• Post New Message
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Poll of the Day
  3. Controversial Opinion #4: Automation

User Info: JigsawTDC

JigsawTDC
1 month ago#191
This thread will be at least as long as War & Peace by the time it reaches 500.

User Info: Mead

Mead
1 month ago#192
I have never seen so many posts this long

is this what happens when Link takes a break from using ellipses?
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano

User Info: LinkPizza

LinkPizza
1 month ago#193
JigsawTDC posted...
This thread will be at least as long as War & Peace by the time it reaches 500.

Maybe close...

Mead posted...
I have never seen so many posts this long

is this what happens when Link takes a break from using ellipses?

I can only fit so many words into a post at once. If I was quoting, it'd be like 2-3 times as many post... But I was still using ellipses...
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.

User Info: darkknight109

darkknight109
4 weeks ago#194
LinkPizza posted...
Please do me a favor and read before posting statements like, "I need context." Because almost every time you say that, context was in the next sentence or two. At the very least, context clues will be there.
I'm not going to scroll back a dozen posts to try and decipher what random sentence you're responding to based on "context clues." Provide context or a quote.

LinkPizza posted...
You can copyright recipes to an extent. But how the law works is different from normal copyright laws.
No, it doesn't.

You cannot copyright an idea, full stop. All you can copyright is how that idea is expressed. For instance, I cannot copyright apple pie just because I came up with a great apple pie recipe. If someone else, through trial and error, happens to come up with the exact recipe I use, they are free to use it. If this was not the case, every dish in the world would be subject to copyright right now and no cook would be able to make anything without a lawyer present to ensure they were in compliance with rights.

You can copyright a recipe, but only in the sense that someone else can't steal that recipe, put it in their own cookbook and sell it for profit; someone is free to follow that recipe to the letter in order to cook a dish and sell it (or to try and "reverse-engineer" your dish by tasting it and trying to work out what you did). That's why places like Coke and KFC famously guard their recipes - if someone else could work out how to make them (which an AI would be far better equipped to do than a human), there would be no penalty to someone selling knock-off Coke or KFC using the same recipes. If they could copyright the dishes, they would simply do so and save themselves the hassle.

LinkPizza posted...
And will probably change when AI that can make certain food based off other foods become popular. Especially since that would cost restaurants money.
And make other restaurants money, so don't expect food industry reps to stand in the way of this.

LinkPizza posted...
So, most restaurants won't take to an AI learning how to cook their $20 burger to sell at McDonalds for a couple bucks. Not to mention, some people go to certain restaurants for food cooked to taste a certain way. If you've gone to other restaurants, then you know that certain foods at certain recipes may have a more specific taste. And many restaurants aren't going to want their recipe to be used at other places.
Whether they want to or not is immaterial. It will happen all the same because there's really no way to stop people with AI from sampling food and using an AI to analyze it unless they, y'know, stop selling food altogether.

LinkPizza posted...
And I think the law will uphold that.
Based on what?

Again, you can't copyright an idea. Even if you tried, it's impossible to enforce.

LinkPizza posted...
Or riots might ensue.
Yes, people will be rioting because AI gives them affordable, high-quality meals at a price no human cook could ever match. That makes total sense.

LinkPizza posted...
And 99% percent of the population in way too high of a number for people who don't have someone to cook for them.
I feel confident in saying that 99% of households do not contain a restaurant-quality chef, which is what this originally stemmed from, nevermind one skilled enough to make any dish to the exact specifications of the household members.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

User Info: darkknight109

darkknight109
4 weeks ago#195
LinkPizza posted...
And then some people just like cooking and stuff... Or eating their own food.
And? The existence of AI cooks doesn't mean you won't be able to cook your own food; it means if you want restaurant food, it will be better, faster, and cheaper.

LinkPizza posted...
But sometimes, the reason people like something is because a certain person cooked it for them.
And, again, having AI cooks does nothing to preclude this. If you want to cook a meal for someone, the police won't break down your door and confiscate your kitchen utensils. Cook all you want; all it means is that you have the option of having an AI do it instead, something most restaurants will go for because it's cheaper and more reliable (no need to bring on extra cooks for the dinner rush, then be forced to either send them home after only a few hours or pay them to stand around doing nothing).

LinkPizza posted...
And imperfections aren't only for food. It's even in art.
You're back to arguing that AI are perfect and saying it's a bad thing, yet later in this chain you'll switch to arguing at the AI aren't perfect and saying that's a bad thing. Pick a lane.

LinkPizza posted...
But the stupid AI would probably keep making it the same.
No, it wouldn't. Why would it? Not everyone likes their dishes the same.

An AI can make one dish a hundred different ways if you ask it to. Again, you're coming up with these bizarre predictions that have zero basis in reality and really only show that you don't understand how AI work or learn. AI programs learn *by changing things* then comparing the results. The won't keep making it the same unless you ask them to because you're happy with how it was made.

LinkPizza posted...
The reason I go to different restaurants is to try a different version of the same things sometimes.
And an AI will let you do that without forcing you to travel somewhere different. You could try every burger in the world from the comfort of your local neighbourhood diner. Or hell, from the comfort of your own home if you are so inclined.

LinkPizza posted...
The problem with asking a robot to make it differently is you may not know what you actually want that's different.
You can just say, "Make it more like this," and give it an example of the burger you actually did like and the AI will figure out the rest. That sort of goal-based learning is actually something AI are really good at.

LinkPizza posted...
Which you probably wouldn't be able to do from your home robot since that would cost restaurant money, which will still be a thing...
No, it won't.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

User Info: darkknight109

darkknight109
4 weeks ago#196
LinkPizza posted...
Thinking robots will always be allowed to make food based on restaurant's taste
Because they will. There's basically no way to stop it.

I mean, if I could make a taste-analysis robot small enough to hide in my mouth (not unreasonable with future tech), how would any restaurant stop me from sampling their food to teach an AI? And moreover, why would they want to when there's far more money to be made from agreeing to teach an AI in return for a cut of the proceeds?

LinkPizza posted...
Banks have gotten hacked, though. And often. Here's an article about it:
And yet, our financial sector still marches on, still ever-more digitized, and somehow the whole system hasn't collapsed yet.

LinkPizza posted...
Do you actually do any research, or just pull this stuff out of your ass?
Do you? Because you've demonstrated a complete absence of knowledge regarding AI in this topic, what with your, "They'll probably do this" or "It'll probably be like this" statements, all of which fly in the face of reality, something anyone with a modicum of knowledge about how AI works would be able to tell you in half a second.

Seriously, if you're going to go all scorched-earth Luddite on this topic, at least pull your head out of the ground for long enough to learn something about it. An educated opinion is far superior to an uneducated one based on gut instincts and knee-jerk reactions, which is where at least 80% of your posts are coming from at the moment.

Just for fun, I'm going to bold every random prediction and hypothetical you post for the rest of this response, just to show you how frequently you do it.

LinkPizza posted...
And if hackers are getting better, they'll probably be ablt to hack into the AIs network, as well...
Implying that digital defences are not improving in lockstep with hacking technology.

LinkPizza posted...
Like possibly poisoning my food, or my personal info getting into someone else's hands. You know? The important stuff...
Yeah your personal info like... how you like your food cooked. Oh no, so terrible!

LinkPizza posted...
And you have to wonder if master chefs would actually teach the robots anything, tbh... Or allow their teachings to be stored on their servers... Many may not.
They don't have a choice on whether to "allow" them or not.

You can't copyright an idea. I will repeat that as many times as it takes for you to understand it.

LinkPizza posted...
Just saying you liked it better doesn't actually help it much unless it was actually perfect last time. Else it'll probably just keep cooking it like the last time.
Again, this is showing a pretty blatant misunderstanding about how AI works and learns.

Educate yourself.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

User Info: darkknight109

darkknight109
4 weeks ago#197
LinkPizza posted...
If you don't know what it is, then to keep telling it you liked it better last time doesn't nothing to help it get closer to perfection...
Yes, it does, because the AI will then iterate off of its best attempt until it reaches a better one. Then it will iterate off of that recipe. Repeat continuously until it reaches "perfection" (or close enough to it that you're satisfied with the results).

LinkPizza posted...
And people will pay the cost when they think the cost is worth it, though.
The cost of what?

Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this.

LinkPizza posted...
For example, if oak stead of half the price, it was only a little cheaper, then more people would be fine with Company A.
What is an oak stead and who is Company A?

Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this.

LinkPizza posted...
Also, I have to keep finding the last message quoted and quote the next. Which has almost caused me to skip a whole post once. Luckily, I caught it and was able to reply to it. But that could easily happen again.
I've somehow managed to avoid doing it, despite having to post dozens of quotes in this topic.

Maybe you're just bad at this?

LinkPizza posted...
whole time, I've been saying Target and Wal-Mart should get more because they can afford it. I even said, "You're talking about a small business. I'm talking about the bigger ones. The ones that actually have self-checkout machines and aren't getting more. The ones you think will wait for cheaper ones. Businesses should absolutely get better ones. Getting older ones is just throwing away money.
You're rehashing old arguments I've already debunked.

I've already explained why additional self-checkout machines at Wal-Mart and Target would lead to diminishing returns (they cannot yet automate their entire work force, so adding additional self-checkout lines likely will not result in them being able to hire fewer workers and, as such, will not improve - and may actually hurt - their bottom line.

LinkPizza posted...
And a personal anecdote is sharing a short story, according to the internet.
So you're admitting you don't know what a personal anecdote is and are just looking up the definition on the internet?

LinkPizza posted...
And what I said wasn't a story. I just asked other people either a question or asked for an opinion and posted what they said.
Which is a personal anecdote. Why?
-Because it is your own personal experience, not something that is reflective of significant analysis or a greater truth.
-Because it is unverifiable, since the only proof you have that these conversations took place and that you're accurately conveying those conversations is you.
-Because it is not statistically significant - personal anecdotes never are.

Your discussions with your colleagues, charming though they may be, are completely immaterial to this post. Again, I can claim that I've spoken to everyone in my city and they all agree with me, which would be its own personal anecdote and not in any way helpful for advancing the discussion, because I can't prove it and even if I could, my city doesn't speak for everyone.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

User Info: darkknight109

darkknight109
4 weeks ago#198
LinkPizza posted...
Me saying, "I've literally asked most people I know in real life that I speak with on at least a weekly basis about this. Nobody except for people on this board think everything will be free. The closest was a friend that said what you said which was, "Money is a concept of human labor."" isn't a personal anecdote.
You literally just told a story in that paragraph.

It's a personal anecdote, dude. Accept it.

LinkPizza posted...
It's closer to the results of a sample group of study.
One filled with biases, sampling errors, and insufficient sample size for statistical significance such that it would never be accepted as valid in any serious discussion, if indeed it actually happened at all.

But sure, call it that if it makes you feel better.

LinkPizza posted...
And last part was just telling you what one person actually said. And he honestly disagrees with nearly everything else you said...
Cool. All my friends agree with everything I say too.

Are we done with this ridiculous tangent? I don't care whether or not your friends agree with you or not - they're not here, I'm not talking with them, and even if all of them actually did disagree with everything I said, that has nothing to do with whether or not I'm right.

LinkPizza posted...
For context, people already use machines to make a bunch of stuff. And that stuff still cost money.
Yes, because it is currently impossible to completely remove humans from that process. There are costs in that process because human labour is still involved, whether that's in designing the machines or mining the materials or performing maintenance and planning, humans still do plenty of tasks in even the most automated of processes.

Costs and money will continue to exist for as long as humans are involved, however tangentially, in a process. Only when we reach a state where robots can do absolutely everything in a process will money cease to exist in a meaningful fashion.

LinkPizza posted...
You're the one using confirmation bias, if anything. You're just assuming you're right when history actually shows us you're wrong.
Past events are not reliable predictors of future changes, not on the subject of something like technology. To demonstrate:

If we were having this conversation in 1900, you would be saying that cars will never be widespread and we will continue to ride horses, because in 10,000 years of human history we've always rode horses and never had widespread cars.

If we were having this conversation in 1950, you would be saying that personal computers will never be widespread, because in 10,000 years of human history we've never had that level of technology in our homes for personal use.

If we were having this conversation in 1980, you would be saying that cell phones will never be widespread, because in 10,000 years of history we've always used traditional forms of communication and never had cell phones.

Automation is a game changer. Like cars or smart phones or computers or the internet. You cannot use "history" to justify your views when talking about a new technological intervention.

LinkPizza posted...
If you were right, then all those factories when things are built by machines would be giving us stuff for free. But they aren't.
There are no completely automated factories.

Also, you're completely misconstruing my argument, but that doesn't really surprise me at this point.

LinkPizza posted...
But if you think things will change, where are they getting free material. Because the person mining/making the material with robots will charge for it since he needs that money to survive and maintain his robots. The parts aren't free. And will never be. The problem is there's not way to end money. And robots themselves will cost money to buy and maintain. So, people will still need money to live...
Robots and resources will continue to cost money for precisely as long as humans are involved in their manufacture/maintenance/extraction. Is there a human mine supervisor? He needs to be paid, money still exists. Is there a technician responsible for troubleshooting the robots? He needs to be paid, money still exists.

In a fully automated future, where the robots can mine things unsupervised, build themselves unsupervised, maintain themselves unsupervised, who is getting paid? Answer: no one, there are no humans involved in the process *to* pay and, therefore, no money necessary to pay them.

I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding this. It's really not a difficult concept, but you keep messing up the particulars.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

User Info: darkknight109

darkknight109
4 weeks ago#199
LinkPizza posted...
And when I said literally everyone, it was obviously the figurative literally.
Otherwise known as "figuratively", which is the opposite of "literally".

Don't get upset at me because of your poor choice of words.

LinkPizza posted...
Also, if I'm using the Alleged Centainty fallacy, you're also using it, but just with the opposite opinion...
So far you've basically said, "No, u!" to every time I've pointed out a fallacy you've used, while failing to demonstrate that you actually know what it means.

The Alleged Certainty (not "Centainty", whatever that is) fallacy is claiming that your viewpoint is true because "everyone knows it". At no point have I alleged that "everyone knows" that my viewpoint is correct.

Again, please educate yourself on these terms before you try to use them and wind up being completely wrong. You'll save us both a lot of time.

LinkPizza posted...
You're using the music example. But I'm talking about physical things.
What music example and where are you talking about physical things?

Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this.

LinkPizza posted...
Machines make the cars, but will still pay a ton for them. Machines put roombas together, and they still cost like $800 dollars.
Because humans are involved in the process.

Dude, I have pointed this out ages ago - money is a measure of human labour. If humans are completely removed from the process, then costs can and will drop to zero, but unless and until that happens, yes, things will still cost money.

Right now, robots do not mine out a bunch of resources and turn it into a roomba with no human involvement. Factories that make cars still have humans overseeing the process. So yes, they still cost money and trying to pretend that those are comparables to what I've been arguing is being deliberately disingenuous.

LinkPizza posted...
I mean, many people already don't even like robots:
Counterpoints:

https://www.fastcompany.com/90236717/its-okay-to-love-robots
https://360.here.com/how-human-like-will-the-robots-of-the-future-need-to-be
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/robots-human-relationships/583204/

LinkPizza posted...
Though, its already not free since you usually have to pay for it in you home. Even on your phone, it's part of your phone bill.
Go to a public library or Starbucks or one of a zillion other places that offer free wifi if you're that concerned about a small bill at the end of the month.

More to the point, yes, those things are still free. If your friend buys you lunch, do you think, "This isn't *actually* free, since I bought him a birthday present last month and if I hadn't done that, he wouldn't be my friend and I wouldn't get this lunch"? No, those are two unrelated events. Or if you get a free sample at the supermarket, do you think, "This isn't free, I drove here and had to pay for gas for my car"? Of course not, that's dumb.

When you pay for your phone, your power, your internet, you are paying for those things, not what you access with them. You might have to pay more for things online, or you might get things for free. Suggesting that it's not actually free because a phone bill exists is ridiculous hair-splitting and completely dodges the actual point of this tangent, which is that people are producing goods and spreading them at zero cost to the end user.

That is only possible due to increases in technology. In ye olden times, if I wrote a book and I was inclined to give it away for free, I wouldn't be able to because simply making the book costs money. Nowadays, if I write a digital book I can make as many copies of it as I want, for zero dollars, because copy-and-paste is free. In theory, I could give a copy to every single person on the planet who had a device capable of reading it and neither they nor I would have to pay a dime.

Robots are the next step in that evolution, where the last vestiges of human involvement in the supply chain can eventually be removed, allowing all costs to eventually reduce to zero.

LinkPizza posted...
And food and lodgings is usually what cost people the most.
Depends on your income bracket, honestly.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

User Info: darkknight109

darkknight109
4 weeks ago#200
LinkPizza posted...
You also need to pay for whatever you're using the internet on, though. And the internet bill.
You're talking about a one-time fee of a few hundred dollars, followed by a monthly bill that could be less than $50, in return for materials which, just 30 years ago, would have run you tens of thousands of dollars (add up how much it would cost for hard copies of all the free Youtube videos, music, books, forums, etc. you consume in a month - the numbers go up remarkably quickly).

You're basically making my argument for me at this point.

LinkPizza posted...
And not everybody could live comfortably.
Honestly, if you can't live "comfortably" on a standard of living that would have placed you in the top 1% of earners 50 years ago, that says more about you than the current state of the world.

LinkPizza posted...
Some people like playing new games that come out, which aren't free. Or watching certain shows that are only on certain sites like NetFlix, Hulu, Disney+, etc..., which all cost money.
None of this in any way disproves anything I've said.

I said free material is available, not that everything is free. Seriously, why did you even bring this up, it has nothing to do with anything I've said.

LinkPizza posted...
I don't see how people are going to give everything away for free when they need that money to buy and maintain the robots.
Who are they paying when the robots are building and maintaining themselves?

If your parents gave you a robot that could constantly repair itself and go out and build copies of itself using resources it harvested without your involvement, who would you need to pay money to?

LinkPizza posted...
And also pay for everything that need to live and stuff...
If robots are handling that, who are you proposing they pay money to?

LinkPizza posted...
And you say it's gone against the economic trend in the last 30 years, but that's wrong. In the last 30 years, many factories have become automated, meaning it cost less to make a bunch of certain things.
If you are posting on this forum, you have access to more material right now - without paying anything more than you're already paying - than anyone on the planet 30 years ago. Youtube alone has more hours of video content than anyone in the world could access 20 years ago, and all of it is right at your fingertips, for free, where the only imposition on you is that you occasionally have to watch a few seconds worth of ads (contrast that with cable TV, where you need to pay for the cable service *and still* have to watch several minutes of ads every half-hour).

If you only look at the high end of the scale, yes, it looks like things have gotten more expensive; but if you look in the aggregate, there is far more stuff available for a far, far, far lower price tag now than at any point in human history. That is what digitization and automation has brought us and what it will continue to bring us in ever-greater quantities as we move into a more automated future.

LinkPizza posted...
And I've explained why they need money in many other post.
Who is "they"?

Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this.
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
  1. Boards
  2. Poll of the Day
  3. Controversial Opinion #4: Automation
  • Post New Message