Robots Will Soon Replace Humans At Work

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Robots will be able to do every job that a human can by 2045. Then, by 2050, they will revolt and KILL US ALL soon afterwards. :D

It has been estimated that by 2045 robots will be able to perform every job that humans can. But does this mean humans should worry about being replaced by machines? Many experts believe the future actually lies in a more advanced and seamless collaboration between humans and robots.
Click to expand...
 
You guys know that movie Soylent Green? The opening 15 mins where people are wandering brown and grey grimy streets, sleeping in dusty broken down cars and sleeping on one another in piles on stairwells?

That scene came to mind for everyone but the 1% and even those fckers will be fighting over small scraps of beef.
 
I would love to see a robot that could handle the endless bureaucracy that is my job. Now, granted, my job would probably be handled completely differently, and hopefully there wouldn't be the senseless amount of paperwork, contractors, subcontractors, and other nonsense everywhere.
 
this is funny. what do you guys think it is going to happen when machines can do everything we do? they are going to think that if they control have all the power that they will be saving us from our selfs, because "they know better".
 
SixFootDuo said:
You guys know that movie Soylent Green? The opening 15 mins where people are wandering brown and grey grimy streets, sleeping in dusty broken down cars and sleeping on one another in piles on stairwells?

That scene came to mind for everyone but the 1% and even those fckers will be fighting over small scraps of beef.
Click to expand...

Wuhhh?
 
AndreRio said:
this is funny. what do you guys think it is going to happen when machines can do everything we do? they are going to think that if they control have all the power that they will be saving us from our selfs, because "they know better".
Click to expand...
And in turn will create a beautiful green utopia, completely end corruption, world hunger, warfare, and overpopulation, and the remaining humans will be raised in paradise with perfect looking blowjobbots catering to our every whims.
 
Ducman69 said:
And in turn will create a beautiful green utopia, completely end corruption, world hunger, warfare, and overpopulation, and the remaining humans will be raised in paradise with perfect looking blowjobbots catering to our every whims.
Click to expand...

Well shit, I'm sold..:D
 
SixFootDuo said:
You guys know that movie Soylent Green? The opening 15 mins where people are wandering brown and grey grimy streets, sleeping in dusty broken down cars and sleeping on one another in piles on stairwells?

That scene came to mind for everyone but the 1% and even those fckers will be fighting over small scraps of beef.
Click to expand...

Would you like to turn the clock back before the industrial revolution where most of us were involved in farming, mining or forrestry and had barely more than dirt?

Losing the work to a machine that is still part of your economy passes efficiencies on to the economy that free up money to go to other places. Those 'other' places are generally in other more desirable jobs. Which would you rather do make websites or clean toilets. Unless we make a machine to clean a toilet, someone somewhere is stuck cleaning toilets. Our standards of living can't progress unless we find some way to eliminate the shit jobs.

That assumes the work stay in the country as part of the economy. If it goes out of the country instead, its a loss. But people usually have no qualms about sending jobs out of the country and then wonder why the economy is shit and shittier every decade.
 
GaryJohnson said:
Unemployment was very low.
Click to expand...
No not spectacularly different in the 1800's vs. the 1900's. No social safety net (unemployment, welfare), no savings to count on, you pretty much don't say no to any job and let the employer name his price.

And its not the point. Lots of work to do farming the fields from dusk to dawn. yeah, i want to live in that world.
 
jpm100 said:
No not spectacularly different in the 1800's vs. the 1900's. No social safety net (unemployment, welfare), no savings to count on, you pretty much don't say no to any job and let the employer name his price.

And its not the point. Lots of work to do farming the fields from dusk to dawn. yeah, i want to live in that world.
Click to expand...

And there's plenty of jobs out there picking fruit and vegetables, if you want to do that (and can live on the wages). Those jobs didn't go away. U.S. citizens simply have no desire to do it and even less desire to pay the price of food that pays pickers a decent wage.

The one good thing about this story is I'll be too old to work and robots can take care of me, while I power the matrix ;)
 
If I could just get them in replacement for my daughter that would be great. Thanks
 
Why not, my company already sends my work to India as they think its more cost effective
 
jpm100 said:
No not spectacularly different in the 1800's vs. the 1900's. No social safety net (unemployment, welfare), no savings to count on, you pretty much don't say no to any job and let the employer name his price.

And its not the point. Lots of work to do farming the fields from dusk to dawn. yeah, i want to live in that world.
Click to expand...

Yet, life was GOOD.

You worked hard and were fed by the fruits of your labors. You didn't sit around with your hand out expecting someone else to fill it. Laziness was not tolerated. In fact a lazy slug that wouldn't work to support his own family was publicly ridiculed and often beaten. Now society pays people to be such and claims such people are virtuous.
How often have you see or heard a speech or accolades being showered on someone that "came from the projects" or was from a poor family and got an education and did something with their life.
WTF! That is the LEAST you can do, not the most! Most of the time these are people that just availed themselves to the opportunities that surrounded them. How hard is that? If you can't at least do that you then WANT a life on welfare. That's plain and simple in today's society.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Yet, life was GOOD.

You worked hard and were fed by the fruits of your labors. You didn't sit around with your hand out expecting someone else to fill it. Laziness was not tolerated. In fact a lazy slug that wouldn't work to support his own family was publicly ridiculed and often beaten.
Click to expand...
Actually, they had an entire bourgeois class of citizens that owned all the wealth and contributed virtually nothing to the economy. And the people that did work didn't get to keep the fruits of their labor, and died very young. Later in the peak of the industrial revolution, things weren't much different with the few that had enough capital or connections to invest in the equipment were able to keep all of the profits for themselves, while there was a labor supply/demand imbalance that meant that the people working all day to make the products were paid only slave wages which isn't right either... peeps that do all the work keep none of the fruit.
 
Ducman69 said:
Actually, they had an entire bourgeois class of citizens that owned all the wealth and contributed virtually nothing to the economy. And the people that did work didn't get to keep the fruits of their labor, and died very young. Later in the peak of the industrial revolution, things weren't much different with the few that had enough capital or connections to invest in the equipment were able to keep all of the profits for themselves, while there was a labor supply/demand imbalance that meant that the people working all day to make the products were paid only slave wages which isn't right either... peeps that do all the work keep none of the fruit.
Click to expand...

That still happens today with the exception that modern people think that they're living the good life with their noisy window AC unit keeping one room of their mortgaged home cool in the summer while they're out driving around in a cheap car they pay for but won't own for another 3+ years. I'm totally okay with that too because it's really, really easy to get out of that dumb pit where you're stuck with a buncha sweaty masses in the coach-class seats of life so you can frown dubiously at them from the front of the airline when they're lined up beside you in a human-pork row of WalMart customers between the seats because someone can't figure out how to stuff their giant suitcase into an overhead bin.
 
dbu8554 said:
Shit I plan on making the robots.
Click to expand...

Uh no, actually they will make themselves and maintain themselves so no maintainance jobs either. They will take all our jobs and who will have a paycheck to buy the things they make other than the 1%. This is a corporation's wet dream because they hate us workers. On top of that the Teapublicans are trying their best to tear down our social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare but also food stamps (SNAP) and our public education system to keep us stoopid. Steve, the robots might as well kill us all because corporate whore Republicans will do it anyway. :rolleyes:
 
Dildonose said:
On top of that the Teapublicans are trying their best to tear down our social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare but also food stamps (SNAP) and our public education system to keep us stoopid. Steve, the robots might as well kill us all because corporate whore Republicans will do it anyway. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have yet to see any Tea Party types who want to do away with social security. They may want to do away with the massive disability fraud, and stop paying social security to illegals, but the main reason is to stop social security from going bankrupt and having to cut the funds going to retired people.

As for keeping people stoopid (your spelling) that's what the public education system has been doing for the past 40 years. Allowing people to choose where they send their kids to school would be a huge improvement to the education of those kids. However it would reduce the power of the unions and the money flowing to the Democrats, so it will likely never happen. Why are the Democrats so against choice?
 
This is why we need a new economic paradigm. It's easy to say now that, "Get more education!" But when the robots start doing legal work, medical, etc etc etc...there is a huge curve under which most of the population will not be able to exceed the robots. And then what? Mad Max style world outside of enclaves of the .01% who were smart/lucky enough to get in early enough of the few robot-making winners?

nutzo said:
As for keeping people stoopid (your spelling) that's what the public education system has been doing for the past 40 years. Allowing people to choose where they send their kids to school would be a huge improvement to the education of those kids. However it would reduce the power of the unions and the money flowing to the Democrats, so it will likely never happen. Why are the Democrats so against choice?
Click to expand...

Some are, which is dumb. But a lot of the pushback is distrust of the party seeking choice, that they're actually looking to undermine choice and push the majority of people, not the 1%, into severely underfunded public schools while the top few percent simply get a few thousand bucks back while they're sending their kids to the private school they would have gone to anyway.

I would love to see government unions, particularly the teacher's, cut down. The problem is one party (Dems) want to keep ossified systems in place to protect their own power. The second party wants to cut down any power labor has whatsoever under the guise of "helping" them.

Remember, this is the party that called a program "Save our forests" or some BS that basically massively expanded logging - their logic was, if we cut them down beforehand, they will never catch on fire, thus we're saving trees from forest fires. :rolleyes:
 
nutzo said:
I have yet to see any Tea Party types who want to do away with social security. They may want to do away with the massive disability fraud, and stop paying social security to illegals, but the main reason is to stop social security from going bankrupt and having to cut the funds going to retired people.

As for keeping people stoopid (your spelling) that's what the public education system has been doing for the past 40 years. Allowing people to choose where they send their kids to school would be a huge improvement to the education of those kids. However it would reduce the power of the unions and the money flowing to the Democrats, so it will likely never happen. Why are the Democrats so against choice?
Click to expand...

Nailed it.
What organization is #1 school vouchers? Teachers unions. If people take their kids out of failing public schools, what do you need the teachers for??

As far as the Social Security question; all you need to do is visit your local SS office and look at the people in the lobby. Grandma and Grandpaw checking on their benefits? NOPE!! You will see a bunch of people on DISABILITY that are as able bodied as everyone else. I maintained computer equipment for our local office some 10 years ago; I was amazed at what I saw. Many of the people lined up in the lobby was younger than I was. This is the the kind of abuse that conservatives want to see done away with.
READY MADE Obama votes.
 
Dildonose said:
Uh no, actually they will make themselves and maintain themselves so no maintainance jobs either. They will take all our jobs and who will have a paycheck to buy the things they make other than the 1%. This is a corporation's wet dream because they hate us workers. On top of that the Teapublicans are trying their best to tear down our social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare but also food stamps (SNAP) and our public education system to keep us stoopid. Steve, the robots might as well kill us all because corporate whore Republicans will do it anyway. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I do not mean some menial assembly line job, I will engineer them, I hope within 20 years I am part of a team that puts 50+ million Americans out of work.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
That still happens today with the exception that modern people think that they're living the good life with their noisy window AC unit keeping one room of their mortgaged home cool in the summer while they're out driving around in a cheap car they pay for but won't own for another 3+ years.
Click to expand...
Well compared to the majority of civilization, the average person has never been richer. Our poor these days don't have to worry about starvation, and in fact most are obese. They have food, shelter, healthcare, protections against egregious safety concerns, live in comparatively high safety, and have more leisure time than the labor class in any time in our past.

This is your average poor person today:
ede6f4902c06601075416691a2372d35.jpg


In ye' olde' times, it was back breaking work from morning to night and you made just enough to feed yourself (provided there was no famine), and the nobility got all the rest to build castles, feed/cloth/weaponize themselves, and were kind of like a mafia who you paid "protection money". At this historical site in Germany they had us try the gruel that was the usual mush the peasantry ate, and OMG it was so bad! Our peasants now eat KFC, dorritos, and Mr Pibb. :D
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Yet, life was GOOD.

You worked hard and were fed by the fruits of your labors. You didn't sit around with your hand out expecting someone else to fill it. Laziness was not tolerated. In fact a lazy slug that wouldn't work to support his own family was publicly ridiculed and often beaten. Now society pays people to be such and claims such people are virtuous.
How often have you see or heard a speech or accolades being showered on someone that "came from the projects" or was from a poor family and got an education and did something with their life.
WTF! That is the LEAST you can do, not the most! Most of the time these are people that just availed themselves to the opportunities that surrounded them. How hard is that? If you can't at least do that you then WANT a life on welfare. That's plain and simple in today's society.
Click to expand...
You might want to read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair to find out just how good it was. No job security, no worker rights, no sick days, dangerous working conditions, so much unemployment employers got to dictate terms, the entirely family (including children) working and not being able to afford more than a shared boardinghouse. Life was wonderful alright.
 
tetris42 said:
You might want to read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair to find out just how good it was. No job security, no worker rights, no sick days, dangerous working conditions, so much unemployment employers got to dictate terms, the entirely family (including children) working and not being able to afford more than a shared boardinghouse. Life was wonderful alright.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But many are working their hardest to take us back there. As in, median income has seen no adjustment due to productivity gains (i.e., fruits of your labor) in nearly 40 years.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Yet, life was GOOD.

You worked hard and were fed by the fruits of your labors. You didn't sit around with your hand out expecting someone else to fill it. Laziness was not tolerated. In fact a lazy slug that wouldn't work to support his own family was publicly ridiculed and often beaten. Now society pays people to be such and claims such people are virtuous.
How often have you see or heard a speech or accolades being showered on someone that "came from the projects" or was from a poor family and got an education and did something with their life.
WTF! That is the LEAST you can do, not the most! Most of the time these are people that just availed themselves to the opportunities that surrounded them. How hard is that? If you can't at least do that you then WANT a life on welfare. That's plain and simple in today's society.
Click to expand...

I think you're talking about the world post WWII. It was a pretty rough world in the late 1800s if you weren't well to do (and most were not).
 
Ducman69 said:
Well compared to the majority of civilization, the average person has never been richer. Our poor these days don't have to worry about starvation, and in fact most are obese. They have food, shelter, healthcare, protections against egregious safety concerns, live in comparatively high safety, and have more leisure time than the labor class in any time in our past.

This is your average poor person today:
ede6f4902c06601075416691a2372d35.jpg


In ye' olde' times, it was back breaking work from morning to night and you made just enough to feed yourself (provided there was no famine), and the nobility got all the rest to build castles, feed/cloth/weaponize themselves, and were kind of like a mafia who you paid "protection money". At this historical site in Germany they had us try the gruel that was the usual mush the peasantry ate, and OMG it was so bad! Our peasants now eat KFC, dorritos, and Mr Pibb. :D
Click to expand...

Doritos and Pibb isn't food. I love soft drinks. They definitely can add some fat to the bones, but they're not a solution, they're a symptom of a problem.
 
dbu8554 said:
I do not mean some menial assembly line job, I will engineer them, I hope within 20 years I am part of a team that puts 50+ million Americans out of work.
Click to expand...
Good luck out engineering the robots. Once they can make themselves, they will make the new batch better and better.
 
Can a robot take over my Tech Support job? Even a robot wouldn't want to deal with the idiots I deal with.
 
Going to have my own personal robot do all my dirty work. Go to work, clean all the dishes, clean up the house, and be my personal assistant. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top