Robots won’t kill the workforce. They’ll save the global economy.

[Moonbeam]

Some say we are headed for a technological singularity and others that technological advance is doomed to collapse under the weight of increasing complexity.

 

[Zaap]

I think this gets forgotten a lot. I like to start with first principles.

Snip.

Nothing wrong with what you said, just it's like a statement from the dawn of the industrial age.. and somewhat civilization itself. Not exactly anything new.

 

[shady28]

You can definitely be automated out of a job. Just wait until liberals get their dream of open borders and they are handing out green cards to educated immigrants. You don't think your employer could get some highly educated Chinese or Indians up to speed in a short amount of time? Don't fool yourself into thinking you are a modern day Einstein. So don't be so quick to cast bad voodoo into other people's direction because you are in no better place than I am.

I completely agree with you. I was just saying automation is not the panacea that people here say it is.

In the past couple of years I've seen hundreds of engineers and technicians lose their jobs to offshoring and H1Bs, I've even seen directors and VPs replaced with H1Bs. Meanwhile there are virtually no new hires stateside. I saw the same exec team that started this at my company, go to another company and do the same exact same thing - offshore and H1B visa their american workers until they are almost extinct.

 

[Zaap]

I'm a truck driver. I've yet to have a truck driving job where all I did was drive. I guess whenever they have a robot that can get out of said self automated truck and talk to the customers and do the physical labor that's required of me then I'll believe that they can automate me out of a job. If it gets to that point then it's not just truckers that should be worried.

True. From what I gather about trucking, driving from point A to B is the least of the job.

I'd personally like to see these robots that could actually do the majority of truckers' jobs in the real world. We'd be talking some serious terminator-like tech. And beyond just the technical, massive liability issues would have to be solved.

As a person interested in technology, I WISH this level of tech existed now in the way people imagine. It'd just be damned interesting a robot that could load a truck properly, drive it to the right place- without killing anyone and a bazillion other massive liability issues... protect itself and its load from easy theft (and again without massive liability issues- it cant just kill at will) offload the right freight at the right locations etc. etc. Sure someday this might exist... but not yet.

 

[superstition]

Won't work, a life spent in idleness is a sure way to depression and unhappiness. Work gives meaning in life for many.

False dilemma fallacy.

People will work. They'll just not have to do drudgery to ensure a high quality of life for elites.

Voluntary work, work that people actually enjoy and therefore want to do, would be the rational goal.

Currently elites fear that because if they can't convince people to do that drudgery (keep the mice busy in their wheels of debt) then it's much harder to convince them to allow themselves to be exploited. Keeping people in debt and doing busywork makes it much harder for them to participate in the political process in a meaningful way. This is why elites do not "own" nearly as much debt as the masses do.

 

[Paratus]

Nothing wrong with what you said, just it's like a statement from the dawn of the industrial age.. and somewhat civilization itself. Not exactly anything new.

Simply trying to illustrate the historical trend is to use technology to reduce the time we have to work to meet our basic needs.

From posts on here either people have forgotten or never had economics.

 

[Zaap]

Simply trying to illustrate the historical trend is to use technology to reduce the time we have to work to meet our basic needs.

From posts on here either people have forgotten or never had economics.

Leisure itself is a major industry though, requiring a lot of labor to accommodate it.

People also seem to forget equal and opposite reactions to actions. In this case create a world where there's less labor in some markets but more leisure time, creates a larger need for the markets that cater to a population with more time on its hands.

You waxed over it quite a bit, but feeding, taking care of, and cleaning up the waste of millions of people (and machines) will never be a laborless task. These will always remain major operations requiring a ton of planning and human effort.

The labor free society is a nice dream I guess, but not only would such a world be impractical in the extreme- it would be mind-numbingly boring. All the things real human beings require -goods, services, entertainment, unique human crafted things to possess, food that's actually as interesting as it is palatable, care for what ails them, communications, tech advances that enrich life in tangible ways etc etc... all of it requires industry and labor.

What might at first create what appears an rebalance of work life vs leisure time created by automation will evetually rebalance itself into something that looks a lot like the old balance. (Want to fill your newfound life of leisure because of automation with anything that actually interests REAL human beings? you'll need resources. Where you getting those? providing something others need/want. ie: back to work in some form or other and maybe even having to trade on being more creative than a machine.)

 

[agent00f]

False dilemma fallacy.

People will work. They'll just not have to do drudgery to ensure a high quality of life for elites.

Voluntary work, work that people actually enjoy and therefore want to do, would be the rational goal.

Currently elites fear that because if they can't convince people to do that drudgery (keep the mice busy in their wheels of debt) then it's much harder to convince them to allow themselves to be exploited. Keeping people in debt and doing busywork makes it much harder for them to participate in the political process in a meaningful way. This is why elites do not "own" nearly as much debt as the masses do.

People with some creative drive will do interesting/worthwhile work, but not everyone is like this as might be evident on this very forum; otoh the desire to stay alive is a universally powerful motivational tool, which is why capitalism is so successful.

Leisure itself is a major industry though, requiring a lot of labor to accommodate it.

People also seem to forget equal and opposite reactions to actions. In this case create a world where there's less labor in some markets but more leisure time, creates a larger need for the markets that cater to a population with more time on its hands.

You waxed over it quite a bit, but feeding, taking care of, and cleaning up the waste of millions of people (and machines) will never be a laborless task. These will always remain major operations requiring a ton of planning and human effort.

The labor free society is a nice dream I guess, but not only would such a world be impractical in the extreme- it would be mind-numbingly boring. All the things real human beings require -goods, services, entertainment, unique human crafted things to possess, food that's actually as interesting as it is palatable, care for what ails them, communications, tech advances that enrich life in tangible ways etc etc... all of it requires industry and labor.

What might at first create what appears an rebalance of work life vs leisure time created by automation will evetually rebalance itself into something that looks a lot like the old balance. (Want to fill your newfound life of leisure because of automation with anything that actually interests REAL human beings? you'll need resources. Where you getting those? providing something others need/want. ie: back to work in some form or other and maybe even having to trade on being more creative than a machine.)

Always amusing when someone admits to knowing little about technology then waxes poetic about what it can or can't do.

The crux of this topic is that brains will become ever more valuable as machine replicate its simpler functions; kinda sucks for those without much in the first place, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[Paratus]

Leisure itself is a major industry though, requiring a lot of labor to accommodate it.

People also seem to forget equal and opposite reactions to actions. In this case create a world where there's less labor in some markets but more leisure time, creates a larger need for the markets that cater to a population with more time on its hands.

You waxed over it quite a bit, but feeding, taking care of, and cleaning up the waste of millions of people (and machines) will never be a laborless task. These will always remain major operations requiring a ton of planning and human effort.

The labor free society is a nice dream I guess, but not only would such a world be impractical in the extreme- it would be mind-numbingly boring. All the things real human beings require -goods, services, entertainment, unique human crafted things to possess, food that's actually as interesting as it is palatable, care for what ails them, communications, tech advances that enrich life in tangible ways etc etc... all of it requires industry and labor.

What might at first create what appears an rebalance of work life vs leisure time created by automation will evetually rebalance itself into something that looks a lot like the old balance. (Want to fill your newfound life of leisure because of automation with anything that actually interests REAL human beings? you'll need resources. Where you getting those? providing something others need/want. ie: back to work in some form or other and maybe even having to trade on being more creative than a machine.)

The difference would be the work you do would be done as you wanted to do it - not had to do it.

It's kind of hard to picture how a post scarcity society would work though. I agree that until we hit a Star Trek or equivalent level of technology there will always be some level of scut work. It just seems that working towards an economy that increases our freedom to do what we want and when we want is better than the alternative.

 

[agent00f]

Some say we are headed for a technological singularity and others that technological advance is doomed to collapse under the weight of increasing complexity.

The singularity people basically look at the plot of moore's law and not only extrapolate that to the end of time but to everything technical, even though had they been familiar with any of it that's trivially incorrect. OTOH there's much truth that there are practical limits to human intelligence not to mention physical reality which technical advancement is predicated on.

 

[Zaap]

The difference would be the work you do would be done as you wanted to do it - not had to do it.

For some, sure. I wish I could beleive that will be true for the masses, but I just don't beleive it. People with exceptional skills, talents, ideas etc. get to do this. The problem with exceptionalism though.. it's exceptional.

There's always a curious cart before horse in the future world arguments. No one, not in the future or otherwise, will be running factories full of robots to produce goods and services for.. no one. They will be meeting demands that are there. Paying customers produce demand. Paying customers need to get resources to pay other people to meet thier demands someway, somehow. I know some think there's a fantasy where this will enmasse be provided for everyone (by that ever mythical 'someone else') but sorry.. I just don't believe that dream will ever exist.

A large number of people unable by circumstance, unwilling/whatever of contributing to the society in some way to litterally 'earn their keep' will end up the 'have nots' of that society. Even if that's the majority of people in what would end up being some crazy cyber punk/Mad Max world. No one, not even with all the robots in the universe at their disposal, is ever going to just willingly do everything for everyone else. They won't enlist their robots to produce things for no profit or personal gain, for other human beings "just 'cuz".

May not be a pretty truth, but I beleive it is one.

It's kind of hard to picture how a post scarcity society would work though. I agree that until we hit a Star Trek or equivalent level of technology there will always be some level of scut work. It just seems that working towards an economy that increases our freedom to do what we want and when we want is better than the alternative.

Scarcity of "what" exactly? Raw materials? Never happen.

Food? (raised, packaged, shipped safely to a point of distribution, sold, made interesting via human creativity and skill preparing it)? Never happen. (Add shelter and clothing to the list as well.)

Energy? Possibly, but unfortunately it'll still be governed by human self-interest and profit motive, not pure altruism. Best hope, I believe, is it will be dirt cheap.

But absolutely, I'm all for increasing freedom from work that can be done better and more effectively by machines. We've been on that course since the dawn of civlization and it will continue. It's just I realize that an increase in freedom will cause an equal increase in need/wants/demands that freedom affords- putting someone somewhere... back to work to accomodate it. Personally I don't think that's a bad thing.. it's just the way humans are, always have been, and will I believe remain even with more and more technology around.

 

[Moonbeam]

What if the government taxed all robots as individuals at some productivity related rate and used the revenue for a universal income and research to build better machines.

 

[agent00f]

What if the government taxed all robots as individuals at some productivity related rate and used the revenue for a universal income and research to build better machines.

Some smart guys a long time ago proposed a labor theory of value which basically equated productive units; turns out they might well be way ahead of the curve.

 

[MrSquished]

Sometimes I am thankful that I was not born 200 years in the future, precisely because I believe that automation will destroy jobs.

It's Bladerunner time.

 

[Paratus]

For some, sure. I wish I could beleive that will be true for the masses, but I just don't beleive it. People with exceptional skills, talents, ideas etc. get to do this. The problem with exceptionalism though.. it's exceptional.

There's always a curious cart before horse in the future world arguments. No one, not in the future or otherwise, will be running factories full of robots to produce goods and services for.. no one. They will be meeting demands that are there. Paying customers produce demand. Paying customers need to get resources to pay other people to meet thier demands someway, somehow. I know some think there's a fantasy where this will enmasse be provided for everyone (by that ever mythical 'someone else') but sorry.. I just don't believe that dream will ever exist.

A large number of people unable by circumstance, unwilling/whatever of contributing to the society in some way to litterally 'earn their keep' will end up the 'have nots' of that society. Even if that's the majority of people in what would end up being some crazy cyber punk/Mad Max world. No one, not even with all the robots in the universe at their disposal, is ever going to just willingly do everything for everyone else. They won't enlist their robots to produce things for no profit or personal gain, for other human beings "just 'cuz".

May not be a pretty truth, but I beleive it is one.


Scarcity of "what" exactly? Raw materials? Never happen.

Food? (raised, packaged, shipped safely to a point of distribution, sold, made interesting via human creativity and skill preparing it)? Never happen. (Add shelter and clothing to the list as well.)

Energy? Possibly, but unfortunately it'll still be governed by human self-interest and profit motive, not pure altruism. Best hope, I believe, is it will be dirt cheap.

But absolutely, I'm all for increasing freedom from work that can be done better and more effectively by machines. We've been on that course since the dawn of civlization and it will continue. It's just I realize that an increase in freedom will cause an equal increase in need/wants/demands that freedom affords- putting someone somewhere... back to work to accomodate it. Personally I don't think that's a bad thing.. it's just the way humans are, always have been, and will I believe remain even with more and more technology around.

Post Scarcity means a civilization that doesn't currently need to worry about where the resources to run the civilization come from. Star Trek was an example. When matter can be directly turned to energy or rearranged into any other matter basically at will there is no physical need that cannot be easily met.

But let's look at it from present day trends. Corporations chase the cheapest labor around the globe. This has the benefit of raising the standard of living in the country where that labor is at the expense of at least some standard of living of the corporations home country. At least until that labor becomes more expensive. China is one such example.

So companies move from China to India or other third world nations chasing cheap labor. To compete some nations and corporations push automation.

Here it gets fuzzy. If the money flowing out of 1st world countries ends up easing poverty around the world as corps chase labor with out destroying the home customer base I could think of worse things. Maybe folks in the home country have to begin naturally rchasing leisure work as all other work is being done by automation or foreign labor.

However if the money the corps make doesn't flow back to the home country fast enough, destroying the customer base who buys the goods the corps are so cheaply producing?

Prices would drop as buyers dry up but if most labor was replaced with automation or labor elsewhere and no one is being paid what do you do with those people. Guaranteed minimum income or riots seems to be have the only choice.

Anyway it's an interesting problem. I don't know what the solution should be.

 

[agent00f]

Post Scarcity means a civilization that doesn't currently need to worry about where the resources to run the civilization come from. Star Trek was an example. When matter can be directly turned to energy or rearranged into any other matter basically at will there is no physical need that cannot be easily met.

But let's look at it from present day trends. Corporations chase the cheapest labor around the globe. This has the benefit of raising the standard of living in the country where that labor is at the expense of at least some standard of living of the corporations home country. At least until that labor becomes more expensive. China is one such example.

So companies move from China to India or other third world nations chasing cheap labor. To compete some nations and corporations push automation.

Here it gets fuzzy. If the money flowing out of 1st world countries ends up easing poverty around the world as corps chase labor with out destroying the home customer base I could think of worse things. Maybe folks in the home country have to begin naturally rchasing leisure work as all other work is being done by automation or foreign labor.

However if the money the corps make doesn't flow back to the home country fast enough, destroying the customer base who buys the goods the corps are so cheaply producing?

Prices would drop as buyers dry up but if most labor was replaced with automation or labor elsewhere and no one is being paid what do you do with those people. Guaranteed minimum income or riots seems to be have the only choice.

Anyway it's an interesting problem. I don't know what the solution should be.

Much of the first world is already in practice post-scarcity. Basic needs are already met with a relatively minimal income. Much of the of population can already subsist reasonably working part-time, but people choose not to. There's much academic thought already expended on the issue, and no reason to believe anything will change for the foreseeable future with automation or not.

Also, money flows back to the US & such due to economic hegemony. Those $50 jean cost <$10 to make, and the rest of the money is divvied up among americans. Whether they "deserve" it is a matter of perspective.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sometimes I am thankful that I was not born 200 years in the future, precisely because I believe that automation will destroy jobs.

It's Bladerunner time.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

 

[Painman]

Masses of aimless, hopeless, unemployed people will find other avenues of "relevancy."

See: ISIS. See: MS13.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

And, for as long as contemporary Western society tries to treat masculinity as a "disease" to be managed via drugs and social engineering... Our men will be rendered powerless to counter the purpose-driven hordes we're facing.

Silicon Valley is screamingly lacking when it comes to solutions for the hundreds of millions (billions?) they seek to render irrelevant.

 

[cytg111]

As a programmer I welcome this future... I will be, almost, god-like.

 

[superstition]

People with some creative drive will do interesting/worthwhile work, but not everyone is like this

So? We have robots to do the work that has to be done (grunt work). People who want to lay around watching reality television can do it. Why not?

the desire to stay alive is a universally powerful motivational tool, which is why capitalism is so successful..

Apples and oranges.

Capitalism is not about the desire to stay alive. It's an anti-life system on the whole that just happens to produce benefits that are outweighed by the detriments (but which can be pointed to as if they're the bulk of the deal). Despite this, because it serves to expand the life quality of elites more than other systems, it is the system in place and is considered successful.

 

[agent00f]

So? We have robots to do the work that has to be done (grunt work). People who want to lay around watching reality television can do it. Why not?

I'm just pointing out less productive work will get done provided those cases.

Apples and oranges.

Capitalism is not about the desire to stay alive. It's an anti-life system on the whole that just happens to produce benefits that are outweighed by the detriments (but which can be pointed to as if they're the bulk of the deal). Despite this, because it serves to expand the life quality of elites more than other systems, it is the system in place and is considered successful.

Capitalism is not about the desire to stay alive per se, but in practice the trade of work for sustenance-points keeps people going at some rate. In fact just the fear and ultimately social stigma of being unemployed is just as if not more effective than the actual consequences.

I'm not saying there can't be more effective systems, but it's evident capitalism has understandable reasons behind its effectiveness. And it's worth mentioning how many of them tie to human psychology; eg. the already noted fear, and greed, gluttony among them as useful hooks/tools for the framework.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What he seems completely uninterested in (which should be no surprise given the line of work that he's in) is how we will distribute wealth when the vast majority of humans are no longer capable of doing anything of value.

All he seems to care about is the ability of robots to keep economic growth rolling. The thing is, that isn't the least bit controversial. The part that hasn't been addressed is what happens to the labour force. He hand waves that concern with "Now, many fear that self-driving trucks will displace millions of American truckers, but they may create more and better jobs for those who service those increasingly complex vehicles." as if millions of lost jobs in transportation will be replaced with millions of automotive tech jobs. As if fixing trucks will be immune to automation as well...

To a certain extent, he is right. I imagine a future where every auto manufacturer will have it's own AI software that has to be constantly maintained by tons of programmers at all times (considering it's actual human lives this coding affects).

Will it replace all the truck drivers? Absolutely not. Nor will it replace their industry - which is largely uneducated and untalented. They can't just move over their truck driving skills to computer programming.

Either way, good riddance - I'm just going to watch from the sidelines as the world economy crumbles

 

[agent00f]

To a certain extent, he is right. I imagine a future where every auto manufacturer will have it's own AI software that has to be constantly maintained by tons of programmers at all times (considering it's actual human lives this coding affects).

Will it replace all the truck drivers? Absolutely not. Nor will it replace their industry - which is largely uneducated and untalented. They can't just move over their truck driving skills to computer programming.

Either way, good riddance - I'm just going to watch from the sidelines as the world economy crumbles

The point there is that by capitalist law, the programmers in sum will cost less than the truckers, or else nobody's going to bother because it's unprofitable. Given how much programmers cost compared to truckers, I trust you can do the math.

Also by capitalist law, the truckers will just move onto the next best thing available to them, whether it's walmart greeter or whatever the system doesn't really care.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The point there is that by capitalist law, the programmers in sum will cost less than the truckers, or else nobody's going to bother because it's unprofitable. Given how much programmers cost compared to truckers, I trust you can do the math.

Also by capitalist law, the truckers will just move onto the next best thing available to them, whether it's walmart greeter or whatever the system doesn't really care.

Agree, but there is no comparable difference. The majority of truck drivers are unionized and many get paid, 80k+, and tons get paid 100k+. Did any sane rational person think that amount of pay for mindless, stupid, and untalented work was in anyway sustainable?

If so then you would be a special kind of stupid.

 

[agent00f]

Agree, but there is no comparable difference. The majority of truck drivers are unionized and many get paid, 80k+, and tons get paid 100k+. Did any sane rational person think that amount of pay for mindless, stupid, and untalented work was in anyway sustainable?

If so then you would be a special kind of stupid.

They get paid alright (40k median and higher for private cdl fleets), in part because it's a shitty job few are willing to do for less by capitalist law. If you're one of those then all by means.

In any case, there's some risk in typical white collars looking down on blue collar work because it's not as if most of them are hard to replace either.