Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

robotenomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#61

Post by jsprogrammer »

freehunter wrote: post #18
zardo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far fewer units to move and a much longer expected life on the hardware. Hiring a fuel filler is an easy retrofit.

It would also likely be prudent to have a human visually inspecting the trucks and able to perform small maintenance tasks. My car can tell me the tire pressure is low, but it can't change the tire. It can tell me the backup sensor is obscured, but it can't clean it. Maybe it didn't even notice it hit something/something hit it (like a fast, low flying bird) and now the fender is hanging off. Things that might need t…

Trucks would be standardized and have sensors to detect many types of damage and the truck could be rerouted to an automated repair facility (or perhaps a repair vehicle would be dispatched). Visual inspection could be done better automatically.

Automation that relies on humans to minimally function is garbage.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#63

Post by maxerickson »

infogulch wrote: post #45
Pica_soO wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The factor is availability- you need three of these workers for a around the clock shift. AI does not sleep.

Ok, so you have 3 employees working 24/7 for an average of a $20k salary (33% more than minimum wage). That's $60k/year or $120k over 24 months (based on Bartweiss' ROI estimation). Do you think it's possible to deliver an automated gas pump that services 4,800 trucks per day (~1 truck every 3 minutes) for $120k? I don't.

I don't think 3 humans can service 4800 trucks per day either.

At least, not without more automation than existing pumps have.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#64

Post by sdenton4 »

freehunter wrote: post #18
zardo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far fewer units to move and a much longer expected life on the hardware. Hiring a fuel filler is an easy retrofit.

It would also likely be prudent to have a human visually inspecting the trucks and able to perform small maintenance tasks. My car can tell me the tire pressure is low, but it can't change the tire. It can tell me the backup sensor is obscured, but it can't clean it. Maybe it didn't even notice it hit something/something hit it (like a fast, low flying bird) and now the fender is hanging off. Things that might need t…

Yeah, my guess is we'll see convoys of automated trucks first, with one operator for each line of five or ten trucks. In part for small upkeep and correction in real time, in part to increase the risks of straight up highway robbery... If you can blow out an automated truck's tires and know it will take a day for a repair vehicle to show up, you might as well go for it...

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#65

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

gozur88 wrote: post #54
Zigurd wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I finally get why libertarians have a boner, so to speak, for legalizing prostitution. That's the ultimate expression of adding elasticity to the labor market, and vastly more people could be participating in that market than do now. It makes such claims about there being infinite work to do ever so much more believable.

No, you don't "get" it. Libertarians just don't think it's the state's place to decide the conditions under which consenting adults have sex.

Forcing people to relate exclusively under free market rules is very much deciding the conditions under which consenting adults have sex.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#66

Post by gozur88 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #65
gozur88 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you don't "get" it. Libertarians just don't think it's the state's place to decide the conditions under which consenting adults have sex.

Forcing people to relate exclusively under free market rules is very much deciding the conditions under which consenting adults have sex.

The absence of government regulation is not the same thing as "forcing" anything.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#67

Post by Animats »

justanotherbody wrote: post #49
arcticfox wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If driverless trucking takes off, why would the gas station need to be full service (staffed with humans)? Compared to building an autonomous truck, autonomous refueling seems like the easy part.

By this logic should we have autonomous refueling already? After factoring in the cost of the robotics I suspect paying humans minimum wage is quite a bit cheaper. Especially given the diverse outdoor environments such a system would need to be maintained in

By this logic should we have autonomous refueling already?

It's been done a few times.[1][2] The systems are rather slow and clunky, but work. Dealing with all the variation between cars runs up the cost.

Tesla has a charging robot.[3] This is much easier, since Tesla controls both sides of the interface. The car actively cooperates, opening the charging port door. Tesla also interlocks the car so that you can't drive away while plugged in. I'm surprised that Tesla hasn't deployed those robot chargers yet.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y_J7fg03fA [2] http://mashable.com/2014/01/29/robotic-gas-pump/#hDxoRZBZ5Zq... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMM0lRfX6YI

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#68

Post by unclebucknasty »

justanotherbody wrote: post #49
arcticfox wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If driverless trucking takes off, why would the gas station need to be full service (staffed with humans)? Compared to building an autonomous truck, autonomous refueling seems like the easy part.

By this logic should we have autonomous refueling already? After factoring in the cost of the robotics I suspect paying humans minimum wage is quite a bit cheaper. Especially given the diverse outdoor environments such a system would need to be maintained in

Not really. There's not a lot of value in autonomous refueling when everything else about vehicle operation is manual.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#69

Post by IndianAstronaut »

daveguy wrote: post #5

Hm. The subtitle is "Destruction of large numbers of jobs unlikely, says new OECD Study", but the very first table gives a list of percent of jobs automatable by country. It ranges from 7-12%. That is a HELL of a lot of jobs. The argument is, "have no fear! it won't be 47% of jobs automated!" -- only 10%. 10% job loss is a labor crisis. Of course if you have all of those retrainable as other jobs (including automatio…

Not as many jobs as were destroyed by the tractor. The tractor replaced over 70% of jobs, which was the proportion of farmers before the tractor.

Re: Destruction of large numbers of jobs by robots unlikely, says new OECD Study

#70

Post by pixl97 »

rhino369 wrote: post #24
daveguy wrote: post #5

Hm. The subtitle is "Destruction of large numbers of jobs unlikely, says new OECD Study", but the very first table gives a list of percent of jobs automatable by country. It ranges from 7-12%. That is a HELL of a lot of jobs. The argument is, "have no fear! it won't be 47% of jobs automated!" -- only 10%. 10% job loss is a labor crisis. Of course if you have all of those retrainable as other jobs (including automatio…

Something like 70% of Americans worked in agriculture in 1850, and like 5% did in 1950 (many of whom were probably migrant workers from Mexico). We've gone through radical change before.

One of the bigger issues now is you're competing with the entire world. When global shipping can get any product almost anywhere in a few days, economy of scale wins.
Post reply on HN