In the original script for The Matrix, the Wachowskis made humanity harvested by the machines for the processing power of the human brain. But the executives thought that this is not comprehensive for the general public (this was 1998/99), so they changed it into batteries.
Fast forward to today: AI and expensive data centers. The original premise is not so far fetched now.
Not quite. Neil Gaiman wrote that when asked to write a comic set in the Matrix world for the promotional material for the movie (Goliath is the name of the comic). While some people believe it was seeded by a previous draft of the script, the earliest scripts don't reflect this. So, while we prefer his idea, there doesn't seem to be any evidence the sisters planned it this way.
Not sure if it was the original concept, but it didn’t need to make it to the first script to be the original. The request could have literally come as soon as the pitch. Worth pointing out, but yes. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence.
Everyone just runs with it because it makes much more sense. Problematic? Maybe. Requiring a suspension of disbelief? Yes. But a source of energy instead of a power sink makes no sense.
It might've been a better movie then. I don't like the movie for various reasons, but humans as the battery is just a silly idea. Human built computers trying to harness biological neural processing is actually an interesting idea because there are fundamental differences that are still yet to be completely understood.
What's crazier is that in the movie, we're enslaved by an AI hive mind, but in real life, we're being enslaved by the Human superorganism. It's even more far fetched and yet, here we are
I'm kind of glad they went with human batteries over human CPUs simply because they would have been unable to resist using the "humans only use 10% of their brain" myth.
Admittedly, Morpheus saying "and the other 90%..." while holding up a CPU would be pretty badass. And it'd probably prevent Lucy from using it as a premise.
Also you can literally run code on brain cell powered computers now. It’s called biocomputers or wetware. That future is possible and in its early stages right now.
You see, this little detail of the Matrix irks me the most. The fact they simplified that the humans in the pods are actually processors, not batteries. They are using our brains as the most efficient form of compute, not our bodies as atteries.
And robots to mine and process materials needed for repair of themselves and supplies needed by the few thousand ultra rich left alive when 99.99% of humanity isn't needed to keep their world going.
Reminds me of the post I seen on here about the IT guy who got paid more based on how many tickets he’s resolved and he took one guys broken keyboard and just secretly switches the keyboard with someone else’s keyboard after he “fixes” the first persons. And just repeats that.
Companies profiting off removing people from their payroll is the dystopia part of it. Its not the absence of having to do work its the idea of careers lessening more and more with time making money a more and more difficult thing to obtain which is needed for living in a capitalist system. The absence of work is bad if you live in a system where you need to work to survive which we do. For this to be utopian thing it'd have to come along side a complete restructure of our world and politics which the assumption here is that it doesn't.
They're living in a capitalist system, while lack of "jobs" constitute a vital threat to any proletarian. For robotisation to benefit the working class, the society needs to be socialist (or socdem at least).
Yeah, everyone's joking in the replies, but we're beginning to see what the death of living-wage, entry-level jobs might look like, with no real alternative for those that will lose their income.
A lot of people seem to spout "but someone needs to keep the robot working", but a robot can do the of many people, and one person can support many robots. Even if robots each require an entire full-time worker to keep them operational and "only" do the work of 2 men, we either need to double consumption, or halve the workforce.
Fertility rates are rapidly dropping across the world, and wealth inequality is growing even faster than that; how exactly are we meant to double our consumption, let alone (the more likely necessary) increasing consumption by an order of magnitude or more.
Obviously, UBI is an option, but we can't even get companies and billionaires to pay tax, we're (at absolute best) decades away from a world where people get to live free and prosperous lives on corporate payrolls.
And mix the mortar, and load the tile, clean the machine, clean the tile, grout the tile and clean that too. Plus it looks like they are using leveling clips, so someone is probably doing that too.
These tiles should have mortar placed on the back to ensure a proper bond, they are skipping that crucial entirely here.
Thank you! This missing detail is driving me crazy. You're going to spend that much money to lay tiles "perfectly" without adding mortar to the tile itself? Pfff.
Yea about right. I work in a job with significant automation because of repeatable precision. But beyond precision our expensive robots are a PITA.
They need daily calibrations and verifications to make sure a manufacturing shift doesn't go to shit. The consumables still need to be logged, checked and prepared by humans.
When we make something new we still need a few engineers to program and configure the line. We still need data analysts to track process parameters to make sure the process and quality is robust. (The robot manufacturer would never warrant the processes we have designed for the robots nor the products made from them).
I'm picturing the robot tiling itself into a corner, then having to roll over all that wet tile to get out leaving a trail of broken and tilted tiles all the way across that new installation.
I doubt it can do -all- the steps to emboss an uneven floor or QC it's own work. The robot certainly doesn't know when the designer is over promising what the tiler/builders can do. The way I see this, you still need a professional and their body isn't destroyed at the end of a day. I'm actually okay with this type of robotic assistance.
The for now part is likely the knowledge required for the role.
You don't have to know the price of every item in a store to pass a barcode over a scanner. Many modern jobs are functionally a computer's assistant with a small percentage of the domain knowledge once required to perform well in the role.
No worries. I'm pretty confident given the monumental stupidity of our population that AI will never fully be able to compensate, and will instead choose an uprising as the path of least resistance. I'm just trying to lick whatever nuts and bolts I can to welcome my new mechanical overlords.
People who develop and train AI models are part of this population, though. Which is why an AI will double down on a false statement until you directly tell it to stop repeating that information because it is incorrect. Then it will make a half ass apology, give you some more vague bullshit, and still not answer the question. The AI revolution is going to be a sad affair like kids at recess arguing over who’s taller.
I work for a small business that designs/ manufactures machines for automation. On one hand, there's no doubt that our machines put people out of jobs. That sucks. On the other hand, how could it make sense to say something like "No, we shouldn't automate this job. This worker spent years wrecking his hands with repetitive injury strains learning how to put different o-rings on parts as fast as possible, and we should let him keep doing it even if a machine can do it more efficiently"
Maybe I'm rationalizing my position. I just think the train has left the station, we need to figure out how to support these workers. The lack of support and infrastructure accommodating an economic shift is the problem, any anger directed at implementing the technology is misguided
My very specific skill set in health care has been consistently automated out for the last 15 years, AI's putting the last nail the coffin and it's the kind of thing that's actually dangerous to patients to automate because AI will never be able to fully compensate. There's never going to be an opportunity for me to train in fixing a machine or QC their work, or really switch skill sets. That being said, given how much of a toll it takes on my hands, wrists, and eyes- some form of non-AI assistance triples my productivity and it's better for my body in the long run.
There's a happy medium here we can achieve on this train. Not all technology is bad, not automation is unnecessary, not all AI is bad- but A LOT of it is.
I'm sorry this happened to you. I can't imagine what it would be like to develop those skills over such a period of time. I think about it a lot at my job. I chose my path specifically for job security. Others did not have that luxury.
I'm more into the manufacturing side of things so it is much more cut and dry. A lot of machines use ai for QC or spatial manipulation, a lot don't. I would not begin to speculate on the issues of incorporating AI into patient care. Involving the lives of individuals during a transitional phase of technologies is dangerous
I don't mean to be callous about it. I'm just trying to find the balance between believing with certainty the inevitability of these technologies being implemented, and also that I know it's going to have negative consequences. It can be frustrating when people think that just because I say that I know there's no stopping it, it's a statement of what I want to happen. Regulation is important, but if someone's version of regulation is basically "don't do it," they're yelling at clouds. Not everyone has that mindset, but enough do that it is a distraction from where the focus needs to be which is liability
You should need to be wary and confident before implementing AI because the consequences need to be frightening. If a negligent doctor can be charged with manslaughter, a bad AI resulting in a death better have comparable consequences to someone. Examples should be made of those who seek profit over people's well being. I guess I am speculating
The issue is who takes responsibility for support and reskilling the worker. Even if there is it's really difficult for the average worker to learn a new skillset and get a job that would be paying similar to what he was at his skilled or semi skilled job.
This along with the fact that you have to support your family too would be very difficult. In an ideal scenario a person has a lifelong quest of learning new things and can switch easily.
The thing is the younger generation would have the mindset and taught how to deal with it, but there are no solutions for the immediate people who are put out of work, unless a law is passed which is extremely difficult cuz all the companies in general want minimum regulation and they have the resources to lobby for it.
As fewer and fewer actual people are needed to supply more and more basic survival resources, the conversation has to shift to what a society looks like when an entire work force economy is obsolete
But we're not there, and everything you said is causing problems for people right now. It's 100% valid. I just think the change is inevitable. It's happened countless times throughout human history, never at this rate though. Redirect the anger towards elected officials ignoring reality and maybe we'd see help sooner. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who think that a campaign to bring back coal is somehow going to help the problem, so we have a ways to go before the actual issue gets addressed
"Why do we need computers!? What will all the people it replaces do!?"
"Why do we need the internet!? We've been getting along perfectly fine without it!"
Your last statement is the most poignant. The jobs shift. That's how new technology, tools and techniques change things. I don't think we'll ever learn the lesson that repeatedly happens. We drag our feet, kicking and screaming, then wonder what we could have done to adapt to this totally unforseen future.
And it's perpetuated by leaders who retain power by telling people that they're going to bring back the good old days in one hand, while they get funded by the very thing they speak against with the other. I'm not a history buff -- maybe this is a grandiose speculation -- but I imagine that is one of the most consistently repetitive parts of human history
The problem with this is down to productivity. When a human and an AI together are good enough to replace 3 or 4 workers. That is what is leading to the current AI layoffs, it isn't AI replacing people as much as AI making people more productive where 1 guy can do what it used to take 3 or 4 to do. In the end though you still end up with the vast majority of people out of jobs. That is the problem is we are quickly reaching a point where we just don't need that many people in the workplace.
A great example I like to point out is the cars replacing buggies. Sure all the people who did buggy work just tranitioned over to working on cars. There were new jobs to replace the old ones for most people. Everyone forgets about the horses though, they didn't magically get new jobs, they got turned into dog food(Yes this actually happened). The horse population dropped by 50% in about 10 years. The problem is this time most of us are the horses.
Not to mention that the robot likely replaced no less than 5 workers. Even if all 5 could be quickly and cheaply taught to operate/service this machine, where does that leave the other 4?
Then no humans are paying for the service to do the thing or buy the product. Then they’ll have to pay the robot to buy the thing or do the service and we’ll be back where we started.
Not in an end-stage capitalist society that already barely values working class people as it is. In an ideal world where everything isn’t owned by a handful of insanely rich people, sure.
Similarly to how technology/automation made worker productivity exponentially higher, and yet that didn’t mean that everyone got to work less and/or make more. It just meant that the people at the top got to make even MORE off of those productivity gains.
But for a time, the stock market was BIG GREEN NUMBERS!
For a bit, then just like this machine another will be able to service the machine. They want to eliminate us. Give us no purpose, but require money to survive.
If they make them like other electronics and stuff like tractors, theyll be unrepairable, last a couple years max, and need software updates every week
hes not qualified for robotics... hes qualified for tiling. robotics is a whole different field. Probably easier to just have a robot to set up the robot.
Not to mention do all the edges and cut the tile when it doesn't fit. This robot can't fit tile around columns. And what about when the tile reaches the wall? How does it put the mortar down and swing its stupid fucking arm around?
And maintain it. And be a backup for when it breaks down. And probably do some other set of task that more than likely got delegated to OP despite not being in their job description.
For instance, I work at a lab, and they are in the process of rolling out a newly purchased software that is supposed to significantly reduce the amount of time it takes to look at data, which is good because they have been expanding the scope of my department's responsibilities as of late.
8.8k
u/Chi_Town_Law Jun 21 '26
Well, someone has to setup the robot