How close are we to self replicating machines?
Wouldnt that mean a radical change in the way society is structured?
i mean like, nowadays you have developed countries with technology and undeveloped countries who submit willingly to the developed ones because they are addicted to the techonology
but what if machines were self supporting and self replicating, it would be like having a tree that grows smartphones, just water it or give it plastic or whatever it wants but no need for a complex infrastructure.
Also, would self replicating machines of this kind necesarily imply a sentient ultra advanced AI? or could it be dumb?
would it be necesary to advance Nano-technology or bio technology to do it?
is any of these happening right now?
>>8041814
>is any of these happening right now?
No. This whole post is the unfortunate abortion of your incredible boredom and exposure to popsci/scifi.
>>8041826
>r incredible boredom and exposure to popsci/scifi.
well at least you didnt call me on my ignorance, thank you
what i mean is, what is the closest to this we got? is there any project aiming for even something similar to this? im sure there must be research done about it, at least theoretical
>>8041826
>implying DARPA hasnt already infested every home on Earth with self-replicating nanobots
>>8041826
>scifi
also no, most sci fi i read does not read into the real ramification of self replicating factories, since it would eliminate most of the economic forces that drive todays politics which removes most forms of conflict we know today, which makes it really hard to create a decent plot therefore is ignored by authors
>>8041831
all yours
>>8041898
what in the holy name of master scientist mr. einstein is that?
>>8041831
The guy in >>8041826 has it right.
There is no "closest we've got". Self-replicating nanobots are impossible in terms of energy, chemistry, mechanically, and computationally. Just like beating the speed of light, it's strictly in the realm of crappy science fantasy authors.
>Also, would self replicating machines of this kind necesarily imply a sentient ultra advanced AI? or could it be dumb?
Dumb things reproduce all the time. A robot in a factory can build something without knowing anything more than the design of the product, not what it is or how it's used.
>>8041950
>"closest we've got".
well but lets say you think about a human, or an animal, it is self replicating, but it needs to be part of a very wide and complex ecology and need access to raw resources.
Humans in particular are also super intelligence, meaning that they kinda act like self replicating factories... if you have the money to pay for them and dont mind thinking of them as machines, a lot of engineers and workers serve as a kind of self replicating machine, they just do all the work without you having to worry about it
but if you want to consider that all humans deserve to be treated as humans then they are not...
with this thought in mind, of course that you cannot achieve something perfect, you cannot achieve something that defies conservation of energy or something like that
but theoretically, why couldnt you have a machine that produces something very complex (like a smartphone), and is able to reproduce and fix itself given that a certain amount of raw materials are avaivable, would that be too crazy to think about?
>>8041966
>Dumb things reproduce all the time
im talkign about reproducing themselves... completely
like, i know a 3d printing machine can build all of its mechanical parts... BUT could we have a machine that, given enough raw materials, can replicate itslef including all of its electronic components? which would essentially be a factory that can create smartphones and other smartphones factories...
i mean, the really delicate electronic components, those are the hardest right? integrated boards, sensors, cameras, etc...
>>8041941
wrong animation I guess, maybe this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8B5MbHPlH0
>>8041966
3d printers printing 3d printers
>>8041941
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE
>>8041976
>which would essentially be a factory that can create smartphones and other smartphones factories
lay off the design patterns book
>>8041989
brb, building a pepe gun
>>8041993
>design patterns book
what is that?
>>8041814
self replication is unavoidable by now
consider th eincreasing rates of ai
consider the increasing rate of industrial capabilities
once those two are combined we will enter stragiht into the cornucopia stage of humanity
imagine having 5 billion humans, who arent really humans but are robots who feel nothing and dedicate 100% percent of their energies to pleasing us humans and have the entire resources of the solar system at their disposal
we better start thinking how to think without agression and competition in our minds and better start to learn how to think with creativity and superior purpose as purpose to the existence of our beings
>>8042179
this guy knows
it is an objective truth that having an army of human robot workers would bring unprecedented wealth
>>8041941
if you really want to understand this, check out http://www.temarium.com/wordpress/wp-content/documentos/Levy_S-Hackers-Heroes-Computer-Revolution.pdf
read chapter 7
>>8042372
mmmm, do i want to gain true insight and knowledge about a subject to become a wiser person or do i want to ramble like an idiot on an anonymous imageboard so that broscientist may spoonfeed me things that are only barely related to reality
>>8041814
bump
>>8041814
>>How close are we to self replicating machines?
simple ones have been demonstrated in the lab. A group at John Hopkins demonstrated a robot which could construct a copy of itself from special parts made of legos and magnets:
http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM/3.23.4.htm
Pic related is the group's most recent work, an attempt to make something like Von Neumann's universal constructor in the real world. It can construct almost anything, "in a universe consisting of modular blocks." It is pretty close to making a copy of itself too. If the blocks were made of something more rigid it probably could.
But what is really cool about it is that it's made from components that can be made from simple manufacturing processes that it could potentially carry out. In addition the whole system is designed to be simple enough to be controlled by a relay computer, something it could potentially construct.
In short, this is the closest we have come to so called "parts closure," that is making a machine that can manufacturer all of its components.
Here are some more details on the manufacturing part:
http://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss05/p16.pdf
Here is a video that talks about some of the work this group has done:
https://youtu.be/b04X0xsdjLg
Also worth watching is the part about the groups work on robots which can self diagnose themselve to figure out what is broken and then repair themselves. Which may be necessary to build a self replicating machine.
Another cool thing that is currently happening is someone is working on a reprap controlled with 3d printed relays:
http://relayreprap.srm.org.uk/
>>is any of these happening right now?
so to answer your question some of this is happening right now. No we don't need nanotechnology, but it would sure help.
Will post more tomorrow if this thread is still here
>>8041826
please go fellate a phallus.
>>8041834
DARPA has a shit budget and they don't really 'deploy' technologies. They are more concerned with 'strategic surprise.' IE finding out if new technologies present a threat or are worth further investigation so we could surprise people with them.
>>8041950
>>Self-replicating nanobots are impossible in terms of energy, chemistry, mechanically, and computationally.
Do you have any facts to back that up?
>>8041814
>>Wouldnt that mean a radical change in the way society is structured?
not necessarily. Replication rate could be low. DRM could be used to control what self replicating machines could produce. Developing countries might not have the necessary technical expertise to utilize self-replicating factories to make stuff like smartphones.
For example, smartphones may be made in china, but all the chips are designed in the US, europe, etc.
>>8041814
I don't know whether we can or can't do it, but I'm attempting to test the viability of the soil metalic extraction method detailed here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222331160_Exponential_growth_of_large_self-reproducing_machine_systems
Could it work? Maybe. I hope so. The paper claims it could be possible to do it right now, even if its a decades long project. Let's hope they are right.
>>8045333
Semiconductor fabs are almost completely automated. The only reason we have humans in them is to stop things from fucking up. Because even a single dropped box of wafers could be worth thousands of dollars.
>> complex chips
For near term self replicating machines, complexity needs to be kept as low as possible. If said self replicating machine is making microchips it would be best if they were making simple ones with big micron scale transistors.
Before we can do microchips it's more important to demonstrate that automatic assembly, fault diagnosis, and repair can work.
Building self replicating machines just to construct smartphones is a bit silly right now. A much better application is turning deserts into fields of solar cells. Another is bootstrapping industry in space.
>>8045338
You've probably seen one of my previous threads. You should contact the authors of that study, they supposedly designed a small vacuum furnace for carrying that out.
That is very ambitious though.
They already exist. Viruses and computer-robot "processor" virus-like items. Such items can be stopped or destroyed with radio technology and computer programming. I'd prevent production of devices like self replicating machines by writing easily executable programs as attachable to USB radio technology or an iPhone application like that.
>>8045392
I don't have the material or metalurgical knowdlege to carry out the precise method carried out. I should have clarifyied that I'm trying to test whether it is possible to obtain the resources detailed on it on european atlantic soil, using an arc furnace. And I also knew of this paper a long time ago, but forgot about it until your thread made me remember it.
>>8045423
You want to know if it works with european soil? Process is designed for sand. So as long as you got sand you're good.
>>8045460
I know but I'd like to study the viability of other soils, including sand, probably both from cliffs and beaches., of course.
>>8045474
Look up composition of soil in question. Does it have the required elements in it? Done. The process is made to work with a variety of soil compositions.
Though I don't know why you'd want said replicating machine to work on cliffs and beaches.
>>8041826
/thread
>>8045392
>Semiconductor fabs are almost completely automated.
but could you have a factory that is able to build an entire semiconductor factory by itself?
>>8045857
You could. It would just need to be specially designed so that it could be constructed by robots. Like making it out of blocks like in >>8044832
Although we really need a good understanding of how to do autonomous repair and fault diagnosis before we can consider such things. Otherwise, we'd have to scrap the entire semiconductor fab when it breaks down.
Demonstrating the basics is much more important than the details.
>>8046105
that would be a real game changer, because if a factory can manufacture itself then it cna for sure make most of modern appliances, so imagine having one oft hsoe factories, you feed it all the shit it needs to make another factory then you take it to an undeveloped country, feed it shit there and take it anywhere
very soon you have all appliances needed in that country
imagine that
a giant self replicating factory capable of building the inmense majority of consumer goods society needs, from a toolbox to a car or an mri machine (not a rocket or a tank tough)
its just a matter of making one then distributing it around the glove is anyone working in something similar to this?
>>8041814
They're never coming, faggot.
>>8046667
for your ifnormation its physically possibel to have self replicating factories and no poverty
>>8044832
cool stuff!
>>8041814
I don't see it happening any time soon. The only scenario I can imagine it working is if it's controlled by a highly advanced AI and can do everything a human can do. i.e. humanoid robots. In which case humans may as well do it because let's face it, human life is cheap compared to such a complex machine.
Nano-technology like in OP's picture that involves microscopic robots doesn't exist, and will most likely never exist. Sorry, that's just not at all what modern nanotechnology is about, and we're not even close to having even a theory about how that technology would work or be created practically. Bio-engineering of living things may be more realistic, but even that is in its infancy.
Macro-scale self replicating machines may be possible with help from humans. But truly independent machine built infrastructure won't be possible unless humanoid robots are common which creates other risks i.e. I, Robot, The Matrix, Terminator, etc. Not a good idea.
>>8046667
why will technology die?
>>8046728
Because people like that poster hate having nice things
It triggers their autism
>>8046728
the pic implying that technology will reach the point where it will be our undoing i.e. we might bomb ourselves into oblivion
>>8046664
No one is working on stuff like that. At least not directly.
A self replicating factory may not be able to make any appliance. You might be able to make appliances, but they may need to be made from blocks.
One of the things about the proposal in >>8045338 is you are making everything from common elements, designing stuff so that it replicates as fast as possible. Consumer products might be made from said common elements, but they probably won't perform as well as their mass produced counterparts today.
A washing machine made from ceramic(common), using aluminum(common) windings, is probably going to be worse than a washing machine made of steel using copper(not so common) windings.
It seems that you want massive automation rather than self replicating factories. Again, we need to do more basic research before we can realise such a thing.
Wet dream of astronomers: an explorer which inspects a planet, replicates and sends 5 copies for further exploration.
>>8047023
you mean a von neuman probe? the concept exist, check it out search von neuman probe in wikipedia
>>8047021
>It seems that you want massive automation rather than self replicating factories.
both go hand in hand
what i want is a gadget that eliminates the dependence of non industrialised areas from first world countris
like, you take one of my clever self replicating factories to africa, and all they need is like, raw material, you just have to supply it with, idk, sand, steel, whatevs
yeah it might be a bit of work to haull the steel over to the factory but the benefits will be hugemongous, i dont know why noone else is thinking about this
Well nevermind the feasibility. Lets think about the economics. how disruptive would this be, a self assemblying factory that can produce most electronic appliances and vehicles we use in modern society and can also reproduce itself. Imagine you only had to supply it with raw materials
>>8041989
>not showing this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8
Disappointed
>>8048033
Not as disruptive as you would think. It would put factory workers out of a job for sure, but it probably won't make everything free.
Take for instance software and videogames. It costs practically nothing to distribute software and videogames, but such things aren't necessarily free. There is a cost to develop software. So even if raw materials and energy are free there will still be a cost to developing appliances and what not. Because nonindustrialized countries aren't that well educated, they would likely rely on developed countries for the development.
Second, raw materials and energy still costs something.
>>8047168
If you have to provide it with raw materials what is the point? Such a self replicating factory would then be limited by how fast you can provide raw materials to it. Self replicating would mean that you need to provide exponentially increasing amounts of raw materials. Self replication doesn't benefit you much in this case.
Now steel is a bad example, as iron is a very common element in Earth's crust at 6% of earth's crust. Copper is a much better example at 0.0068%.
Of course if your self replicating machine is big enough and can harvest energy on it's own you could potentially extract reasonable amount of copper per unit time from regular soil.
>>8048158
>If you have to provide it with raw materials what is the point?
taking shit from point a to point b is a simple extraction economy, any poor country can manage that
but having a complex technological network of factories and god tier colleges is something that only ultra developed countreis can affoard
>>8046722
I really do not understand this obsession with humanoids. Why must said robot have a human form to accomplish manufacturing and assembly tasks?
>>8048171
Who designs the appliances and programs the factories to make them? You probably need some 'god tier colleges' to train people to so this.
>>8048192
>Who designs the appliances and programs the factories to make them? You probably need some 'god tier colleges' to train people to so this.
If you start out having all of the designs for current techonology you can have a pretty nice standard of living, everything extra is additional
anyway, once you have this cornucopia of abundanzzia its much easier to develop god tier colleges of your own
>>8048192
is that a self replicating space machine?
>>8041814
Well we have a concept in FSMs. That oughtta correlate to reality somehow, right?
>>8048207
>self replicating
Looks like a scaffold generator to me.
>>8048226
what is this work of fiction supposed to tell us?
>>8048207
If you stretch the definition of self replicating machine yes. http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/papers/ITRO07_Zykov.pdf
It's a modular robot.
>>8048333
That Stephenson is a one trick pony
an AI could make copies of itself, but it probably couldn't write a program similar to itself without looking at its own code
so I suppose if you built a robot and gave it all the information and tools it needed to create its hardware, which it would then copy its software into, then it's plausible. The catch, in my opinion, is that any error the first robot makes will get worse with each generation of copies, because it isn't capable of self-improvement.
>>8041989
but is it turing complete
>>8048192
>obsession with humanoids
We live in a human world where most infrastructure and machinery necessary to complete even simple tasks must be performed by a human. It would take a lot more time to design heavy machinery that is entirely machine operated. The logistics of transporting materials alone requires a physical person to sign for a delivery. It's the really simple things that are being overlooked by people like you.
>>8051359
i agree with this thing resembling a human but mostly being composed by neckbeard.
Like, anything thats not a humanoid robot would still have heavy competition from human labour
>>8041814
>self replicating machines
>implying a virus is not
Lrn2virus fgt pls
>>8041814
>How close are we to self replicating machines?
You mean, grey goo? In a certain sense, it's already been done, billions of years ago. In popular culture, it's commonly known as "green" instead of "grey". It's life.
>Wouldnt that mean a radical change in the way society is structured?
Maybe. Depends on the particulars. My guess is probably yes, and drastically so.
>>8046667
Yep. Probably right. Stupid physics.
>>8051359
But you don't need a human form to do all these tasks.
Second what sort of heavy machinery needs a humanoid to drive it? Are you going to have humanoid robots driving bulldozers around, manually operating milling machines, using power drills made for humans, etc? Just taking a factory and replacing every human with a humanoid robot is dumb.
Robots are fucking dumb. Tasks we take for granted are extremely difficult for robots. Picking up a power drill with a hand is a much harder task than redesigning the drill to use a quick change connector. Simply programming a humanoid robot to get into a bulldozer is a much harder task than designing a robotic bulldozer from scratch.
Second why do you need a robot with legs in a factory? Legs don't really buy you much in a flat factory floor.
>>8051359
>We live in a human world where most infrastructure and machinery necessary to complete even simple tasks must be performed by a human. It would take a lot more time to design heavy machinery that is entirely machine operated.
>The logistics of transporting materials alone requires a physical person to sign for a delivery.
This is by far the dumbest argument I've heard on /sci/ in a while.
Robobump
Robodump
>>8051954
You need human-like kinematic abilities to do any maintenance whatsoever on any of those machines, all of which break down constantly.
>>8053724
But you don't need a humanoid form to obtain human-like kinematics. All you really need are at least two manipulators floating in space. These can be held up by traditional serial arms, snake robots, fractally branching arms, or those cube bots like in >>8048192.
Pic related, a snake bot snaking into stuff.
Do you have anything to backup the statement that those machines break down all the time? Yes the tools wear out, but there are automated systems for replacing them. The company fastems has some clever ways of managing this. Industrial robots can be very reliable with MTBFs of 100,000 hours. In order for automation to be profitable over humans, you need highly reliable machines. If you need maintenance all the time, it's hard to justify the cost.
>>8053781
THIS
people often forget, humans arent the most efficient design possible...
they are the most efficient design possible... that could arise from evolution which has pretty limited constraints
for example, theres a reason there are no wheels in nature altough they are efficient, they do not provide a progressive advantage, unlike limbs
an animal with a bit of a wheel, or an almost wheel would be quickly eliminated, it would have to suddenly have a perfect wheel and thats impossible in terms of evolution
the same is with this
we are applying the designs that evolution wasnt able to
>>8041826
This post sums up everything wrong with the average /sci/ user
>>8054841
>you don't know enough about either to talk about them
Who exactly do you think you're replying to? The OP?
>>8054917
Anyone who thinks this is a good thread.
>>8054968
>>>8041826
> This post sums up everything wrong with the average /sci/ user
Not yet... I swear I saw the horse move a bit... beat it some more!
>>8055033
What did he mean by this?
>>8055039
We have discussed AI about 100000000000 times.
Ends up being:
1. never going to happen, poster are HS dropouts
2. my singularity/immortality
3. gimme sexbots
4. robot war with humans and win
4. Everyone is an scifi
>>8055033
I will keep bumping this thread until it dies.
>>8041814
>How close are we to self replicating machines?
Bacteria is ancient as fuck.
>>8055062
>scifi
whats wrongw ith that? technological advancement from humanity comes from scientifical inspiration from superior artistic thinking
actually about 93% of techonological advancements come from science fictions, like the satellite or the steam engine
>>8055176
You are somewhat right, but sometimes they totally get it wrong... reading old TOM SWIFT books is hilarious.
Scientist pulls out his slide-rule to check some calculations
I SERIOUSLY doubt anyone under 50 would know how to use a slide-rule
>>8055221
Or asimovs psychic robots
>>8041814
http://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/
>>8055232
>psychic robots
what is wi-fi
>>8055244
Robots communicating with other robots?
Not reading peoples minds and turning them to rubber via psychic attacks
>>8055252
>Not reading peoples minds and turning them to rubber via psychic attacks
youd dint understand the book, i suggest you finish high school before reading anything harder than a D&D manual
Where did you get this information from?
>>8055270
What book do you think I'm talking about?
>>8055270
>harder than a D&D manual
That's a pretty large range, all things considered.
>>8041814
>a radical change in the way society is structured
These never happen.
>>8055293
French Revolution
Russian revolutions
The Great Wars...etc
>>8055293
you lived trough the digital revolution and you dont know this? damn sucks to have such low low low low low low LOWLOW intelligence
>>8055293
tap water
electricity
the telephone
internet
wtf are you on?
>>8055293
people used to spend 1/3 of their time doign paperwork that now gets done instantly over the internet
are you sure you dont want to recognize your inferiority?
>>8055293
>a radical change in the way society is structured
Dude... there were people who worked on the first A-bomb who LITERALLY were raised riding horses and could clearly remember seeing their first airplane
>>8055337
still, the basic structure of society is still the same
people doing whtever shit is necesary to get hedonist and intellecutal pleasure going their way
>>8055298
>French Revolution
Violent, but didn't change French culture.
>Russian revolutions
Not familiar with those, but as I understand it, the reason they had revolutions was because the class system was fucked up. Is it still fucked up? Because if it is, it means the changes weren't radical. A few rich people getting killed doesn't change the basic structure of their host society.
>The Great Wars...etc
You mean the world wars? Those changed the economic aspects of civilization, not society itself.
>>8055319
>the digital revolution
It is precisely the digital age that made me realize how slowly society changes. For all our technology we haven't changed the way we live at all. Relationships are still complicated, people still work 9-5 jobs, and starvation is still omnipresent in the world. Technology changed nothing but relative boredom metrics. It didn't come close to changing the very *STRUCTURE* of society itself.
>>8055321
>tap water
Plumbing enables human life to flourish, but it has no effect on society. Society doesn't change just because there are more people to take care of.
>electricity
Electricity is singularly the most radical change in technology that humanity has ever experienced. It might have changed society radically but only over a very long period of time. Remember that lighting was the first use of electricity, and every new electrical device since has been an appliance. Our lives don't revolve around appliances in any direct, cultural capacity.
>the telephone
A small upgrade from the telegraph, which was just a small upgrade over the printed page. I won't argue telephones didn't have a massive cultural impact, but they didn't change THE STRUCTURE of society. OP made this thread because singularityfags believe AI will be so superintelligent that no human will ever be able to understand how they think. There's no reason to believe robotics will change the fundamental structure of society.
>internet
The jury's still out on that one, honestly.
>>8055391
>Violent, but didn't change French culture
it changed everything from art , family, measuring units, political participation, mass media, etc
>Russian revolutions
A whole country went from being a feudal shithole 800 years before its time to an industrialized country with an experimental political and economical system that was never tried before
>>8055391
>It is precisely the digital age that made me realize how slowly society changes. For all our technology we haven't changed the way we live at all. Relationships are still complicated, people still work 9-5 jobs, and starvation is still omnipresent in the world. Technology changed nothing but relative boredom metrics. It didn't come close to changing the very *STRUCTURE* of society itself.
thats such bullshit and you know it, the way we work the way we communicate the way we think and experience all changed, and its very notable how old people have troubles adapting
>>8055391
>Plumbing enables human life to flourish, but it has no effect on society. Society doesn't change just because there are more people to take care of.
bit of an educational education for you: many old religious rituals were based on hygiene, they had to sacralise it because it was so goddamn important, for example jews washed their hands as a rituald uring the plague and didnt get the plague, nowadays it make no difference
>>8055391
>A small upgrade from the telegraph, which was just a small upgrade over the printed page. I won't argue telephones didn't have a massive cultural impact, but they didn't change THE STRUCTURE of society. OP made this thread because singularityfags believe AI will be so superintelligent that no human will ever be able to understand how they think. There's no reason to believe robotics will change the fundamental structure of society.
it wasnt "a small upgrade" but its true that the invention of the printed page was a huge revolution
>internet
people who deny this are just denial afraids of old age
>>8055323
>paperwork
That means governments that manage to utilize information technology can operate faster, making their service more expedient and responsive. That means shorter lines at the DMV, and just about everywhere else. But that can only happen if the governments and offices involved actually bother to upgrade, which they don't. For-profit corporations are self-improving, but corporations are part of the economy, not part of society. If you want to argue that corporate innovation has changed society, it's a different argument than "hurr durr muh internet is fast."
>>8055337
>were raised riding horses
People still raise horses and can't remember seeing the first airplane. Get a better metric. That is by no means an indication of SOCIETAL change.
>>8055383
This. I was addressing OP's technological fantasy.
>>8055391
>jury's still out
Basically, while I recognize that the entire world is basically mass revolting against their governments and (rarely) corporations due to internet enabled mass communication, we have yet to see the final result of those revolutions. Often times this stuff is a meet the old boss same as the new boss type of deal. People won't truly wake up until everyone is ready to accept that their neighbors aren't knife wielding maniacs and starts to favor anarchy over deferred abuse distribution networks.
Radical changes to society don't happen because they don't need to happen. People will adapt at the exact rate they feel comfortable with, and you can never push them to accept change faster than that.
I've spent years fantasizing about mass change in the world. None of my ideas panned out because none of them were *globally and socially relevant.*
>>8055405
>art
Culture.
>family
Society.
>measuring units
Science.
>political participation
Could be either society or politics. Needs context.
>mass media
I'm not sure that mass media has ever truly done anything for the world, at least prior to the internet. Culturally or otherwise.
>>8055413
>I'm not sure that mass media has ever truly done anything for the world, at least prior to the internet. Culturally or otherwise.
congratulations you are wrong and everyone who ever went to a college even higher tier than shit tier agrees with me and disagrees with you
>>8055405
>the way we work
Economics.
>the way we communicate
Society.
>the way we think
Philosophy.
>and experience
That is the one thing that's never changed even a little in the entirety of human history. Remember, The Matrix was A WORK OF FICTION.
>very notable how old people have trouble adapting
Stereotype. Lots of old people are adapting fine to technology, the internet, and the new age.
>>8055405
>many old religious rituals were based on hygiene
...Then hygiene isn't new, and thus isn't a change.
Plumbing still enables life to flourish, but doesn't affect the structure of that life's societies.
>it wasnt "a small upgrade"
I'll give you that much. It was a great leap as far as technology is concerned, but not so much as far as the basic concept of faster communication is concerned.
>afraids of old age
Is there a corollary here about you being afraid to accept that your ancestors were right or should we just never bother with ad hominems at all? Thanks.
>>8055424
GTFO. I don't care how right you think you are. It's not a valid method of informing me of anything.
>>8055445
>radical achievement
>>8055391
>didn't change THE STRUCTURE of society. OP made this thread because singularityfags believe AI will be so superintelligent that no human will ever be able to understand how they think. There's no reason to believe robotics will change the fundamental structure of society.
Can you at least read my actual claim? Context is everything here.
>>8055481
Yeah I read your claim and both Chloride and Microscopy fit the bill of as a radical change in the way society is structured.
I'm simply stating that Microscopy is the most radical man will make at this point.
And I'm not seeing an argument made against Microscopy to prove my claim is wrong in your post I assume you would agree.
>>8055497
>I assume you would agree.
Then I can't justify bothering with you at all.
>>8041814
Yes, we're close to this and yes they can be dumb (ultra smart AI not needed). Don't need to be nanobots either. Would change society a lot because suddenly most material stuff is extremely cheap (to make).
>>8055391
>Society doesn't change just because there are more people to take care of.
how are people this fucking stupid allowed to post on a science board? you shouldn't even be allowed out of the house without adult supervision
>>8055572
Societies operate in subtly different ways based on the size of their host population, but the basic structure is still the same. Alien invasion is about the only thing that could ever radically change the structure of our society.
>>8055583
The operation of society's structure is not only based on population dynamics. If a society achieves a physical feat that is beyond their natural biological tool set then that feat can radically change society .
An example of this would be from vehicles that allow for sea and air travel.The human body is not capable of traveling distances that span oceans nor natural flight. So the ability to do both does radically change society.
>>8055686
>radically
No, it can change parts of society. Humans do not naturally band together in ways that would allow a technological advancement to fundamentally alter the entire population. Everything gets delegated and managed to the point where every new type of technology can only affect a fraction of humanity.
I'm not saying life never changes, I'm saying that we never accept radical change at a notable pace.
>>8055691
>Humans do not naturally band together in ways that would allow a technological advancement to fundamentally alter the entire population.
>Everything gets delegated and managed to the point where every new type of technology can only affect a fraction of humanity.
If you're going for the ubiquity of the entire human species here then the omnipresence of the spear proves this wrong.
>>8055731
We don't know enough about the social structure of ancient people to say what kind of impact it had.
We can only guess based on our modern ideas.
I think it is probably happening right now with, for example, 3d printers. But think about it:
The main purpouse of creating something is for satisfying a need. The inventor's main need is to sell it. So, giving a machine the ability to reproduce will make people avoid to buy the original one, giving them the possibility to get another with one already contructed.
Something like the SOPA thing years ago. Legal piracy? Who knows. Well, that is just my opinion.
>>8055429
>...Then hygiene isn't new, and thus isn't a change.
no, it means hygiene was a matter of life or death
and a big part of life was structured about it
the same with water
it used to be a big part of life, a matter of life and death in which every decision was based forevewr with most improtance
but now is something that you jsut shrug off
like that a million
that means structural change of the way of living
>>8056033
>a matter of life and death
Yes.
>in which every decision was based
No, wrong. There are a million other matters of life and death in human society, ancient and modern. Sorry, but "having less water gatherers" doesn't count as a drastic change to the structure of society. It affects only as many people as had to gather water. (Which varies per culture per region.)
>>8056045
>Sorry
youre not forgiven for being objectively wrong and acting like youre right, im sorry but society has structurally changed i know you think this is the middle ages when talking magical was accepted, but this is the modern world, and your falseness is not tolerated
>>8056048
>society has structurally changed
It absolutely has! I'm glad you agree! It's even had several radical changes occur.
...They just didn't occur radically. It's always a slow process that occurs at exactly the rate that people themselves accept those changes. People never accept radical change, but they'll always be ready for gradual changes that add up to radical summations of differences.
>>8051322
yes, Conway's Game of Life is turing complete.
>>8041989
Epic.
