Let the Machines do the Work (The end of Slavery)

[Mike Christ]

You could argue that art is the interpretation not the media, all paintings are essential just paints applied to a canvas. I think the computer mind is to logical to contemplate an illogical idea and rationalize it. I also think that computers would require emotion, maybe even soul before true creativity is accomplished. Any animal can move around paint on a canvas, not sure about a GOD but certainly nature has a huge effect, geometry is perhaps a possibility for computers to make a transition into art.

Another interesting thought is that idea that monkeys would eventually write a Shakespeare play given enough time pressing buttons at random, the same applies for pixels, inks and so on.

Another interesting aspect of art creation (and I'm going to be making assumptions based on my own talents in artistry,) is that art can be highly logical and very literal.  For example, realism: to accomplish realism, you must draw/paint in a very specific way which lines up with how we view objects in the world.  It requires a lot of technical ability, and you can get away with it without any creativity whatsoever (otherwise, we could make the assumption that every photograph is a piece of art, including the photographs of me speeding past a red light once being used against me in court.)  To create a perfect reproduction of life through a pencil requires only technical ability; computers do this already, and much more efficiently.

Taking into consideration the idea of monkeys and Shakespeare, can we then define art with the requirement of creative input?  Though a set of monkeys could eventually pound out Shakespeare, because they do not understand what they're doing, we cannot assume they understand a thing they're writing about, outside of being a random assortment of key presses.  Thus, although the two copies of Shakespeare, one written by the man, and the other written by monkeys, are identical copies, we can assume one is art and the other isn't.

At what point in time would a computer be able to create art, then?  When it has motivation?  At which point, it would need to have a reason to create, not because it is programmed to, but because it wanted to.  It would have to first experience pain.  We would have to reverse-engineer the human being.  Considering that our entire lives are interpreted through a series of electrical impulses in our minds, it could be possible, if we recreate the human mind with resources outside the normal flesh and blood, to invent an artist.  I imagine it would be incredibly difficult, but I tend to believe nothing's impossible.

If you ask me, that will be the final Turing test. When an A.I. creates an original composition that I recognize as "art," I'll call it a person.

Imagine if you could purchase an artificial family member and never tell the difference.  Anyway, in relation to the thread, I believe there's an odd connection between an artificial person and a real one; in one aspect, you know they're machine, but in another, you know they feel.

[myrkul]

If you ask me, that will be the final Turing test. When an A.I. creates an original composition that I recognize as "art," I'll call it a person.

Imagine if you could purchase an artificial family member and never tell the difference.

Too much like slavery. Pass.

Edit:....and we've come full circle.

[FinShaggy]

I think you didn't think this one through...

Someone needs still to produce the stuff, and just adding to/getting cut from new money doesn't really produce anything...

Machines already produce most of our stuff. Cars, other machines, toys, money. Machines could do all that work still, we just need a few inventions in between the humans at the factories and the machines that already exist.

I have thought this through very far.
If we work towards a fully unemployed society, eventually the only jobs left are: Mechanic, Inventor and Specialized jobs.

Meaning:

1. Everyone would have a machine that they repaired, or checked on. (even through a webcam as long as it's working)

2. Some people invent new machines, and new things for people to do.

3. Some jobs will still be necessary, until a machine is invented for them. Ex: Brain surgeon.

....

But, everyone could make a pretty good extra income right now, and we could solve a lot of poverty, hunger, education and child care issues simply by WORKING TOWARDS and unemployed society, I understand that it will not actually be fully unemployed for a long time.

We could basically become a society of businessmen (traders) and inventors, that have knowledge of mechanics and engineering. Like America started out as.

How can you forget artists, creative people!? No computer will ever match the capacity of ones imagination. Maybe I am just biased but can a computer algo produce art? Interesting philosophical proposition to think about.

I didn't "forget creative people", the whole point is to open the world up FOR creative people.

With the jobs done, we are all inventors, artists, actors, mechanics and engineers.

[FinShaggy]

Like a modern Athens.

[Ekaros]

Like a modern Athens.

So who would be our slaves?

[myrkul]

Like a modern Athens.

So who would be our slaves?

The machines, of course.

[FinShaggy]

Like a modern Athens.

So who would be our slaves?

The machines, of course.

You FINALLY understand

[myrkul]

Like a modern Athens.

So who would be our slaves?

The machines, of course.

You FINALLY understand

I've understood from the beginning. You have to understand something before you can properly agree or disagree with it.

I disagree.

[FinShaggy]

Like a modern Athens.

So who would be our slaves?

The machines, of course.

You FINALLY understand

I've understood from the beginning. You have to understand something before you can properly agree or disagree with it.

I disagree.

, you have brilliantly displayed that you completely can't grasp this for the past few days. lol

[myrkul]

Like a modern Athens.

So who would be our slaves?

The machines, of course.

You FINALLY understand

I've understood from the beginning. You have to understand something before you can properly agree or disagree with it.

I disagree.

, you have brilliantly displayed that you completely can't grasp this for the past few days. lol

You, sir, are the master of the oxymoron.

Fitting.

[FinShaggy]

You, sir, are the master of the oxymoron.

Fitting.

You sir, suck at trolling.

Not fitting, find a new gig.

[Ekaros]

I try to simplify our side:
Robots good, improved efficiency good.

Mining not solution for capital.

[FinShaggy]

I try to simplify our side:
Robots good, improved efficiency good.

Mining not solution for capital.

lol, mining is definitely a solution. The more people mine the more valuable coins become the more alt coins will be made. And eventually every region wil have its own coin, and everyone will be supporting their own local economy, which will be driven by the robots.

[myrkul]

I try to simplify our side:
Robots good, improved efficiency good.

Mining not solution for capital.

lol, mining is definitely a solution.

For some people, maybe. For everyone, no.

The more people mine the more valuable coins become the more alt coins will be made.

These are some... interesting logical leaps you're making here.
The first, More miners = more valuable coins, is not necessarily true. In fact, historically, hashpower follows price, not the other way around.
The second, More valuable coins = more altcoins is just plain silly.

And eventually every region wil have its own coin, and everyone will be supporting their own local economy, which will be driven by the robots.

Regional coins are a possibility. But have you thoroughly thought out how a robot-driven economy will work out?

[FinShaggy]

I try to simplify our side:
Robots good, improved efficiency good.

Mining not solution for capital.

lol, mining is definitely a solution.

For some people, maybe. For everyone, no.

The more people mine the more valuable coins become the more alt coins will be made.

These are some... interesting logical leaps you're making here.
The first, More miners = more valuable coins, is not necessarily true. In fact, historically, hashpower follows price, not the other way around.
The second, More valuable coins = more altcoins is just plain silly.

And eventually every region wil have its own coin, and everyone will be supporting their own local economy, which will be driven by the robots.

Regional coins are a possibility. But have you thoroughly thought out how a robot-driven economy will work out?

1. Of course not for everyone, we still have engineers, inventers and things like brain surgeons until we get machines invented for that stuff (I've explained all of this to you like 30 times)

2. More miners does make coins more valuable because a. More people have coins they want to sell/use making the market just more stable in general b. More people with coins, means more transactions, which means more demand for mining

More valuable coins, means more sparked interest, and more sparked interest DOES mean more alt coins. Because people that see chances to make an awesome completely necessary coin will learn about this stuff, and without the valuable in demand coin, they would have never even thought twice about it.

3. Yes I have thought about a robot driven economy and I have been reading about how great it works out all over this very website... Bitcoin is an economy, and mining rigs are robots. If you believe in a bitcoin economy, you believe in a form of robot driven economy.

Unless you mine by doing all the block chain algorithms on your desktop calculator, lol

[myrkul]

1. Of course not for everyone, we still have engineers, inventers and things like brain surgeons until we get machines invented for that stuff (I've explained all of this to you like 30 times)

Oh, I see, so mining is just for the people with no other marketable skill?

2. More miners does make coins more valuable because a. More people have coins they want to sell/use making the market just more stable in general b. More people with coins, means more transactions, which means more demand for mining

You clearly don't understand supply and demand. More people with coins they want to get rid of does not increase the price.

More valuable coins, means more sparked interest, and more sparked interest DOES mean more alt coins. Because people that see chances to make an awesome completely necessary coin will learn about this stuff, and without the valuable in demand coin, they would have never even thought twice about it.

So, people having this valuable, in demand coin will necessarily spark them to create a worthless, undesired coin. K.

3. Yes I have thought about a robot driven economy and I have been reading about how great it works out all over this very website... Bitcoin is an economy, and mining rigs are robots. If you believe in a bitcoin economy, you believe in a form of robot driven economy.

Let me clear a few things up for you. Robots are workers. The word even comes from the Czech word for worker. A bitcoin miner is a specialized type of desktop calculator. Not a worker. It generates two things: Bitcoins and heat. Robots make things.

[Mike Christ]

I could've sworn we've been over this.  As more people mine, the cost to mine jumps, and the less profits you make (until you're working at a deficit.)  As more altcoins exist, less businesses are guaranteed to take them (we don't even have most businesses on board with Bitcoin right now.)  Considering that robots will be doing all the work, without pay, you're better off issuing paper tokens for people to take to government-owned shops where you can get the food and other stuff you need.  It's a lot more efficient than mining; mining needs to stay specialized, limited to people who are willing to shell out the cash for the best hardware, otherwise it's a waste of energy.  It's CPU Mining Vs. ASIC, and there's only a handful of ASIC owners in the world right now.  If everyone had an ASIC, and everyone was mining, they would not be earning any profits, and even still, there would be a select few to accept them; the machines are working for free, after all, and when all jobs are taken by machine, there will be nothing to use all those coins on.

This system is not sustainable.  You may see short term highs while people slowly hop on board (meaning people will be mining at a profit), but the more popular your system gets, the worse it gets for the miners (which is everyone) until nobody can make a living mining, then we're back where we started.  I could probably write "IOU" on a piece of paper and get the same effect; it took a few seconds and some energy to write the slip, after all.  I may as well lob off chunks of my hair and use that as currency, since it takes a lot of time and energy to keep me alive to create that, too.  Since it's extremely common for people to have hair (like it would be, in this system, to have coins), it's the same effect.  I can't make a natural living through simply existing; there is no living organism which can do this, and we're no different.

[myrkul]

If everyone had an ASIC, and everyone was mining, they would not be earning any profits, and even still, there would be a select few to accept them; the machines are working for free, after all, and when all jobs are taken by machine, there will be nothing to use all those coins on.

Worse: The robots and the miners would be directly competing for the same limited resource. It's not often you get to see an economy designed to self-destruct.

[FinShaggy]

If you believe in a bitcoin economy, you believe in a form of robot driven economy.

Unless you mine by doing all the block chain algorithms on your desktop calculator, lol

That is all

[myrkul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIC


That is all.