Hacker News Reader

Comment by ozmbie | Hacker News Reader

What happens when we create fishing robots that do the work for all of men?

Answer: Life gets better. We have proof of this from history. When was the last time anybody here ground their own flour or washed their laundry using a rock and a river?

We are gonna end up in the future that Wall-E has predicted. Machines do everything and humans are fat slugs. Our minds are lazy and want to do the least amount of work. If given the option, we will do the least amount and occupy ourselves in entertainment. Now is that living? Thats up to you to decide. A good book to read on experiments done to understand human behavior is Daniel Kahnemans Thinking Fast and Slow.

Yeah, that's a risk. However, I'm less afraid of the robots that get us there and far more afraid of the applied psychology (propaganda/advertising/politics) that could trap the entire species in that state. The Culture demonstrates a future with similar robotic capabilities where the exact opposite happens, with people gaining nearly ultimate self-actualization, the difference being in the application of intelligence.

Explain how people will gain "ultimate self-actualization"?

I guess you haven't read the Culture novels? They explain it better than I could.

The short form is that they've solved Friendliness and handed most of the management over to hyperintelligent, near-omnipotent benevolent AIs. The only real problems left for individuals qualify as "how to not get bored", which for the most part they approach by cultivating eye-watering arrays of esoteric and satisfying hobbies, projects, arts and crafts, high-brow debates, luxurious indulgences, social groups, and games. The few people that still aren't satisfied generally end up in their diplomatic corps slash military slash spy agency slash police force. "Ultimate" may have been an exaggeration, but it is by far the most satisfying utopia I've seen described.

That's a very negative opinion of human nature, and a big reason I thought Wall-E was bullshit.

Humans enjoy their bodies. We play sports because it's fun and feels good. We enjoy the burn of a good run. We like to look in the mirror and see something vaguely attractive. We like to fuck. And we want to fuck people we find attractive.

Wall-E got it totally wrong.

> Humans enjoy their bodies. We play sports because it's fun and feels good. We enjoy the burn of a good run. We like to look in the mirror and see something vaguely attractive. We like to fuck. And we want to fuck people we find attractive.

Please excuse the low effort comment, but I've seen far more people who treat their body terribly, and who become overweight/obese compared to the number of people who do anything close to keeping in shape with sports, running, and so on. Not that that stops people from fucking, but the proportion of athletic, attractive people fucking is far lower than you might make it out to be.

> Please excuse the low effort comment, but I've seen far more people who treat their body terribly, and who become overweight/obese compared to the number of people who do anything close to keeping in shape with sports, running, and so on.

Research has shown that a lack of "psychological bandwidth" degrades impulse control.

Being excessively poor, having to take care of children or elderly parents, having a crappy job, etc. all take their toll on your ability to execute on things like exercise, cleaning, saving, etc.

Removing the problem of "daily living expenses" from someone's plate is a HUGE step toward helping them improve their situation both physically and mentally.

A lot of that is because, in the current world, staying fit is difficult. I, for example, would be in great shape if I could exercise. I like exercise. Exercise is, in fact, how I discovered that I have joint problems. I unfortunately don't have time to go to a pool every week, which is basically the only exercise I can handle, and so I have trouble with fitness. On larger scales, there are entire towns that don't have access to fresh fruit or vegetables; google "food desert". There are people that don't have enough money to buy anything other than pure calories per dollar without paying any attention to health. There are people whose household water is barely potable and drink soda all the time because it's cheaper than bottled water. There are people that grew up in households that drank soda and have sufficiently shitty jobs that they can't summon up the willpower to change that habit. Then you've got people that simply rolled badly on the genetic lottery or inherited bad intestinal flora and can't be fit no matter what they do.

Removing stresses on time, money, social interaction, culture, and mortality will make the population more healthy, not less healthy.

I agree mostly with your comment.

Have you been to a Walmart recently?

I don't think the Wall-E scenario is entirely off base.

Lol Walmart people are fat!

More accurately: there is a higher concentration of overweight people at a store that caters to lower income brackets.

When machines do everything, people won't have to settle for cheap unhealthy foods.

Many will still be too lazy to move enough. And they'll still be drawn to sugary food.

Walmart represents many people too poor to shop elsewhere.

Wall-E represents a utopia of plenty for everyone.

Those are not comparable.

There was a Walmart-like store featured in the movie.

You have seen people right? Those that play sport, take care of themselves, and look vaguely attractive are the minority.

You make it sound as if we are going to run out of work? We can always increase the level of education then have more research scientists and engineers, for example. Imagine if we did 10x the amount of R&D.

>We can always increase the level of education then have more research scientists and engineers

Flat wrong, unless you convince the owners of capital that that's the most prudent investment.

It's already extremely difficult to get hired as a research scientist, even with a big-name PhD.

Then what the highly trained research scientists and engineers need to do is apply their scientific training to fleecing rich people of their money.

Which is actually what is happening, and has been happening for the last 2 decades with the entry of a large number of physics, math, and CS Ph.Ds into hedge funds and tech entrepreneurship. Stage 1 is a massive wealth transfer from dumb old money built on relationships to smart new money built on technology. Stage 2 is increased funding for STEM research & applications, as the new money diverts capital into their interests. Stage 2 takes a generation or so - it doesn't happen until the new money feels secure enough in their wealth that they can divert attention to becoming powerful. But we've seen the beginnings of it already, with Tesla, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Calico, Google X, YC Research, Breakthrough Starshot, and the Gates Foundation diverting some of that money that was redirected into scientifically-trained hands back to actual scientists.

Does everyone have the capacity to become a research scientist or engineer with enough training? I think we'll have to find some creative ways to use low-skilled labor.

no one said everyone. no one even suggested anything close to that.

What you said was that it could solve the problem of running out of work for people. This only works as a solution if everyone can be trained to that R&D.

No, I didn't say that. I said we could train a lot more people. Do you think 10% of the world population currently works in R&D? My proposal was to greatly increase the number.

Ok, I missed the phrase, "for example", in your comment causing me to misinterpet. My apologies.

10x R&D sounds great, but as you throw more money towards a subject, you dont get more good research, you get more crap you have to wade thru. I remember when there was virtually unlimited money towards aid research, they quickly ran out of anything resembling a remotely qualify researcher very quickly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com