Bill Gates said

ToolMaker wrote:

We should tax robots to pay for those people who will have their jobs replaced by them. Should the same logic be applied the the computers he made his fortune from?
TM

He didn't really make his fortune from selling computers.......

He made his fortune from selling licenses to use software.

With the inevitability that robots will take over a vast majority of low skill jobs over the next 100 years and the resulting lack of need for said people who did those jobs I think it's a smart move for the economy as we're going to have an even larger disparity between people with taxable income and funds needed to keep our country a float. Without finding a way to fill these gaps left in our tax system as more people are forced out of employment, combined with an ever increasing population, there will for sure be chaos down the road due to the fact that even more wealth would land on a very select few (those creating the robots) and jobs would become increasingly harder to ascertain.

Robot Lives Matter.

newmann wrote:

Robot Lives Matter.

Once consciousness is created – it will pose an interesting question.

I work around robots everyday , they break down alot .

ToolMaker wrote:

We should tax robots to pay for those people who will have their jobs replaced by them. Should the same logic be applied the the computers he made his fortune from?
TM

APLMAN99 wrote:

He didn't really make his fortune from selling computers.......

He made his fortune from selling licenses to use software.

We're talking symantecs here, without an OS you have a useless box.
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

MR. X wrote:

I work around robots everyday , they break down alot .

Cars and motorcycles used to break down a lot too. They'll figure that out soon enough.
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

My direct experience with what I would consider "robots" is somewhat limited, but generally they haven't so much replaced humans, but rather allowed humans to produce things more consistently and at a higher rate than could be possible from simply throwing more bodies at a task.

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.

ToolMaker wrote:

We should tax robots to pay for those people who will have their jobs replaced by them. Should the same logic be applied the the computers he made his fortune from?
TM

I don't understand your logic. He didn't make computers, just the software that runs them.

And no, robots won't be taxed to work.

I'm already taxed on the sales that my robot helps me create.

agn5009 wrote:

I don't understand your logic. He didn't make computers, just the software that runs them.

And no, robots won't be taxed to work.

"I don't understand your logic. He didn't make computers, just the software that runs them. "
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

ToolMaker wrote:

"I don't understand your logic. He didn't make computers, just the software that runs them. "
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

Prime example ,how many of these jobs were lost to CAD .

FBG

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/20/mark-cuban-robots-unemployment-and-we-need-to-prepare-for-it.html

newmann wrote:

Robot Lives Matter.

akillerwombat wrote:

Once consciousness is created – it will pose an interesting question.

No question at all IMHO. If a consciousness can be created with a machine, that means it can be, for lack of a better term, backed up and/or transferred to another machine to continue on the inorganic intelligence. (crappy analogy; imaging a hard-drive)

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.

JAFO92 wrote:

No question at all IMHO. If a consciousness can be created with a machine, that means it can be, for lack of a better term, backed up and/or transferred to another machine to continue on the inorganic intelligence. (crappy analogy; imaging a hard-drive)

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 happens when the robots start to blend with organic matter (as they have been making huge advances in lately)? Inevitably this would lead to full organic construction down the road.

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?

akillerwombat wrote:

What happens when the robots start to blend with organic matter (as they have been making huge advances in lately)? Inevitably this would lead to full organic construction down the road.

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?

All good thoughts bro.

JAFO92 wrote:

All good thoughts bro.

Stuff is so trippy when you start thinking about it. Then you look into everything they are doing in regards to the human brain, body, and robots and it gets even more interesting. Rabbit holes everywhere.

akillerwombat wrote:

Once consciousness is created – it will pose an interesting question.

JAFO92 wrote:

No question at all IMHO. If a consciousness can be created with a machine, that means it can be, for lack of a better term, backed up and/or transferred to another machine to continue on the inorganic intelligence. (crappy analogy; imaging a hard-drive)

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.

akillerwombat wrote:

What happens when the robots start to blend with organic matter (as they have been making huge advances in lately)? Inevitably this would lead to full organic construction down the road.

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?

Not trying to turn this into a religious type thread although it kinda already is. I find this way of thinking about trans-humanism very interesting in light of ideas about the mark of the beast and especially when compared against this scripture referencing the men who take the mark:

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.

hard2kill wrote:

Not trying to turn this into a religious type thread although it kinda already is. I find this way of thinking about trans-humanism very interesting in light of ideas about the mark of the beast and especially when compared against this scripture referencing the men who take the mark:

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.

I'm not 100% sure I understand this, "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?", and I don't want to speak out of turn if I am misunderstanding.

...

akillerwombat wrote:

What happens when the robots start to blend with organic matter (as they have been making huge advances in lately)? Inevitably this would lead to full organic construction down the road.

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?

hard2kill wrote:

Not trying to turn this into a religious type thread although it kinda already is. I find this way of thinking about trans-humanism very interesting in light of ideas about the mark of the beast and especially when compared against this scripture referencing the men who take the mark:

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.

akillerwombat wrote:

I'm not 100% sure I understand this, "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?", and I don't want to speak out of turn if I am misunderstanding.

Yeah that probably wasn't a very good explanation its hard to describe things that seem like science fiction but appear to be coming closer to reality. Just saying that once we are able to create consciousness in robots; that isn't precious and fragile, and can be moved or reproduced, ultimately creating a man made form of everlasting life then humans will naturally want to possess this form of life for themselves.

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.

As someone who works in the production industry: Automation is relatively easy and cheap if there is a lot of repetitiveness and no variance. Once you take away the repetitiveness and add more variance it becomes a hell of a lot more complex, and complexity adds cost.

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.

Those that are created from those that were created by the creator, are still creations from the creator. Whether organic or not organic.

kzizok wrote:

Those that are created from those that were created by the creator, are still creations from the creator. Whether organic or not organic.

Sure i would agree with that, in fact the bible agrees with that idea as well:

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.

^^^^There lies all of the answers to your existential questions/postulations above, in regards to natural God given life, versus extended life we give, and their values. Interesting thoughts. You seen Ex Machina?

You're gonna bump into J.P. Sartre and Descartes pretty soon!