This seems to be a transition stage for fine motor skill robots with advanced object recognition capabilities. A few more iterations will surely make the human counterparts obsolete, as demonstrated by the rapid automation of manufacturing giants such as FOXCONN.
The most exciting part is that once a few large companies like FOXCONN make a commitment to robotic manufacturing, we may be able to see the exponential decreases in robot costs we have been waiting for as they want cheaper sensors and actuators in larger quantities. Robotics have been (and are) incredibly expensive, but but we are reaching a point where the price will begin to plummet.
This doesn't excite me, it scares me. A rapid transition to robotic manufacturing could mean a very rough time for an entire generation of human workers.
If you're wondering what society might look like in that scenario, Roman society during slavery (the robots would be the slaves) might be a relevant model to help understand the effects on the various economic classes.
> And who will supposedly buy all these good those factories make? The 1%ers?
Yeah, pretty much. Human wants are unlimited. (To quote Boethius, "If free-handed Plenty should dispense riches from her cornucopia as plentiful as the sands cast up by the storm-wracked sea, or as the stars that shine in heaven - men still would not stop their miserable complaints.")
Have you read Chase's 'Plutonomy' papers from a few years ago? Fearsome reading.
Over time it becomes easier to give more value to more people thanks to progress in technology and greater amounts of money/economic wealth sloshing around.
The people who do something of value, or capture it, derive a huge surplus from the leverage provided by what's out there right now ( billions of people, trillions of dollars )
You can see the difference between Nikola Tesla - an absolute genius - who created the basis for all modern technology/progress and Google.
Even with all the value he created, he couldn't really derive that much personal benefit, as the utility of his inventions were low before network effects set in and there were fewer people with less disposable income to spend money on his inventions. He also got screwed but that's another story.
Compared to Google ( very smart guys yes, geniuses perhaps ) which started less than 14 years ago and has become one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world.
Lady Gaga ( 4 years ) vs. Madonna ( 40 years ) for huge success.
Avatar ( 3 billion ) vs. Jaws ( .5 billion )
You catch my drift. Feedback loops are getting larger and faster - it's like nothing stands still anymore.
> Those factories only exists if they have a market for the goods they produce.
You can worry about the computers taking over, or worry about humanity collapsing under the weight of resource crises. I know which I'd prefer. Someone's going to have to build all those wind farms, and retrieve scarce resources from landfill, and I'd rather it wasn't me.
Maybe if the products being manufactured by robots are only expected to be sold to the independently wealthy. If everyone else is unemployed, they won't be buying many products.
Yeah, but here's the thing: it will always be cheaper to design products to be manufactured by special-purpose robots than to design them to be manufactured by humans and use "human-capable" robots to do the work instead.
A perfect example is modern electronics. A large part of the reason for the rise of surface mount electronic components (SMT parts are soldered to the same side of the circuit board that they are placed on) is that they make it much cheaper to assemble electronics by automated pick & place machines than it would have been to keep the older through-hole components (with pins/wires that go through the board and are soldered on the opposite side) and use human-like robots to assemble them.
Likewise, airplanes have autopilots designed into them for that purpose instead of having robotic pilots sitting in seats.
The reality is that in most large volume manufacturing, special purpose automation will win out over general purpose robots.
Where AI has consistently failed is creating a real thinking machine that can reason and adapt. That's not what we're building today though.
The problem is to many peoples jobs are to easy and highly specialized. They don't require strong AI - just good enough "dumb" algorithms, and we're getting really good at those. Doing paperwork by strict specifications. Driving a truck from point A to B. Assemble a circuitboard from a blueprint. As long as you keep a handful of humans in the loop incase something unexpected happens, this is all stuff robots can do today.
Unfortunately I don't know any AI researchers who have done work in the past 5 decades. Would you care to share what would happen?
In all honesty I have no idea. Would they laugh and say that "no way AI needs another 20 years"? Or would they say it's only a few years until everyone working with their hands is out of work? Kudos on the pretentious reply btw.
