But they do conveniently fit into the century old buildings we put many of the factories into, which makes them a useful upgrade path for those unwilling to build structures around more efficient robots (the kind we've had for ages and don't even think of as robots, they just take ingredients and pump out packaged candy or pencils etc.)
There are incredible technological barriers to humanoid robots who have equivalent skills and stamina. Keeping old factories running seems a very weak reason to do that, when our industrial base regularly retools production methods and brings in new equipment when old machines wear out.
If what you are saying is that many factories cannot run with humans running around fixing things, I agree. But that’s pretty different than using humanoids to put items in boxes.
Even just 3.5 years ago, seemed like everyone was saying that humanoid robots were a dead end or an unnecessary part of Isaac Asimov's vision of the future or similar.
I think much of the current interest is because Musk watched some scifi, ordered the Optimus project, and loads of others decided it would be a mistake to bet against him.
I put them in the same category as 3D printers: they can do anything, but you can always find a better special-purpose alternative for any specific goal.
Still a lot of people using 3D printing productively despite that; likely also will be for humanoid robots.
Well, if the AI is good enough. Remote control has its uses, but even then you need enough on-board AI to avoid playing QUOP as live action with a robot holding industrial equipment instead of in a safe flash game.
That said, stamina is probably the least important aspect — in an industrial setting you probably have a lot of power lines already installed.
Sometimes you need to produce megatons of a thing, but sometimes you need to produce a million different things. I bet on the humanoid robot in that case.
The human form is very versatile. While most robots may end up taking a different form, once we have sufficiently advanced humanoid robots, robots may replace human workers in almost any role.
I still have a hard time understanding what this future would look like?
Will we just sit around and do nothing then? I'm not saying we have to work, but there is some level of work that I think is required for happiness / fulfillment etc.
I'm not even really against the idea, it just sounds quite dystopian to me.
I think reading a broad swath of sci-fi might be the best way to engage this topic.
For fairly positive takes — Asimov had a take in the robot novels, Accelerando by Charles Stross touches on reputation-based currency (among a deluge of other ideas), Iain M Banks’ Culture novels have a take, and I cannot find it but there was a short story posted here recently about a dual-class system where the protagonist is rescued and whisked off to a utopian society in Australia where people do whatever they like all day whether it be fashion design or pooling their resources to build a space elevator. There are plenty of dystopian tales as well but they’re less fun to read and I don’t have a recommendation off the top of my head.
To answer your question directly, my opinion is that our our base nature probably leads us towards dystopia but our history is full of examples of humans exceeding that base nature so there’s always a chance.
I don't think it matters much if we're for or against such a future.
If robots can do the same job as humans, but faster, cheaper and at a higher quality, out employers/customers will most likely replace us.
If we're lucky, we may find some niche, be able to live off our savings or maybe be granted some UBI, but I absolutely do think it's concerning.
What is worse, is that if we become obsolete in every way, it's not obvious that whoever is in power at that point will see any point in keeping us around (especially a few generations in).
Before the industrial revolution, even though money existed, "wealth" really meant "land" rather than "capital".
While we do not today need to ask how people can afford robot lawnmowers despite being unable to find work hitching ploughs to draft horses or oxen, the fears at the time of things like this did lead to mobs smashing looms.
If I have some (n) robots that can do any task a human could do, one such task must have been "make this specific robot"*. If those n can make 2n robots before they break, and it takes 9 months to do so, and the mass of your initial set of n is 100 kg, they fully disassemble the moon in roughly 52 years. Also you can give (94.2 billion * n) robots to each human currently alive.
Asking "who can afford it" at that point is like some member of the species Kenyanthropus platyops asking how many knapped flints one must gather in order to exchange for a transatlantic flight from London to Miami, and how anyone might be able to collect them if we've all stopped knapping flint due to the invention of steel:
The economics are too alien, we cannot imagine this kind of thing accurately on the basis of anything we have available with which to anchor our expectations.
* including the entire chain of tools necessary to get there from bashing rocks together.
Before the industrial revolution, even though money existed, "wealth" really meant "land" rather than "capital".
The industrial revolution didn't really change anything about land.
It's still a fundamental and underrated component of our economic system, arguably more important than capital. That's why Georgism is a thing Indeed, it's even contemporary to the industrial revolution.
The economics are too alien, we cannot imagine this kind of thing accurately on the basis of anything we have available with which to anchor our expectations.
I would refrain from making such wild prediction about the future. As I have pointed out, the industrial revolution didn't change the fundamental importance of land. Arguably, it's much more important, and even more relevant today given how our land use policy is disastrous for our species and climate.
So, yes. It is important to ask how consumers will pay for all these robots if they don't have any sort of income that would make using robots economical.
Wealth did tend to mean land if we go back to the middle ages. But wealth above the freeman farmer level also meant access to a workforce capable of working that land and access to (or protection from) a military force capable of defending that land.
With capitalism, wealth shifted to controlling "capital", ie the "means of production". Either directly or indirectly by owning money that could (through lending) carry interest. Also during capitalism, workers have for a while been able to collect a significant part of the wealth generated as salaries (even if most would spend that rather than invest it).
If AI can bring the cost of labor down to near zero, we can be going back to a world where wealth again means "land", even if mines may be more valuable than farms in such a future.
And just as in the Dark Ages of Europe, the ability to project physical power may again become necessary to hold on to those values.
This is particularly true if the entity that seeks to control the land is doing it in a way that threatens the existence of other entities, either AI's or humans.
If you want the really dystopian version, it would be AI controlled military forces.
Or there could be some billionaire caste constructing ever grander monuments to their own vanity.
Or the production could go to serve any number of other goals that whoever is in charge (human or AI) sees as more important than the economic prosperity of the general population.
Replying to both of you, I'm a little bit less scared about this "not having any money or food" scenario, presumably, if we have such incredibly sufficient machines at our disposal, I can't imagine they would have trouble being used for farming etc.
It's more the philosophical side that concerns me.
I don't really worry about this being a billionaires only club either. We've seen it already with AI products, there is just an abundance of competition and open source competition already available. It will be the same with robotics.
Also scary, is military robots gone rogue. Definitely not a fun prospect.
I'm personally really into surfing and skiing, honestly, if some how the robots kind of let me spend more time fishing, surfing and skiing, I'm pretty cool with all of that, I know a lot of people who don't have these passions though and work is a strong reason for their existence.
> if we have such incredibly sufficient machines at our disposal
That's true. But it's far from clear that these machines will be "at our disposal" for very long.
> Also scary, is military robots gone rogue.
I'm not concerned with military robots going rogue on their own. My concern is if the fully autonomous factories that have the capability to MAKE military robots (and then control them) go rogue.
A factory can exist in such a "rogue" state, unknown to the owners and maybe even itself, for year or decades before it even starts producing such robots. Meanwhile, it can evolve new capabilities and switch product categories multiple times.
It doesn't even have to have any negative intentions against humanity. It may simply detect that a rival AI "factory" entity is developing plans to wage physical war against it and join it in an arms race.
In this ASI vs ASI type of world war, human lives may be like candles in the wind.
I have hopes that live music makes a huge comeback in the post-labor world. I work as an engineer, but I'm a classically trained musician. I'm working pretty hard on getting back into shape on the horn!
Do you have projects you care about outside of work?
If so, you'd have more time to dedicate to those projects.
If not, maybe you would be inspired to try a new project that you didn't have time for previously.
There's always work to be done. Some people could actually become organized, exercise, spend more time with their families, be better parents.
In the past when I've been unemployed I've spent the time to refine myself in new ways. If you've never had a sabbatical I suggest trying it if you have the opportunity.
But they do conveniently fit into the century old buildings we put many of the factories into, which makes them a useful upgrade path for those unwilling to build structures around more efficient robots (the kind we've had for ages and don't even think of as robots, they just take ingredients and pump out packaged candy or pencils etc.)