cyphersaint t1_jecdn7d wrote on March 30, 2023 at 11:57 PM

There will be no need for people to work on most things, but we have also seen that people simply don't want to be cared for by just machines. So, unless you have convincing humaniform robots, care will always be done by human beings.

robertjbrown t1_jegm1az wrote on March 31, 2023 at 9:34 PM

>but we have also seen that people simply don't want to be cared for by just machines.

Where have we seen that? 6 months ago, there was very little more annoying to me than to have to interact with a chatbot. That's changed dramatically in the time since. And the current ChatGPT is non only an early version, but it doesn't speak out loud, I can't really talk to it in a natural way, and it has an intentionally neutral personality, no name, no visual appearance, no memory of past interactions with me, etc. That will change far, far before we have a "post scarcity utopia". In fact that will probably change in a year or two most.

That's just one piece of it, of course. We need good robotics that are cheap as well.

People's attitudes towards being cared for by machines will change really quick, when those machines get good enough at the job. It doesn't make sense to assume they won't like it based on machines that have existed previously. That's about like saying "people simply don't like socializing through a digital device", and you are basing your assumptions on people logging into a BBS on a TRS-80.

cyphersaint t1_jegtcdu wrote on March 31, 2023 at 10:26 PM

The fact is that people need interaction with people. The physical portions of the care could be done by robotics, but any long term care will need to involve people unless the AI can provide the interactions that happen between people. And that includes physical interaction, which is why I mentioned humaniform robots.

robertjbrown t1_jegwcuc wrote on March 31, 2023 at 10:49 PM

>The fact is that people need interaction with people

That is your intuition, and probably most people's intuition. I think it is based on the fact that non-people have not, until november 2022, been able to have an intelligent, natural conversation with a person.

If you don't think ChatGPT is able to "have an intelligent, natural conversation with a person," here in 2023, I'm not going to argue. If you don't think that ChatGPT or some competitor will be able to do that in 2030, I think you lack imagination (and probably simply lack experience exploring what ChatGPT can actually do today).

But even if you are right, that people need to interact with people, that doesn't mean we need humans to prepare their meals, help them go to the bathroom and bathe (I definitely would prefer a robot to a human for that), get them around, make sure they take their medications, etc. If they need human interaction, what's wrong with the robot caretaker helping them get on video chat with their kids and grandkids, or with other elders who have similar needs for interaction?

I could certainly see an elder community where hundreds of residents have one or two paid humans to run everything, with the robots doing all the unpleasant and tedious stuff. Human interaction is handled not by paid staff, but by other residents.

Remember also that, in a society where most jobs can be done by machines, there are a whole lot more family members that have time to interact with their loved ones, rather than paying someone to come in and pretend to enjoy interacting with a very old person.

What specific thing does a caretaker do that must be a human?

cyphersaint t1_jeh43zr wrote on March 31, 2023 at 11:48 PM

I'm mostly talking about the human interactions that a person needs on a regular basis. I was mostly saying that human interactions are something that everyone needs. You're correct that such interactions will likely be their family, especially in a society where nobody needs to work. Though, I suspect that for certain diagnoses (assuming they still exist), it might be best to hear them from a person. And, honestly, people will WANT to do such things.