Jack Williamson's "The Humanoids" has haunted me since I read it as a teenager. It documents a growing number of robots who have been built with the command: ''to serve and obey and guard men from harm". They monitor all activity and make sure humans do nothing that could harm themselves. If necessary, a lobotomy is performed.

Significant real value does not come from hand labor. Not to imply hard work does not have merit, but no one retired early based on their own hand labor except athletes.

My problem with this concept is the ability of the average person to create value in this scenario. I can see this taking us further into socialism and unsustainable welfare if we don't take steps to limit population in some manner.

Oh, creation is not a group project. A vision is generally unique to an individual, others on their team may augment it with visions of their own before it's a product. I don't think that the vast majority of the people of the planet are likely to make creative leaps, and certainly not on a daily basis. There will, of course, be creativity found in unexpected places.

If AS doesn't say that a small number of people makes things happen then the idea of them separating themselves from the rest of humanity becomes nonsense. The people who don't go to the Gulch would just keep creating things and not notice them missing.

Although I am totally unequipped to do so, I question whether our brains are merely a mechanism. True, they are powered by electricity, but the processing of data as supplied by the senses differs from unit to unit. Differences in size, and other physical descriptions doesn't appear to influence the various and variable abilities of different brains giving some greater capacity for things other than the same capacity in others. The famous example is of Einstein's bad violin playing. Recreating a human neural network seems to be futile. For each inherited ability, the recreation would need to be different from other recreations. Then the ability to improve by striking out in a previously unexplored or for that matter, unimagined areas would need to be included in the programming. I don't think that's possible. It's hard enough to believe in the human brain.

Similarly, sci-fi is full of other examples where well-meaning machines take such vague human commands and carry them out 'perfectly' to bad effect. Nearly all of 'I Robot' is like this, showing that even with the 3 laws, people suck at making machines that actually do what we want. Tron Legacy (the newer one) builds it's whole story on a program that is working to carry out what it thinks is the order it was given. Spoiler alert, the movie 'I Robot' is all about how one robot needed to murder it's maker in order to reveal a plot by a mechanical intelligence to use all the robots of the world to imprison people in their homes because it thought that was the best way to keep us all safe, and that if someone were to oppose that plan, then that person is a threat to all people, and so anyone who resists must be killed.... Again, so many stories that illustrate how terrible people are at giving machines instructions.

Those are creative projects for someone to automate.

I disagree that is what AS says. I have found that when creativity is protected it is amazing what and who will create things. Obviously the most complex creations will be created by Galts, but almost everyone is capable of amazing creations within their skills. A short study of the history of inventions in the US will show that this is true. What we need is stronger protection for creators, not the nonsense that creation is a group project that happens by itself.

food, shelter, clothing -- all may be aided by robots,
but not completely provided. . robots will always, I do
hope, require masters who prescribe their actions.
it will be a week or two before they "evolve" into value-
defining beings competing with us as "owners" of real
estate and voters in the future of the world(s). . and
for those who don't manage robots, there are zillions
of creative value-producing endeavors::: culinary art,
music, architecture and engineering, research, fashion,
sports, and above them all, philosophy. . what, me worry? -- j

p.s. enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB...
.

Can robots match human creativity? Underlying this is another question: are our brains mechanistic or is there some non-physical portion of our minds that is an essential part of our mental process? If you accept a completely physical explanation based on the structure and capability of our neural network, it is potentially able to be recreated. And if we can recreate it, it is likely that we can improve upon it.

The answer to most of your questions is not what you may think. With advances in 'simple' technology, it isn't very difficult for a robot to make more robot parts. Take a look at the makerbot replicator. It was designed with one of it's goals being not just that it could make other things you want, but also that it is capable of making most of it's own parts, such that once one is built by hand, you can use it to make more of the same. This isn't sci-fi, it exists, and is not very costly at all.
So with your first 3 questions within the reach of existing technology, lets continue on... Who gets the material out of the ground? Much of that work is already dont by 'mechanical muscle' as described in the video... and with self driving cars being what they are, how long till a whole mining operation can be run by a couple of mechanics that just keep the machines running, and the machines do all the production?
And to your last point, when the machines are doing the work, and collecting the raw materials, and processing it, and delivering it, and running the power plant.... who is it that would be able, or even know how to turn off the power?
Mr Grey, the commenter in the video (his entire video collection is amazing) is not talking about something that is going to happen tomorrow, rather something that will happen, and already is happening one job at a time. I think the only question now is timeline and magnitude of the end point.

By "we" do you mean all humans, or a small sample who achieve the peak of creativity? The essence of Atlas Shrugged is that there are a relatively small number of people who actually make things happen. In a robotic society they would still exist but would direct robots and not craftsman. Howard Roark would build amazing buildings that would reflect his vision -- all by himself. None of the draftsmen, craftsmen, would be necessary, their tasks would be automated.

Can you build a society around each of 9 billion people being like Howard Roark?

Perhaps...just as intended in the first place. It would seem to bring the "Big Picture" full circle.

A human intention. One of my favorite old science fiction stories "Second Ending" by James White. At the beginning the last surviving man who had been in cryonic suspension is awakend by robots and wants to see another person, he gives them an instruction to find another person and that intention gives them a purpose. They put him back to sleep until they can accomplish his request.

Centuries later, the robots wake him up after having built a galaxy-wide system of machines searching until they found a primitive people and guided them until they were biologically similar and had a compatible society. They then present him with the companion he asked for.

You can go a long way on a relatively small amount of "human intention" if it's sufficiently broad.

No, I meant that you and I did things we find fulfilling -- as do probably most of the people on the Gulch. If I had all my needs provided I might still write software. The vast majority would not. Who would clean hotel rooms, wait at a fast food counter, pick strawberries in the sun -- any of the thousands of jobs that we currently need to keep society from running if it weren't the way they could eat.

My comments about hunter gatherers was in response to the statement: "Humans may quickly become helpless without robots to do their basic needs." Practically we are relatively helpless without the technical infrastructure we live in. And keep in mind that Jan and I participate in a medieval recreation group and know people who can sheer a sheep and make a shawl from it. Of course they buy the sheers.

agree. it's old fashioned to envision a metal team and a meat team. tech will continue its march, but synthesis will be the result.

interesting question to me is, will there be more or less social and economic stratification after this evolution?

Well, of course I didn't say toast bread, I meant a common inexpensive item. Not even something really hard like a smart phone with GPS positioning.

And, where do you get the bread to toast?

I would love to have a personal assistant that I didnt have to pay, worry about security, etc., and that could really do things for me. Sort of like SIRI on my iphone, but would understand what I needed and do it- like file papers, pay bills, give me reports, etc. Technology isnt really there today, but I relish the time when it is.

Robots are used because the cost of getting the job done is lower with them than their human counterparts. That means the cost of living would drop and people would not have to work as hard to maintain the same lifestyle. Most of what is made in the USA now is made by robots (automation in its various forms). Fast food restaurants are way behind the curve in terms of automation, while the big suppliers of pre-prepared frozen stuff arent.

When we think of robots, we often think only of machines that walk around. But a robot is just a small subset of automated equipment, which is really nearly everywhere now. Imagine how much things would cost if grocery stores had to abandon bar codes and go back to having to look up the price of each thing at the checkout countr...

WS what BS. You are saying jobs were more fulfilling when people lived on a farm or were hunter gathers? When it took a day or more to make a simple arrow or it took hours to start and cook a fire or it took days to create the most rudimentary shelter.

Nonsense

This is just complete nonsense. The thing that makes humans unique is our ability to reason. If we no longer need to calculate logarithms, we can build concepts on logarithms. This does not mean we have no work, we just higher level work.

If we no longer need to make drawings on the computer by defining simple lines and circles, we can focus on animation. If we make animation easier then we can focus or realistic movement. If we make that easier we can focus on 3D.

This video is Ludditism.

So...they are talking about the automation computer singularity which is just around the corner. The entire reason to invent is to replace labor. However, I don't think that robots will ever become creative, even cybernetic ones. The next question becomes, "Is artificial Intelligence true consciousness?" I don't think so. That puts creativity strictly in human hands. Still, it doesn't mean that robots can't take over if we endow them with enough power that is no longer controlled by humans. (I might start drinking)

No one is saying what will happen to the large number of people who will not have jobs, We are already seeing this, Look at the number of unemployed ( some through no fault of there own) How are these people going to pay there bills? Has any one thought of this?

What happened to all the folks involved in using horses for transportation. Think of all the unemployed carriage drivers, stable operators, horse care people, farriers, etc. How did our society survive?