Robots vs Human Workers

-

 To whom will AI robots products be produced for? If not for human beings, then what will be the use of its produce?

Let's just say UBI will buy it. Still, nobody without income will buy it anyway.

No sane capitalist will create AI robots which will produce products because nobody will be able to buy it anymore.

Economy will halt anyway if they continue. And they will realize that laborers will have to earn to be able for people to buy an AI robot's product.

AI robot's product becomes a useless income generator. And we should realize that we produce goods for human beings not for the good of the robots.

If robots will work for the benefit of their fellow robots, then we will find human beings as an unwanted species already. Nobody would procreate children anymore since no government wants to support such a path. Then human beings will not continue anymore and becomes extinct. Unless robots have been programmed to serve human beings of course. It can turn up screwed though serving only the few elites left to survive who will embrace a philosophy that they don't need their fellow human beings. They won't thrive but will die from inactivity and languor.

Robots might continue running after sometime even human beings are already extinct. But one error in the imperfect algorithm will crash everything, and nobody will repair it anymore.

Life will only be vegetative and sensitive on earth. No more rational beings. No more artificial intelligence also created by rational beings. It seems as early as now, we prophecy that artificial intelligence will be needing its creator until the end. And if we see now that AI robots will replace human workers, then we have to do something about it. Our rational intelligence cannot do anything about the unknowables. But we can do something about what we already know.

Let's just say, it will take another millions of years for apes to evolve into humans again. There's no guarantee though that apes would evolve into humans again according to ChatGPT-5.

In general, such a path is the same as nuclear MAD. We are on the verge of a slow suicide.

« Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter »

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Conclusion

-
Image
 I started phenomenologizing about my career choice but ended up praying. What happened? Recall me as a catholic who cannot bracket out my faith because it is a fundamental part of my being. It is also not helpful if we go on the other side of the linear equation, positing there is no God, and do phenomenologizing atheistically. We have lots of proof you can review why it isn't the road we took for such things as personal as my life career choice. We didn't focus on proving the existence of God though. There are lots of better proofs out there. We merely focused on doing phenomenology and my chosen topic, which is my career choices. If I phenomenologized during the boom of television, my career would also reflect on its effect. But I reflected today wherewith AI is affecting how I work. I used AI to simplify my complex ideas about my own career choices, which is like using a calculator to help me understand and situate those things that are bothering me about my career. Like ve...
Read more

Practical Thinking

-
 Would you believe that practical thinking is ethical thinking? "What path will I choose to achieve the end? Or what means will I use to achieve my goal?" "What should I do," is a practical question. But "What should I do with my life," is already half practical and half theoretical. It can include ethical philosophy already. Now extending it, the question "Lord, what should I do with my life?" becomes a prayer, a summon for help since we know by experience that the situation that is in front of us, is beyond our capacity to solve. We know by experience if something we need to solve is within our capacity by way of skill, knowledge, or accumulated experiences. We also know if its beyond our capacity to solve. We give thanks God that we have a banana to eat--we don't commonly ask God for help in eating the banana.🤣 I asked an AI and I actually learned a lot about my situation, why it's different from other's experiences, why it seems ...
Read more

Artificial Intelligence

-
Image
 You are also a model maker you may not yet realize though. The model out there for the taking is 20-20-20 rule for avoiding gadget glares and its consequences that for every 20 minute use of gadget with glares, you stop for 20 seconds and look 20 feet away. Then you observed it and acted on it. However, through trial and error you noticed that when you have migraine or is about to onset, 20 minutes is too long, and the 20 second time out is too short, and that 20 feet looking away is abrupt for you that you observed that you still look blank or blurred before you look and observe something 20 feet away. Perhaps you're still in your thought and can't observe things right away. You observe too that its better to stop, look away, and think about what you're reading for example without any timer which is more at pace with your thinking processes. The additional problem that you noticed though is that you tend to bypass the 20 minute focus when you don't have migraine and s...
Read more