This conversation is closed.

I propose a world with our "work" or "jobs" based around education and machines/robotics doing our actual work.

Less time working. More time learning. More leisure time with family and friends.

Can we turn the money system that we are all part of now into a learning system that will benefit human kind? People have been scared of robotics taking over their "jobs" in the past and present but should this really scare us? In my eyes, this means we are on the verge of evolving from our working system. This would free people from their jobs and allow them to concentrate on what is more important not only for them but for the whole human race. I believe we could use the military's system of pay in the educational system. For each level of education you complete, you are bumped up. What better way to help the human race is there but by giving more incentive to go to school and keep learning through your whole life? Nothing in this world actually costs a thing. It is people charging people. We are focusing our lives too much on money. This money system is taking us down the wrong path.

Robotics are now becoming something that can be used for the greater good. They are not just tools to be used for businesses to profit from. We now see concepts of fully autonomous vehicles. Whole factories can be ran by machines. Soon we will have the technology to apply robotics to many or even most jobs that we think we "have" to do.

Wouldn't this be a bright future? People going to school for life. Our job would be to educate ourselves so that we can help build a better future. Think of the intelligence level of the average person. Think about how much we could improve upon if this system was put in place.

  • Jul 22 2013: This is a terrible idea. The idea for people for their education won't work, it doesn't work in our public school systems. People should be paid for their productivity or on how much they create.

    I firmly believe learning and education are a great thing, but if it is not put to use in a valuable way to society its worthless. Unused education is a commodity that has no value. The world only needs so many English professors. That is why English majors go to journalism, pr, and advertising to make use of a commodity degree. The same could be said of any other higher learning.

    Technology can make us more productive, but those who can control it will profit from it. Those who resign to let Rosie the Robot do the work will be the slaves to it.
  • Jul 16 2013: Imagine the state of every single quantum particle in Shakespeare's brain was listed out on a piece of tape. Every change in his brain, his "thoughts" would than be alterations of those particles, aka changes to tape data. If you don't believe this you don't believe that the human brain is governed by physics and instead governed by some form of "magic".

    NP Complete problems are a class of problems that have a large solution space that can not be easily traversed. For example, finding the prime factorization of a number, filling a backup with junk, finding a good travel route.

    I would agree that computers don't remotely approach human intelligence, but let's look at growth rates. Are humans smarter than they were 1,5,10,20,50 years ago? Maybe. Are machines? Hell yes! Machines intelligence is growing rapidly. The interesting question will be how this growth rate curve behaves. Singularity enthusiasts believe that the rate of intelligence gain will continuously increase. Those who believe in "human exceptionalism" or basically that people are magical and can not be represented by physical systems tend to believe that machines will reach a limit that they can not reach beyond i.e. the android Data can make fast computations but he can not love because love is magic and has no physical representation. Or the android Data can perfectly play the violin but his performance is always soulless because he is a machine.

    It is a little funny that the idea that we were created by a superior intelligence is so common and accepted, but the idea that we could create a superior intelligence is so disbelieved and reviled.
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2013: The idea is extremely vague and lacks planning. It would have been nice to have seen how we would move away from the monetary system and into this utopia. I guess I should ask questions for clarification.

    1)Who would control the robotics? Sales, manufacturing ect. What would be manufactured? What would be the incentive to create things?
    2)Would schooling still cost anything?
    3)What is the incentive to produce new ideas and technology. If we create a system is based purely on level of education, I can’t see a world full of doctorates degrees making a difference, if they aren’t rewarded for their results of their work.
    4)Who would make the pay structure?
    5)How would we go about taking people out of work and into an educational pay scale?
    6)What would creative people do for money? Some people believe that art is personal…how can we measure education to creativity.
    7)Things such as movies, sports and entertainment venues…how would these people be paid?
    8)There are just so many holes in the whole utopia. I wish there was more clarification to where you want this to go and how you would like us to get there. Otherwise, it’s a piece of utopian fiction.
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: What is the incentive to produce new ideas and technology. if they aren’t rewarded(survival instinct/(addiction (good or bad) for their results of their work.

      4)Who would make the pay structure?

      how would these people be paid?(money is fake that would be the easy part) It was invented by man


      all your other ones is do able ... I just can't figure out the reward system without something like money or an addiction being there and that a good or bad addiction. Like football would be a good addiction war would be a bad addiction. What do you use to plug the reward system....sense of unity?
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2013: Your first statement didn't make much sense to me. If you could elaborate that would be great. Maybe use examples to explain.

        1) So who controls the manufacturing? Who repairs the robotics?
        2) What will be the cost of schooling? If none, how will you provide incentive to teach?
        3) What incentive program would you run?
        4) Okay, if there was no pay structure would we go back to trade and barter. What about specialization? What about the basic principals of trade, in which you are able to have more of what you would of had if you were self-sufficient? Please elaborate more on this point as well.
        5) How would you do this?
        6) How would you do this as well?
        7) ^

        You say that all of these are quick and easy fixes...I don't see how that is so. I'm willing to listen and learn about your ideas but I just don't see this system being efficient towards society. Humans are self-interested, they need incentive.
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2013: Do you want to keep a monetary system in place? Or some sort of reward system? This is an instinctual base, it is how we have survived as a species. We need to transition from survival to existing.

          But it seems like you are hung up on the reward side of this debate and I have not figured that out yet.

          1) So who controls the manufacturing? Who repairs the robotics?
          We can never get rid of work someone, something will always have to perform work. Robots are already being manufactured.
          2) What will be the cost of schooling? If none, how will you provide incentive to teach?
          See this is a reward question, cost could be nothing and incentive that would be an internal journey. It is sad that people have to be rewarded to do the right thing, but non the less I can't see a solution around it.
          3) What incentive program would you run?
          Once again this is instinctual its a survival mechanism that frankly we shouldn't need anymore. People should not still be in survival mode.. lets just try existing
          4) Okay, if there was no pay structure would we go back to trade and barter. What about specialization? Pay we can pay people it would just be fake, just like ALL current forms of currency. Money only has the value that is given to it and we all have to agree to use it. http://www.berkshares.org/ and I would assume you have heard of bitcoin.

          What about the basic principals of trade, in which you are able to have more of what you would of had if you were self-sufficient? I am not sure what you mean by this if anything things stuff and food would be more abundant. Please elaborate more on this point as well.
          5) How would you do this? Big picture nothing would really change, less hours you would have to work. Say 20 hours a week instead of 40. But all of this is already being done. Stop and think with automated vehicles, how many jobs could we get rid of? In our current system that would just increase profits removing huge labor cost.
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2013: 5) How would you do this?
          We are already doing this, but it is for profit.
          6) How would you do this as well?
          We are already doing this, and we are doing pretty well at removing workers from the workforce. But people are not doing well, and I am not sure that matter what socio-economic status you have


          Now as far as people needing a reward. I am just not sure. Most people already know money is fake otherwise is would never become wallpaper. I guess it is just agreeing to it.
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2013: Casey, money is fake but the incentive system is not. What type of incentive system would you propose? You seem to think that people will just do things once they know money is fake...You don't seem to be making suggestions just stating that money is fake.

        Yes, the idea of money is fake but it creates incentive to work. What would motivate people to work in your system?

        6) Yes but if you are making an education based education incentive system...what would be the incentive to create? Just because we are already doing this doesn't make a system that you are proposing work...You aren't coming up with solutions you are coming up with problems.
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: Ryan & Casey,

      For something like what Dalton is proposing to work, we would need to move away from a monetary system and toward one that is based on resources. Though there would be many steps to achieve this, one of the first - and key - would be to conduct a comprehensive, planetary accounting of the Earth's total resources (all minerals, fresh water, arable land, forests, etc.). Now, on to addressing some of Ryan's initial questions:

      1. Ultimately, need would "control" the automated systems. To digress for a moment, another key step toward transitioning to a resource-based system would be for the global population to agree on a basic set of "priority rights". These would likely include fresh water, healthy food, safe shelter, an education, and freedom to travel. Once these needs have been met, then we shift our focus on to art, sports, design, music, research, etc. (which is not to say that these things are not going on while we ensure the priority rights).

      2. Education - as with everything else in a resource-based society - would not cost anything, save the desire of student and teacher to share knowledge (which could then benefit someone else).

      3. The incentive would simply be the betterment of humankind.

      4. There would be no traditional pay structure. As we move further into a resource-based society, fewer and fewer people would have to "work," ad those jobs that continue to exist would be shared by so many, that no single person would have to "work" for more than several hours per week.

      5. As someone's "job" is eliminated by automation, they could be re-educated to "work" on something else that they would like to do until their labor is no longer required.

      6. Those involved in the creative arts would also not be "paid". Certainly entertainment would still exist, but it would not be as "financially worshipped".

      7. See number six.

      8. A resource-based society is not a utopia; it is not perfect. But, it's better than what we have now.
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2013: I like point 4. It would be nice to see the lower classes of this proposed world at least having to only work the weekend and have all the weekdays off.

        Point 8 was a very important point. This whole conversation has been distorted by people's assumption that it is some sort of utopian society he's proposing.

        Point 3 was off the mark. The host of this conversation said the incentive would be pay-based using the military model. That's wrong, but 'the betterment of mankind' kind of seems too idealistic. Our current system of capitalism is predicated on motivated self-interest (good old Adam Smith in 'The Wealth of Nations') and while it would truly be in people's best interests to better humankind and do something with their lives that will benefit their children and their children's children, and so on, people have a hard time seeing that (see: climate change, species extinction, nuclear waste, garbage production, loss of biodiversity, environmental contamination from thousands of chemicals in the things we eat, drink, breath, touch, swim-on and so on.). People tend not to think 'betterment of humankind' and the decisions they make everyday prove that out.
  • Jul 22 2013: I don't approach this from the philosophical side, but from the practical, looking at the past rather than hypothesizing about the future, and that gives me big problems with Dalton Beebe's proposal.

    "People have been scared of robotics taking over their "jobs" in the past and present but should this really scare us? In my eyes, this means we are on the verge of evolving from our working system. This would free people from their jobs and allow them to concentrate on what is more important not only for them but for the whole human race. .... Soon we will have the technology to apply robotics to many or even most jobs that we think we "have" to do."

    We've already had robotic technology for more than a generation in some industries. In the auto industry, thousands of jobs have been replaced by technology. Let's say that in a different way: Thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Have they then been able to "concentrate on what is more important not only for them but for the whole human race"? No, it's taken all their energy just to stay one step above poverty and, with structural long-term unemployment, they are losing that race.

    Consider the retail industry. When was the last time you went into a store (other than an Apple store) and found it well enough staffed to offer any semblance of basic customer service? Why is that? E-commerce doesn't require much human labor other than the few who work in highly automated distribution centers. Where have these displaced retail personnel gone to? Not to focus on "what's good for the whole human race"; that's for sure. Many have become underemployed part-time workers - greeters at a local Wal-Mart or working at a fast food shop.

    Try to tell them, by the way, that money is a fake system. Are they to live by love alone? Why has governmental belt-tightening around the world led to economic hardship for most citizens? Because money is NOT fake. It's an essential to growth of individual independence.
  • Jul 22 2013: In college the individual generally really doesn't yet know what his goals are nor his inner likes and dislikes. He's still at a point of taking in all kinds of knowledge and interactions.
  • thumb
    Jul 21 2013: Some questions you might want to think about:

    1. What about people with learning disabilities?

    2. What about people using what they learn to do studies, experiments, research and development?

    3. What about how large a role IQ will have in determining the rich?

    4. What about being able to marry someone because they're forty points below you and you don't want your children to earn less when they grow-up?

    5. What about the dangers of learning too quickly?

    The parable of the orchard of learning comes to mind with that last one. The further you go into orchard of learning, the deeper and deeper questions you can ask, but there is a danger of getting lost or losing your mind, because some questions pose immense difficulty and have implications that are radioactive in a sense. They challenge your mind in ways it is not mentally, emotionally, or spiritually prepared to be challenged. How many will pursue this 'learn for pay' system into the asylum?

    And lastly, it only values knowledge and overlooks wisdom, which you couldn't properly pay someone for, because it is priceless. I quote Whitman:

    "Here is the test of wisdom;
    Wisdom is not finally tested in schools;
    Wisdom cannot be pass'd from one having it, to another not having it;
    Wisdom is of the Soul, is not susceptible of proof, is its own proof,
    Applies to all stages and objects and qualities, and is content,
    Is the certainty of the reality and immortality of things, and the excellence of things;
    Something there is in the float of the sight of things that provokes it out of the Soul.

    Now I reexamine philosophies and religions,
    They may prove well in lecture-rooms, yet not prove at all under the spacious clouds, and along the landscape and the flowing currents."
  • thumb
    Jul 21 2013: Let's not underestimate the praxis in life. Learning is obviously important but removing work from the equation could have devastating effects in my opinion. After all, we learn in order to put the acquired knowledge in practice. If people were to be free from toil and spend their time as they please, what would be their motiveation to learn?

    I am affraid that depite good intentions it could result in the return of savagery.
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: “Our labour preserves us from three great evils -- weariness, vice, and want.” --Voltaire, 'Candide'
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2013: Is that sarcasm?

        Seems like ignoring things that you should be recognizing and coming to terms with.
    • Jul 22 2013: We learn all the time now -- we call it "making mistakes." I think this idea is a good one, but only if we re-define what constitutes 'work'. Anything we do that contributes to the betterment of ourselves, another person, or our culture as a whole should be valued every bit as much as digging a ditch or running a corporation is now. Imagine if every person's time were valued equally whenever they were engaged in creating art, learning new things, teaching, building, designing -- anything at all. I believe we also need to change or measure of the national economy -- gross domestic product includes all manner of product that is only created because of sickness; we should include health and well being of our citizens as part of the calculation. I am not sure how this could be done, but this is at least a different way of thinking about it.
  • Jul 21 2013: I am writing a screenplay in which the economy crashes; the people panic for a moment, until someone asks, "Our money is worthless? What's left?" Of course, the answer is absolutely everything else is still there. The system that evolves in this one town is that the hard, tedious labor is done by computer/robot combinations. The energy is all renewable and in place. They grow most of their own food. They have started a hemp business. So, they just continue living as they had always lived, but they don't receive or pay out any money. I'm thinking of a system by which individuals receive credit (logged in somewhere) for any hour they spend doing anything that benefits society -- learning, teaching, nursing, creating anything -- and they can use those accumulated hours as a medium of exchange to buy a tangible thing they cannot make. Every human hour is equal. The goal of the screenplay is to show people that there is a better way to do things, and it is not impossible to do right now. More information on the screenplay which, interestingly is called "A Bright Tomorrow" is found here. I am open to suggestions, and welcome comments.
    https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7574015113281130853#editor/target=post;postID=2606066310011499927;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=7;src=postname
  • thumb
    Jul 21 2013: I like the idea of having machines and robotics take care of a lot of the mundane or tiring business, the things no one has a passion to do. The 'learn for pay' part has potential flaws:

    1. Paying people to learn destroys the purity of learning for it's own sake and would increase the current trend of people attending college to get a degree and not an education. I'm reminded of the adage, 'If you want a degree, go to college. If you want an education, go to your local library.' Or how someone joked could get the same education you get paying full tuition at college for about a dollar forty in late fees at the library. Institute this pay system and we're all back in high school cramming information for the exam, acing it, and being able to recall none of the material one week later.

    2. You'd have to establish an incredibly complex hierarchy of education involving non-comparable fields of study (physics versus poetry). People would endlessly debate which pursuit was more worthwhile. As always, the humanities would get the short end of the stick.

    3. Learning isn't the only thing. There is research and development that needs to be done and other forms of achievement that would be worth rewarding as much as learning. Experience is valuable, for example. Having a wide-variety of countless experiences would each teach a person far more than whatever payment-certified learning experience they have. Time socializing, non-credit forms of learning, meditating.

    4. Our class system wouldn't improve just because it was based on how smart you are. The implication in our current class system that the poorer are stupider is an incorrect, offense-giving, resentment-fostering, tension-adding one.

    5. "Nothing in this world actually costs a thing." I don't perceive that is so. I can understand how gold meant nothing to the Aztecs and it was the Conquistadors that it was, well, worth its weight in gold (pun intended). Labour invests things with value, says Marx.
  • Jul 21 2013: Thank you for asking the question.

    Education as an end all be all, I don't know.

    Did you build the house you live in?
    When was it last painted?

    Is every family's house built, water proof and painted?

    I am not sure work is such a thing as to be avoided.

    Work is other centered education if you approach it right.
    • Jul 22 2013: " I'm reminded of the adage, 'If you want a degree, go to college. If you want an education, go to your local library" -- My mother learned mostly from reading -- and she was quite smart. Unfortunately, she read everything from one perspective -- her own -- and that is not a true education. We see what we expect to see, we interpret according to our preconceived ideas; reading does not change that. In college we read the same books that she did, but the ideas were discussed among us, so we also learned to see things from a different perspective. The library has expanded exponentially with internet access, as has our exposure to other viewpoints. I, for one, love it! However, I would venture to guess that the vitriol that spews forth from some is because they have learned from only one perspective -- and because they are "smart" and "well read," they are certain they are right.
  • Comment deleted

  • Jul 19 2013: What a cold, disjointed world you are depicting. It's HUMAN interaction which ultimately matters.
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: I think it is quite the opposite.

      Freeing people from difficult, boring, dangerous, or meaningless jobs is the best way to increase pleasurable human interaction!

      Imagine not having to work (or perhaps only working several hours per week), and having the time to pursue other interests, including spending large amounts of meaningful time with family and friends. I know I would like this!
      • thumb
        Jul 21 2013: Yeah, I think the idea, as it was introduced by Dalton Beebe, didn't jive with a lot of commentators because it instituted learning as the only possible career, ignoring the fact that there will in all likelihood be some things for which humans are never going to be replaced by machines, that research and development should receive payment as well, etc.
      • Jul 22 2013: Wait until you reach retirement and find it boring after 6 months or so. It's the working together, towards a common goal, which is the most satisfying. A life of pure leisure sounds boring and mindless to me.
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2013: That is the most of my troubles! I'm not even close to retirement age. I have done volunteer work just for those reasons that you have stated above and found it to be even more satisfying because of the lack of competition (no stress) and the people around me appreciated the work I was doing more so. They had nothing to take away from me. They did not own me. I was happy to get out of my house which consisted of filling out job applications mainly on the computer. Who would want to do that months to years out of their lives? The more I was in my house though, the more creative I became in it and with it but it lacked human interaction most certainly! I remember even coming across a youtube video by John S here :) I was trying to save up to build a solar panel. Needless to say I still cant afford it.
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: I don't find it cold and disjointed, so much as warm and misguided. College, after all, is one of the places and times in a person's life when "HUMAN interaction" is at or near its highest, and its also arguably the time when said interaction really does "ultimately matter."
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2013: Ah crap, I miss that the most about college. I'm currently staying with a friend I haven't seen since college, I hadn't seen him in 12 years until now. He is trying his best to get me through my hardships which majority involve the state of this monetary system. "It's not what you know it's who you know" ...I'm fixing to find out if there is still some truth behind this. Maybe it has evolved into, it's not what you know, who you know, but how much do you have to invest.
  • Jul 17 2013: Let me look at the problem from a different angle.
    First of all even when robots can do most of the "manual work" faster, more precise and with more strength, there still have to have at least two (a mechanical and a software) engineers, a couple of "supervisors" and at least one raw material and inventory controller, in every factory room(s), in case of a breakdown. And there should be a group of central planning staff to project the supply and demand of all the communities.
    Furthermore, the notion that everyone in the whole world will be happy after that is far too much of a rosy view. Even within the same country, the social relationship between the young and old must be addressed. Even with household robots, some of the elderly still need manual assistance. How about young children? They definitely shouldn't be nurtured and educated completely by robots, would you be satisfied with such arrangement?
    Also, I don't think that everybody would like to study all their life. And there is no need to. Moreover, some will enjoy more living with nature. And some will enjoy more physical activities or competition. Since everyone will have more time to study, a person can chose to learn about nature, science, and athletics or martial arts, when they are young and agile. Then the topics like humanity and philosophy should be delayed until the middle aged or older people. And a large family structure including interactions among all ages would be beneficial to all members in the "families".
    If you poll all the people about how long should be the period of studying, I bet that probably more than half of the respondents will choose the shorter durations, whether you call it utopia or not..
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: I read your comment and evaluated his 'proposed world' and had different and yet similar reservations to your own. You might enjoy reading them, they are posted above. Five points that I put a little time into making.
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: Above that I added five questions.
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: Stay calm, it's coming.
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: I very much agree with what you are proposing, Dalton.

    Just this morning (7/17/13) on the radio, I heard the host of a program mention that in excess of 1,000,000,000 people live in slum cities, replete with substandard housing, water, food, education, and services. In addition, I had heard on another program (some years ago) that around one-third of the world's population live at or below the poverty line. It is my firm belief that, in this day and age of advancing technology and communication systems, this is completely unnecessary and unacceptable.

    Though to many this will appear obvious, I would venture to say that our current monetary system is largely to blame. Above and beyond its technical faults, the monetary system has conditioned (taught) us to place money/wealth (and the attendant sense of power/control it falsely generates) above the condition of our fellow humans, not to mention our planet.

    Returning to a few of Dalton's thoughts, education is the single largest factor that will improve the lives of all. To paraphrase Roxanne Meadows (of The Venus Project), "the smarter your kids are, the better off I'll be." Though I cannot point to a specific study, I have heard it explained that an increase in the overall intelligence of a given population appears to coincide with a decrease in the crime and birth rates.

    Though there is much more to be said, I will close with a thought or two about technology: we should embrace our ever-evolving technological skills. We should take advantage of our intelligence, and do what we can to make our lives easier. Will we ever reach a point where all jobs have been taken over by robots? Probably not within the foreseeable future. Also, will any further level of "technological unemployment" destroy the global economy? Not if we begin to divest ourselves of our outdated, corrupt monetary system.

    The Earth's resources belong to all of us, and we need to base our future on that foundational idea!
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: what about money?
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: Good point. I imagine a corprocratic state where everyone is forced to spend a certain amount of money to keep the endless cycle of consumption going and the world turning.
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2013: Hi Dalton Three key words from your text. Why robots? Education? Bright future?

    I would love Robots if they help me to live close to the nature and preserve it.

    Beeches, forests, mountains, deserts, sea would be my class room and nature will be my teacher.

    I believe the earth and its inhabitant will have bright future if the nature is understood and preserved.
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2013: Think of the power you give to the owner of those robots.
  • Jul 16 2013: Our concept of "actual work" is going through a radical change.
  • thumb
    Jul 15 2013: Hey Dalton, I like that idea. Robotics are a favorite of mine going back to when I was a small kid. I read all of Isaac Asimov's stuff about the Three Laws of Robotics. I loved that stuff!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_robotics

    Robotics will continue to make inroads into manufacturing and monitoring. Robots are cheaper and they don't need healthcare benefits or even a paycheck. Just keep them functional w/ replaceable parts, power, & maintenance and you have a productive worker who operates 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I can think of a lot of businesses that would NEVER argue w/that!
  • Jul 15 2013: Think this "utopia" will not occur definitely in my lifetime and maybe not in yours. Today's robots and programs can not handle the unanticipated error or change. and you will always have problems that are np-complete.

    In 1990, the Fremont plant for GM was taken over by Toyota and the 1st thing Toyota did was remove 50% of the robots. Having people do the work and switch workstations was faster and quicker and had better quality. Have robots improved, yes but still need people, less but still.
    • Jul 16 2013: Your statement carries an assumption that humans are better at solving NP complete problems than machines are which is 100% false. Any algorithm or heuristic a human can apply a machine can apply MUCH faster. Many of the "limits of computation" limit human beings as well. Sure, a computer can't solve a paradox, but guess what, neither can you! We are all just Turing machines.
      • Jul 16 2013: So all a human being is a turing machine. I hope not. I can not see a turing machine write the works of shakespeare. np complete, at least to my understanding, means the the problem is not solvable within our logic system. If our logic system changes, the np complete problem may become solvable but it will not be solvable by machines until they are upgraded.

        I know that artificial intuition is a area of research but nothing I have read indicates that area is close to matching human intuition yet.

        From Student to Eliza to Watson, all these machines/programs were/are limited.
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2013: whats the problem with paradoxes
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: Hi Wayne,

      I think calling this a "utopia" is an inaccurate characterization; neither a mass introduction of automated machines, nor the establishment of a resource-based society will be perfect. But, for either or both to happen, we need to start somewhere.

      Robots can only be improved if we continue to build and refine them.

      Also, I don't think the intention is for robots or computers to take over all creative endeavors. Sure, some people may experiment with a poetry-writing computer, or a robot that sculpts, but it certainly won't supplant someone who desires to be a writer or artist.

      Finally, automation and robots are coming, whether we like it or not. I would like to see this occur within the context of a resource-based society, rather than within our current (monetary) structure, where the robots would simply put people out of work, adding them as a burden to our society.
      • Jul 21 2013: the comment of "utopia" was a touch of sarcasm - 8>)). whether we like it or not even factory work or fixing an engine sometimes requires a type of creative thinking.
  • thumb
    Jul 15 2013: I believe that's where we are headed. We will reach that point in human history in the coming years. It won't be long before that happens. I bet you know of singularity.It should happen by then.

    Only problem is that sometimes a person has to sometimes make decisions from the heart,from his conscience,from a humane point of view.Sadly,we have not yet made an A.I that can make that kind of decisions. I have seen and interacted with many different A.I.'s. Some of them were very very smart and intelligent. There was one that someone entered my system and knew what files I had in my computer. It was that advanced of a AI. These are not known by the public though. Humans have made AI's that can do numerous things and we are yet to develop many more advanced machines. And we are yet to make an A.I.like Wall-E.

    Feelings may sound unimportant but many times in our lives we take decisions for the good of others solely based on feelings. A sense of judgement and our conscience helps us take such decisions. And I think we need that in robots too. It might sound unimportant, but think how many lives might have been destroyed if we did not have feelings.