You again?
Industrial robots had been on the market since 1956. They started hitting high-growth in the 70s. Try again.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The industry is definitely going through a period of contraction after rapid buildout in the 90s and 2000s, but I doubt very seriously that in the future EVERYTHING will come from Amazon or its nearest equivalent.
Perhaps later you regale me with tales of the Wright Brother's first flight or the execution of Charles I. Maybe start with how in God's name bellbottoms ever sounded like a good idea. Just because things have changed in the past does not mean your claim has been proven. Change != all jobs everywhere will vanish in the near-future.
Hand-waving.
As I pointed out in the other thread, it is difficult to do math without numbers. You'd think as an "engineer" you'd know that.
And yet we CAN build atomic power plants. We COULD fly to Mars. We DID build the Space Shuttle. And yet the mere fact that these things were possible was not sufficient to fulfill every grandiose claim claim ever made about them. The existence of all these other issues is exactly the sort of thing I have been pointing out as qualifying your geeking out over the automation thing.
Were you this worked up when the horse-and-buggy industry finally died?
Full automation of what? Everything? Is a bot writing these posts of yours?
What, everything? Define "know". Please give me an example of "everything automated".
Do machines not have needs? Foibles? Note that I am not asking if they have the same needs, but do they not have needs of their own? Do these machines install themselves? Service themselves (as in actually fix themselves/replace themselves when they break, provide their own power, raw materials, etc.)? Decide what and how many things they are going to build?
Meterless power would have been useful, too. Doesn't mean it happened.
So, no, you don't have any comments on "consumer preference, energy usage, relative labor costs, or the like", just a bunch of handwaving. Got it.
Quote:You're young, so you haven't actually witnessed the change that has already happened. Industrial robots were experimental in the 1980s; now they're ubiquitous.
Industrial robots had been on the market since 1956. They started hitting high-growth in the 70s. Try again.
Quote:How about the near collapse of bricks-and-mortar retailing.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The industry is definitely going through a period of contraction after rapid buildout in the 90s and 2000s, but I doubt very seriously that in the future EVERYTHING will come from Amazon or its nearest equivalent.
Quote:Change is never obvious until it happens.
Perhaps later you regale me with tales of the Wright Brother's first flight or the execution of Charles I. Maybe start with how in God's name bellbottoms ever sounded like a good idea. Just because things have changed in the past does not mean your claim has been proven. Change != all jobs everywhere will vanish in the near-future.
Quote:Smart machines are hard, but they become very viable if conditions are right.
Hand-waving.
Quote:Right now, or sometime after January 20th at least, our political establishment will empower corporations by gutting the regulatory regime, lowering their taxes and putting people like Carl Icahn in the drivers seat. Add money to motivation and subtract any viable opposition. You do the math.
As I pointed out in the other thread, it is difficult to do math without numbers. You'd think as an "engineer" you'd know that.
Quote:Safety issues are what killed atomic power: Chernobyl, The China Syndrome and Three Mile Island. Contrary to your opinion, the Space Shuttle was always a kludge and Mars was always a wet dream. DARPA may not have gotten robots right then, but the internet has certainly been a success.
And yet we CAN build atomic power plants. We COULD fly to Mars. We DID build the Space Shuttle. And yet the mere fact that these things were possible was not sufficient to fulfill every grandiose claim claim ever made about them. The existence of all these other issues is exactly the sort of thing I have been pointing out as qualifying your geeking out over the automation thing.
Were you this worked up when the horse-and-buggy industry finally died?
Quote:Full automation is inherently viable.
Full automation of what? Everything? Is a bot writing these posts of yours?
Quote:We know we can do it.
What, everything? Define "know". Please give me an example of "everything automated".
Quote:And replacing humans with all their needs and foibles is certainly cost-effective.
Do machines not have needs? Foibles? Note that I am not asking if they have the same needs, but do they not have needs of their own? Do these machines install themselves? Service themselves (as in actually fix themselves/replace themselves when they break, provide their own power, raw materials, etc.)? Decide what and how many things they are going to build?
Quote:Its a huge undertaking, so setting a timeline is hard, but its a lot more sensible than flying cars or jet packs, which never made sense at any level but the emotional. Keep utility at the forefront. Is automation utile? Yes. And asking about the Internet is a bit dumb, since DARPA knew exactly what it was doing. It only lacked the knowledge of how far technology could go in so short a time.
Meterless power would have been useful, too. Doesn't mean it happened.
Quote:Who said machines will take over? I doubt any of us will be around if and when machine become prescient. This isn't about machines as masters. Its about masters maintaining their mastery through machines they control.
Hoi polio has a small window to get in front of this and stake a claim to the benefits, but its certainly not happening at the moment.
So, no, you don't have any comments on "consumer preference, energy usage, relative labor costs, or the like", just a bunch of handwaving. Got it.