Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v0pxr wrote

Reply to comment by PEVEI in Almost 40% of domestic tasks could be done by robots ‘within decade’ by altmorty

I need a whoosh gif for you. I really do.

I'll break it down for you here, step by step:

  1. The article says that 40% of household tasks could be automated in 10 years.
  2. I comment that the timeline is ludicrous because that tech this is going to be too expensive for this timeframe to be realistic.
  3. You bring up 3 technologies that people said would be too expensive to own.
  4. I show that all three examples of technology absolutely in no way went from hypothetical to middle-class reality within 3 generations, let alone 10 years.

So my point is, and I hope you've made it this far...

The idea that 40% of tasks in a home will be automated within the next 10 years is bullshit.

2

PEVEI t1_j9v0wz1 wrote

Got it, so you just disagree with the timeframe on the basis of evidence from... the Industrial Revolution.

−2

Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v122h wrote

I just used the examples you laid out, hoss.

Oh, and the PC isn't from the Industrial Revolution. And it still took nearly 40 years.

Here. Let's use something more modern. Self-driving cars. That's almost a thing now, right? Almost commercially viable? Probably what, 10-12 years away before it becomes possible on a mid-range sedan like the Ford Fusion?

Wanna know how long the self-driving car has been a theoretical "just around the corner" innovation? They've been talking about it since the mid-50's.

4

PEVEI t1_j9v15o5 wrote

I think you may be struggling with what "PC" means.

−2

Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v1eph wrote

I think you may be struggling with what "commercially viable to the masses" means.

In 1984, when the Macintosh came out, less than 10% of homes had any version of what can be known as a PC.

2

PEVEI t1_j9v1mnl wrote

Not really, it's just that mass adoption has to start somewhere; you object to that in principle, I don't.

Oh sorry, I mean... you object to the time frame in the headline.

0

Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v1y2b wrote

Please point out where I have said that I object to mass adoption.

Seriously. Point it out. I wanna see where your disconnect is. Because all I have said... Since this has started... And I will say it again... Straight copy/pasted from my previous posts...

The idea that 40% of tasks in a home will be automated within the next 10 years is bullshit.

How does that equate to my objecting to mass adoption?

3

PEVEI t1_j9v2424 wrote

> Oh sorry, I mean... you object to the time frame in the headline.

You missed that? Not sure I can help if so.

Putting aside your objection to the 10 year mark though, what's the issue?

0

Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v3b44 wrote

Have I said I had an issue outside of that? The article is garbage because of the headline and it's inference that this can all be done in that timeframe.

Beyond that, the headline is even MORE garbage because the researcher says nothing specifically about "robots". She talks about automation.

The best part is that in the article... And this really is the best part...

The researcher says essentially the exact same thing I did in my first comment.

Here's the quote:

> But she told the BBC that the expense of technology meant the use of household robots could also lead to “a rise of inequality in free time” - with only richer households able to afford the technology.

Huh... With only richer households able to afford the technology.

2

PEVEI t1_j9v3ikh wrote

You just seem very agitated about a mundane part of life: technology takes time to move past the realm of early adopters who can afford it, until it becomes ubiquitous and life changing for everyone.

1

Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v3x58 wrote

If that's what you think I'm "agitated" about, then man... You should go back and re-read it all.

I've said the article itself is garbage a number of times. I've never said anything against the fact that tech takes time. In fact, it's been my number one point as to WHY the article is garbage.

1

Heijoshinn t1_j9wh4ka wrote

Lol and now you're agreeing with the guy you've been debating with who first made that exact same statement through example?

1