Why I Predict That Human Roboticists Will Not Go Obsolete

 

I got this idea from an inadvertent "signal received" that I thought I saw outside.  I realized that it was just a coincidence, but I still got the idea, that my robotics education for high-schoolers idea might be bad, so I decided to write about it.


I don't think human engineers of robots will be obsolete.  The reason is that the government will have to place restrictions on "robot construction workers."  The possibilities are too dangerous.  Someone could mass produce weapons with "automatic robotics manufacturers," so I believe that the US government will ban automated robot constructors.  People will have to build robots themselves, to keep production from becoming too rapid and sophisticated and therefore dangerous.


Thus, I don't think the robotics and mech engineering education for high schoolers would be a mistake.  There will not be any "robotic robot makers" legally permitted in American households.  Even well-regulated companies will likely be forbidden from building them; for one thing, in addition to being dangerous, it would be, if not anti-competitive, "trivializing" of the work that needs to be done.  There absolutely should be human oversight of physical and electrical engineering; the slightest mistake or error, whether induced by sabotage or just an accidental mis-coding of an AI robot-builder, could lead to a "quantity-wise city full of defective engineering."  All physical engineering should be supervised by well-trained humans.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more