thru google.. i dont remember what keyword i used duh.. [^o)]
Does anyone object to me closing this thread (other than the OP)?
-Jon
It doesn’t seem the most constructive thread, honestly. If we could get him down to debating individual points rather than just waffling about some subjective preference for social order then it’d be great. Don’t think it’s gonna happen though
what individual points u want to know? nobody ever ask me either..
actually my idea never has any intention to change maslow hierarchy, what im trying to say is what if theres some way can let the machine/computers has ability to replace the responsibility of the first / most basic level needs for human beings. so that human has more time for other things to focus on & such(for eg:read my first post).
my intention has no different compare to our current society thats constantly seeking to improve our life, technolgy & such. i know lots of people critize yet never suggest what can be done, or needs to be change..
alright all, i’ll tell where i get the inspiration from. it was actually from this movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0182789/
of course, we most likely doesnt want a robot that have long memory that trying to change himself to become human, just good enough to get the jobs done & reset button available on anytime would be good enough haha.. [:P]
Well, I’m not opposed.
All that typing and you cannot be bothered to write out y-o-u? or spell “government”. I thought I was reading the back of a “Prince” album since “What do u want from lov” could be the title and spelling of a Prince song from 1983.
In fact I could not read anything you wrote and have no idea what you said because all I saw was “u” and “gov”. Doing that is like pithing your reader so please stop it.
but typn thos lttrs taks mor secs tht i dnt hav
i no ryte?
But what do we do when the robot revolution finally comes about!? We’d all be f*cked.
Perhaps we should just get the State to take over our vital services for us, so it’s easier for everyone. No chance of any violent revolutions then, eh? [;)]
I would actually like to see this thread kept open, as a portal for various jibberish ideas.
How about replying to some of the points that banned raised earlier.
Or how about this: Why should free human interaction (i.e free markets) not solve the “problems” you have come up with?
the free markets exist because there are winner & loser, winners are taking from the losers(unfortunately which is also human & indirectly will always affect someone’s life & money)
my idea is.. if we gained from robots, at least we’ll reduce less human suffer. aint thats what technology for? my explaination could be simple, but hopefully you’ll understand what im trying to say..
cheers
I feel that Karl Marx has managed to take over this poor soul, now using him as a 21st century vehicle to further his agenda.
don’t you remember what happened when humans went into space with that horrible robot hal-9000, and he went crazy and killed everyone?
Never again!!
The idea of an AI ruling over humans has to be one of the most stupid things I’ve ever heard of. Either it will need programming, and thus there will be a leeway for human influence or it will develop consciousness of its own, in which case why on earth expect it to remain altruistic and not go the way of Hal?
-Jon
It’s funny that most people are horrified at the prospect of robots ruling over us but rather enthusiastic about other humans ruling over us.
I’m just answering a stupid question with a stupid answer.
I know. I’m just saying. I’ve seen it been proposed as a serious suggestion that a super-AI rule over mankind.
-Jon
If people are allowed to act freely without threat of coercion (free market), they will not preform an action if they think it will render them less satisfied. This can be deduced from the axiom that all humans act, using means to achieve ends to render them more satisfied. If a trade would result in a net gain for one person, but a net loss for another from the point of view of these individuals, the trade does not occur (assuming no coercion).
If I heard correctly, you assert that the free market is based off of one person benefiting at the expense of another. If we assumed that this occurred with free trade, then there would be no exchanges. People would act completely on their own, satisfying themselves using only their own land, labor, and self-produced capital goods to satisfy their wants. Unless a person is deserted from other humans, like Crusoe on an island, it has been observed that humans, unless the threat of force is used, will usually trade with each other. This means that both benefit from free trade.
How would robots do that?
Technology is used as a means to satisfy human wants.