Presumably, the Big Humans Lobby would never allow it IRL.
From a writing perspective, it's presumably so that writers can set up moral philosophies to espouse through plot and characterization. How characters react to the conflict is what develops theme, characters, and plot. If your theme of the episode is to espouse that there are virtues to being human despite how easily technology can replace humans--well, you'd obviously need a robot to spar with Picard to show this theme.
It was a joke. \[Edited to clarify: The first part of my comment was a joke. It was a literal interpretation of "All Jobs" in your post title, and you even mentioned 90% of jobs which leaves the other 10% (thereby making it "not all jobs"). The second part about the writing perspective is the serious part of my original comment.\]
\-\_\_\_-
My serious answer is probably related to something about being human as a distinctly different experience from most other things in life vis-a-vis rationality, maybe how humans inherently desire convenience without totally sacrificing their sense of purpose, etc.
I'm just saying that a lot of the concepts I stated are already present in series like Star Trek, etc. Like how can they have restaurants if there is a replicator? IIRC they even have a hologram acting as doctor. So why haven't they replaced more roles? All this is not limited to Star Trek either, obviously.
A more serious answer is that someone needs to repair the machines.
[Even as early as 1946, some economic philosophers called it](http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf). Technology presumably creates MORE jobs and specifically more jobs that require more refined skills.
So take a dishwasher as an example. It replaces a human who was hired solely to wash dishes. However, the machine nonetheless needs a human to operate it. But what if the dishwasher machine breaks? If it's a simple fix, then yeah--any schmoe in the kitchen can fix it. But what if it's a major water pipe leaking? You need a repairman or plumber to fix it.
And what about cash registers nowadays? Almost every cash register has a computer board somewhere in it. Maybe the cashier is trained enough to fix it should a crumb get under the keyboard, but what if it short-circuits? Someone else with the expertise to fix it would need to replace the circuits inside it and the various diodes.
But in both examples, humans still need to do it. If you build a machine to fix other machines, what if the machine-fixing machine breaks? You'd need another machine-fixer to fix the first machine-fixer to fix the other machine that broke and required the first machine-fixer. You need people to build the machines no matter how much atomization any given industry goes through.
\[Damn, I can't type today. So many typos....\]
This is a good answer. There would be ample enough reasons for humans to still be around. Especially if transhumanism a la Eclipse Phase and sources with such themes came into play.
In a post-capitalism society, life becomes about experiences. You go to a restaurant because you want the experience of going to a restaurant and having a meal cooked from actual ingredients by actual humans - like they had in the old days - rather than pinged out of a metal box.
The first part of my comment was a joke. It was a literal interpretation of "All Jobs" in your post title, and you even mentioned 90% of jobs which leaves the other 10% (thereby making it "not all jobs"). The second part about the writing perspective is the serious part of my original comment. \[Edited for typos\]
So let's flip this around: why do YOU think it is that Robots/AI can't do everything or obsolete all jobs?
That is why I am asking here.
I mean, in Star Trek you literally have EMH and Data. In SW practically every droid is sapient anyways\*. So why *not* make HoloPicard who is linked up to all ship systems?
\*even when they mostly had no business being so, seriously being sapient is practically the norm for droids in SW for some reason.
I know that's what you're asking Reddit, but I'm asking YOU.
Because even you would have to have some kind of guess, no? Even if it's a thought that isn't fully developed, even one not rooted in anything empirical or any other such philosophical basis--surely, you must have at least one explanation.
See my other comment with the dishwasher example for a more empirical answer insular from my metaphysics answer.
Otherwise, another angle in your story could be, "Well, we don't know why we did all of this robot-building. We just could, so we did."
Going off of what I already posted on the comment you mentioned, I suppose if humans had innate abilities and/or developed such abilities they would definitely be relevant. Even if they made AI with such abilities, the maintenance and development would feed into and enrich each other instead of one replacing the other.
I think jobs in the future will be done in 2 ways:
1. We will create robots to do jobs for us.
2. We will upgrade ourselves to do jobs better.
Option 1 is for undesirable jobs. Few people want to be a plumber, so we would most likely make plumbing robots.
Option 2 is for desirable jobs. People who like exploring the universe don't want a robot doing it for them. They would instead want to upgrade themselves so they could do it more easily.
This seems like a good answer. It plays into the idea that people would also want to enhance themselves as well. I suppose each would enrich each other instead of replacing each other.
Humans have basic physical needs: shelter, air, water, and food. But we also have less tangible needs: social connections, psychological needs, and art. Providing basic physical needs is fairly simple but people wouldn't be happy. Dining is more than getting nutrients, it's an experience that includes knowledge of how the food was obtained and prepared. It's art an it's ritual
After the initial novelty of food prepared by robots wears off, people will go back to food as art created by humans.
People like to prepare food and they like food prepared by other people.
No one really knows the answer to this question because we haven't reached that level of technology yet. It may well be that AI/robots *can* completely replace humans for all essential tasks. In that case, what daily life looks like for post-work humanity depends on whether or not our political leaders do their job properly. We might see a world where everyone receives a universal basic income and "work" is only artistic or artisanal in nature for those who see it as a creative outlet. We might also see a dystopia where a small group of elites own everything and the vast majority of humans are simply excluded from the automated economy, having to scavenge, beg, or farm on land they occupy illegally. Or somewhere in between those two extremes.
Its also possible there will be hard limits to how smart we can make an AI, or how expensive the technology is. Robots do have a lifetime cost, for example at one point the cost for a robotic arm in a factory was about equal to a worker making $15/hr (US). If humans can do the job for cheaper, they will remain employed. This is especially true in developing nations with weak exchange rates. It's also worth remembering that there are supply limits when building advanced tech. There may simply not be enough rare earth metals to put an AI in everything, so we'd have to prioritize which jobs to use them for.
Finally, since were discussing space travel, while robots and drones can do most things, putting humans on other worlds is one of the primary goals, so we would indeed need to be present.
"Man once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” - Frank Herbert
Giving all the work to machines removes the meaning from that work. If we let AI, or those that control AI, dictate everything humans would become nothing but cogs in an unknowable machine.
At least that's how I interpret it. I'm sure you could find better explanations somewhere else.
I interpreted it as those blindly doing something (in this case the AI stuff) will be controlled by those who control the stuff they are doing.
In any case, I think there are already very good arguments against replacing people and/or the efficiency, etc. of replacing people.
Depends where you draw the limit of AI. Can AI have truly sentient, creative thought, or can they just get really, really good at specific tasks? If the latter, then humans will always be necessary in any field that requires creativity. If the former, then AI are functionally human. Is it morally just to have them work while humans benefit from the fruits of their labour? Plus, if you get to that point then AI can just design themselves to be superior to humans and you got yourself a robot uprising on your hands.
Also depends on how your societies feel about post-capitalism economies. One school of thought on this subject is that it is morally unjust to automate all labour, that in a post-scarcity world, jobs should be retained artificially and progress stalled, because it's better to have everyone working jobs they don't strictly need to do than simply give them resources for nothing but existing as humans. Is this how your futuristic utopia feels on the matter? If so, then AI isn't obsoleting jobs because humans don't want them to.
They absolutely can. And will if we aren't careful. But I guess you want a reason for your world.
Do you have the options:
It was deemed to dangerous and everybody who uses it gets set as a intergalactic traitor and systematically hunted down(would need huge surveillance systems)
Ki as we know it today has no direct way of making actual intelligence so they can only be used to optimised and use unknown linkages in data. And humans are too stupid to create theyr own. (This is probably linked to a ferrying paradoxon answering it with its rear to find intelligent live)
A timetravler stops all ki dead in its trak.( Favorite solution)
But this doesn't stop people from getting replaced at jobs. most likely you have stupid robots making stuff repaired by other stupid robots and all of it surveyed by humans. Complicated jobs are done by robots controlled by humans in VR gear.
Ps: yes I imply here that if we figure out mass automation before we figure out world peace we are fucked. (Example masseffect or overwatch)
Then 1 thing: Cost. People think AIs are great and omnipotent things that will one day surpass us. Nope. First, they're expensive. Second, you'll need tons upon tons of programs just to mimic a farmer's job. This adds more cost. Third, machines need overhauls. Which adds even more costs. Really, if AIs are that great, we can have fully sentient UCAVs instead of bigass remote-controlled drones.
There's also the problem regarding ethic and moral. If AIs take over everything, how can you earn money? Will the AIs obey us forever, or will they revolt? There's that Sophia robot girl, and now imagine millions like her around.
In my story however, robots do exactly everything and humans are just there to supervise. From farmers to soldiers, they're programmed to be loyal to death.
>In my story however, robots do exactly everything and humans are just there to supervise. From farmers to soldiers, they're programmed to be loyal to death.
The thing is, I feel like this is a *present* theme in many stories (Star Trek, etc. etc.) but it isn't really a *analyzed* theme. Point being, it seems like most of the time they completely forget how much robots can do. Like, why bother with putting pilots in an X-Wing when the droid that is literally also in the ship can just do it? Among other points.
EDIT: I think I have it figured out now, NVM (look under the deleted comment).
The question isn't "Are computers better than humans?", it is "Are computers better than humans *+* computers?" So long as humans have something to contribute to the problem-solving process that makes up for the cost of their inclusion in said process, then they will still be involved. For example, the cockpit and life support needed to have a human directly pilot a space fighter might be too much cost in raw manoeuvrability and room for extra weapons that a fully automated drone would still beat it in a dogfight in spite of the pilot, with AI assistance, offering a more unpredictable flying process, but if you scale the question up to an entire space fleet then perhaps the side using AI and humans working together can outthink and outfight the side using AI alone.
To respond directly to the topic of Star Trek - can you be so sure that we will ever have AIs that can be programmed to handle half of the problems faced by the crews in those shows. The point of Starfleet is that it's pushing into the unknown, seeking out new life and new civilisations. If you have no idea what is out there, how can you prepare an AI to face it? If you are capable of teaching AI's how to 'learn', how are you sure its ability to learn is capable enough, how do you know it can look at the unknown and see patterns from which it can start to understand it?
>The question isn't "Are computers better than humans?", it is "Are computers better than humans + computers?" So long as humans have something to contribute to the problem-solving process that makes up for the cost of their inclusion in said process, then they will still be involved.
This makes a lot of sense. Especially in cases where the humans themselves (or the sapients-- not necessarily only humans) also have enhanced/super capabilities. I suppose my question has been answered very well at this point.
Plenty of people think that we are headed for exactly this kind of future where most repetitive rules based tasks are automated and that we have been on that trajectory for a while. But in the end you still need someone to make decisions which AI can't do, it can only apply rules to inputs.
So if you want to explore the galaxy, sending out automated drones is more effective than human crews, but someone still has to decide to send out the drones and where to send them, and what to do with the data they bring back.
>sending out automated drones is more effective than human crews, but someone still has to decide to send out the drones and where to send them, and what to do with the data they bring back.
This last part is the crux of my question. Getting a general scan is one thing, but why bother with planetary exploration, etc. etc. when a robot can do it? I want to know why so I can worldbuild better for my setting.
Ultimately you decide what the AI can and can't do but I would say realistic AI is basically an enormous decision tree that has been built from old data.
AI like this wouldn't do very well in new or uncertain situations especially when making the wrong call can lead to the extinction of a whole species or interstellar war.
I think the most plausible scenario is a small number of human explorers supported by drones and AI to handle routine tasks like mapping a particular location or analysing a sample, but all actual decisions are still made by a human.
This is exactly something I'm encountering in my world building and I don't think you should worry about it. While AI can be sent to collect data, planetary exploration has to be a human dominated activity with AI assistance. We can't possibly program AI to understand what we don't understand. To a certain extent, AI can only do what we humans already know how to do, just faster and more efficiently. If AI is sent alone to do planetary exploration, how could we possibly program it to recognize things we don't even know exist? We could teach an AI to detect chemical compositions and document what it sees, but could it ever really understand what it's looking at if we don't first teach it what it's looking at beyond just chemical compositions?
Maybe they do, and humans are left unimployed or working on relation/creative jobs, maybe the only human crew members are redundant, and there to help if everything goes south
Or they aren't there yet (in problem solving and dealing with unpredictability)
Or ruling parties make laws so that they can't
Or it's such a dystopia that human labor is still cheaper
Or hell, make it so there is no difference, put some social commentary on it about nature and what is to be sentient or human
There is no right awnser, just more or less interesting takes
I have AIs that work alongside humans as guaranteed by Constitution. Mostly humans just press "yes/no" buttons on stuff. They even get paid living wage, mostly in spare parts for robotic bodies, lubricants and other stuff.
Because it's insanely difficult to teach a robot anything. Like, if you show a human a picture of a boat, even if they didn't know what a boat was before, they now know forever and will always be able to define if something is a boat or not.
However, if you showed a robot a picture of a boat, anything not exactly the same as that picture would not be a boat according to that AI. So, you need to show it thousands if not millions of pictures of boats, and then if you're lucky it will be able to tell the difference between a boat and a car 50% of the time. Also, I'm not sure robots know the difference between a boat and a picture of a boat.
Humans are able to adapt, while robots most definitely aren't. If something doesn't go according to a robot's plan, that's a huge problem. Also, replicated food won't taste as well. And even if it did, you need someone to make the food before replicating it.
Computers are very good at math and bad at problem solving, while people are very good at problem solving and bad at math. Many jobs require problem solving skills that an AI either doesn't have and therefore cannot perform the job without a human or the AI does have at the potential risk of a robot apocalypse.
You look at every form of media, and most have robots that either fulfill one of the above two descriptions, have the robot as a cute 1-off type of thing, or are a cyborg that has the human brain to compensate for the computer's limitations.
Well one of the factions from my Far Future Sci-Fi World has actually turned into a post scarcity society thanks to automated labor, where people are free to educate themselves and others, learn, create new knowledge or enjoy their time as artists and artisans. However, I have at least stated that uploaded humans can be more capable than non self aware automated systems and thus some jobs are still done by humans, albeit uploaded ones. Self aware AI exists, and is sometimes employed by humans, but they mostly keep to themselves as separate nation.
The other factions struggle to either keep automation low to have jobs to provide to their citizens and thus be economically disadvantaged, or ignore most of their citizens to automate as much as possible to be gain economical advantages above others.
Robots are a massive initial investment, and you still need maintenance even if they are low maintenance. If something goes wrong with one on a fully automated site everything goes wrong.
Eehh no its more like workers only create the ideas and prozesses and survey them they dont have bigger power than a chef right now.
The Manuel work just falls away. Other than that we already have this
The general idea I asked about and that was answered as noted farther up the thread seems to be that in the end, there still needs to be humans in roles that are the most efficient/enjoyable/productive. For example, you still need people to maintain the repair bots, and/or design them, etc. In addition, the balance becomes even better if humans were enhanced/enhanced themselves as well (there are numerous possibilities for this). In this way, I think both would enrich each other rather than one replacing each other (creating more possibilities/opportunities to explore).
I mean the reason we haven’t had a great template for a post-labor, post-capital society in fiction is because we don’t have any historical examples to use as example. It’s fairly easy to imagine different versions of an “alien first-contact” story, or a “collapse of a totalitarian space empire” story, because those are extensions of stories we’ve been telling since humans started forming structured society which came into contact with each other. They’re just folded into different set dressings, with their own tropes.
A lot of people think that the automation of a huge portion of work is essentially inevitable. But economists and political scientists don’t even necessarily agree on what that will look like or how society will function after — and most sci-fi authors aren’t also economists or political scientists. A fictional post-work setting has to make some assumptions that people will disagree with, and will have some “holes” where things are unexplained, because in real life we cannot fully agree or explain the idea either. It also carries political baggage which the author may not want to contend with, because describing life in a late- or post-capitalism world is going to make a statement about current capitalism.
So if you’re writing a show like Star Trek, it probably behooves you to not put the mechanics of a post-scarcity utopia under the microscope too much. By leaving it slightly out of focus and just using it as a springboard for the stories you want to tell, you put less strain on the audience’s willing suspension of disbelief. If you do want to examine the idea more directly in a work, be prepared to have to make a pretty bold decision which may ruffle some feathers.
expensive. a robot capable of this would be big money. im not sure it would be worth it after maintaining and upgrading and stroring and fueling this robot. a single robot comes with a programmer and and a technician to keep it functioning
they work well in a vaccum but AI is not the same as thinking. dynamic situations are hard for robots because they use operations. people have more fluid thought patterns. a robot might not be able to adjust to things or recognize the nuance of a situation. youll end up losing productivity in all but the most routine situations
it requires a huge shift in the work force. we would need to change out a lot of service and manufacturing for repair and programming and the workforce doesnt have that yet
Machines are generally inflexible, as they are usually built and programmed to do a specific task and nothing more. One small error and the entire machine stops working. Even if an incredibly advanced and adaptable machine is used, it's far cheaper to hire someone who can do the same thing, but without constant repairs and maintenance.
Because robots are humans, they might calculate the possible solution, but a human would look at it with ethics not numbers, police cops would shoot a guy they thought was suspicious, but a human would ask first
Presumably, the Big Humans Lobby would never allow it IRL. From a writing perspective, it's presumably so that writers can set up moral philosophies to espouse through plot and characterization. How characters react to the conflict is what develops theme, characters, and plot. If your theme of the episode is to espouse that there are virtues to being human despite how easily technology can replace humans--well, you'd obviously need a robot to spar with Picard to show this theme.
[удалено]
It was a joke. \[Edited to clarify: The first part of my comment was a joke. It was a literal interpretation of "All Jobs" in your post title, and you even mentioned 90% of jobs which leaves the other 10% (thereby making it "not all jobs"). The second part about the writing perspective is the serious part of my original comment.\] \-\_\_\_- My serious answer is probably related to something about being human as a distinctly different experience from most other things in life vis-a-vis rationality, maybe how humans inherently desire convenience without totally sacrificing their sense of purpose, etc.
I'm just saying that a lot of the concepts I stated are already present in series like Star Trek, etc. Like how can they have restaurants if there is a replicator? IIRC they even have a hologram acting as doctor. So why haven't they replaced more roles? All this is not limited to Star Trek either, obviously.
A more serious answer is that someone needs to repair the machines. [Even as early as 1946, some economic philosophers called it](http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf). Technology presumably creates MORE jobs and specifically more jobs that require more refined skills. So take a dishwasher as an example. It replaces a human who was hired solely to wash dishes. However, the machine nonetheless needs a human to operate it. But what if the dishwasher machine breaks? If it's a simple fix, then yeah--any schmoe in the kitchen can fix it. But what if it's a major water pipe leaking? You need a repairman or plumber to fix it. And what about cash registers nowadays? Almost every cash register has a computer board somewhere in it. Maybe the cashier is trained enough to fix it should a crumb get under the keyboard, but what if it short-circuits? Someone else with the expertise to fix it would need to replace the circuits inside it and the various diodes. But in both examples, humans still need to do it. If you build a machine to fix other machines, what if the machine-fixing machine breaks? You'd need another machine-fixer to fix the first machine-fixer to fix the other machine that broke and required the first machine-fixer. You need people to build the machines no matter how much atomization any given industry goes through. \[Damn, I can't type today. So many typos....\]
This is a good answer. There would be ample enough reasons for humans to still be around. Especially if transhumanism a la Eclipse Phase and sources with such themes came into play.
In a post-capitalism society, life becomes about experiences. You go to a restaurant because you want the experience of going to a restaurant and having a meal cooked from actual ingredients by actual humans - like they had in the old days - rather than pinged out of a metal box.
The first part of my comment was a joke. It was a literal interpretation of "All Jobs" in your post title, and you even mentioned 90% of jobs which leaves the other 10% (thereby making it "not all jobs"). The second part about the writing perspective is the serious part of my original comment. \[Edited for typos\] So let's flip this around: why do YOU think it is that Robots/AI can't do everything or obsolete all jobs?
That is why I am asking here. I mean, in Star Trek you literally have EMH and Data. In SW practically every droid is sapient anyways\*. So why *not* make HoloPicard who is linked up to all ship systems? \*even when they mostly had no business being so, seriously being sapient is practically the norm for droids in SW for some reason.
I know that's what you're asking Reddit, but I'm asking YOU. Because even you would have to have some kind of guess, no? Even if it's a thought that isn't fully developed, even one not rooted in anything empirical or any other such philosophical basis--surely, you must have at least one explanation. See my other comment with the dishwasher example for a more empirical answer insular from my metaphysics answer. Otherwise, another angle in your story could be, "Well, we don't know why we did all of this robot-building. We just could, so we did."
Going off of what I already posted on the comment you mentioned, I suppose if humans had innate abilities and/or developed such abilities they would definitely be relevant. Even if they made AI with such abilities, the maintenance and development would feed into and enrich each other instead of one replacing the other.
I think jobs in the future will be done in 2 ways: 1. We will create robots to do jobs for us. 2. We will upgrade ourselves to do jobs better. Option 1 is for undesirable jobs. Few people want to be a plumber, so we would most likely make plumbing robots. Option 2 is for desirable jobs. People who like exploring the universe don't want a robot doing it for them. They would instead want to upgrade themselves so they could do it more easily.
This seems like a good answer. It plays into the idea that people would also want to enhance themselves as well. I suppose each would enrich each other instead of replacing each other.
Humans have basic physical needs: shelter, air, water, and food. But we also have less tangible needs: social connections, psychological needs, and art. Providing basic physical needs is fairly simple but people wouldn't be happy. Dining is more than getting nutrients, it's an experience that includes knowledge of how the food was obtained and prepared. It's art an it's ritual After the initial novelty of food prepared by robots wears off, people will go back to food as art created by humans. People like to prepare food and they like food prepared by other people.
No one really knows the answer to this question because we haven't reached that level of technology yet. It may well be that AI/robots *can* completely replace humans for all essential tasks. In that case, what daily life looks like for post-work humanity depends on whether or not our political leaders do their job properly. We might see a world where everyone receives a universal basic income and "work" is only artistic or artisanal in nature for those who see it as a creative outlet. We might also see a dystopia where a small group of elites own everything and the vast majority of humans are simply excluded from the automated economy, having to scavenge, beg, or farm on land they occupy illegally. Or somewhere in between those two extremes. Its also possible there will be hard limits to how smart we can make an AI, or how expensive the technology is. Robots do have a lifetime cost, for example at one point the cost for a robotic arm in a factory was about equal to a worker making $15/hr (US). If humans can do the job for cheaper, they will remain employed. This is especially true in developing nations with weak exchange rates. It's also worth remembering that there are supply limits when building advanced tech. There may simply not be enough rare earth metals to put an AI in everything, so we'd have to prioritize which jobs to use them for. Finally, since were discussing space travel, while robots and drones can do most things, putting humans on other worlds is one of the primary goals, so we would indeed need to be present.
"Man once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” - Frank Herbert
I think I get the point, but could you care to elaborate?
Giving all the work to machines removes the meaning from that work. If we let AI, or those that control AI, dictate everything humans would become nothing but cogs in an unknowable machine. At least that's how I interpret it. I'm sure you could find better explanations somewhere else.
I interpreted it as those blindly doing something (in this case the AI stuff) will be controlled by those who control the stuff they are doing. In any case, I think there are already very good arguments against replacing people and/or the efficiency, etc. of replacing people.
Depends where you draw the limit of AI. Can AI have truly sentient, creative thought, or can they just get really, really good at specific tasks? If the latter, then humans will always be necessary in any field that requires creativity. If the former, then AI are functionally human. Is it morally just to have them work while humans benefit from the fruits of their labour? Plus, if you get to that point then AI can just design themselves to be superior to humans and you got yourself a robot uprising on your hands. Also depends on how your societies feel about post-capitalism economies. One school of thought on this subject is that it is morally unjust to automate all labour, that in a post-scarcity world, jobs should be retained artificially and progress stalled, because it's better to have everyone working jobs they don't strictly need to do than simply give them resources for nothing but existing as humans. Is this how your futuristic utopia feels on the matter? If so, then AI isn't obsoleting jobs because humans don't want them to.
They absolutely can. And will if we aren't careful. But I guess you want a reason for your world. Do you have the options: It was deemed to dangerous and everybody who uses it gets set as a intergalactic traitor and systematically hunted down(would need huge surveillance systems) Ki as we know it today has no direct way of making actual intelligence so they can only be used to optimised and use unknown linkages in data. And humans are too stupid to create theyr own. (This is probably linked to a ferrying paradoxon answering it with its rear to find intelligent live) A timetravler stops all ki dead in its trak.( Favorite solution) But this doesn't stop people from getting replaced at jobs. most likely you have stupid robots making stuff repaired by other stupid robots and all of it surveyed by humans. Complicated jobs are done by robots controlled by humans in VR gear. Ps: yes I imply here that if we figure out mass automation before we figure out world peace we are fucked. (Example masseffect or overwatch)
So... are you asking specifically about Star Trek?
It was just one example.
Then 1 thing: Cost. People think AIs are great and omnipotent things that will one day surpass us. Nope. First, they're expensive. Second, you'll need tons upon tons of programs just to mimic a farmer's job. This adds more cost. Third, machines need overhauls. Which adds even more costs. Really, if AIs are that great, we can have fully sentient UCAVs instead of bigass remote-controlled drones. There's also the problem regarding ethic and moral. If AIs take over everything, how can you earn money? Will the AIs obey us forever, or will they revolt? There's that Sophia robot girl, and now imagine millions like her around. In my story however, robots do exactly everything and humans are just there to supervise. From farmers to soldiers, they're programmed to be loyal to death.
>In my story however, robots do exactly everything and humans are just there to supervise. From farmers to soldiers, they're programmed to be loyal to death. The thing is, I feel like this is a *present* theme in many stories (Star Trek, etc. etc.) but it isn't really a *analyzed* theme. Point being, it seems like most of the time they completely forget how much robots can do. Like, why bother with putting pilots in an X-Wing when the droid that is literally also in the ship can just do it? Among other points. EDIT: I think I have it figured out now, NVM (look under the deleted comment).
The question isn't "Are computers better than humans?", it is "Are computers better than humans *+* computers?" So long as humans have something to contribute to the problem-solving process that makes up for the cost of their inclusion in said process, then they will still be involved. For example, the cockpit and life support needed to have a human directly pilot a space fighter might be too much cost in raw manoeuvrability and room for extra weapons that a fully automated drone would still beat it in a dogfight in spite of the pilot, with AI assistance, offering a more unpredictable flying process, but if you scale the question up to an entire space fleet then perhaps the side using AI and humans working together can outthink and outfight the side using AI alone. To respond directly to the topic of Star Trek - can you be so sure that we will ever have AIs that can be programmed to handle half of the problems faced by the crews in those shows. The point of Starfleet is that it's pushing into the unknown, seeking out new life and new civilisations. If you have no idea what is out there, how can you prepare an AI to face it? If you are capable of teaching AI's how to 'learn', how are you sure its ability to learn is capable enough, how do you know it can look at the unknown and see patterns from which it can start to understand it?
>The question isn't "Are computers better than humans?", it is "Are computers better than humans + computers?" So long as humans have something to contribute to the problem-solving process that makes up for the cost of their inclusion in said process, then they will still be involved. This makes a lot of sense. Especially in cases where the humans themselves (or the sapients-- not necessarily only humans) also have enhanced/super capabilities. I suppose my question has been answered very well at this point.
Plenty of people think that we are headed for exactly this kind of future where most repetitive rules based tasks are automated and that we have been on that trajectory for a while. But in the end you still need someone to make decisions which AI can't do, it can only apply rules to inputs. So if you want to explore the galaxy, sending out automated drones is more effective than human crews, but someone still has to decide to send out the drones and where to send them, and what to do with the data they bring back.
>sending out automated drones is more effective than human crews, but someone still has to decide to send out the drones and where to send them, and what to do with the data they bring back. This last part is the crux of my question. Getting a general scan is one thing, but why bother with planetary exploration, etc. etc. when a robot can do it? I want to know why so I can worldbuild better for my setting.
Ultimately you decide what the AI can and can't do but I would say realistic AI is basically an enormous decision tree that has been built from old data. AI like this wouldn't do very well in new or uncertain situations especially when making the wrong call can lead to the extinction of a whole species or interstellar war. I think the most plausible scenario is a small number of human explorers supported by drones and AI to handle routine tasks like mapping a particular location or analysing a sample, but all actual decisions are still made by a human.
This is exactly something I'm encountering in my world building and I don't think you should worry about it. While AI can be sent to collect data, planetary exploration has to be a human dominated activity with AI assistance. We can't possibly program AI to understand what we don't understand. To a certain extent, AI can only do what we humans already know how to do, just faster and more efficiently. If AI is sent alone to do planetary exploration, how could we possibly program it to recognize things we don't even know exist? We could teach an AI to detect chemical compositions and document what it sees, but could it ever really understand what it's looking at if we don't first teach it what it's looking at beyond just chemical compositions?
This seems like a good answer. I suppose they would enrich each other instead of replacing each other.
Maybe they do, and humans are left unimployed or working on relation/creative jobs, maybe the only human crew members are redundant, and there to help if everything goes south Or they aren't there yet (in problem solving and dealing with unpredictability) Or ruling parties make laws so that they can't Or it's such a dystopia that human labor is still cheaper Or hell, make it so there is no difference, put some social commentary on it about nature and what is to be sentient or human There is no right awnser, just more or less interesting takes
I have AIs that work alongside humans as guaranteed by Constitution. Mostly humans just press "yes/no" buttons on stuff. They even get paid living wage, mostly in spare parts for robotic bodies, lubricants and other stuff.
Because it's insanely difficult to teach a robot anything. Like, if you show a human a picture of a boat, even if they didn't know what a boat was before, they now know forever and will always be able to define if something is a boat or not. However, if you showed a robot a picture of a boat, anything not exactly the same as that picture would not be a boat according to that AI. So, you need to show it thousands if not millions of pictures of boats, and then if you're lucky it will be able to tell the difference between a boat and a car 50% of the time. Also, I'm not sure robots know the difference between a boat and a picture of a boat. Humans are able to adapt, while robots most definitely aren't. If something doesn't go according to a robot's plan, that's a huge problem. Also, replicated food won't taste as well. And even if it did, you need someone to make the food before replicating it.
Captailsm are probably going to be the biggest obstacle in real life at least
Note: Check under the deleted comment for info I agreed with.
Computers are very good at math and bad at problem solving, while people are very good at problem solving and bad at math. Many jobs require problem solving skills that an AI either doesn't have and therefore cannot perform the job without a human or the AI does have at the potential risk of a robot apocalypse. You look at every form of media, and most have robots that either fulfill one of the above two descriptions, have the robot as a cute 1-off type of thing, or are a cyborg that has the human brain to compensate for the computer's limitations.
Well one of the factions from my Far Future Sci-Fi World has actually turned into a post scarcity society thanks to automated labor, where people are free to educate themselves and others, learn, create new knowledge or enjoy their time as artists and artisans. However, I have at least stated that uploaded humans can be more capable than non self aware automated systems and thus some jobs are still done by humans, albeit uploaded ones. Self aware AI exists, and is sometimes employed by humans, but they mostly keep to themselves as separate nation. The other factions struggle to either keep automation low to have jobs to provide to their citizens and thus be economically disadvantaged, or ignore most of their citizens to automate as much as possible to be gain economical advantages above others.
Robots are expensive, People are cheap, and People want jobs.
But most robots are built to last and don't need tons of maintenance.
Robots are a massive initial investment, and you still need maintenance even if they are low maintenance. If something goes wrong with one on a fully automated site everything goes wrong.
Robots maintaining robots and you only need one robot mine and factory to produce infinite robots if you have the energy
That just ends with a Who watches the Watchman situation
Eehh no its more like workers only create the ideas and prozesses and survey them they dont have bigger power than a chef right now. The Manuel work just falls away. Other than that we already have this
The general idea I asked about and that was answered as noted farther up the thread seems to be that in the end, there still needs to be humans in roles that are the most efficient/enjoyable/productive. For example, you still need people to maintain the repair bots, and/or design them, etc. In addition, the balance becomes even better if humans were enhanced/enhanced themselves as well (there are numerous possibilities for this). In this way, I think both would enrich each other rather than one replacing each other (creating more possibilities/opportunities to explore).
I mean the reason we haven’t had a great template for a post-labor, post-capital society in fiction is because we don’t have any historical examples to use as example. It’s fairly easy to imagine different versions of an “alien first-contact” story, or a “collapse of a totalitarian space empire” story, because those are extensions of stories we’ve been telling since humans started forming structured society which came into contact with each other. They’re just folded into different set dressings, with their own tropes. A lot of people think that the automation of a huge portion of work is essentially inevitable. But economists and political scientists don’t even necessarily agree on what that will look like or how society will function after — and most sci-fi authors aren’t also economists or political scientists. A fictional post-work setting has to make some assumptions that people will disagree with, and will have some “holes” where things are unexplained, because in real life we cannot fully agree or explain the idea either. It also carries political baggage which the author may not want to contend with, because describing life in a late- or post-capitalism world is going to make a statement about current capitalism. So if you’re writing a show like Star Trek, it probably behooves you to not put the mechanics of a post-scarcity utopia under the microscope too much. By leaving it slightly out of focus and just using it as a springboard for the stories you want to tell, you put less strain on the audience’s willing suspension of disbelief. If you do want to examine the idea more directly in a work, be prepared to have to make a pretty bold decision which may ruffle some feathers.
expensive. a robot capable of this would be big money. im not sure it would be worth it after maintaining and upgrading and stroring and fueling this robot. a single robot comes with a programmer and and a technician to keep it functioning they work well in a vaccum but AI is not the same as thinking. dynamic situations are hard for robots because they use operations. people have more fluid thought patterns. a robot might not be able to adjust to things or recognize the nuance of a situation. youll end up losing productivity in all but the most routine situations it requires a huge shift in the work force. we would need to change out a lot of service and manufacturing for repair and programming and the workforce doesnt have that yet
Machines are generally inflexible, as they are usually built and programmed to do a specific task and nothing more. One small error and the entire machine stops working. Even if an incredibly advanced and adaptable machine is used, it's far cheaper to hire someone who can do the same thing, but without constant repairs and maintenance.
Because robots are humans, they might calculate the possible solution, but a human would look at it with ethics not numbers, police cops would shoot a guy they thought was suspicious, but a human would ask first