TheAnonFeels t1_jd325uw wrote

Honestly, the easiest way I see them achieving this is just not using a workforce and letting everyone starve and prepare for when the economy crashes into the literal core of the earth. They could easily have enough food ready as they see the crash coming or in the middle of it, they still would have buying power above others, especially for labor.

Edit: before we get too deep here, i understand their power would go with all that and it would be a lose-lose scenario, but i don't believe the wealthy and powerful would weigh that foresight over cutting labor costs and i see when the process starts they could stonewall any progress to feeding the poor.


TheAnonFeels t1_jasg3q9 wrote

My point with referencing the specific tasked robots is that the mechanics are there and proven.. Wasn't talking just about them. You keep going back to how humans are special and can't be replicated. Mentioning things like sensors and inputs.

My only point there was we don't need more mechanical technology than we have already to build a working biped general robot, just intelligence.

For the AI side:

Now, we have image identifiers, LLMs that can tell you how to check an egg, 3d world generators, and object manipulation done in the AI industry and robotics. We are not far from combining everything we've learned and establishing a system for a robot.

AI is taking leaps and bounds in the last few years of development, I see no technical reason this wont be happening in a few years.


TheAnonFeels t1_jaseojp wrote

What price point are you basing this all on? Because there's a threshold there, is there not?

Humans absolutely have work limits that companies would love to exceed but they don't because lawsuits and work injuries cost them.

Also, the robot can work 168 hours a week - few hours for maintenance.

So human working on production costs:
(I'll be rounding up here)

40k a year in wage.
5k+ in worker taxes the company pays
facilities, parking, etc = unaccounted because same can go for robotics, to a smaller degree imo but i'm not going to write a research paper on reddit.


50k Upfront

250w(=16.8/week @ 0.40/kwh, 873.60/year)

Maintenance = 20% / year of purchase price seems like a strong number

= 12k/year

And with mostly robots, you need less managers to manage the humans. Smaller HR department, less legal issues, less workplace investigations, less PR over how you abused your workers. Then to top that, you can get more work per year from a robot that can do 50% the speed of a human.

So lets calculate total work hours for a human doing quad shifts (we'll combine 4 people into one here)

45k/year for 40 hour weeks, 160 hours for 4 people.

The human cost: 180k / year + unexpected
The Robot Cost: 12k/year at 500w

Even if you absurdly increase the robot cost, we're talking huge savings.

The even trade point here over a worker, the robot would have to cost almost a million dollars(900k), with that 20% maintenance rate. So, spending 180k / year to repair it.

Humans are expensive, we have yet to learn the productivity rate of any specific robot yet, and that'll be the determining factor, but we can calculate how much it has to cost to be worth replacing humans if it's 1:1 productivity rate.


TheAnonFeels t1_jasc9wy wrote

The machines of the robots are proven to work, they can do the jobs, we just need the right movements.

Most robots wont have to run,
most wont have to feel,
most wont need toes.

What do you mean there's no evidence? We have robots doing parkour and picking up objects. We have machines that do just that in factories today.

What we do have is robots that do factory work in a very specific controlled environment. We have robots that can walk and move. There's no mechanical issues here. It's all part of the AI and code that we need to get to complete.

Evolution hasn't optimized us, it's guaranteed our survival. We're horribly inefficient at a number of human things.

It's absolutely absurd to say a robot would need all the capacities of a human to do, say house work.

We have hearts and lungs, we have organs, we biological functions to worry about. Robots just maintain battery charge, breakdowns, etc, but that's all been done before with traditional coding.

A robot is magnitudes more simple than a human.

>There is no evidence at all for your statement.

You're gonna need to be more specific this time.


TheAnonFeels t1_jas7t1o wrote

I think the issue there arises when you have to train a new AI to use suction cups instead of one that knows how to manipulate it's hands for any task... Like holding on to suction cups.

Purpose built robots require more labor and training than designing one that can do nearly everything, you also got a much larger market.

Also, just being cheeky here, but

>The people upvoting you and downvoting me are limited in their thinking.

doesn't sound like cheeky, it sounds like condescending and arrogance.


TheAnonFeels t1_jas756l wrote

I feel you're a little absolute on that, but the point I wanted to bring up is most of these robots are designed with people working with robots in mind. People like humanoids on a psychological level, especially inside their homes.

For industrialization reasons, you can do all that with a non-humanoid I agree, but I will say it'd have to be similar to a humanoid with height and hand size for workstations to say the same.


TheAnonFeels t1_jas5cgb wrote

So robots can't do the same tasks because they're not human, AND they don't have the same sensors as a human.. They're not trying to be a human. Vision and tactile feed back for main points is enough. Combined with internal sensors like motor encoders and the like.

They walk and hold on to things, the only thing left is the intelligence to manipulate well. We're not building a human, and humans don't need all that we have to function well. You have many people with 1 arm or leg, or can't feel pain, or many things. It makes human life harder, but would be indifferent to a robot.


TheAnonFeels t1_jas33bv wrote

I don't think free is impossible. Might take some fudging of the definition... But like with the possibility of Fusion energy... The idea here is that electricity would become so cheap, it would be more costly to bill customers.

I can see a similar scenario happening with food, and the state power would have to take over production because if the profit goes away or becomes so minuscule that companies are dropping out of the agriculture business, it'll need to be bolstered somehow.

Either, A) State ran, free for everyone within reason. B) More farming subsidies. C) ??

we always get the "BuT tHaTs NoT fReE", so here: No but its free for the consumer to consume.

Then, not to mention, this will be happening to nearly every industry across the world.


TheAnonFeels t1_jas1olw wrote

We're already inches from a massive war, Democracy is already at risk. Completely upending the economy with autonomous robots and AI is going to make countries take some extreme measures 'for the better of the people'.

My bet is there's going to be 1 or two countries actually transitioning well, the rest are gonna be chaos as people find what jobs are left as they gradually get rare.

I'm thinking <10 years chaos will come, 20+ years before things see something they can call normal.


TheAnonFeels t1_jaep2sm wrote

>"The new detection technology has 38,400 chambers capable of isolating and classifying the number of metabolically active tumor cells."
>The SDM can pick out tumor cells through a unique metabolic signature involving waste product lactate.