such that any and all geolocation data is not collected and transmitted to a 3rd party.
- However handheld standalone GPS devices are permitted and the sharing of such information to other friends and family (and law enforcement) is permitted, but the transaction must be done in person, no carrier technology is permitted for the traversal of such data.
- If a geolocation device transmitts geolocation data to the owner using radio waves that is permitted, such as dog tracking collars, etc. Provided that it doesn't infringe upon or interfere with local radio frequency spectrum laws.
No automated technologies are permitted wherein a human being is capable of producing the same quality of product or result within certain percentage boundaries of which is capable of by a machine.
- This means no banks where automated teller machines are the only transaction point available and a ratio of 50/50 between automated cashier checkouts and human checkouts, because a human being is fully capable of doing such tasks and it is unreasonable and unfair to replace them with a machine simply because a machine's wage is lower and it would be more efficient financially to do so.
- This includes postal delivery services, truck driving jobs, taxi drivers, etc. A ratio of 50/50 (machine/human) should be applied.
- However this does mean that high prescision tasks which are better suited to a machine doing them is permitted, provided that a human being is incapable of or unable to do the task successfully.
- Non-Sentient AI is permitted however in a supplementary tone, so for example if a safety feature on a car reqiures non-sentient AI to operate then that is permitted.
No technology no matter what it is should displace workers or lower their wages. Or be responsible for the firing/quitting of a human worker.
- This means that if the robot/AI workforce is forcing down the wages of human workers then robot workers should be laid off until humans achieve a financial balance with the robots/AI workforce where the human workforce has satisfied their union-based conditions.
- So if the union says that they refuse to work if the robots/AI workforce is present, then the union wins and maintains job security.
- If these conditions are met and there is still a demand for a robot/AI workforce then a maximum limit of 50/50 (AI/Robot vs Human) workforce should be enforced.
No sentient AI unneccessarily displacing human beings at a task. Unless it is a safety or health risk to do so. Non-Sentient AI is permitted to improve efficiency.
- Sentient Artificial Intelligence or technology has no place, ever, in displacing human jobs. Unless it is deemed a security or safety risk to do so.
- This means replacing Doctors with artificial intelligence is permitted provided that the AI is not Sentient.
Of course this is just a rudimentary ruleset and should be changed to achieve perfection.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.