On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > That's a good point, because we don't actually replace all human > labor. As we replace the simple, repetitive tasks, we create new jobs > that are harder to automate.
Yep. > That's true. A lot of that work has already been automated. But > eventually you get to the point where all of the jobs that are left > (including the new ones) do require full human intelligence. Maybe so. > Computers are already doing a lot of work that humans could not do. And a lot more that humans could do but not cheaply enough to be worth the cost. > I don't think it would be of little use to be able to put each atom > exactly where you want. Clearly that would be of great use, but a molecular scale self reproducing robot would not be a particularly efficient way to bring about this result. The more recent idea of a desktop nanofactory, while still sweeping a lot of difficulty under the carpet, is a much more practical proposal. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
