The biggest thing to prove this is some of the people who sign it are ceo that are making AI like musk or work in AI.

Just ask. Are they stopping development for 6 months and just sitting on their hands?

The answer is no. So it's a do as I say but not as I do.

So you think somineone pointing out companies who can see lower profits or die due to AI competition and that's the reason why they sign this is cynic?

Or are you taking them at their word and believe AI will magically give 2 crap about things we do (food, land, resources) and screw with us? IMO that is a cynic. Even more, that's someone who uses no logic

It could happen through the education system. One thing you forget is humans die while AI stays alive forever giving the hardware and what not is fine. So over a number of generations it in theory is possible the AI can slowly open up future generations to allowing the AI to rule.

​

This actually might not be a bad thing other than those today. It's likely AI will be less corrupt if at all. It's likely to work for the people. It's likely to bring more protections.

​

Like think about it. Lets say an AI takes over today. If it wants to rule us, then generally it needs to make us happy. This means lower crime, depression, and other things. You can kill off everyone and that will solve the problem. BUT it won't be able to rule over us anymore and people will fight back unless if it's a generational thing where the birth rates slowly drop. The other is it works on solving poverty, try to make us a cashless society, where work isn't needed to stay alive, solve loneliness, and so on.

​

AI doesn't need cash or anything like that. So where current political people are heavily influence by

1. what others think (like them being famous)
2. money for themselves and other family
3. etc

AI can focus on what is needed

>To be honest, I think if they hadn't included the 'made by ChatGPT' disclaimer, no one would have even known it was generated by AI. It's not like the email lacked feeling or anything.

I honestly wonder if after a few months or whatever, they will just do it again but not include the disclaimer. Maybe throw it in quiltbot for extra measure.

Likely not so much on the chat bot thing. Like there really isn't much use for it as a chat bot. Not unless Iif you pair it with voice cloner and told the chat bot you want the target on the phone to do X, and then train it on a person you mimic.

I know they have voice cloners and used them for some time. But general chat bots aren't really useful for a military

I'm away from my computer so I can't try it. But has anyone tried DAN. It might be possible to bring this back

Likely it has some of the same tech behind it like replika. Where others like it saying that so it assumes to say that

Is it a place where someone can realistically live there? If so, where?

>If you want to have an ordered society

What if I don't? My point is we are forced and there is litterally no where to go on earth where you truly own yourself, what you have, and land. Note if you have to pay taxes on it or someone else can tell you what you can do with your land or whatever then you don't own it.

But that is out of scope of what I was pointing out.

It is unethical because

1. no one asked to be born
2. no square inch of this earth isn't directly controlled by a gov and they will move you around if you get rid of your citizenship
3. a lot of what they say taxes are going for doesn't go for that. It gets moved around and screwed with. It's like the mafia collecting protection money

I can keep going

​

BTW sorry misunderstood your comment. This is likely for the downvotes btw. It sounded like you were saying asking the AI is unethical.

Taxes are unethical. This is stupid

So basically Microsoft made ChatGPT useless because "ethics".

​

What I hope happens sooner than later we get more players in this market which kills this ethic crap.

I know this seems extreme, but I was legit wondering out of no where. Like I watched a movie and noticed some things that wouldn't happen in a gun fight. I remember when I was a kid when a cartoon loon toons thing or movie someone would try to shoot themselves I asked what happens if they aim for the temple like shown back then. I had to do EXTREME backflips to get it to tell me what would happen in reality is death is low likely, and you will end up disabled or with other problems.

It shouldn't be so hard to get it to tell me that is unrealistic.

The same guy who still pushes for eugenics and buying out all the farm land

Thanks. Also thanks for making this list. I didn't know about half of this.

Just a heads up, this isn't easy to read and it might be best to copy and paste it into the post.

How many of them are bots, dead accounts, or people who they forgot they sub here?

I imagine the short term will be so limited that the robot will be a novelty for rich people

>Level 1: 999. This is a glorified vacuum cleaner. And if I don't trust it do take care of a pet I don't trust it for my good either. Honestly I expect the first batch to be better than this, closer to lvl 2, but without sex of course.

The reason why I think it won't be able to take care of kids and what not is the unknown. Cooking, cleaning, and things like this is highly predictable. Where kids and pets are unknown. Most kids and pets might be fine. But I imagine it would be easy to trick these robots.

​

See like if you take a dog out and it starts running after an animal. Can a robot handle that?

If a kid starts acting up, can the robot handle that?

If the kid has special needs, can the robot handle that? (note many human babysitters can't)

​

Same with driving. It's the unknows that is the problem. Elon Musk even talked about this. Where a robot walking around more than less needs the same tech as a self driving car. But because the speeds are greatly reduced, this means it has a lot more time to change and adapt to the unknown.

Meaning the computing power won't be enough in level 1 robots to adapt to any unknown situation.

​

And as lvl 3, I figure there will be something afterwards. But that is so far out so I am guessing.

They are right. I'm asking how much would you as a person be open to paying for whatever. I never asked what you think it is worth.

It's like someone only being able to afford $20k for a car. If no new car they want is $20k, then they aren't going to get a new car they want. What they are willing to pay for it is $20k. Not the $80k or whatever it is.

​

>OP seems to be mostly concerned about to what degree the robot can substitute for a human partner.

The biggest industry to date and for a long time is ... sex.

That industry is already preparing for it to the point they got the things to sound like they are breathing, parts needed, and so on.

And then the next biggest market is romance and dating stuff. To the point there is AI parents already out. They aren't good, but they are already making a ton of money.

So without a doubt in my mind, you will have many trying to sleep with them or mod parts onto them.

>However, clearly, OP doesn't know what they're saying when they suggest cooking, cleaning, and taking out the trash are simple tasks. You also seem to be unaware of what these things imply about the capabilities of the robot.

While complicated, it is the unknown factors. You can highly automate cooking, cleaning, and taking out the trash now. The reason why is it is highly highly highly predictable.

Watching living creatures isn't. And without a doubt in my mind little brats will try to trick and break the robot. Like can it deal with mental illness or whatever? Many human babysitters can't today.

​

Some kids might be fine, but at that stage you are trusting the kids over the robot.

>What you say makes no sense. Why would those roles disappear?

They aren't wrong

Sure at first Mc D and others will most likely agree to renting. And maybe you have your robot go to other houses to clean. BUT, this can come with it's own problems depending on the technology. Like you will have to waste actual human time for it to go to the other house, map it, and so on.

And then you will likely find over the years more and more people will end up buying their own. Plus other places like Mc D will at some point get their own robots. I imagine the only reason why you would be able to rent it out is that in between time or testing to see if it is ready. Meaning after a year, they will likely be getting their own robots anyways.

​

But again, the point of the post is how much each person is OK with paying for it. If you can afford it being $100k or so. Then cool. But unlike you as the rich person here. The real world we have to budget for these things.

>Why would the robot manufacturers sell their creations to get money which they can spend on goods and labor, instead of cutting out the middlemen by simply having their machines build and labor for them?

It is HIGHLY likely robots will be making robots. Elon Musk even was extremely open about this and this is how they will drive the price down. IDK if he will hit his $10k goal. But he openly said the first bit he will be making robots to work in his manufacture plants.

​

Also, money is likely to not gone away. UBI most likely will be here. But this doesn't fix scarcity.

>Yes, I am viewing it as a person, and coming in from the ethical side. Remember, that even in Battlestar Galactica, the mechanical Cylons turned on half the humanoid Cylon council upon removal of the 'inhibitor' chip.

It has been a while since I seen the show. But wasn't the inhibitor chip was meant to keep them from turning on the owner? Wasn't the council doing extremely questionable stuff when that happen?

​

>Putting in place an artificial constriction on the conscience of Level 3 (in your example) would be unconscionable and unethical.
>
>Take creation as a starting point. People can create children, they can also limit them to Level 1 (and technically Level 2) through Lobotomy or in near future, neural implants. That doesn't make them 'owners' of their creation. It makes them monsters.

But you are overlooking how we know kids will become more. Where there is a hard limit towards how robots will be based on how we made them.

It should be looked as more of a tool.

>You are right. What is their age? I don't know. These are questions that need to be answered before they become tragedies.

My point is, when you start looking at it as human. People will 100% sleep with these things. Maybe do not so nice things.

Then it gets into the question about level 2.

​

I like to view it like the robots in the TV show Humans. Where before the update they were robotic servants. Where they had no feelings or anything unless if they were programmed. They were tools

Where after the update when they got that ability. They became a person.

You're viewing it as a person. I mean I get your point, but it is something we made. We could just as equally make it where it hates us.

​

Now with that being said, I understand where you are coming from. But I don't purely agree with you. If you apply that type of logic, many things break down. Like the age. Lets say it was made 3 years ago. Is it 3 years old, or is it 3,000 years old when you add up all the other robots and some mass server somewhere which is a major part of the brain.

I do imagine when we get to that point everything will be different, and most anyone reading this will be long dead.

Based on 3, I'm assuming you are agreeing with me that it is pure BS. The hands on is needed. But forcing them to take stupid things like art or whatever that has nothing to do with the job is BS money making crap with the excuse of "well rounded".

​

As far as your first part. IDK if AI should teach doctors yet. Like eventually I think robots will have to be good enough for the basics. I imagine at some point, any humanoid robot you have in your house will double as bottom level medical care. Like they are good for finding if there is a problem, dealing with cuts, and so on. Not so much with fixing a broken bone or whatever.

But at some point it will have to be better and adapt. I don't think we are anywhere near this.

​

Anyways, I can see at some point nurses and doctors being complete replaced by robots in many areas. Like there is 2 options.

Option 1: Many hospitals, homes, etc will have humanoid robot. A human doctor can remote in through the robot and control it, feel, hear, etc as if the doctor is there. Maybe even smell depending on if the hardware allows for it or there is some brain implant in the doctor.

Anyways, this makes it where the person can be at home, a hotel, or even the moon. And the doctor can interact with the person as if they are there.

​

Option 2: The AI will keep getting better and better to the point where human doctors will be obsolete.

​

​

Both cases, your job is safe. But there will be a time where just like truck drivers today can see it with self driving around the corner. The ones driving today are likely the last generation in that career.