Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
He made his fortune from selling licenses to use software.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
What really is a robot? Is it the toaster with a timer?
is it a programmable arm that welds perfect beads, is it a butler with AI? My point is, technology replaces human labor all the time. Probably the biggest offender ever, the computer.
TM
They already can make a task specific robot machines that can
produce more in it's life than a human could. (before it breaks down)
TM
In fruit packing, for example, there are several points that machines are used that could likely be considered robots. Bin dumpers, color and defect sorters, sizers, tray lines, stampers, and palletizers are just a few of them. Despite the development and improvements of these technologies, we keep having to hire more human help all the time.
I'm sure that there are people who have been directly replaced by robotic machines, but it'd be interesting to see whether that equates to a true reduction in jobs overall or simply a shift in duties.
And no, robots won't be taxed to work.
asked and answered, see above,
"And no, robots won't be taxed to work."
What he said was, if a human performs a task at $50K per year the government realizes a tax income from
that wage, If you replace that human with a "robot" the company should still contribute the tax because that task
is still being done, albeit by a robot. So the government is losing the tax money because presently the work a
robot is doing, does not require you to "pay and tax" a person to do it.
However, how many people hours are now not being used directly because of the computer. We think of robots doing physical tasks. Just because you can't see it happening, the computer is doing a physical task of maneuvering information. Which is just as job displacing as (I would argue more) than a robotic arm that tightens a door hinge bolt.
The whole premise is ludicrous. So Bill Gates is directly responsible for reducing the number of people that need to document, manipulate, and control technology, but when it comes to things you can tangibly see, there should be a tax.
TM
Human consciousness is maintained by an organic and perishable container and cannot be moved or repoduced, therefore very precious and fragile.
There would be no comparison between the two in that regard; Robot "lives" wouldnt mean much.
What is so interesting about all of this is once we are able to create consciousness is do we then have to redefine what constitutes life? Given that so many people believe that humans are created by someone / something aka a God then who is to say that the life created by a human (in any form of creation) isn't also life in which it shouldn't be valued the same as the creator?
In short:
God "supposedly" creates man -> life is protected
Man creates man -> life isn't protect?
And on the flip side – what happens when we find a way to backup the human mind so that the container isn't precious and fragile?
Pit Row
Revelation 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
Perhaps we will find a way to back up the human mind in an organic form creating a form of life that would not die, but perhaps you would have to give up the life that the Creator aka God gives us for the life that man aka Antichrist can give you in which the Spirit of God could not dwell? Also a generic form of our consciousness is already being captured by google and others though algorithms every time you search for something on your smart phone or computer. Just a little more food for thought.
You asked the question "who is to say that the life created by a human (in any form of creation) isn't also life in which it shouldn't be valued the same as the creator?" I think if we found a way to possess this type of life for ourselves then it would ultimately become valued more so than the life given by God especially if it was a type of eternal life.
I am not sure how it would work, but perhaps you would have to give your natural life that God gave each of us to take on this new form of life created by man. This could be viewed as a rejection of the eternal life that God has promised to give all who put their faith in Jesus Christ and receive the Holy Spirit. If we are rejecting God then his Spirit can not dwell in us, which is what grants us everlasting life.
I assume you do not believe in this stuff and i am not trying to convince you or preach to you about it or even saying this is how it will be. Just speculating on the possibilities surrounding this technology and how it could relate to the Bible. Here is another verse from Revelation telling us not to love our own life unto death, but to overcome death by the life that has been granted to us by the blood of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
It costs a fortune to get automation up and running, and it costs a fortune to maintain that automation.
I see white collar workers being replaced by robots a lot quicker then blue collar. To replace the blue colar workers you need expensive hardware combined with expensive software. For desk jobs the hardware aspect becomes a lot cheaper because all you need is computing power and software. And most of the time you can replace multiple white collar workers at once. It's often harder to replace multiple blue colar workers with the same investment and maintenance cost.
Interesting discussion, does ai dehumanize the creators?
Colossians 1
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Additionally the Bible tells us that all things are going to work out to a final and complete good. Some of these things are not according to God's purpose, but they will eventually lead to his purpose. God is trying to teach us a lesson in order to redeem us back to a perfect relationship with him. Sometimes unpleasant things have to happen for us to learn our lesson. We will all make mistakes and it is not likely that any of us will fully grasp this lesson until God restores all things. At that time the Bible tells us that we will all be humbled and every knee will bow. But we have to decide which side of the learning experience we are going to be on, those that love God or those that don't.
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Once again i am not trying to steer this thread into a religious debate or anything just offering my insight on how i view these things through the lens of the Bible.
You're gonna bump into J.P. Sartre and Descartes pretty soon!
Would a computer program have designed a series of nuclear reactors(in a region known for earthquakes/tsunami's) with the emergency generators located on the beach and the backup batteries in the basement?
I don't think so.
Post a reply to: Bill Gates said