But the humans will have little to no money to pay for it. Given that, robot rock would be the most market/cost efficient product. Robsicians work cheap, can play concerts 24 hours a day and not get tired. Plus they can play the music with mechanical perfection every time. Just put some vacuum tubes in them, and I bet they sound just like in the days.Hockey Dad wrote:Doc wrote:Perhaps. But why Not?Hockey Dad wrote:^^^
That day will never come, Milo:.... Soon, there will be simply no need for any labour, or retail, job. Following that, there will be no need for skilled trades. Performing arts and professions will be among the last but they will go too. .....
That example of musical robots is not representative of what robots will be capable of, no doubt.
Why not? Because the audience are humans.
The humans are listening and observing and judging everything,
both among the studio audience and the wider film version audience.
If Milo thinks he can replace everything on the stage and in the film production with robots,
then we can happily discard it as alarmist technophobia.
I am not a technophobe Even after spending 2 hours earlier tonight convincing Google tech support of the error of their ways. And last week in a seven hour marathon tech support session with another company. It only takes me a few minutes to tire of humoring self assumed genius and getting on with bursting their little self encompassing tech bubbles. IE I live, eat, and breath technology. I love the smell of burning tech in the morning as it means I have the chance to fix it,learn something new, and maybe even make it better. A large portion of the technology I deal with is as cutting edge as it gets in the world. Not to brag that I am some kind of genus, It is not that, I just have a special set of skills from previous experience. It is just to give you an idea I am certainly not a technophobe. I absolutely love the stuff. I feel very fortunate to be in the loop. It is very new and extremely cool stuff. Nearly every day I see something new.
Rather my issue is that common technology is going faster than the new economic system to deal with it is being made up out of thin air. It is disrupting and will continue to disrupt societies and people's lives everywhere.
Did you know that the government of France pays people to grow lavender in France? Of course they are only allowed to grow so much of it as they have to leave some for other lavender farmers to grow. So lavender farmers have to know their place, and not aspire to things greater than they are. As things stand right now that is a very optimistic view of the world we are looking at.
Milo is against a socialist nirvana. A worker's paradise where there is no work to be done. Where transfer of crumbs is what is required, as the "smart" people control it all otherwise.
John D Rockefeller didn't end up as one of the richest men in the world because he was the best oil man or the best business man. He got his first big start when he made an under the table deal with other robber barons (IE the rail roads) to exclude his competitors products from getting to market via the only route available at the time - the rail roads. The monopolistic rail roads barons were all too happy to take their cut from Rockefeller's monopoly that made the pie bigger so there was more profit to share. That was not capitalism, it was crony capitalism.
Today we have disruptive tech. And the captains of disruptive tech want to monopolize it. Solely for themselves individually, or if not, by taking their cut through a crony oligarchy. Jeff Bezos wants to monopolize sales commercial goods in the US. Google wants to monopolize advertising. Facebook wants to monopolize communications and advertising. etc. etc. etc.
If anyone here does not believe this, then I challenge you to explain this as capitalism and free competition: http://venturebeat.com/2014/05/23/4-tec ... pete-pact/
Actually that is one of my favorites of the genre. Thanks for posting it.
... and that's 'just' a few hillbillies.