That still requires gathering the dirty items together, loading/unloading, keeping track of when it is full/time to run. People saying this mean they want a robot like Rosie from the Jetsons to take care of that sort of housekeeping, not for a machine that makes the task easier to do themself.
Edit: to be clear, I don’t think a washer machine or dishwasher is a hassle and problem that needs solving, but that doesn’t take away from the message of “AI should help make life easier, not replace the creative outlets additional free time should allow”
That still requires gathering the dirty items together, loading/unloading, keeping track of when it is full/time to run.
And I still need to prompt the AI, review the images presented, copy/paste them, possibly apply further manipulations to suit my needs.
Like, yes. Your life isn’t going to be 100% on autopilot for anything except bill pay.
that doesn’t take away from the message of “AI should help make life easier, not replace the creative outlets additional free time should allow”
I think it outlines the raw limits of any kind of automation. You can make imperfect trades between human labor and appliances. But there’s always a limit that a tool can do without supervision relative to what a cognizant human can perform.
And that is the (broken) promise of AI, to bridge that gap. It won’t, not for a long time, and not without great costs. And only if profit is not the motivation, so never.
Edit: to be clear, I don’t think a washer machine or dishwasher is a hassle and problem that needs solving, but that doesn’t take away from the message of “AI should help make life easier, not replace the creative outlets additional free time should allow”
You are a dreamer, we live in the real world with limited resources, and here everything will be hard without hope, and robots will replace people, not help them.
Utopia is not possible, only dystopia is possible.
I am fully against the current application of AI and think it is a horrible waste in so many ways. Yes, the dream of a Star Trek like utopia with “good” AI applications is what my ideal is, but I know in the real world it just generated suffering. What it should do, and what it ever will do are two separate circles that don’t touch in the ven diagram.
I would agree that’s what people mean, but they’re completely overlooking that the problem has already been recognised, and addressed, with a solution that’s been around for decades.
It’s just that people take these modern amenities for granted, so they see them as part of the burden of doing the dishes or doing laundry, rather than relieving the burden of doing those things.
We can load up the dish washer and sit on our duff watching YouTube while a machine does the hard work. Then we just have to suffer through putting the dishes where we want them to go.
This is textbook “first world problems”. AI is only expected to solve these first world problems. By definition, these problems are less actually problems that need solving, and more inconveniences that we perceive as problems.
I agree, and those “problems” will never be fixed by AI. Not everyone who laments that AI should make life easier is a supporter of AI, though. Sometimes it’s a general “[technological] advancement should be for the good of the people, not the good of the select shareholders”.
That still requires gathering the dirty items together, loading/unloading, keeping track of when it is full/time to run. People saying this mean they want a robot like Rosie from the Jetsons to take care of that sort of housekeeping, not for a machine that makes the task easier to do themself.
Edit: to be clear, I don’t think a washer machine or dishwasher is a hassle and problem that needs solving, but that doesn’t take away from the message of “AI should help make life easier, not replace the creative outlets additional free time should allow”
And I still need to prompt the AI, review the images presented, copy/paste them, possibly apply further manipulations to suit my needs.
Like, yes. Your life isn’t going to be 100% on autopilot for anything except bill pay.
I think it outlines the raw limits of any kind of automation. You can make imperfect trades between human labor and appliances. But there’s always a limit that a tool can do without supervision relative to what a cognizant human can perform.
And that is the (broken) promise of AI, to bridge that gap. It won’t, not for a long time, and not without great costs. And only if profit is not the motivation, so never.
You are a dreamer, we live in the real world with limited resources, and here everything will be hard without hope, and robots will replace people, not help them.
Utopia is not possible, only dystopia is possible.
I am fully against the current application of AI and think it is a horrible waste in so many ways. Yes, the dream of a Star Trek like utopia with “good” AI applications is what my ideal is, but I know in the real world it just generated suffering. What it should do, and what it ever will do are two separate circles that don’t touch in the ven diagram.
okay doomer
I would agree that’s what people mean, but they’re completely overlooking that the problem has already been recognised, and addressed, with a solution that’s been around for decades.
It’s just that people take these modern amenities for granted, so they see them as part of the burden of doing the dishes or doing laundry, rather than relieving the burden of doing those things.
We can load up the dish washer and sit on our duff watching YouTube while a machine does the hard work. Then we just have to suffer through putting the dishes where we want them to go.
This is textbook “first world problems”. AI is only expected to solve these first world problems. By definition, these problems are less actually problems that need solving, and more inconveniences that we perceive as problems.
I agree, and those “problems” will never be fixed by AI. Not everyone who laments that AI should make life easier is a supporter of AI, though. Sometimes it’s a general “[technological] advancement should be for the good of the people, not the good of the select shareholders”.