There's no AI (I mean real AI, not that marketing term form Google/etc) and there won't be AI even in 100 years from now. Fear of AI right now is literally fear mongering. What we have right now is just "machine learning", so many workers are safe.
AI is still crappy and the AI that is done is basically just optimizing and learning from millions and millions of data points. AI is very statistical still and I don't see AI working without human data. Data is free right now but it should be paid for eventually. That is what will happen to the economy. There is no need to worry about all this stuff because companies need a strong economy to make profit.
I certainly wouldn't agree with this - there are many legitimate concerns that machine learning will result in near-human level AI in just a few decades shared by many influential scientists/futurists.
Depending on where you live it's debatable if people largely are better off than they were 30, 40, 50 years ago. Which is sort of the point, there's a socioeconomic impact to automation (or globalization) which means "progress" isn't quite the straight march upward you're claiming here. It's much more complex than that.
Look at Google Translate. It works for about 50% but you can't really use it reliably. The moment human intellect, experience and creativity plays a role machine learning falls flat. The areas that are used by machine learning are also very dependent on data provided by humans. Face recognition is done by feeding millions of faces and training the computer to recognize faces. The moment that data stops, machine learning can't do anything. There will come a time that this data will be paid for and that is how jobs will be created.
100% agreed. The other fellow's assertion that "innovation" is always good is some ludicrous rhetoric, but yes, it is not by necessity that technological advancements which perform human tasks have a negative impact on society. Rather, this is the bargain which society has made for us. There is no safety net for most people.
gnn.gamer.com.tw
instead of continuously increasing the size of two breasts, innovation will eventually lead to development of a third breast
I expect Nintendo to upgrade from 3B to 4B prelaunch at Capcom's request.
Yeah that's the big one. A smaller but also good one would be Hot Shots Golf 4:
I thought it was the other way around, that Switch was cheaper to develope for ;) Hehe :P (yeah, i know its a joke hehe, but i think i've see i've seen the same arguement has been used for the Switch too, and therefor it could be more profitable =) Which can be true, just to point that out, but if less optimizing (or rather less work) is needed, this can also lead to cheaper development costs as well. But in the end, it really depends on the game and how complex it is to make, and thats what will determine the total development costs, regardless of the platform =)). EDIT 2: I rewrote some of the post to make my point more clear :)
Hehe, thats actually quite possible =) If not meeting 100% of the demand, it might be relatively close to it at least, i can see that happening. So its possible that we'll see a senario where most of the PS5's that are sold in Japan are also manufactured in Japan. Doing this will also save on some logistic cost (shorter distance of shipping the finished produced units). While the rest of the PS5 supply for everywhere in the world is being manufactured in China (or where it might be). I still expect China to be the biggest manufacturer of consoles for quite some time (not sure if theres any plans to move more of console manufacturing to Japan? Or to the US when it comes to Xbox).
That just one factory and one line.
That means instead of putting everything in one "basket" (i.e, China), now they can assemble electronics in the US, EU and other places. Same idea as data-centers, only for real manufacturing.
Economics, manufacturing, logistic should be part of discussion in sales thread. It's all connected.
^ it reminds me of kindergarten.
Why am i not surprised that you in particular don't have a sense of humour
Maybe i misunderstand what you mean, but i dont think there are any drones that have some A.I that decides on their own to attack people or not, especially not civilians. That would be really bad, indeed.
Sure, i know that its just one production line, but i thought it was the only one that was up and running at the moment. And yeah, having more regional production can have its advantages, like for the enviorment /cuts down on the shipping distance). I just hope that it wont mean lost jobs, and that those jobs are relocated elsewere at least (like when Microsoft recently closed almost all of their retail stores, no one lost their jobs).That just one factory and one line.
From that article:
So there will be more.
Another major point:
That means instead of putting everything in one "basket" (i.e, China), now they can assemble electronics in the US, EU and other places. Same idea as data-centers, only for real manufacturing.
I could be wrong, but i remember some documental that shows some US drones has bombs that get help to improve the "aiming" with some kind of A.I that correct the path in his way to the ground. but anyway it was a documental. Just wanted to be part of this A.l talk. lol And is the soldiers who decide to use the robots to attack civilians not the A.I
Keeping redundant ineffective jobs would make things worse, not better. What you suggest is basically a planned economy. It will tank economy in the long run, see what happened with USSR.
Ah ok, i see what you mean, and yeah, i think they have for example some laser guidance (which might be also controllled by some A.I too) for the missiles that the drones can fire, so thats probably true, indeed. It just sounded a bit to me like you maybe meant that there were US drones that were designed with A.I to more specifically target and kill civilians, and i dont think thats the case, so i mostly wanted to comment on that (unfortunately civilans do sometimes get killed in such attacks though :( Even if they are not the target). But with A.I deciding on its own, i thought at first that maybe you meant something else instead, thats why i mentioned that i might have misunderstood what you meant. But i see what you mean now, so no problem =)
Well, i'm not really suggesting much in specific, i just hope that people will still have an income, regardless of what the solution will be =) When Microsoft reallocated the work, all of those jobs have a purpose.
