EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3255
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:13 oBlade wrote: This is a pipe dream. Most careers dealing with people can't be automated - certainly not to a level that reduces or obviates the need for having a person in the loop. Jobs like education, law, medicine. When you introduce technological advances in these fields, it lets people do a better job, but the technology doesn't replace the people. You can make technology to perform surgery, but all that does is allow the surgeon to perform a surgery he couldn't before. It doesn't remove the human element. Like the use of powerpoint hasn't made teachers obsolete. The simplest refutation is the clients in all these fields want to be serviced by people, not robots. What you're talking about is the medical pod from Prometheus. That's not 15 years away. Medicine has huge unknown frontiers. Absolutely. The robots are nowhere near that level today. To say confidently that it's not 15 years away (I suspect 15 years is realistic for the first basic automations, not for complex surgeries or replacement of physicians) is, in my opinion, to ignore the trends for exponential growth in technology. If you assume a linear rate of growth then sure, even robotic surgery for something basic, like a simple cut, would be hundreds of years off. By the same logic the human genome still wouldn't have been sequenced today. Instead it costs less than $100 to do so. Given this, I think the line of reasoning that things like I am talking about being possible within this century is more probable than these things being thousands of years of. The current progression in technologic growth throughout history has been following an exponential trajectory. If you're going to argue that robotics as I'm talking about is not within the realm of possibility by the end of this century, you'd need a strong reason to suggest the paradigm that has existed throughout human history is now defunct. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Bad way to follow up Monday's. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:23 L_Master wrote: The current progression in technologic growth throughout history has been following an exponential trajectory. I hear this all the time but can someone explain to me what this actually means? How do you measure technological growth? | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
WTF is this moderation. I really can't be bothered. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18854 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:27 ticklishmusic wrote: moore's law means the number of processing units per amount of space doubles every few years which is good but I don't really think this qualifies as a proof of technological growth in some meaningful way. After all we do actually need to do something with all of that computing power, it doesn't help us in itself. If we look at increase in labour productivity it's pretty much linear and slowing down | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:26 Nyxisto wrote: I hear this all the time but can someone explain to me what this actually means? How do you measure technological growth? Some examples: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3394/3656849977_c99b0a4606.jpg) + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Blogs/techtank/2015/07/30-hoffman-biosciences/Invention-timeline.jpg?la=en) I'm a little hesitant to link the article, because the author is known for being extremely aggressive in his predictions and expectations for the future, but he does a respectable job laying out what is going on here: www.kurzweilai.net | ||
|
oBlade
United States5901 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:23 L_Master wrote: Absolutely. The robots are nowhere near that level today. To say confidently that it's not 15 years away (I suspect 15 years is realistic for the first basic automations, not for complex surgeries or replacement of physicians) is, in my opinion, to ignore the trends for exponential growth in technology. If you assume a linear rate of growth then sure, even robotic surgery for something basic, like a simple cut, would be hundreds of years off. By the same logic the human genome still wouldn't have been sequenced today. Instead it costs less than $100 to do so. Given this, I think the line of reasoning that things like I am talking about being possible within this century is more probable than these things being thousands of years of. The current progression in technologic growth throughout history has been following an exponential trajectory. If you're going to argue that robotics as I'm talking about is not within the realm of possibility by the end of this century, you'd need a strong reason to suggest the paradigm that has existed throughout human history is now defunct. We have surgery assisted by robotics now. The innovation in medicine is on the frontiers. Nobody is making robots to put band-aids on people, because it would be inordinately expensive compared to the demand for such technology, which is zero, because bandaging is pretty well solved. The money, resources, and manpower would be better spent on distributing first aid kits. There is similarly no drive in cooking to popularize an automated way of making breakfast like in the movie Brazil because people don't need machines to crack and fry eggs. On March 10 2016 12:26 Nyxisto wrote: I hear this all the time but can someone explain to me what this actually means? How do you measure technological growth? You usually can't. The mistake he's making is common, but basically he's taking Moore's law, which is a rough observation that for the past few decades, CPUs have gotten twice as powerful about every two years, and abstracting that to "technology" just to argue from a position of optimism. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18854 Posts
On March 10 2016 12:34 L_Master wrote: Some examples: + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + I'm a little hesitant to link the article, because the author is known for being extremely aggressive in his predictions and expectations for the future, but he does a respectable job laying out what is going on here: www.kurzweilai.net Your hesitancy is well justified, referencing Kurzweil won't do you many favors here, my friend  | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
EDIT: oh nvm faith restored | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4908 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
though tbh its irrelevant. | ||
| ||
