• Advertisement

SeraphLance

Member
  • Content count

    691
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2610 Excellent

About SeraphLance

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Interests
    Programming
  1. Why do billions of unskilled people need to be able to do it? No education whatsoever was standard only a few hundred years ago, and now most developed nations have at least ten years. Yes, it's likely that in another two hundred years, something resembling a modern 4-5 year college curriculum will also be mandatory. Yes, if you lose your job you might be screwed, because you can't easily retrain in your lifetime. However, that's a short-term loss. You're going to grow old and die, and your kids if you have them will be educated in something else more relevant and employable. That's an actual economic problem to deal with; the rate of automation can (relatively) short-term cause labor issues. However, that makes discussion of a star-trek post-supply utopia the wrong problem to talk about. But yeah, if your problem is "what do I do if my white-collar job gets automated", then we're talking past one another. However, I don't think such a problem necessitates considering entirely new economic models, but rather a shorter working life until retirement, or continuing education (especially relevant in our field).
  2. That's a small part of the job pool created by technology. There are more musicians, actors, and writers today than during any era of human history. It's not because they were enabled by new technology, but because they were released by technology of having to do other things -- like, say, growing food. This is why major inventions and developments lead to revolutions across many unrelated fields. This is analogous to saying before the agricultural revolution, "If we're not all hunting for food, what are we going to do all day?" The answer is something else.
  3. Why A.I is impossible

    If I created a human being from whole cloth in a lab, I would have created an artificial intelligence. Whether AI is "organic" or "mechanical" has no bearing over whether or not it is AI. Aren't you an Atheist? I would think that outside of spiritual beliefs, everyone ought to think creating an AI is possible this way, even if we can't realistically do it now. I don't think it's a terribly interesting observation, honestly. It's kind of axiomatic, even.
  4. Yeah, I'm still not seeing much of a case here. We like to split "blue collar" and "white collar" up as if there's some fundamental binary difference, but it's a continuum, "Smarter" technology just broadens the range of white-collarness that machines can cover. In response, human labor opens up on the white end of the spectrum as we no longer need people doing the now-obsolete jobs. Someone earlier responded to my statement that the growth of automation will outpace the creation of jobs to develop and maintain said automation. That's semi-fallacious. It's true that technology opens technician jobs, but it's necessarily true that fewer technician jobs will open than are closed by the automation. That's the entire point. It's not just work centered around the new technology, but new work in general as we are allowed new bandwidth for labor. We should all be aware of this phenomenon given that we're arguing about job loss on a freaking game development site. It seems to me that the fear is that automation will cover the entire blue/white spectrum to the point where there's literally no work that can't be done by an automaton. That folds back into the original discussion on the other thread about whether an AI that can totally replace a human but doesn't simultaneously have human (or human-like) needs can exist As for CCP Grey's video, he's got a lot of specious reasoning. The "horses" shtick is a false equivalence because horses didn't invent cars; they're not the species that the economy in question is centered around. Now the short-term consequences of automation are observable. You can't just retrain a barista into a writer, and if your job is replaced by a machine you may have difficulty re-entering the work force. However, the idea that automation will reach the point where we as a species have nothing to do? That's going to take more convincing.
  5. It is. In fact, it's a huge problem that's hotly debated practically every election cycle. The problem is that curtailing freedoms is seen as a big no-no, and a lot of campaign spending isn't just politicians spending money, but non-profits spending money on their behalf. Blocking that is blocking endorsement, which is an infringement of freedom of speech. That's enshrined in our constitution, making it political suicide to attack in any seriously manner (and rightly so, IMO). It goes hand-in-hand with the controversial "businesses are effectively people" supreme court decisions. It's not always about what is pragmatic or fair, but what the constitution guarantees (or what the Supreme Court thinks the constitution guarantees).
  6. If you had to stick them somewhere in the left-right scale, I'd call them left-wing because their political structure bears much more in common with practical socialism (i.e. Soviets) than it does anything resembling capitalism. It's also the logical extreme of "big government", which isn't exactly a right-wing ideology. However, that's for the modern left and right, at least within the United States. It's important to remember that the Republicans prior to The New Deal era were collectivists in a sense. Now they're somewhat individualist, but the left was the individualist side of the coin once upon a time. Blame the Bull Moose people, the "neoliberals" of the early 20th century. Personally though, I think trying to shoehorn everything into left/right is a poor decision. Modern parties are much more syncretic these days. Even the whole 2-axis model has pretty significant limitations.
  7. The problem with categorizing fascists as right-wing is that a central pillar of fascism is state ownership of industry. That's about as un-right as you can get. Nationalism is certainly a right-wing characteristic, but I have to question the idea that nationalism should have higher priority than ownership of industry when categorizing it on the political spectrum.
  8. The thing I don't buy about the whole automation angle is that we've been using technology to make people's jobs obsolete for tens of thousands of years, yet somehow an overwhelming majority of us are still employed because new jobs open up in response. Why is it treated as a foregone conclusion that this will stop happening at some point? Frankly this sounds about as silly to me as the whole "zombie apocalypse" shtick.
  9. Why A.I is impossible

    Setting aside the whole spirituality/soul angle, "human-like" AI exists because humans exist; we are walking examples of ourselves. If the human body is sufficient to create a human being, then we can clearly create AI. That's not to say it's a guarantee that souls don't exist or can be emulated, but to assert that would take us outside the bounds of provability and into belief. Mind you, there's a far cry from creating people and creating the whole "self-improving superhumans" that most quacks "futurists" worry about. In that regard I wouldn't call it "impossible", but I certainly see no reason to believe such a thing is possible.
  10. C++ if constexpr, C++17

    Running that code on the command-line (cl /std:c++latest test.cpp) and with the necessary type_traits include works perfectly fine. Are you sure there's not some other error that's causing the branch to fail to compile?
  11. Distance between 2 points

    With all due respect, I googled your thread title verbatim and was suggested a 25-second video clip with a thumbnail of the literal equation required to do what you're asking. Didn't even have to change it at all. That points to a serious lack of effort. We're all willing to help people and answer questions, but that effort needs to be reciprocated at least somewhat by the people asking. Please at least use a few minutes to google for an answer before making a thread asking something.
  12. It sounds like you still have a ReloadableWeapon class. My question to you is, if you're baking behavior into strategies, why do you still have a ReloadableWeapon class? Presumably your weapon's AttackStrategy can deal with ammo management. That way you make downcasting not a problem by not having anything to downcast to. It's common for weapon code to go a step further and abstract even further than strategies (to the point of data-driving everything), but you're thinking on the right track.
  13. This the functional equivalent to having a static variable with a bunch of functions to act on it, which is what you might do in C, and in fact that sort of thing is everywhere in a lot of C codebases. If anything, the singleton-as-object approach seems marginally better because you can take the type, and therefore pass it into functions as an argument, which lets you more easily refactor later. Not that either is a terribly great choice.
  14. Does violence stem from video games

    In that case,. I move that we take another look at the regulation of stress balls. Dangerous things that may in fact be linked to increased violence.
  15. I do like the idea of just inheriting from a non-copyable base object as a safety net. It at least solves a subset of potential problems. Does anyone use any more dynamic approaches? I know you can overload global new, but that seems a bit hole-y, since external libraries might use C or OS-allocation functions, and I have no idea what the standard libraries do under the hood. That also seems really noisy because it's global. That's sort of the approach I've traditionally taken. But then in the video linked I saw the equivalent of this: class Foo { public: std::string m_a; std::string m_b Foo( const std::string& a, const std::string& b) : m_a(a), m_b(b) {} } If I were writing an object that took two strings prior to this video, I might write it like that. I would think "okay, I don't need to mutate the strings, so I may as well express the parameters as const. Since I don't want a straight copy of the string, I'm going to pass a reference". If I had actually written this code, I probably would never have known that it copies. In fact, I wouldn't have even thought to look at it. In fact, the whole "take a reference to avoid a copy" mentality is so ingrained into my head that I don't even know why it copies. ...Or at least I didn't. The irony of this is that I realized after writing that last line that the copy is made because the actual class member is a string, the copy is because of the actual initialization of the class member. I probably wouldn't have made that sort of mistake in retrospect, but I obviously (given this thread) wouldn't have seen the mistake in code review of someone else's code, so I guess the question still stands.
  • Advertisement