Artificial Intelligence

Computers That Can Learn

|

Enlitic

Jeremy Howard is the founder and CEO of Enlitic, a company that uses "machine learning" to improve medical diagnostics. In December, he gave a TED Talk on "the wonderful and terrifying implications" of an algorithm known as "deep learning," which processes huge amounts of data in order to teach itself to understand pictures, read words, speak foreign languages, and more. Deputy Managing Editor Stephanie Slade spoke with Howard in January.

Q: Are computers that can learn a good or a bad thing?

A: In the last five years [deep learning] has become about 10,000 times faster and about 10 times more accurate at understanding the content of images. We're just starting to see it go down the same path at understanding human language. Overall, my expectation is that computers are on their way to becoming very good at a full range of perceptual capabilities.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? It just depends how it's used. It could be a wonderful thing, because it could allow us to spend our time doing the things we want to do rather than the things we have to do, which is, I think, what humanity has been aiming at for thousands of years. But on the bad side, that by definition puts people out of jobs. Eventually, it puts everybody out of a job.

Longer term, when you have machines that are extremely capable, they can be either misused intentionally or misprogrammed unintentionally and create great harm.

Q: What would you say is the most exciting application of this technology?

A: For me, the most immediate one is in medicine. Medicine is currently more art than science. We describe it as the practice of medicine, not the science of medicine. Which is fine, but there is a lot of data that people have to bring together in order to make an appropriate diagnostic and treatment recommendation. With computers that can see and read, computers could potentially bring tens of millions of pieces of data together and make a good diagnostic or treatment decision. Not only could this make medicine far more accurate, but most excitingly for me, it could bring modern medicine to the billions of people in the world who currently don't have access to it because there's a huge shortage of expertise right now.

The other very exciting short-term opportunity is robots. If you take the machine-learning algorithm and use it in software attached to some kind of "actuators"—engines and grippers and wheels and so forth—that's what we call a robot. And that has the ability to automate some of the most tedious and dangerous and unpleasant jobs.

Q: You mention that at some point many if not all people will not be able to contribute economic value to society anymore.

A: If we remove the idea of the soul, at some point in history [there's nothing that] computers and machines won't be able to do at least as well as us. We can argue about when that will happen. I think it will be in the next few decades.

Q: No one will have to work anymore?

A: Some very large percentage of the world. The vast majority of things that are necessary will have been automated.

The question that is actually much more interesting is: What happens when we're halfway there? What happens when the amount of things that can't be automated is much smaller than the amount of people that exist to do them? That's this point where half the world can't add economic value. That means half the world is destitute and unable to feed themselves. So we have to start to allocate some wealth on a basis other than the basis of labor or capital inputs. The alternative would be to say, "Most of humanity can't add any economic value, so we'll just let them die."

NEXT: The Conservatarian Manifesto: Should Libertarians and Conservatives Unite?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What happens when the amount of things that can’t be automated is much smaller than the amount of people that exist to do them?

    Neo-Luddism?

    1. Butlerian Jihad?

    2. Bigger bureaucracies? That’s happening even today of course, and will continue to intensify. What’s surprising is that folks here seem ok with it. With the new medical technologies outlined here, you may not get to see a doctor when you fall ill, but you certainly will see an administrator, or three.

    3. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

      1. You will definitely lose your job to a (not very smart) computer.

  2. That’s this point where half the world can’t add economic value. That means half the world is destitute and unable to feed themselves. So we have to start to allocate some wealth on a basis other than the basis of labor or capital inputs. The alternative would be to say, “Most of humanity can’t add any economic value, so we’ll just let them die.”

    That’s just a failure of imagination, to say that there’s nothing a person can do that can add economic value. The things people desire can be insatiable. Unless you can make robots that are * exactly * like human beings so you can’t even tell one apart from a human being when you meet them, there will be something that the human can do that the robot can’t that will add value to another person’s life.

    That being said, certain attributes will become more prized in humans simply because robots can’t replicate it, and that will affect what is considered sexy in a partner. Brute strength used to be valued more, for example.

    1. Exactly. Automation frees people to satisfy some other desire that may not even be imagined today. If there is enough demand for satisfying a desire that is being satisfied with human effort, then someone may figure a way to automate it, freeing people to satisfy yet another desire.

      1. It’s desires all the way down!

    2. As Keynes discovered, full employment is an anomaly, by no means guaranteed. We will eventually have to get beyond the moral argument that labor equals not starving. It will look uncomfortably like a form of socialism. But you guys don’t buy the moral premise anyway. Your is “whoever already has accumulated wealth by whatever means should get to keep it because… hey look over there!” Whatever your ideological hangups, the best society will be one in which people don’t have to work and won’t starve either. Right?

      1. There is nothing in this post worth responding to. It’s like someone slammed his head on the computer and random words somehow occurred which vaguely look like complete sentences and thoughts but make no actual point beyond saying ‘look at me! I am slamming my head on computer!’

        Regardless, I’ll try:

        As Keynes discovered, full employment is an anomaly, by no means guaranteed.

        Full employment does not exist and has never existed anywhere. Moreover, Keynes’ disciples have managed to construct an awful lot of countries with much higher unemployment than free market society (France being an obvious example), so Keynes clearly did not know the secrets to full employment, even if such a thing existed outside the fever dreams of socialists.

        We will eventually have to get beyond the moral argument that labor equals not starving. It will look uncomfortably like a form of socialism.

        You realize that the first sentence is a meaningless jumble of words and the second sentence does not follow rationally from the first, correct?

        Your is “whoever already has accumulated wealth by whatever means should get to keep it because… hey look over there!”

        Actually, ours is ‘whoever has accumulated wealth through free exchange should get to keep it, whereas thieves should be locked up.’ Given that your political beliefs are based on violent theft, I can see how you’d find this confusing.

        1. If I’m hungry and you have food, and I steal from you, you have been a victim of an injustice. If you wish, then you can call upon government to send agents to drag me into court and figure things out.

          If Tony is hungry and you have food, he would send government agents to steal food from you. This is still an injustice, but you have no recourse because the people who are supposed to take thieves to court are the same people who stole from you.

          We believe in justice. Tony believes in might makes right.

          1. “Tony believes in might makes right.”

            Tony LIKES thugs, so long as they are his thugs. The difference between Tony and the run-of-the-mill commie mass murderer is one of degree only.

            1. I have no doubt that if Tony had the power he would round up all libertarians, conservatives, and especially climate heretics, and kill them.

              1. If it were visible, he might just put them in, well ‘camps’ of some description. Perhaps ‘camps’ where they can atone for their sins and get ‘re-educated’.
                In fact, I think there are some examples of thugs like Tony doing exactly that!

                1. I think there are some examples of thugs like Tony doing exactly that!

                  And they did it in good conscience because they believed they were serving a greater good.

                  The greatest evils that have happened in this world were perpetrated by people with good intentions. That’s why progressives always tout their good intentions while trying to malign their critics as people with bad intentions. Because they are evil, paving the road to hell with their good intentions.

      2. the best society will be one in which people don’t have to work and won’t starve either. Right?

        Magical thinking. Someone has to produce the food. Even if everything is automated, you still need people to design, build, maintain, and operate the machines. Someone has to work.

        Yours is a magical world in which there is no scarcity, where everyone can have whatever they want, because everyone lives at the expense of everyone else.

        1. Yeah, that’s one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard. You need someone to make the machines go because there will probably never be a way to so thoroughly automate everything that machines can fix machines indefinitely – regardless, we’re so far away from that possibility that there’s no point in discussing it at the moment.

          If you need some people (even if it’s very few people) to run those machines, then those people need to somehow be compensated for their work, otherwise people won’t do it. As a result, even a highly automated society still needs market mechanisms to incentivize people to do the work necessary to maintain the automation.

          This is a complicated argument though, so Tony will probably scratch his head, drool on himself, and babble some new easily disproven argument about the wonders of socialism.

          1. I was watching a show the other day about how the future is portrayed in science fiction. It chronicled how the future in science fiction was always clean and perfect until Blade Runner came on the scene. In that movie the future was dirty and full of broken stuff. And that only makes sense. If only half of the crap we have works today, why would the future be any different? Sure we’ll have cooler toys that we can barely imagine today, but they will still be made by people and thus be imperfect.

            1. Whatever show you were watching was very uninformed, then. You know what was well before Blade Runner? Soylent Green. Silent Running. Planet of the Apes. And so on.

              Future dystopia and just a rundown future have been integral components of science fiction, from books to movies, for a very long time.

              1. That doesn’t contradict my larger point which is that Tony sees the future as one of perfection and lack of scarcity, while in reality it will be just like today only with cooler toys.

              2. And I have no idea what the show was. The cable guide said it was The Main in the Iron Mask while it obviously was something else. Stupid BBC.

                1. Was it a water main in that mask?

          2. Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns|3.28.15 @ 1:31PM|#
            …”You need someone to make the machines go”…

            Tony is not alone in the religion of magical wealth.
            The process of picking your pocket somehow adds value to the money removed, which is placed in the next person’s pocket, stolen again to add further value.
            Now you know how that works!

            1. Multiplier effect FTW!

      3. the best society will be one in which people don’t have to work and won’t starve either. Right?

        Wrong! Some people like what they do. More importantly, humans need something to do–they need some purpose. Look at what happens when young men in ghettos can’t find work. What do they do, Tony? Of course there are some who’d like to sit around and argue politics all of their waking hours, but that’s not healthy–not physically, mentally, or intellectually.

        People will still fight over things. There will still be envy. Give up on Utopia. It’s nowhere.

        1. How about we get to decide for ourselves how best to occupy our time rather than sustaining an artificial work ethic?

          1. artificial work ethic

            Really?!

            So, I guess you get your purpose or meaning in life from trolling rather than producing something of value? You got me there, Tony. I misunderstood you for a more gainful person.

            Excuse me.

            1. Note Tony’s use of the word “Occupy” and aligning it as the opposite of a work ethic.

              Seems pretty consistent with the Occupy movement’s apparent goals of taking wealth away from productive people and using it to pay off all debts (especially student loans) and provide a living for people who would rather do unattended puppet shows (if they feel like it that day, of course) than anything that might be construed as productive.

              Perhaps the real fear of AI is that robots might one day be better than humans at puppetry or most Occupy-style ‘artsy’ pursuits, so then their total arguments will just dissolve into ‘gimmee’.

            2. Tony has a poor grasp on human nature, as you can tell by the fact that he believes a work ethic is ‘artificial’ rather than a necessity for a human being to be mentally and emotionally healthy.

              1. Also, notice how Tony now believes people should be free to choose what they do with their own time, when in every other instance he believes the state should be able to choose for you through widespread wealth appropriation and market manipulation.

                Tony apparently believes in liberty provided he can use it as a stop-gap to his wondrous Maoist utopia.

              2. You sound like a Marxist.

          2. Tony|3.28.15 @ 3:36PM|#
            ….”an artificial work ethic?”

            Fine. You don’t want to work, I won’t give you the food I grew from my ‘artificial work ethic’. And you can (not artificially) starve.

        2. The whole “we need socialism because machines!” is just a throw back and implicit embracement of the labor theory of value. Marxists in general have a strong tendency to be luddites. Since so much of their economic theory is based on the exploitation of labor by capitalists, then machines and automation that decrease the demand for labor are seen as a threat; if capitalists can produce value without labor, then their entire theory of how society should be organized is threatened. So, rather than embrace modern economic thought, they whine about machines.

          Really, it’s stupid. At the point that machines can do all this, goods and services are so cheap that you don’t need much of anything to survive, let alone a government with a 25% or so income tax. When you can do the equivalent of seeing a doctor without needing a doctor, or manufacture pharmaceuticals without needing a 90% of what a drug company needs to produce drugs, or the same for good, clothing, shelter, etc., then those goods become so cheap and easy to produce it doesn’t matter.

          Any arguments like “But what about the people and the company who need to run the machines?” argument just refutes the initial assumption: that we’ve eliminated significant human costs.

          The argument is essentially, “When robots have made all goods cheap and labor free, how will poor people have jobs to get the scarce resources that they need !?!?!” If they don’t see the inherent contradiction in that, then there’s no use talking to them.

          1. And I believe this all the more so because, in many ways, it’s already happened.

            I bet a person from 300 years ago would look at all of us today and say that we were living lives of material abundance, with everything we need requiring significantly less effort to obtain, with much higher quality of life, and he would think that our notion of “work” was exaggerated and personally offensive to him. He would think that, if your big fear in life is living to the age of 90 and having to pay for your cancer treatment, then you have absolutely no perspective on what his life is like.

            Somehow, I bet people will find stuff to whine about regardless of how good it gets.

            1. we are so so so so so adaptable. it doesn’t take too long (for me at least) for a situation that was at first novel to become commonplace if I do it all the time. I would think any time you were in jail, say, would be unpleasant, but inmates have good and bad days. and we do like to complain

              1. In 300 years, people will comlain that the poor sometimes have to take their age-stopping immortality drug in their 30s, meaning that they have to live with a scarlet letter of a body that looks 10 or so years older than the rich trust fund babies, who all take their age-stopping immortality drug at the age of 20 or so. And that this problem is due to the rampant wealth inequality in our society, which is really the biggest issue of our time. And everyone will be incredibly serious about it.

      4. Some people will never be content with prosperity. Catering to their sort is the end of civilization.

      5. What will happen is that food will become almost trivially cheap and people will be able to buy it with whatever they can make in their job as a part-time juggler, because the only jobs that will be left will be in entertainment.

      6. “We will eventually have to get beyond the moral argument that labor equals not starving.”

        Then we’ll have to pick something other than the labor theory of value.

    3. I read a trilogy a while ago that addressed the argued against the idea that people will eventually have no economic value.

      The first book is called the Golden Age by John C. Wright. In it the main character organizes a group of ostracized people into a business that competes with super intelligent AIs. This is just a sub-plot.

      Here’s a snippet of the author speaking about his reasoning:

      “A handyman who cleans a surgeons tools in two hours, which the surgeon, more skilled at tool-cleaning could clean in one hour, if the surgeon’s skill is worth $100 an hour, it will be worth it for him to hire any handyman who charges less than $50 an hour, not because he cannot clean the tools twice as well as the handyman, but because it is not worth the loss of his time that could be better spent doing what he is really good at.”

      http://clarkesworldmagazine.co…..interview/

      1. John C. Wright’s writing style kind of irritates me (I’ve read his blog and he has this annoying Victorian way of writing that just grates on me), but the guy is very sharp when he talks about economics and things like that. There aren’t that many SciFi writers who base stories on comparative advantage.

        1. I like his style in these books. He created the idea of different manorials with different codes of conduct, different visual representation of the world, etc. The main character’s manorial is based off of some Victorian ideals so I think the writing fits in this case.

          Yeah, when I read/hear people fretting about automation I think back to this novel. The concern about the end of work as we know it is insane. It seems many people who use the term wage slave will in the next instant bemoan the end of work. I mean if technology becomes so advanced that there really isn’t work who the hell cares?

          This concern like so many others is just a projection of people’s inner turmoil. That they’re unaware of this makes me embarrassed for them swiftly followed up by rage at them. Rage because they usually seize on the idea that some legislation needs to be implemented to assuage their fears/short comings.

          1. Dude, that’s the overall problem at being at the mercy of the majority. Most people are fucking stupid and don’t understand why they do things, so they do really retarded shit, often shit that will affect others, for the dumbest, emotional reasons.

            Also The Golden Age sounds…similar to Diamond Age, but I’d have to read it to be sure. But I have to finish Hamilton’s Naked God and then Asher’s Dark Intelligence first.

            1. “so they do really retarded shit, often shit that will affect others, for the dumbest, emotional reasons”

              I agree. I debate on reddit often, I know losing battle, the lack of self-awareness and logical consistency is staggering. Goal posts move, non-sequiturs and ad hominem spew all over the place. It’s rather disheartening.

              My hope, and I think I’m correct, is that technology will allow for the end of work but also the end of political power as we know it. Thus removing much of these people’s ability to effect me. Home power generation, manufacturing, water treatment, food production, etc. will fully decentralize just about everything. No need for big government or any non-voluntary government.

              I loved the Diamond Age as well. The Golden Age has a really interesting take on AIs and how a society could evolve with them. It a pretty upbeat book unlike so much Sci Fi these days.

              Found Hamilton’s series fun but a bit dark. I’m looking forward to Asher’s new book.

              1. Have you read Hamilton’s Mindstar series? Also good.

                Asher’s Polity has a more optimistic take on AI ruled society (Banks’ Culture too, but that’s so far advanced as to be, as Clarke would say, magic), but I don’t think an absence of scarcity or massive decentralization will ever stop some humans from wanting to control other humans and have power over them. The only thing that will stop that is not having any ability to do so, and I’m not sure how that would be achieved (other than benevolent ruling AIs in the Banks mold).

                1. I did read some of the mindstar series quite a while ago. I should pick it up again, don’t remember much besides the main character’s visualization when he used his power- a small black organ, secreting a milky substance. Nice.

                  I love Culture novels, but yes the technology is essentially magic. I really liked Excession, shows the minds being just as foolish as those far less intelligent. Plus it has military minds. Sweet!

                  “but I don’t think an absence of scarcity or massive decentralization will ever stop some humans from wanting to control other humans and have power over them.”

                  It does seem like an unsolvable problem. Greg Bear’s Queen of Angels addresses it somewhat. In his future people are able to become sane, by some measure, through technology. The book is an exploration of what that means and how to deal with people who choose not to be treated. A spree killer is one of the focuses.

                  I’ve thought about the benevolent AI scenario. If they only acted to stop the initiation of force that would be OK I think. But like in the Culture universe many of the the non-minds, even the AI drones, were suspicious of the mind’s ability to effortlessly manipulate. How would non-AIs know?

                  1. You wouldn’t.

                    You would have to have ‘faith’.

                    1. Or I guess part of humanity could follow Kurzweil’s idea an upgrade themselves to near AI intelligence.

                      Who will will watch the weakly godlike intelligences? Weakly demigod-like humans. Actually, that sounds like an awesome idea for a book.

                      Of course the difference in intelligence may by too vast for even super-intelligent humans to comprehend.

                    2. Who will will watch the weakly godlike intelligences? Weakly demigod-like humans. Actually, that sounds like an awesome idea for a book.

                      Other WGLIs – just like the only people keeping an eye on, and restraining, other people are people.

                      With the same result for the WGIs (and the rest of the collateral damage) as we have for ourselves.

                      Lesser tiers of intelligence will be able to control them about as well as apes can control us.

                      Less really – how are you going to know what the J-brain is doing inside the ancestor sims of its own virtual universe(s)?

                      “There is life eternal within the eater of souls. Nobody is ever forgotten or allowed to rest in peace. They populate the simulation spaces of its mind, exploring all the possible alternative endings to their life. There is a fate worse than death, you know.”

                    3. Considering how human’s treat animals your scenario doesn’t fill me with hope.

                      “”There is life eternal within the eater of souls. Nobody is ever forgotten or allowed to rest in peace…”

                      Damn, that’s scary. It that from Baxter’s story what the silver ghosts create a malevolent super intelligence?

                    4. Charles Stross ‘A Colder War’

                      http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/…..derwar.htm

                      Another really good writer who happens to be a rabid socialist.

                      WTF is *wrong* with Scotland?

                    5. Him and Cory Doctorow. They write all of these books where in the future people voluntarily interact to solve all sorts of problems then support all sorts of state coercion in reality.

                      It boggles the mind.

                      Although, I’ve read a few things from Doctorow recently, on boing boing that hive of socialist and SJW villainy, that seem to suggest he’s turning the corner. Can’t remember exactly what. Maybe it was in a dream…

                    6. MacLeod has a whole series, ‘The Engines of Light’, where capitalism is simply unable to exist.

                      In his mind, capitalism can only exist where there’s a ‘frontier’ and in this series, the whole universe (or at least the parts that humanity can reach) have been colonized millions of years ago and those species exist in a ‘steady-state economy’.

                    7. Have though about picking that up a few times. Didn’t like the covers,.. yes I judge.

                    8. Another very good story, taking place in the humanish remains of a post human future.

                      ‘The Quantum Thief’ Hannu Ranjaniemi

                      As a sort of peripheral danger are the Sobornost, small group of humans that have uplifted themselves to posthuman status and are purposely trying to convert the solar system into computronium to run ancestor sims – their goal is to not only simulate every human that has ever existed, but every human that could *possibly* exist.

                      Part of this process is uploading minds – and their not squeamish about either doing it forcefully or heavily modifying said mind to specialize in some task.

                    9. I’ve read it. I love that guy’s writing. Read his others too.

                      His books are pretty dense with ideas. Found the second read more enjoyable.

                  2. Funny thing about Banks – I’ve been reading Ken McLeod’s ‘Fall Revolution’ series and both hand wave the ‘end of scarcity, withering of the state’ happening through what is basically magic.

                    In both cases the problem is solved by super powerful computers. MacLeod’s story is annoying because a huge chunk of it concentrates on how desirable ‘true socialism’ is compared to free market capitalism (though, to give him credit, he is aware the FMC is better than any *real-world* socialist ‘experiment’) and yet the only way he can actually get it in by then end is to hand-wave magic computer tech that is somehow different than regular computer tech.

                    *sigh*, I suppose I should be thankful that at least *some* socialists understand the computation problem.

                    1. a huge chunk of it concentrates on how desirable ‘true socialism’ is compared to free market capitalism

                      Yeah, I hate when writers go full socialist. The evil, greedy capitalist is such a tired plot line. Often in books the answer is right there. The socialist minded characters, generally good guys, voluntarily interact in all sorts of ways yet those participating in markets are always the lowest scum.

                      the only way he can actually get it in by then end is to hand-wave magic computer tech that is somehow different than regular computer tech.

                      And there’s possibly a new problem that arrives with this supremely able computer. It would seem that it would need to model conscious beings by creating endless other conscious beings in software to figure out the best way to plan for resource allocation.
                      So is it ethical to create artificial worlds most of which would be populated by beings experiencing all sorts of dire economic events.

                      Well maybe with enough simulations semi-intelligent software agents would be sufficient.

                    2. Oops, haven’t commented here in a long while. Used reddit formatting.

  3. “19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting…

    “Pence has begun to feel the fallout from his decision. But while Indiana is being criticized, the NCAA didn’t say it was concerned over how athletes and employees would be affected by Kentucky’s RFRA when games were played there last week, there aren’t any plans to boycott states like Illinois or Connecticut, and Miley Cyrus has yet to post a photo of President Clinton or any of the 19 other governors who have also signed RFRAs.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..oycotting/

    1. Oh look. Father Eddie had come to give us another sermon.

      1. Please do us all a favor and refrain from bitching at Eddie until he’s actually acting like a theocrat. He offers plenty of opportunities.

        1. Posting religious bullshit 24/7 isn’t acting like a theocrat?

          1. What he posted is not “religious bullshit”. Most people here rightly think that the people who are apoplectic about the Indiana RFRA are morons.

            1. And if you had posted it, I’d have thought nothing about it.

              When Eddie does it…it is religious bullshit. It is Eddie’s reason for being here. To push his religion on everyone else.

              Because Eddie, is an asshole.

              1. “if you had posted it, I’d have thought nothing about it.

                “When Eddie does it…it is religious bullshit.”

                So if I say “have a nice day,” I’m just being a theocrat?

                1. Have a nice day!

        2. He rarely does, actually. Some people have a complex about him, for reasons best known only to their psychiatrists.

  4. What happens when burned out communists, end-of-the-worlders and Luddites all join forces?

    1. They take turns being wrong?

    2. “What happens when burned out communists, end-of-the-worlders and Luddites all join forces?”

      Why, that’s the answer to:
      ‘Where did the Democrat party come from?’

      1. Correct, and that concludes triple Jeopardy.

  5. “scare quotes”

  6. OT: I am forced to admit, Gawker does something amusing:

    I Interrupted Anime Twitter Cybersex Roleplay as Bar Rescue’s Jon Taffer

    Some people role play to escape the dreariness of their day-to-day lives. Some people role play to bring back childhood memories. Some people role play to explore fantastical worlds of their own creation. I role play because I want to know the answer to the question “What if powerful and intimidating Bar Rescue host Jon Taffer interrupted anime demons having cybersex on Twitter?”

    1. I laughed, then mistakenly tried explaining the premise to my girlfriend.

      She didn’t even crack a polite smile. Just shrugged and went back to detailing her car.

  7. OK – OT

    You guys know (of *course* you do) that Pillars of Eternity was released a couple of days ago.

    The forums are going *mad*, because there’s an achievement that you can only get if you backed the Kickstarter.

    All the ‘gotta get ’em all’ achievement players are freaking out – because its impossible for them to get 100% completion (on achievements – you can still finish the *game).

    I’m just laughing my arse off – I, personally, think achievements are cancer (crossed with AIDS) and suspect that the devs (Obsidian – an old-school cRPG maker) did this on purpose.

    1. “The forums are going *mad*, because there’s an achievement that you can only get if you backed the Kickstarter.”

      Ah, the story of the Little Red Hen.

    2. Is it fun? I’ve been looking forward to it.

      1. Just started.

        Combat has an AI problem – when you first start to fight, all the enemy attack the closest of your characters.

        So you have one guy running around like a headless chicken, 3 enemies chasing him like the farmer, and the rest of your party trying to draw them off. Which won’t happen until you do damage, so you have to split fire just to get their attention.

        1. Sounds like I should wait a while for some patches. It’s just as well, I have Borderlands to get to and not much video game time right now.

          1. Tiny Tina is looking at you accusingly.

    3. Game developers have a history of fucking with the fans.

      But then, gamers are notorious crybabies so it works itself out.

    4. Wow, I’d never even heard of this, but a quick Google search tells me I want it.

      It looks kind of like the older Diablos, before Diablo 3 took a dump on the franchise.

      1. Just so you’re not dissapointed – not even close.

        It more like Baldur’s Gate or Knight of the Old Republic. Its a cRPG – lot’s and lot’s of reading – and not an aRPG – lot’s and lot’s of clicking.

        1. I’ve never played either of those games. I don’t play many video games, but I’ve kind of wanted to get another long fantasy game going since they stopped producing expansions to Skyrim.

          1. Well, Skyrim has a couple of DLC sized mods available (Faalsar and Wyrmstooth) that introduce new world spaces.

            Plus there’s a bajillion mods that change up gameplay and add new stuff – though if you’re not a big gamer then fucking with mods may not be your cup of tea. It tends to take me one-two days of mod-wrangling before I can play a new game (but I use an abnormally large amount of mods).

            Another option – if you thin you might like Fallout – is Tale of Two Wastelands, which merges Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas into the New Vegas game engine. You start off in/near Washington DC and end up (hours and hours and hours and hours) later in Nevada.

            1. I have Skyrim on Xbox, not the computer. Of course, Skyrim is probably super cheap for the PC at this point, so I could always just get a copy of that so I can play the mods. It’s only like $20 for a copy of Skyrim at this point, so I might just spring for a PC version.

      2. No, because it is party-based (which I personally hate). Diablo is not party-based (at least in single player mode). If you want a proper heir to Diablo, you want Path of Exile. Bonus part: it’s free.

      3. It’s closest to Icewind Dale in appearance. Which is why I backed it, that’s one of my favorite games of all time.

    5. *Looks at kickstarter backer achievement marked completed*

      Suck it bitches!

  8. From H.L. Mencken’s old paper –

    “Want to restore morality? Encourage atheism…

    “…Research over the past few years has found that American atheists and agnostics consistently score higher on measurements of empathy and compassion…”

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne…..story.html

    1. That is the biggest dipshit…it’s like Baltimore Tony.

      The recent column about America’s moral decay implies that the solution to the problem is for folks to convert to become conservative Christian Republicans (“The moral decay of the Md. GOP,” March 21). Research over the past few years has found that American atheists and agnostics consistently score higher on measurements of empathy and compassion, which lie at the core of morality and caring about others. In addition, women consistently score higher on these measurements than men. If the Republican Party nominates an atheist woman for office, I promise to give her serious consideration.

      “Hello. I don’t have any evidence for my claims, but I’m going to make them anyway. Also, I am a sexist and an atheist chauvinist who is incapable of judging people as individuals! Nothing says ‘morality’ like absolutely collectivizing people into groups rather than treating them as individual people! When has treating people differently based on the group they belong to ever gone poorly?”

      The other thing is that religious people give a shitload more money to charity than atheists and I say that as an atheist. I therefore wonder if atheists supposedly being more ’empathetic’ comes from atheists simply claiming that they care more about other people while never actually bothering to help other people.

      In which case they’d just be lying rather than being moral.

      1. Yeah. And society needs various types of people. I hate busybodies but they do keep the rest of us on our better behavior. Here’s another example.

        When I was in the Navy there were no women on combat ships. It was interesting to watch the crudity increase as the weeks at sea increased. Women (in general) make men more civilized.

        Even Tony’s useful for honing your arguing-with-a-socialist skills.

        1. There’s a serious problem with studies that claim to show ’empathy’ which is that you can’t follow someone around their daily lives and see how they actually treat people, so you end up basing it upon their claims about how empathetic they are – which very easily could be self-serving lies.

          That’s a problem with all self reported studies. There was also a very interesting study I saw regarding obesity. Basically, all the self-reported studies showed that the South was the fattest part of the country, so a study went down and actually had people get weighed in different parts of the country. What they found was that the South wasn’t the fattest part of the country, they just lied less about their weight. As a result, positive outcomes for a certain group in a self-reported study could actually be measuring the negative characteristic of their dishonesty or self-delusion.

          I also agree that men tend to have their edges sanded down by women. Also, if you’ve ever been the only man in a large group of women, it is amazing how vicious women can behave towards one another. I think to a very large degree when people are with other members of their gender they behave competitively in way that brings out some very negative behaviors but that those behaviors tend to be mitigated when the genders mix.

          1. I also agree that men tend to have their edges sanded down by women. Also, if you’ve ever been the only man in a large group of women, it is amazing how vicious women can behave towards one another. I think to a very large degree when people are with other members of their gender they behave competitively in way that brings out some very negative behaviors but that those behaviors tend to be mitigated when the genders mix.

            So, the notion that there would be less war if women ran the country is bullshit.

            Real diversity is good for society. The progressive notion of diversity is just multiethnic progressivism because they don’t like non-progressives no matter your color.

      2. Well, ‘large-scale experiments’ have certainly shown that atheists could not possibly be more empathetic or moral than religionists.

        Most of the worst atrocities of the twentieth century were perpetrated under supposedly secular regimes, for supposedly secular purposes.

        I have no doubt that if atheists held power in centuries past they would have been able to rival the great religions in the field of mass slaughter – power has many rooms in its house.

        But, on a smaller scale, atheists win out only because most of the mainstream religions have a small, violent, fundamentalist wing that drags down the ‘look down your nose at those heathens’ mainstream.

      3. “The other thing is that religious people give a shitload more money to charity than atheists and I say that as an atheist.”

        I was at first doubtful of your claim tha, but when I read “I say that as an atheist”, I realised you must be holding yourself to a higher ethical standard and COULD BE TRUSTED, unlike those lying sneakthief jewxtians.

        Empathy as it’s usually operationalised by sociologists is really a pretty obnoxious trait. And both in their formulation and in the common sense of the word, empathy is pretty much involuntary, a matter of temperament at best (or, worser, some kind of neuroticism), and not informed by the empath[etic jerk]’s beliefs. So the likelier conclusion here would be that atheism and empathy are encouraged by the same irrational developmental perturbations, and not that there’s anything in atheistic braindodging that brings it to it. But then there’s “and compassion”. Empathy and compassion are nearly opposites, the latter being voluntary and entirely engendered by the compass[etic jerk]’s beliefs, so who the fuck knows what in tarnation this is about. Sir! There’s a conflation in my sup!

  9. From H.L. Mencken’s old paper –

    “Want to restore morality? Encourage atheism…

    “…Research over the past few years has found that American atheists and agnostics consistently score higher on measurements of empathy and compassion…”

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne…..story.html

  10. Mark your calendars!

    “Atheists open up: What they want you to know…

    “CNN’s documentary, “Atheists: Inside the World of Non-Believers,” tells the story of a number of people who put themselves in that group — and the stigma they’ve faced.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/28/…..s-q-and-a/

  11. “Pro runner Alexi Pappas talks 10K plans, ‘Tracktown’ movie and deep-dish pizza…

    “SN: Deep-dish pizza was your reward after pacing the Chicago Marathon. What were your thoughts on it compared to other pizzas?

    “AP: It was great. I had never had deep-dish pizza until then. It’s like one of those things that every time you go back to a race, we will be wiser because there’s another piece of pizza there.”

    http://www.sportingnews.com/sp…..icago-2015

    1. Now you’re just trolling.

      1. You think?

        1. Francisco is going to get his dick in a knot.

  12. OT: U.S. Military Practices Martial Law; Texas and Utah Deemed “Hostile” Areas

    Seven Southwestern states will soon be infiltrated by 1,200 military special ops personnel as part of a controversial domestic military training in which some of the elite soldiers will operate undetected among civilians.

    Operation Jade Helm begins in July and will last for eight weeks. Soldiers will operate in and around towns in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado where some of them wil drop from planes while carrying weapons loaded with blanks in what military officials have dubbed Realistic Military Training.

    The Houston Chronicle reports that, among the planned exercises, soldiers will attempt to operate undetected among civilian populations.

    Residents, in turn, will be asked to report suspicious activity in order to gauge the effectiveness of the soldiers.

    Military officials say they’ve gotten the go ahead for the operations from local authorities such as mayors and county commissions.

    Sure, we’ll be air dropping military SpecOps into your states for a few months where they’ll practice killing undetected in civilian-heavy areas. Nothing at all to be concerned about. Go on with your lives.

    1. Really makes me want to move to Texas or Utah. But mostly Utah.

    2. So, once you read the article you see that the author doesn’t know what ‘martial law’ is.

      Hint: When under martial law, soldiers don’t go around trying to operate inconspicuously.

      1. Apparently, he’s in good company since the not even the Nazgul have a ready definition on hand:

        The Constitution does not refer to ‘martial law’ at all and no Act of Congress has defined the term. It has been employed in various ways by different people and at different times. By some it has been identified as ‘military law’ limited to members of, and those connected with, the armed forces. Others have said that the term does not imply a system of established rules but denotes simply some kind of day to day expression of a General’s will dictated by what he considers the imperious necessity of the moment. See United States v. Diekelman, 92 U.S. 520 , 526. In 1857 the confusion as to the meaning of the phrase was so great that the Attorney General in an official opinion had this to say about it: ‘The Common Law authorities and commentators afford no clue to what martial law, as understood in England, really is. … In this country it is still worse.’ 8 Op.Atty.Gen. 365, 367.

        -Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 315 (1946)

        I am not aware of any law or reasoning that requires soldiers imposing martial law to carry out only conspicuous operations. Civilian law enforcers have wide latitude to engage in all manners of covert or deceptive practices in the fulfillment of their duties.

        1. The typical image of martial law is soldiers on the corner, patrolling the streets, ‘papers!’, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. Suspension of civil authority.

          Soldiers hiding in your bushes, not so much.

          1. That is the typical image of martial law, a crude hammer, an overwhelming display of force. But there’s still nothing that says the hammer and the scalpel can’t be in the same place at the same time, or that the scalpel requires the hammer.

            Besides we need soldiers hiding behind every bush to counter the (right-wing domestic) terrorists hiding behind every tree.

        2. Except the word “law” in the phrase “martial law”, and all the denotations and connotations it buries. Now, if the term were an invention of the past twenty years, that’d be all out the window, but considering the distal antixuity of the phrase, we can assume that “law”, in some sense, is part of its sense. Otherwise, they’d just called it “war” or “indiscriminate surreptitious unexpected homicide” or some such.

    3. What could possibly go wrong?

      1. A sheriff’s deputy mistakenly shot and killed a U.S. soldier and seriously wounded another taking part in a role-playing field training exercise,

        While a genuine tragedy (and one where the officer *isn’t* a fault), its fucking hilarious that two Green Berets couldn’t take a cop down.

        1. Silver cuffs across their wrists
          These two men, versus America’s Finest
          One hundred men will test today
          but only three (and not these two) will win the Green Beret

  13. What happens when productivity and employment become radically uncoupled? The most productive people will function like whole teams or whole companies.

    For example, a contractor will have a team of robots, & maybe a few human “foremen” who are more like highly skilled machine operators than tradesmen. They will build more, faster and cheaper than any human-only firm. There is no shortage of work to be done, gutters to clear, houses to paint, streets to sweep, potholes to patch. Instead of $50 or $100 per hour, it could be a small fraction of that. Things will get fixed, bridges repairs, homes maintained, stores remodeled–stuff that people put off because they can’t afford the labor. As the price for labor falls, the quantity demanded of such services will increase without any foreseeable limit because people always want improvement in their homes, businesses, transportation, education, healthcare, etc. New markets and industries will emerge as we have the tools to tackle them cost effectively.

    1. I think there will be a demand for human labor for a long, long time. People set goals, tools carry out the work. Machines may get smart, but I don’t see them being able to set goals or navigate between competing, ambiguous and contradictory objectives. Not soon, anyway.

      There well always be a segment of the population that lacks the skills to compete for employment in an automated society. How will they get by? They’ll hustle, they’ll do things for themselves that it would be cheaper to hire a machine for (if they had the cash), & some will learn skills or buy machines to improve their lot. They’ll take risks and some will fail and need the charity of others to get back on their feet. I think the question is how large this group will be.

      1. How will they get by?

        Well, let’s just put it this way, the DEA won’t be hurting for work anytime soon…

      2. No, because at the same time, those traits you describe in human will grow more and more nonexistent until it evens out and eventually probably the robots actually become better at everything–not because they actually get so much better, but because the human population that liveth amongst them is so incompetent.

    2. This has been happening throughout the history of automation/mechanization. A single carpenter can accomplish with a few power tools what used to take a team of apprentices and journeymen. A professional or entrepreneur can get by with a pc when they used to need at least a secretary. Offices used to send stuff out to printers, but how they just drop a file in a queue.

      Networking computers has killed a lot of jobs. But entrepreneurs can start up most any kind of LongTail type business and put it online to reach just those customers interested in his/her product. Services get cheaper so that more people can afford them, keeping craftsmen and other skilled workers busy.

      I just can’t see how people will starve in the streets because of technology. But there will always by luddites.

      1. “A single carpenter can accomplish with a few power tools what used to take a team of apprentices and journeymen.”

        Yeahr, and it looks like shit, whereas they used to produce something that was obviously the carefully concerted product of a team of apprenti?es and journeymen.

  14. The claim that machines will put everyone out of work is totally illogical. Everyone out of work means no buying stuff, which means machines won’t be manufacturing anything. This same tired and short sighted argumnt has been used for the past 300 year, every time some new machine came along that replaced a lot of humans. What happened was that everyone’s standard of living went up and more money was available for other things (entertainment, restaurants, etc etc)
    Making things cheaper is always a good thing.

    1. Its the basic fallacy that there is only so much work.

      1. every machine that replaces a laborer leaves us with all the stuff that laborer could do *plus* a laborer freed up to do something more.

      2. Labor is a resource input, same as steel, electricity, paper, meat, etc. Reduce the price of labor and you reduce the price of the final good or service. Often drastically because in most cases, *labor* is the single most expensive input.

      2a If you lose your job to a robot and have to take a ‘lower paying’ job, does really matter if goods and services are also reduced in price proportionally (or larger) meaning that your purchasing power may actually *increase*?

      3 If, somehow, *all* workers are replaced by automation, then that means that everything is effectively ‘free’. In which case, work has become obsolete. Go paint a picture, grow flowers, climb a mountain.

      1. If you lose your job to a robot and have to take a ‘lower paying’ job, does really matter if goods and services are also reduced in price proportionally (or larger) meaning that your purchasing power may actually *increase*?

        The single biggest expenditure for most households is housing, the one sector that seems completely immune to price reduction thanks to so many bullshit green regulations and government “affordable housing” interventions attempting to fix the problems from the previous government interventions…

          1. Just pointing out that it would matter to a lot of people, unless the libertarian moment happened by then and we elected a bunch of politicians at all levels who were committed to ensuing the interventions. Oh, and a few enviro-freaks’ heads on pikes, you know, pour encourager les autres…

            1. *ending. AN EDIT BUTTON WOULD HELP TOO.

            2. So you’re saying the coming robot apocalypse is going to destroy humanity through *high housing prices*.

              Because *humans* will keep the cost of regulation high even as the costs of materials and inputs will drop to 0 – therefore we’ll all be homeless?

        1. “The single biggest expenditure for most households is housing, the one sector that seems completely immune to price reduction thanks to so many bullshit green regulations and government “affordable housing” interventions attempting to fix the problems from the previous government interventions…”

          As a resident of SF, I’ll mention that a lot of the costs arise from the common desire to live in certain places.
          Even given the rotten government, more people want to live in San Francisco than, say Reno. Absent any regs at all, there is X space in San Francisco, limiting the supply compared to the demand. This is true of other places, and typically, people will tolerate worse governments to live in them.

      2. Exactly. Fewer people working in factories means more people available to juggle for my entertainment.

      3. Exactly. Fewer people working in factories means more people available to juggle for my entertainment.

    2. “Everyone out of work means no buying stuff, which means machines won’t be manufacturing anything.”

      No, because things can be manufactured for almost nothing, even the workless can scrape together enough to pay for this and that, the necessities, impoverished luxuries of the age, and so forth. Thereby driving ever onward the ineluctable Machine and the explication of human suffering.

  15. So this Luddite I knew once was a robot.

    1. +1 Terminator II

    2. Is this the start of a ‘man from Nantucket’ style joke?

      1. There once was a robotic Luddite
        Self-cleaning rugs held his spite
        they’ve taken my job
        he said with a sob
        And Vacuumed off into the night.

        1. Hyperbole can be forever or limp alone in flames cuz his malebot got mad jealous when hyperbole fucked the girlbot next door. Bot happens.

  16. Robot zombies are nothing to mess with, Reasonoids- the bright diamonds of the web. Be safe out there.

  17. Once as a child I was playing in a park in a field of flowers and all the flowers naturally broke as I frolicked except one… and that flower spoke to me and explained it was planted by a robot gardener and I shouldn’t be afraid. And I wasn’t but I did feel shades of awe and I left that flower because I figured had I picked it I might have been killed by a robot flower.

  18. A wild and crazy robot would probably hurt a lot of fucking people in the club.

  19. Can a robot rape a robot?

    1. Definately, if they don’t have a continuous consent interface (CCI) then it’s rape.

      1. wadair, robots in America will not be created with dicks and vaginas… Can a robot trip up a human? just happened… hahahahahahahahahahahaha

        1. Well, they have artificial sex called AI for Artificial Intercourse.

          1. Binary Jizz award for wadair. I don’t think binary jizz is real yet but sometime in the near future it might be so that check will show up a decade late. Just sayin, bro.

            1. Your either a one or a zero.

              1. wadair this number is betwixt, sir.

      2. I love you… just jesting with my reason bro.

  20. Can a job be stolen? And should robots be charged with a felony if they steal a human’s job?

  21. I want to see real robot randomly slink by in daisy dukes.

  22. If artists run the world in 2050 all the robots will be sexy. If Bill O’Reilly types run the world in 2050 all the robots will look like that fucking stupid vacuum you buy on Amazon.

  23. I see no reason not to fuck a sexy robot if it has a vagina or a butthole.

  24. Can I trip on LSD with a robot? Robots are really rare in trips because humans are organic. Bet you bitches didn’t know that.

    1. Yes. It is very difficult to persuade them to join you, and they need something with a different “chemistry”, but the experience is illuminating. For both of you.

  25. A jilted robot is likely more formidable than a jilted male/female lover… So, do you want to jilt a deep-thinking robot, Mr. Smiley Man up on top of the page who thinks he’s fucking genius?

    1. Alright, fine… you ARE a genius but geniuses are prone to falling in love with intellectual…

      1. That smily fucking bitch on top is a genius… not this fucking woods dwelling tripping bitch … I think I speak with angels with delicious cunts but this doenst make me a genius I can’t actually fucking write into goddamn CODE these fucking angels like that smiley man up on the top.

  26. If humans become obsolete economically, we can infer that robots are cheaper to operate than even the cheapest worker. Which means wage costs will go to zero, which, if we’re in a competitive market, means that prices of everything the robots produce will fall to something like the marginal cost of the electricity needed to run them. And since robots are doing all the mining and oil-drilling too, those costs will collapse as well. A completely robot-driven society would thus mean nearly free goods and services.

    The fear that we’ll have this vast market of robot-produced goods that nobody can buy because they don’t have jobs makes no economic sense. Prices will fall to the point that the products sell. If the cost of producing them with a robot is too high to be afforded, then you stop producing those goods with robots. But we already know that robot production has to be cheaper than human production or nobody would use it.

    I suspect what is more likely is that all the surplus labor would end up being employed as artisans and entertainers, for a small, highly educated elite that is involved in the robot engineering business. There will be a small STEM elite which will live like Kublai khan, and all the former liberal arts majors will work for them as entertainers and cooks. Probably prostitutes too.

    1. I have a patent for mashing all those other humans into robot gravy oil. Well, I have several patents seriously but I should be honest i am WORKING on a patent for legally squiching humans into robot oil. Humans that can’t fuck or act can just be procreated and live short fucking lives and then be reverted into robot lubricant. Humans will just be procreated on farms and then aborted en masse for robot massage oils. robots are only sexy in my mind but for real robots will be very dry and boring like the super rich.

    2. There will be a small STEM elite which will live like Kublai khan, and all the former liberal arts majors will work for them as entertainers and cooks. Probably prostitutes too.

      We can only dream!

      However, since I’ve retired from engineering I’ve discovered liberal arts and find it (them) enlightening. I’m not sure I would have understood as much 30 to 40 years ago. But they are still valid. If you consider the classical meaning of liberal then their value becomes more obvious. In fact, it may happen that computers will eventually replace most STEM jobs and leave only those devoted to human relations as the most valuable. Just sayin’ that it is possible.

      1. orgasm math hasn’t been discovered yet. It will soon. when all those robots are desired by all the boys and girls and the new world will consit of rmf, rrf, rff, and all sorts of humans robot concoctions and I’ve been part of all sort of HUMAN mmf, ffm, mf, and so on but I’ve yet to experience the preceding… should be interesting.

      2. Well, in the robot-abundance future, everyone will have plenty of free time to study the liberal arts, so there will be a surplus of potential laborers in that field. Maybe all the engineers will retire and become philosophers, and then, since people are doing it for free, there will no need to pay people for those things.

    3. I think you’ve misunderstood somewhere along the way. It’s not a fear that robots will produce this cornucopia of products that no one can buy, but that they will produce this cornucopia of product that everyone will be required to buy (by valuless state-issued credits if need be), whether they want to live a materialist hell of shit or not.

  27. So who wants to fuck my wife and me with a robot for a fmr and so and so?

  28. If you make robot math it should desire humans.

    Should robots lust?

    I lust after all sorts of goodness and anything that doens’t lust is living a tired boring existence.

  29. Starting back in the year 2000 I spent a few years experimenting with “learning bots.” A couple years in when results were, in my opinion, worthy of showing off it was time to show various individuals what I’d been investing so much of my attention on. It was reactions of those individuals upon witnessing those “learning bots” that was the greatest learning experience. Some were bored, others confused, still others were absolutely amazed. But there were those who were terrified, and even some who became very paranoid. There was more than one person who ran around warning others that I was “playing god” or that people in general needed to beware that I was up to no good. The psychology involved was even more interesting at that point than the bots had been. Most of those experiencing the extremely fearful reaction were those I had always considered to posses above average intelligence.

    The reason I’m sharing all this is we appear to be witnessing on a much larger scale the same psychological phenomena I’d witnessed earlier between humans and the “learning bots.”

    So what exactly were “learning bots”? They were somewhat clever programs that appeared to learn from experience. Did they actually learn? If by learning one is referring to the complex process of learning by humans and other animals; then certainly not. As I stated earlier, it was programming that gave the appearance of learning.

    1. Big deal. I did essentially the same thing with my cricket hospital when I was ten.

  30. + So now the algorithm is much more complex and being called “deep learning.” And the psychological responses are about the same.

  31. The Neo-Luddites arguing that robots are going to fully displace humans in the workforce are committing the fallacy of conceiving economics as a zero-sum game.

    Though it’s true that heavily regulated markets (as all contemporary markets are today) will be less far less adaptable to the consequences of new technologies. So these sorts of advances likely will put a lot of people out of work for much longer than they’d otherwise be without all the undue state intervention.

  32. Oh. I see a charlatan (I mean entrepreneur) trying to convince everyone that robots need a soul
    to coexist with humans. Then we’ll have robot effigies in every dwelling. Sounds like fun times, too bad I won’t be there. The economic value I could have contributed to humanity.

    1. Be simpler just to remove the soul from human, perhaps devote it to some general fund in case we ever need soul for something other than dragging us down into that pit of shame and despair. Soul is just another word for hell’s magnet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.