Self-replication isn’t critical since what matters is having a low marginal cost of making robots and self-replication is just one possible path to this.
Self-replication is special because it decouples output from human labor.
A large part of the cost of existing automated factories is the human labor to set up the factory. Self-replication would eliminate this setup cost (for some specific products), making the products cheaper than similar ones from a conventional factory.
I agree that there are many paths to improving output per labor unit, including improving processes, materials, and designs. I also agree that assembly robots will become increasingly widely-used and easy to program without being self-replicating. However, these improvements are incremental. If self-replication works for one product, it would apply market pressure to make similar products self-replicating. This process ends with full automation of the economy, providing greatly increased productivity. Admittedly, this is a vague and somewhat low-confidence prediction.
I can imagine a world with 20x as many machines (due to self-replication) but struggle to imagine a world with machines that are 20x as productive (due to other technology improvements). This isn’t evidence though.
I can imagine a world with 20x as many machines (due to self-replication) but struggle to imagine a world with machines that are 20x as productive (due to other technology improvements).
A world where I can simply book a fuel efficient car via my smart phone and don’t have to worry about issues like car maintenance and parking spots would probably have fewer cars than our world where car ownership is the standard.
Today my smartphone means that I don’t have to carry around a street map. It serves as a audio recording device. It serves as a photo camera. It serves as a radio. It saves as a clock. It serves as a kitchen timer. It serves as my alarm clock. It serves as a telephone. It serves as an answering machine. It serves as a gaming console.
20 years ago I might have to carry around 20 different machines to do what I can do know with my smart phone.
Being wealthy isn’t about having more stuff but about having better stuff that does what you want it to do.
The reason humans are used to set up factories is precisely because it’s cheaper than using robots. As more robots are built, humans will get more expensive in comparison, and robots will replace them.
I generally agree. I’m proposing a particular way some robots could be cheaper than humans. You’re saying more robots --> less expensive robots; I’d say more open-source software --> less expensive robots will have the greater impact.
Self-replication isn’t critical since what matters is having a low marginal cost of making robots and self-replication is just one possible path to this.
Self-replication is special because it decouples output from human labor.
A large part of the cost of existing automated factories is the human labor to set up the factory. Self-replication would eliminate this setup cost (for some specific products), making the products cheaper than similar ones from a conventional factory.
I agree that there are many paths to improving output per labor unit, including improving processes, materials, and designs. I also agree that assembly robots will become increasingly widely-used and easy to program without being self-replicating. However, these improvements are incremental. If self-replication works for one product, it would apply market pressure to make similar products self-replicating. This process ends with full automation of the economy, providing greatly increased productivity. Admittedly, this is a vague and somewhat low-confidence prediction.
I can imagine a world with 20x as many machines (due to self-replication) but struggle to imagine a world with machines that are 20x as productive (due to other technology improvements). This isn’t evidence though.
A world where I can simply book a fuel efficient car via my smart phone and don’t have to worry about issues like car maintenance and parking spots would probably have fewer cars than our world where car ownership is the standard.
Today my smartphone means that I don’t have to carry around a street map. It serves as a audio recording device. It serves as a photo camera. It serves as a radio. It saves as a clock. It serves as a kitchen timer. It serves as my alarm clock. It serves as a telephone. It serves as an answering machine. It serves as a gaming console.
20 years ago I might have to carry around 20 different machines to do what I can do know with my smart phone.
Being wealthy isn’t about having more stuff but about having better stuff that does what you want it to do.
The reason humans are used to set up factories is precisely because it’s cheaper than using robots. As more robots are built, humans will get more expensive in comparison, and robots will replace them.
I generally agree. I’m proposing a particular way some robots could be cheaper than humans. You’re saying more robots --> less expensive robots; I’d say more open-source software --> less expensive robots will have the greater impact.