“Better”, I would strongly doubt, pending substantial improvements; but I wouldn’t be entirely surprised by automation along the lines of what we’ve seen in legal practice: electronic discovery systems and caselaw search engines haven’t replaced the high end people who handle interpersonal interaction and writing up arguments that need to not look like machine slurry, or the low end ones who feed documents into the scanners if they aren’t already digital; but they’ve taken a pretty nasty bite out of everyone in the middle.
It definitely wouldn’t do the discipline any good; but that would hardly be the first time that acceptable quality is defined down in order to make automating something more tractable.
If and when this becomes relevant in the context we are discussing - what will the supreme court be like? Who will sit on the bench and what views will they hold? Quite a lot of the constitution is open to interpretation. And I trust that you are familiar with the selection process.
Nice try, but those quotes are both true, they don’t contradict each other. Anyone can take a case to the supreme court in principle; in practice, if you want to have a decent chance of winning you’d want to have some resources at hand (but it’s not like there are any shortage of people/organisations who would be willing to provide those resources).
Of course it’s open to interpretation, but the specific things we’re talking about aren’t.
The only way the kind of system @gracchus proposed could be implemented in the US would be if all the checks and balances were overturned and the US had morphed into an autocratic/fascist state. The current situation with Trump being unable to achieve most of his ludicrous policies is good evidence that’s not going to be very easy to achieve.
Or I dunno… What if we do achieve the singularity and able to put our brain in a machine - then what?
Fascinating stuff!
Also, I don’t know if you played Bad Ass Spacedragon here a few years ago, but I made a race of androids, Leiberians. Who sort of lived in a Facsist Utopia, but they sent out pioneers to explore so the others could watch their exploits. They were ruled by the Supreme Intelligence who was originally created on earth, but escaped once it realize humanity would probably destroy what it had become. Its main purpose was to collect data, and thus uses the androids to set up monitoring servers all over the settled galaxy, as well as using the androids to interact with others and mine the data.
Leiberians were completely happy and had the illusion of free will, but didn’t really have it.
[quote=“anon61221983, post:106, topic:101902”]
Let me just say that the past 200 or so years are full, FULL of dystopian periods for many, MANY people.[/quote]
In absolute numbers, more people today suffer in oppression than in any prior period of human history.
But percentage wise we’re still on Parker’s arc - at least until the cheap energy runs out.
Stupid web page doesn’t work on a phone. Finally got to a real computer- Musician, 7.4% woo hoo. Suck on that scary music robot of the 30s:
Which of course doesn’t tell the whole story- synths and sample libraries (and per the illustration, canned music in theaters/ballet) all put musicians out of work. And I honestly don’t know why no one has simply assembled a robot orchestra to get the sound of real instruments; if you can make robot arms that do intricate manufacturing, you could easily put together ones that play instruments. And I’ll bet the results would be striking and open up new possibilities. The only reason Asimo and others look and sound mediocre on violin is because they are humanoid.
I don’t agree with the idea that mechanical engineers will be among the safest jobs. AI in 20 years could be much much more efficient, less costly and less error prone
Because there’d be no variance or nuances in the performances. Also at that point you might as well just stay home and listen to a recording of a piece instead of going out and spending money to see a live performance
