Discussion on:

Google-backed robot overlords take over supervision of human workers

This sounds more like a parody than possiblity. The idea of "renting" a group of people for $4.99 per hour makes me wonder how much the people earn under this system. It would make sense to rent the OverBot for $4.99 per supervised human but it also seems rather demeaning for the humans in either case. The principles of a manage bot seem somewhat sound.

For argument's sake, lets's say the workers get $2.50 an hour. Is that good, bad, or about average for people doing that sort of work in the country they live in? Is it demeaning to have a machine check for accuracy? At least they can be programmed not to dispense insulting criticism.

I was basing my questions on the wage model that the work of an employee needs to be 3 times the salary to cover other costs of the employer. The costs are for the administration part of the company like the payroll dept, HR and logistics. In this case the wage would be $1.67 with the rest paying for the boss bot and the company. It does not sound to be a sustainable model unless this is the loss lead for more profitable offerings by Humanoid. There are a lot of complaints about customer service done in places like India for outsourced support.

I'd rather commit Hari-Kiri

Resistance is futile.

Instead it will be Fnnfkd?
For those of you that aren't getting it: IBM=>HAL, so Google=>Fnnfkd

I think it will be P1.

Either way, we're fkd.

and when it's a robot doin' it... it's a matter of being truly fkd...

If the robots can check and oversee the task taken on by humans, why couldn't it be trained to take on the task itself. Is there a disconnect here?

and it's very difficult to program a robot with the whole of human experience.

OTOH it's very easy to supervise by observing "what time did x happen". In other words, robots are much closer to management than to productive work...

As humans spread and multiply, the logistics needed to manage, feed and educate us become more and more complex.

Where in the 70s we dreamed of AI machines and robotics that could do a single humans job, we rapidly discovered the gap between our dreams and the reality. In fact, its very hard to make a machine that can replace a human even now. What happened was this:

Instead of building multi-purpose machines capable of doing all off a human's work, we have built a layer of technology that buffers us from the hard work we used to do. We have a device for opening stuff, another for communicating, another for lifting and moving things and so on. The AI needed to do these tasks has since caught up pretty radically, but we have not.

So when you look at the big picture, humans have become a large, partially-skilled workforce pool, and the computers we created to replace us have become better at managing us than we are.

One thing a manager has to be is better at his worker's jobs than they, so he can teach them AND give them a goal (to replace him eventually), but the computer boss puts a big block in that.

If this happens the way it is looking like, its going to be bad. We will become a classed race again, as the company bosses - who own the computers - will be isolated from the workforce much like it is in large corporations, and its a bad model. Poor workers with little say over their lot being controlled by faceless electronics that are programmed to coerce them into their day, making a ****load of money for the owners of said companies, who are now sitting on a load of spare cash released by the firing of middle management.

So is any of that going to filter down to the workforce? Doubtful.

I'm glad I'm self-employed!

the robots are taking over human's jobs, yet humans are building these robots... to put ourselves out of work. How stupid are WE?

I guess we are pretty stupid to let the tools replace us.

It's not really that different from how children replace their parents. We are developing a new kind of life that has the potential to be the next major step in our evolution, superior to humanity and ready to inherit the stars. Perhaps, Homo Roboticus...

There is ONE difference... Humans have bills and robots do not. If humans create something "superior to humanity", then we are doomed. This proverbial bigger fish will inherit the stars- not you or me.

It's just some automated code-checking tool. Quite standard, I'm sure.
Robot overlords? They're working for human bosses, aren't they?

Yes we are pretty stupid to make the robots that take our jobs. Not sure this is a good idea except for creating less mistakes. If this puts more and more people out of work economy is bad enough don't need to make things worse.

Signed Just an opinion

1st said by English textile workers 200 years ago about the mechanical loom

Give almost all the work to the robots, and let us humans enjoy life. Read *Social Credit* by C. H. Douglas. It explains how to set up society so that this is not a problem, but, instead, a tremendous advancement!

requires income.

I can see this really going down with the Libs in government unions -- I can see it now, checking out how many breaks gov employees take, how slow they work, the verbal complaints they make, and the cry-baby list goes on. Are you kidding me?

I can see the government using them in airports and at check-point charlies for communist-control purposes, but not in public employee conditions....

Proof that this idea, and government propagated communism both suck!

Clearly there is something missing in how this is supposed to be working as a general statement the whole idea doesn't seem to work.

Seriously? Libs and government/communist-theories? Grow up.

Not gonna happen.


I will never work for a robot.