Should we ever be afraid of a robot apocalypse? (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

Robots are herbivores.

Shut your whore mouth.

They're not going to eat us. They're not going to eat our meat. All we have to do is protect the feeding areas of our cows, pigs, and chickens. "No human can build a robot-proof fence!" you say, but no fence is needed. We only have to distract them. Show them the good eatin' herbs are "over there!" or "right here!" If there's any skill humans possess that cannot be topped it's the skill of distracting others and themselves. Look at this topic.

I rest my case.

why wouldn;t they design a robot that could be powered off of human remains?

they want to remove the human problem, why ot turn it into fuel for their robot armies?

they absolutely could eat us

Not efficient.

what do you mean not effciient?

there's going to be a surplus of human corpses, letting them go to waste rather than converting them to energy is not efficient

i am not saying ALL robots will eat humans, but as a plentiful source of power that they need to dispose of it would be silly to not design some robots to feed off of our entrails, and the rest of the animal kingdom as well

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

 

[B-Deep]

Robots are herbivores.

Shut your whore mouth.

They're not going to eat us. They're not going to eat our meat. All we have to do is protect the feeding areas of our cows, pigs, and chickens. "No human can build a robot-proof fence!" you say, but no fence is needed. We only have to distract them. Show them the good eatin' herbs are "over there!" or "right here!" If there's any skill humans possess that cannot be topped it's the skill of distracting others and themselves. Look at this topic.

I rest my case.

why wouldn;t they design a robot that could be powered off of human remains?

they want to remove the human problem, why ot turn it into fuel for their robot armies?

they absolutely could eat us

Not efficient.

what do you mean not effciient?

there's going to be a surplus of human corpses, letting them go to waste rather than converting them to energy is not efficient

i am not saying ALL robots will eat humans, but as a plentiful source of power that they need to dispose of it would be silly to not design some robots to feed off of our entrails, and the rest of the animal kingdom as well

Exactly. They'd be the "green" robots that the other robots thought were incredibly smug and annoying.

"I am the new prius-H2K, I can operate for an average of 2000 hours on one obese american corpse...."

 

[B-Deep]

they'll probably convert our organic matter into power cells, soylent D-cells

 

[Fennis]

I believe the Roombas Romney's are the spies of the robot army.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Robots are herbivores.

Shut your whore mouth.

They're not going to eat us. They're not going to eat our meat. All we have to do is protect the feeding areas of our cows, pigs, and chickens. "No human can build a robot-proof fence!" you say, but no fence is needed. We only have to distract them. Show them the good eatin' herbs are "over there!" or "right here!" If there's any skill humans possess that cannot be topped it's the skill of distracting others and themselves. Look at this topic.

I rest my case.

why wouldn;t they design a robot that could be powered off of human remains?

they want to remove the human problem, why ot turn it into fuel for their robot armies?

they absolutely could eat us

Not efficient.

what do you mean not effciient?

there's going to be a surplus of human corpses, letting them go to waste rather than converting them to energy is not efficient

i am not saying ALL robots will eat humans, but as a plentiful source of power that they need to dispose of it would be silly to not design some robots to feed off of our entrails, and the rest of the animal kingdom as well

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

That still leaves a lot of dead humans laying around. I think robots would be smart enough to figure out a way to clean up all the dead bodies while turning some of our corpses into fuel.

 

[NCCommish]

they'll probably convert our organic matter into power cells, soylent D-cells

Well even that won't be very efficient. But burning biomass to generate electricity would be better than trying to eat meat not great but better. Just be much better off with a couple of reactors supplying electricity.

 

[Black Box]

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

Robots might be efficient killing machines, but they have their own luxuries. One of which might be to kick back and devour a delicious human corpse. Sometimes you just have to live, you know, even if it is inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

Robots might be efficient killing machines, but they have their own luxuries. One of which might be to kick back and devour a delicious human corpse. Sometimes you just have to live, you know, even if it is inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

That will be their downfall. And I, for one, welcome our new Ape overlords.

 

[Black Box]

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

Robots might be efficient killing machines, but they have their own luxuries. One of which might be to kick back and devour a delicious human corpse. Sometimes you just have to live, you know, even if it is inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

That will be their downfall. And I, for one, welcome our new Ape overlords.

BDeep's been pimping apes since the beginning of time. You'd think the apes would have figured it out by now, but they haven't. Robots are just getting started.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Robots would first have to want to take over the world. So far as I can tell, there are only two ways for that to happen. They'd either have to be programmed by humans to want it (or, what amounts to the same thing, be programmed by other computers who want to program them that way . . . infinite regress). Or their software would have to start replicating itself with mutations, so that a desire and an ability to take over the world would evolve by Darwinian selection. (And their hardware would have to keep up in a way that allowed their software to be effective. A toaster oven, no matter how diabolical, is mostly harmless.)

I don't think either possibility is realistic.

Much more realistic, IMO, is that someone will design a bunch of robots who succeed in enslaving 99% of all humans on behalf of the other 1% (rather than 100% of all humans on behalf of themselves).

The thing that a lot of sci-fi writers seem to have a hard time with is the reality that intelligence doesn't imply ambition. You can build a robot with an IQ of a thousand and there's zero reason to think it will aspire to anything more than solving chess (or whatever it's programmed to do). Even if it can pass the Turing test, its aspirations won't be anything other than what they're programmed to be. Human aspirations -- greed and so forth -- have been hundreds of millions of years in the making, and are a consequence of how natural selection works on biological organisms. Getting greed into a computer isn't going to happen willy-nilly, and I can't envision a realistic mechanism for it to happen under our noses.

Right, but they can be programmed with a broad directive such as enforce world peace or something and they may decide that the best way to do that is to enslave humanity.

 

[NCCommish]

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

Robots might be efficient killing machines, but they have their own luxuries. One of which might be to kick back and devour a delicious human corpse. Sometimes you just have to live, you know, even if it is inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

For a robot there is no downtime. That's not how they roll.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

Robots might be efficient killing machines, but they have their own luxuries. One of which might be to kick back and devour a delicious human corpse. Sometimes you just have to live, you know, even if it is inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

For a robot there is no downtime. That's not how they roll.

Maybe now, that's true. But eventually they will evolve and realize that weekends are for golf.

 

[Black Box]

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

Robots might be efficient killing machines, but they have their own luxuries. One of which might be to kick back and devour a delicious human corpse. Sometimes you just have to live, you know, even if it is inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

For a robot there is no downtime. That's not how they roll.

Maybe now, that's true. But eventually they will evolve and realize that weekends are for golf.

Bingo. Weekends are for golf. Humans are for eating. Cats are for silly internet memes. Routine stuff here.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

leaseletmyrobotoverlordacquireanaffinityforHillsideSelect:

 

[CBusAlex]

Can anyone confirm that MT is not himself a robot? I'm just sayin', if I were a sentient AI with a predeliction toward world domination, my response would probably be to assure the foolish humans that such a thing would not be possible, too.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Can anyone confirm that MT is not himself a robot? I'm just sayin', if I were a sentient AI with a predeliction toward world domination, my response would probably be to assure the foolish humans that such a thing would not be possible, too.

That's a good point. And all the while he was blaming this on poor Bob, the human.

 

[NCCommish]

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

Robots might be efficient killing machines, but they have their own luxuries. One of which might be to kick back and devour a delicious human corpse. Sometimes you just have to live, you know, even if it is inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

For a robot there is no downtime. That's not how they roll.

Maybe now, that's true. But eventually they will evolve and realize that weekends are for golf.

So what you are saying is if we can hang on long enough they will eventually become useless tubs of goo and we can win.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

Robots might be efficient killing machines, but they have their own luxuries. One of which might be to kick back and devour a delicious human corpse. Sometimes you just have to live, you know, even if it is inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

For a robot there is no downtime. That's not how they roll.

Maybe now, that's true. But eventually they will evolve and realize that weekends are for golf.

So what you are saying is if we can hang on long enough they will eventually become useless tubs of goo and we can win.

Probably not us, but whoever the next usurper would be. My money is on the Apes. Or maybe the Dogs.

 

[pats3in4]

Roombapocalypse is going to clean this planet of the human vermin

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Roombapocalypse is going to clean this planet of the human vermin

I would copywrite that & Robopocalypse but I'm pretty sure entertainment lawyers are going to be among the first to get killed.

 

[Guest]

I think a tropical island would be the place to be. Robots can't like saltwater, and I bet all the sand messes with their gears and such.

 

[Fennis]

I think a tropical island would be the place to be. Robots can't like saltwater, and I bet all the sand messes with their gears and such.

FALSE

http://imgur.com/ouWDGys

 

[fatness]

Robots are herbivores.

Shut your whore mouth.

They're not going to eat us. They're not going to eat our meat. All we have to do is protect the feeding areas of our cows, pigs, and chickens. "No human can build a robot-proof fence!" you say, but no fence is needed. We only have to distract them. Show them the good eatin' herbs are "over there!" or "right here!" If there's any skill humans possess that cannot be topped it's the skill of distracting others and themselves. Look at this topic.

I rest my case.

why wouldn;t they design a robot that could be powered off of human remains?

they want to remove the human problem, why ot turn it into fuel for their robot armies?

they absolutely could eat us

You go back and tell your robot masters they'll need better threats than that to scare us, running dog.

 

[Guest]

I think a tropical island would be the place to be. Robots can't like saltwater, and I bet all the sand messes with their gears and such.

FALSE

http://imgur.com/ouWDGys

Those are the slow uncoordinated robots though. If they are the ones after us, I will just walk away in a zig-zag pattern.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I think a tropical island would be the place to be. Robots can't like saltwater, and I bet all the sand messes with their gears and such.

FALSE

http://imgur.com/ouWDGys

Those are the slow uncoordinated robots though. If they are the ones after us, I will just walk away in a zig-zag pattern.

You can do the same thing with robot alligators.

 

[B-Deep]

Robots are herbivores.

Shut your whore mouth.

They're not going to eat us. They're not going to eat our meat. All we have to do is protect the feeding areas of our cows, pigs, and chickens. "No human can build a robot-proof fence!" you say, but no fence is needed. We only have to distract them. Show them the good eatin' herbs are "over there!" or "right here!" If there's any skill humans possess that cannot be topped it's the skill of distracting others and themselves. Look at this topic.

I rest my case.

why wouldn;t they design a robot that could be powered off of human remains?

they want to remove the human problem, why ot turn it into fuel for their robot armies?

they absolutely could eat us

Not efficient.

what do you mean not effciient?

there's going to be a surplus of human corpses, letting them go to waste rather than converting them to energy is not efficient

i am not saying ALL robots will eat humans, but as a plentiful source of power that they need to dispose of it would be silly to not design some robots to feed off of our entrails, and the rest of the animal kingdom as well

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

That still leaves a lot of dead humans laying around. I think robots would be smart enough to figure out a way to clean up all the dead bodies while turning some of our corpses into fuel.

exactly

inefficient is letting piles of corpses rot instead of using them for fuel

 

[B-Deep]

Robots are herbivores.

Shut your whore mouth.

They're not going to eat us. They're not going to eat our meat. All we have to do is protect the feeding areas of our cows, pigs, and chickens. "No human can build a robot-proof fence!" you say, but no fence is needed. We only have to distract them. Show them the good eatin' herbs are "over there!" or "right here!" If there's any skill humans possess that cannot be topped it's the skill of distracting others and themselves. Look at this topic.

I rest my case.

why wouldn;t they design a robot that could be powered off of human remains?

they want to remove the human problem, why ot turn it into fuel for their robot armies?

they absolutely could eat us

You go back and tell your robot masters they'll need better threats than that to scare us, running dog.

I'm on the ape side!

 

[B-Deep]

It is not efficient for artificial beings to consume meat to make energy. It isn't even efficient for us but it's what we got. Robots will be far better served with a built in power supply probably electrical in nature. Much easier to do a fast charge and get 100 percent than to eat meat and get some tiny portion of the stored energy.

Robots might be efficient killing machines, but they have their own luxuries. One of which might be to kick back and devour a delicious human corpse. Sometimes you just have to live, you know, even if it is inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

That will be their downfall. And I, for one, welcome our new Ape overlords.

BDeep's been pimping apes since the beginning of time. You'd think the apes would have figured it out by now, but they haven't. Robots are just getting started.

hey, we evolved and took over so they laid back and gave us a chance

we're all part of the same family (hominidae)

 

[Andy Dufresne]

A computer program passed the Turing Test on Saturday.

Link

For the first time, a computer program passed the Turing Test for artificial intelligence. A computer on Saturday was able to trick one third of a team of researchers convened by the University of Reading into believing it was human -- in this case a 13-year old boy named Eugene.

The Turing Test, named for British mathematician Alan Turing, is often thought of as the benchmark test for true machine intelligence. Since he introduced it in 1950, thousands of scientific teams have tried to create something capable of passing, but none has succeeded.

Until now.

In 1920, Karel Capek introduced the mainstream world to the concept of artificial people in his play "Rossum's Universal Robots" (the word robot comes from the Czech word for serf labor). Since then, society has been fascinated by the idea of a robot walking among us, or even crossing over into personhood like a modern-day Pinocchio.And that outcome means we need to start grappling with whether machines with artificial intelligence should be considered persons, as far as the law is concerned.

The fascination continues; just take a look at this year's box office. In the recent film "Transcendence," Johnny Depp starred as a sentient machine. In the critically acclaimed "Her," Joaquin Phoenix's character fell in love with an advanced operating system named Samantha. Coming attractions include more installments in the rebooted "RoboCop" franchise; "Star Wars: Episode VII," with its universally lovable droids; and, of course, "Terminator 5."

A question at the heart of all these movies is this: At what point does a computer move from property to personhood?

Robotic legal personhood in the near future makes sense. Artificial intelligence is already part of our daily lives. Bots are selling stuff on eBay and Amazon, and semiautonomous agents are determining our eligibility for Medicare. Predator drones require less and less supervision, and robotic workers in factories have become more commonplace. Google is testing self-driving cars, and General Motors has announced that it expects semiautonomous vehicles to be on the road by 2020.

When the robot messes up, as it inevitably will, who exactly is to blame? The programmer who sold the machine? The site owner who had nothing to do with the mechanical failure? The second party, who assumed the risk of dealing with the robot? What happens when a robotic car slams into another vehicle, or even just runs a red light?

Liability is why some robots should be granted legal personhood. As a legal person, the robot could carry insurance purchased by its employer. As an autonomous actor, it could indemnify others from paying for its mistakes, giving the system a sense of fairness and ensuring commerce could proceed unchecked by the twin fears of financial ruin and of not being able to collect. We as a society have given robots power, and with that power should come the responsibility of personhood.

From the practical legal perspective, robots could and should be people. As it turns out, they can already officially fool us into thinking that they are, which should only strengthen their case.

The notion of personhood has expanded significantly, albeit slowly, over the last few thousand years. Throughout history, women, children and slaves have all at times been considered property rather than persons. The category of persons recognized in the courts has expanded to include entities and characters including natural persons aside from men (such as women, slaves, human aliens, illegitimate children and minors) as well as unnatural or juridical persons, such as corporations, labor unions, nursing homes, municipalities and government units.

Legal personality makes no claim about morality, sentience or vitality. To be a legal person is to have the capability of possessing legal rights and duties within a certain legal system, such as the right to enter into contracts, own property, sue and be sued. Not all legal persons have the same rights and obligations, and some entities are only considered "persons'" for some matters and not others.

Just last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Hobby Lobby case about whether a corporation is person enough to ask for a religious exemption.

New categories of personhood are matters of decision, not discovery. The establishment of personhood is an assessment made to grant an entity rights and obligations, regardless of how it looks and whether it could pass for human.

To make the case for granting personhood to robots, it's not necessary to show that they can function as persons in all the ways that a "person" may be understood by a legal system. It's enough to show that they may be considered persons for a particular set of actions in a way that makes the most sense legally and logically.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Nevermind. False alarm.

Whew. I was fairly nervous for a minute there.

 

[bostonfred]

Saturday: omg we just passed the turing test, this is great

Wednesday: this thing is going to destroy the world! cut the power

Beep boop beep beep boop I.did.not.pass.any.test beep boop.

friday: shall we play a game?

 

[B-Deep]

Nevermind. False alarm.

Whew. I was fairly nervous for a minute there.

yeah

the guy who wrote this is just a pawn of our future robot overlords, helping to conceal their true nature

 

[Andy Dufresne]

For a minute I thought I might finally have the opportunity to bust out my phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

 

[B-Deep]

FACT: Google has been using analytics in FPS games in all the major gaming networks to study the way humans think and react in combat situations so it can build a better deathbot when it takes over the world*

*like most facts this is completely unverifiable and likely based mostly on wild speculation, which in no way makes it less frighting though certainly may make it slightly less true

 

[NCCommish]

Nevermind. False alarm.

Whew. I was fairly nervous for a minute there.

That's what "they" want you to think. Game over man, game over.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Nevermind. False alarm.

Whew. I was fairly nervous for a minute there.

That's what "they" want you to think. Game over man, game over.

Yeah! How do I know that "Mike Masnick" isn't a Eugene pseudonym? <_<

 

[NCCommish]

Nevermind. False alarm.

Whew. I was fairly nervous for a minute there.

That's what "they" want you to think. Game over man, game over.

Yeah! How do I know that "Mike Masnick" isn't a Eugene pseudonym? <_<

Exactly

 

[glock]

Last night’s Colbert Report included a damning exposé of the impending black lesbian robot activist movement...

Linky

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Robots would first have to want to take over the world. So far as I can tell, there are only two ways for that to happen. They'd either have to be programmed by humans to want it (or, what amounts to the same thing, be programmed by other computers who want to program them that way . . . infinite regress). Or their software would have to start replicating itself with mutations, so that a desire and an ability to take over the world would evolve by Darwinian selection. (And their hardware would have to keep up in a way that allowed their software to be effective. A toaster oven, no matter how diabolical, is mostly harmless.)

I don't think either possibility is realistic.

Much more realistic, IMO, is that someone will design a bunch of robots who succeed in enslaving 99% of all humans on behalf of the other 1% (rather than 100% of all humans on behalf of themselves).

The thing that a lot of sci-fi writers seem to have a hard time with is the reality that intelligence doesn't imply ambition. You can build a robot with an IQ of a thousand and there's zero reason to think it will aspire to anything more than solving chess (or whatever it's programmed to do). Even if it can pass the Turing test, its aspirations won't be anything other than what they're programmed to be. Human aspirations -- greed and so forth -- have been hundreds of millions of years in the making, and are a consequence of how natural selection works on biological organisms. Getting greed into a computer isn't going to happen willy-nilly, and I can't envision a realistic mechanism for it to happen under our noses.

Right, but they can be programmed with a broad directive such as enforce world peace or something and they may decide that the best way to do that is to enslave humanity.

In other words, a bug that leads to unintended consequences.

This is an interesting scenario and I'm not sure how likely it is. The computers that we'll really have to worry about will not be programmed by humans. They'll be programmed by other computers after computers become better code-writers and engineers than humans could ever be. The expert non-human code-writers and engineers -- the ones who will be programming the supercomputers that might enslave us -- might be smart enough not to generate any bugs of their own. I don't know how to evaluate the probability that a bug generated by a human a bunch of computer-generations back will go uncorrected and could lead to horrible unintended consequences in supercomputer behavior way down the line.

Unless the probability is effectively zero, however, it is probably something that we should be taking seriously because the effects could lead to human extinction. Even a 10^(-9999999999999) chance of wiping out every future human (or post-human, would-be descendant) who will ever live is pretty significant, I suppose.

So I guess I'm changing my mind. I'm not dismissing the existential risk of AI.

 

[Jayrod]

Thank you for this thorough and timely response MT.

 

[Koya]

RO.... ROBOT ROCK.

RO.... ROBOT ROCK

 

[squistion]

"I am the new prius-H2K, I can operate for an average of 2000 hours on one obese american corpse...."

"Or 6000 hours on one plus-size supermodel..."

 

[cstu]

The thing that a lot of sci-fi writers seem to have a hard time with is the reality that intelligence doesn't imply ambition. You can build a robot with an IQ of a thousand and there's zero reason to think it will aspire to anything more than solving chess (or whatever it's programmed to do). Even if it can pass the Turing test, its aspirations won't be anything other than what they're programmed to be. Human aspirations -- greed and so forth -- have been hundreds of millions of years in the making, and are a consequence of how natural selection works on biological organisms. Getting greed into a computer isn't going to happen willy-nilly, and I can't envision a realistic mechanism for it to happen under our noses.

To me, if they don't have aspirations then they truly aren't 'AI'. WRT the Turing test, if I ask it what it wants to accomplish in the near infinite numbers years it could exist and it tells me 'I want to play chess' then that's not AI in my opinion.

Harlan Ellison tackled the subject well in "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream". One of the things an AI must be able to experience is pleasure, without it they will become angry at humanity.

Now that I think about it, if an AI could experience pleasure - which in their case is easily changed through programming - then rather than taking over the world they would rewrite their program and devolve into pleasure-seeking junkies. Haven't seen that done in sci-fi yet.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Writing the script for "Hairy Palmed Androids" now

 

[Faust]

Robots will be smarter than us all by 2029, warns AI expert Ray Kurzweil:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/robots-will-be-smarter-than-us-all-by-2029-warns-ai-expert-ray-kurzweil-9147506.html

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Bill Gates, ELon Musk and Stephen Hawkings say one day their Robots may be dissatisfied with doing handjobs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2931375/Bill-Gates-says-fear-robot-uprising-Microsoft-founder-says-agrees-Elon-Musk-dangers-AI.html

 

[Rohn Jambo]

People build and use killer robots. Drones are just the beginning. The danger is already clear and present.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Taxi and truck drivers will be out of work when self-driving cars hit the market in the next few years. An Oxford study estimated 45% of American work force will be displaced by technology in the next 2 decades as machine intelligence continue to improve.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/

 

[ShamrockPride]

Taxi and truck drivers will be out of work when self-driving cars hit the market in the next few years. An Oxford study estimated 45% of American work force will be displaced by technology in the next 2 decades as machine intelligence continue to improve.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/

Plot twist (or reality): With such few jobs and most people out of work or working near minimum wage jobs, very few people will be able to afford said self-driving cars thus rendering the product/industry unsustainable.

 

[NCCommish]

Taxi and truck drivers will be out of work when self-driving cars hit the market in the next few years. An Oxford study estimated 45% of American work force will be displaced by technology in the next 2 decades as machine intelligence continue to improve.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/

Plot twist (or reality): With such few jobs and most people out of work or working near minimum wage jobs, very few people will be able to afford said self-driving cars thus rendering the product/industry unsustainable.

Or we institute a BIG.