• @ALostInquirer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    191 year ago

    […] I just want to point out that automating things that exist purely in the digital domain is far easier than automating things like ship breaking.

    Not that you’re saying otherwise, however isn’t that even more of a reason more developers and resources should be allocated toward automating complex and risky physical processes?

    • @IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 year ago

      Honestly, I don’t see how you would do it without general AI, which is something that will be solved in the digital domain first anyway.

      • @MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        Eh, it could be done with non-general AI. There are a finite number of different types of things to handle, so as long as it’s not thrown off by some bent steel or some missing consoles, I’d be amazed if they couldn’t automate at least specific ship designs.

        • @IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          Automation requires very high precision/consistency in the parts you want to work on. I seriously doubt that after many years of wear, tear, and impromptu repairs, those ships would be anywhere near consistent enough.

          • @MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s why I said, “eventually with non-general AI”.

            Even a well written algorithm could work with something that’s mostly in expected shape. How in the flying fuck is everyone so brainless that they cannot understand non-general AI can still adapt to things? Fucking hell.

            I’m not talking about current industry practices. I’m talking about combining existing technology with unlimited bidget to create a factory that could kinda’ do the task.

            “Possible” and “practical” are two extremely different things, and you goons pointing out that most obvious basic fact are adding nothing.

          • @MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Why the flying fuck do you think I said, “non-general AI”? Even a well written algorithm could handle things coming in not in perfect shape, yet everyone pretends “non-general AI” means, “execute instructions repeatedly without any input what so ever.”

            Use your brain. Even basic dumb algorithms that can run on an Arduino can respond to input. Machine learning can easily respond to dynamic input, so stop failing to imagine the most basic of basic things I say.

    • partial_accumen
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      Not that you’re saying otherwise, however isn’t that even more of a reason more developers and resources should be allocated toward automating complex and risky physical processes?

      You’re solving for the wrong problem from the perspective of people with money investing money to solve these problems.

      • Shipbreaking, while dangerous for the workers, isn’t expensive because it is done in far flung countries with workers that have low wages, few protections for safety, and long term health consequences.

      • Art and writing (for western consumption) requires educated and talented people which are expensive to employ.

      People with money, looking for a return, want that return their spending, not reduce human suffering.

    • @Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      Processing the digital world is just the first step. You can’t just build a safe autonomous ship disassembly robot without making sure your algorithms are actually sound. Look at self driving cars, they’re far from being safe and acceptable. Jumping straight into this problem without testing the shit out of your code in a virtual world is a mistake.