Will machines replace "Blue-Collar" jobs?

Let's give the world a good 500 to 1000 years (Or longer for less-developed nations). Do you see machines completely replacing manual labor and working positions? As in, instead of there being miners, there would be excavation machines manipulated from afar? Instead of farmers driving large tractors, will there be large machines programmed to do it for the companies that own the farms?

And, if machines completely replace these working jobs, would this mean that the role of human beings would now only exist in intellectual or entertainment positions? For example, instead of working on farms or in mines, human beings would engineer and maintain the machines that work on the farms or in the mines.

I see this happening; the "working class" will gradually phase out. However, in order for society to remain healthy in this future, higher education may have to be completely socialized, so that it could be affordable for all (As while genetics may play a small role in determining whether or not a person is "blue-collar," education is the key; this would also mean that the general education requirements for society would be far more in-depth than the education requirements in the present day, as in, instead of being required for most jobs to complete high school, you would be required by most, if not all, jobs to complete college). Would this be the case or not? What are your thoughts on this?

I honestly think this would be a good thing. Replacing the working class would allow people to focus more on education/parenting/ etc.

500 years? That's a little long. I give us 100 years, max.

The amount of intelligence we'd need to give machines to get rid of menial jobs is an amount I'm not comfortable giving them.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

The amount of intelligence we'd need to give machines to get rid of menial jobs is an amount I'm not comfortable giving them.

Welcome to the 19th century.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Welcome to the 19th century.

I don't remember the possibility of a cybernetic revolution in the 19th century. I don't remember A.I.s in the 19th century.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I don't remember the possibility of a cybernetic revolution in the 19th century. I don't remember A.I.s in the 19th century.

Well, there's a big difference between Artificial Intelligence and actual self-awareness in machines. While I believe we will eventually design self-aware machines (See my "replacements for humans that die" post in the Immortality thread), I see the machines that function as "workers" as mere tools that operate on a set routine (While, at times, being manipulated by "masters" from afar).

Originally Posted by Andross

Well, there's a big difference between Artificial Intelligence and actual self-awareness in machines. While I believe we will eventually design self-aware machines (See my "replacements for humans that die" post in the Immortality thread), I see the machines that function as "workers" as mere tools that operate on a set routine (While, at times, being manipulated by "masters" from afar).

This can't be the case for all menial tasks however. If we pre-program a path of cleaning for them, any unusual mess will not be dealt with as without some kind of awareness they won't be able to register such anomalies and deal with them as we would.

On top of what Lord Zero has said, in order for them to be as efficient or as adaptable as the human worker, they would need to be given the ability to go off of their set course, or to reason the best course of action. I think this is what Lord Zero finds dangerous. Am I wrong?

I'd love to see Higher education more forcefull in a society like that.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

I'd love to see Higher education more forcefull in a society like that.

Even in a present-day society, there's really no excuse for someone who is capable of getting a higher education to not get a higher education. It doesn't matter where the person goes, as long as that person does something beyond high school; because of this, I am willing to set aside my normally capitalist-libertarian ideals and support the socialization (And requirement) of higher education. It's a shame that we are letting parasites get away with not finishing high school, even.

In addition, imagine how much more progress could be accomplished by society if everyone was able to get a higher education.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I don't remember the possibility of a cybernetic revolution in the 19th century. I don't remember A.I.s in the 19th century.

That's not what you said. You said you were afraid of giving machines enough intelligence to do menial work, to which I say, welcome to the 19th century and the industrial revolution.

I don't remember A.I.s in the 19th century.

I remember A.I.s in the 20th century.

This can't be the case for all menial tasks however. If we pre-program a path of cleaning for them, any unusual mess will not be dealt with as without some kind of awareness they won't be able to register such anomalies and deal with them as we would.

What is 'awareness'? Are we truly more 'aware' than the machines that we program? After all, are we not just complex machines?

On top of what Lord Zero has said, in order for them to be as efficient or as adaptable as the human worker, they would need to be given the ability to go off of their set course, or to reason the best course of action. I think this is what Lord Zero finds dangerous. Am I wrong?

Ah, but you could say the same of birds. Are birds dangerous to the point of wanting them eradicated? What if they did menial work for us?

Originally Posted by Andross

Even in a present-day society, there's really no excuse for someone who is capable of getting a higher education to not get a higher education. It doesn't matter where the person goes, as long as that person does something beyond high school; because of this, I am willing to set aside my normally capitalist-libertarian ideals and support the socialization (And requirement) of higher education. It's a shame that we are letting parasites get away with not finishing high school, even.

In addition, imagine how much more progress could be accomplished by society if everyone was able to get a higher education.

But doesn't this stagnate progress in the field of education? How will schools improve if they can't compete?

Originally Posted by 8bit

But doesn't this stagnate progress in the field of education? How will schools improve if they can't compete?

Playing the devil's advocate, are we?

Education is already stagnant as it is. When some people can virtually buy their ways through big-name colleges, you know there's nowhere to go but up. There is a dire need for nationwide standards concerning degree tracks.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Ah, but you could say the same of birds. Are birds dangerous to the point of wanting them eradicated? What if they did menial work for us?

How could you say the same of birds? Birds aren't capable of the things computers are capable of. They can't use logic and reason like a human, or these hypothetical machines. They also aren't of size or strength to pose a threat to a human. So, no they really aren't any kind of a comparison.

Originally Posted by Andross

Playing the devil's advocate, are we?

Yes.

Education is already stagnant as it is. When some people can virtually buy their ways through big-name colleges, you know there's nowhere to go but up. There is a dire need for nationwide standards concerning degree tracks.

But shouldn't schools avoid stagnation as they're able to compete amongst themselves? Even public primary/secondary schools do this now with the likes of No Child Left Behind, which emulates a capitalist, solid-state system.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Birds are 'computers'.

Not in the sense a machine is.

Sort of. They 'logic and reason', but not on the same level as a human. I'm not sure how that's relevant though. We're talking about machines intelligent enough to do menial tasks, not humans.

It's entirely relevant, because in order form a machine to deviate from it's set course, it needs the ability to figure out what it can go off it's set course for and what to do with the variable.

I'd beg to differ. Many birds are far more intelligent than machines today, and are intelligent enough to do such menial tasks, however, perhaps a dog would be a better example.

Good, now get that bird or dog to help you build a battleship . I hope that bird knows the physics of all the parts of the battleship and then is able to determine what strength of steel needs to be used in order to sustain the weight loads and usage requirements.

However, dogs do.

Yes they do, your point?

A program (and its associated machinery) can be dedicated to a task without any power restrictions as long as a complete problem space can be mapped for that task. The resulting computer may be impressive (within its dedication), but it has nothing at all in common with humans, complex animals, and the hypothetical manufactured intelligences of the future capable of synthesizing new problem spaces and/or improving old ones at a foundational level through symbolic processing.

The developmental process which has lead to cars that drives themselves and which will lead to farms that run themselves is not the developmental process that will lead to a chess playing artifact which could rate a 2900 but spends to much time locked up in its room reading cheap paperbacks and listing to bubblegum pop (hypothetical desires which people strangely find more corny than aspirations for world domination).

I made some popcorn that smelled funny in the microwave. I thought it was rotten, but I wasn't sure, so I ate most of it to make sure and now I'm pretty sure it's rotten.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Not in the sense a machine is.

In what sense are they different?

It's entirely relevant, because in order form a machine to deviate from it's set course, it needs the ability to figure out what it can go off it's set course for and what to do with the variable.

And? We already have machines which do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Most cameras already do this. (facial recognition)

Good, now get that bird or dog to help you build a battleship . I hope that bird knows the physics of all the parts of the battleship and then is able to determine what strength of steel needs to be used in order to sustain the weight loads and usage requirements.

That's the easy part, isn't it? Since we're talking about a man-made machine, after all, and not a naturally occurring one. (such as a bird or a dog.)

We already practice animal husbandry, and have for years. Why do you think man-made help would be less predictable than naturally developing machines?

Yes they do, your point?

And yet, we don't really fear them.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

How could you say the same of birds? Birds aren't capable of the things computers are capable of.

Birds are 'computers'.

They can't use logic and reason like a human

Sort of. They 'logic and reason', but not on the same level as a human. I'm not sure how that's relevant though. We're talking about machines intelligent enough to do menial tasks, not humans.

or these hypothetical machines.

I'd beg to differ. Many birds are far more intelligent than machines today, and are intelligent enough to do such menial tasks, however, perhaps a dog would be a better example.

They also aren't of size or strength to pose a threat to a human. So, no they really aren't any kind of a comparison.

However, dogs do.

Originally Posted by 8bit

In what sense are they different?

In their capabilities to use the fundamental tool of mathematics. Which includes important functions like probability.

And? We already have machines which do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Most cameras already do this. (facial recognition)

Ah very interesting. I am assuming it only recognizes humans faces yes?

Also, it would seem to be that the parameters it follows have a range of things to pick up on. But, assuming there is a variable that it is not programmed to deal with, it wouldn't function properly.

That's the easy part, isn't it? Since we're talking about a man-made machine, after all, and not a naturally occurring one. (such as a bird or a dog.)

We already practice animal husbandry, and have for years. Why do you think man-made help would be less predictable than naturally developing machines?

A man made machine is indeed less complicated than a living 'machine' but that doesn't change the underlying principle, which is that you need to be able to analyse data to choose the appropriate action.

Could explain the second part of that response in more detail please?

And yet, we don't really fear them.

That's true, but I think machines operate differently than a dog, and would as well in a scenario where they are attempting to kill or injure you.

This is all purely hypothetical obviously. My main point, which was simply elaborating on what I agreed with in Lord Zero's post, is that for a machine to adapt to varying scenarios, it would have to be able to go off it's set course in order to deal with them. Which suggests either an unlimited amount of deviation, a smart machine, or extremely advance pre-programming. Of course, I am no programmer.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

In their capabilities to use the fundamental tool of mathematics. Which includes important functions like probability.

Birds do this, yes. They simply don't do this on an abstract, concious level, but every computational body, whether it be a processor, or a bird's brain, is constantly working math.

Ah very interesting. I am assuming it only recognizes humans faces yes?

No, fuzzy logic is a field with a lot of applications, from facial recognition, to autonomous, self-driving cars, to MRI machines which can read your thoughts and tell you what objects you're thinking of, to a fully functioning Artilect which operates at the same level and with the same structure as a human brain. (Which is something you should be worried about, not dumb machines that do menial tasks.)

Also, it would seem to be that the parameters it follows have a range of things to pick up on. But, assuming there is a variable that it is not programmed to deal with, it wouldn't function properly.

You could say the same about anything that computes anything, from the human brain to your computer.

A man made machine is indeed less complicated than a living 'machine' but that doesn't change the underlying principle, which is that you need to be able to analyse data to choose the appropriate action.

But what I'm saying is that using a machine is far safer than using an animal.

Could explain the second part of that response in more detail please?

Animal husbandry is the use of animals to do menial work. We've been doing this for thousands of years. What we're talking about now is essentially 'machine husbandry', which would essentially be the same, with the exception of having more applications, and being far more predictable.

That's true, but I think machines operate differently than a dog, and would as well in a scenario where they are attempting to kill or injure you.

A dog is a machine, it's just not a synthetic one.

This is all purely hypothetical obviously. My main point, which was simply elaborating on what I agreed with in Lord Zero's post, is that for a machine to adapt to varying scenarios, it would have to be able to go off it's set course in order to deal with them. Which suggests either an unlimited amount of deviation, a smart machine, or extremely advance pre-programming. Of course, I am no programmer.

Any machine, from your computer to your own brain will never deviate from its pre-programing.