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

Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 233 posts

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#181

Post by TeMPOraL »

appearsonline wrote: post #166
TeMPOraL wrote: post #38

I'm somewhat surprised by the article's conclusion, but will accept it, given that Scott is pretty thorough with his sourcing and analysis. Even though he says we're getting the worst outcome (something is happening, but it's not apocalyptic, so people won't notice in time to coordinate at scale), it shifted my internal doomsday countdown ~20 years to the future. One thing I wonder though, and it's a general concern…

If I may ask, what was your internal doomsday countdown before reading the article?

About 10-15 years before progress makes some members of my family unemployed.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#182

Post by CodeCube »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #167
maxerickson wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually said roughly, I didn't go back and edit that in or anything. If you want to do brass tacks or whatever, buy it and scrape out a living to prove that cheap scrub desert makes a point about land being available.

What if automation and robotics made homesteading much easier, and more likely to succeed on land that was previously considered useless? Obviously water and other resources are going to be an issue, but as a labour multiplier, AI and robotics have huge potential.

Unfortunately, AI and robotics are only available to those with great capital and knowledge on how to apply those technologies; and I don't really see that changing any time soon.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#183

Post by cr0sh »

lmm wrote: post #102
crdoconnor wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I already choose to book my holidays with machine rather than human assistance, pay for my groceries via machine rather than human It's funny you should mention this. My last job was at an OTA (online travel agent). They started out with a website to book holidays and an intent to streamline the crap out of the process catering to individuals like yourself. They hired a skeleton call center staff to deal with unfore…

> It turned out a lot of people actually wanted to talk to a human when spending $1,500 on a holiday. Shocker. I'm surprised, and I wonder what the age breakdown of those people looks like. > I'm skeptical of the notion that Roombas took anybody's job It must have on the margin, surely? I was on the fence about getting a cleaner for a long time; it wouldn't've taken much to push me into not doing so (and many of my f…

re: Toilet cleaning

What's needed there is not so much a robot, but a better toilet or materials that don't get dirty or are self-cleaning.

Or maybe a chemical - what might be interesting would be something like those blue discs you drop in, but coupled with something like Rain-X (for windshields). Make it so nothing can stick to the bowl...

That of course doesn't solve the external surface cleaning process, but it would be a nice start.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#184

Post by cr0sh »

crdoconnor wrote: post #135
lmm wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not necessarily. It might just mean that, on balance, people who were never going to employ a maid in the first place live in slightly less filthy houses. But, like, there's no massive discontinuity in how likely people are to employ a cleaner (is there)? I'd expect that distribution to be a bell curve like anything else, with lots of people on the margin (and I'm pretty sure I was one of them), and the introductio…

>But, like, there's no massive discontinuity in how likely people are to employ a cleaner (is there)? I'd expect that distribution to be a bell curve like anything else Even if it was a bell curve (and I see no reason why reality ought to be that neat), there's no reason to suppose it doesn't just lead to slightly cleaner houses rather than fewer maids. > You already mentioned Roombas, and I mentioned LaundryBot Room…

Roombas are great if you run them constantly and you have more than one in your house; but even a single one saves a ton of time and effort.

What they "shine" at is keeping up on cleaning away surface dirt and such. Instead of needing to vacuum a couple of times each week, you just run the Roomba(s) a few times a day. It takes away a dull and difficult chore.

Occasionally though, you do have to break out the vac for a deep clean (once a month or so) - and on the odd occasion the carpet cleaner for a good scrub. And you have to keep up on the cleaning/maintenance/emptying of the Roomba as well.

But overall, at least for my family's household, having our Roombas have been a plus.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#185

Post by neural_thing »

Chris_Jay wrote: post #140
nwah1 wrote: post #107

Production just requires land and labor. Capital is output from previous production used as input again, and it is nice to have but not strictly necessary for employment of labor. Labor can be applied whenever labor has access to land. So the question is why can't people just go to work? Grow their own food to feed themselves, if need be? The Industrial Revolution put farmers out of work, but not because farming beca…

Funnily enough, my own (long term) project is aimed at addressing the problem you're pointing out. Given the possibility of remote work, there's no insurmountable reason why the only land worth living in should be concentrated in a few urban centers. https://sites.google.com/s/0BzzRwqIB2K0dSWhkTXBSTTltTDg/p/0B...

Can you provide a working link please? This is something I've been thinking about a lot, would like to learn more about what you are thinking.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#186

Post by lowbloodsugar »

spyckie2 wrote: post #45

What do I know, I am not very good at this either and I respect the author's willingness to get other people's perspectives and attempt to reach a conclusion. But I would like to critically consider the "indicative trends" mentality of the author. Entities with ML algorithms that could replace jobs enmasse do not yet exist, so past or current economic trends shouldn't indicate anything. ML algorithms did not graduall…

He touches on the idea of humans having the past laid out before them, with the future to their backs. But then, as you say, fails to get to the realization that paying attention to the present isn't going to give us any predictions for how strong-AI, or even non-routine AI is going to change the job prospects for humans. Robots are expensive, but servers aren't.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#187

Post by andrewjl »

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #55

Warning: the following is conjecture which I have not researched. Because who has the time? My main question while reading this article was why is the author so stuck on "manufacturing" jobs being automated away? He does address this very briefly in section III but I cannot help but feel his foundational research is highly skewed. Sure, robotics are growing in popularity and that technology, specifically, will likely…

What's to stop someone from making a cheaper industrial robot? And someone else to make an even cheaper one? And for someone else to make an open source basic robot and sell a higher level management suite as an add-on?

Or better yet, someone can buy a bunch of these, put them in a building and lease them out by the minute via AWS-like service.

I do agree with your point re 1950's offices.

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#188

Post by Chris_Jay »

neural_thing wrote: post #185
Chris_Jay wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily enough, my own (long term) project is aimed at addressing the problem you're pointing out. Given the possibility of remote work, there's no insurmountable reason why the only land worth living in should be concentrated in a few urban centers. https://sites.google.com/s/0BzzRwqIB2K0dSWhkTXBSTTltTDg/p/0B...

Can you provide a working link please? This is something I've been thinking about a lot, would like to learn more about what you are thinking.

oops, thanks for the heads up.

https://sites.google.com/view/virtuouscycleinvestment/projec...

Re: Technological Unemployment: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#189

Post by Chris_Jay »

trs80 wrote: post #143
Chris_Jay wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily enough, my own (long term) project is aimed at addressing the problem you're pointing out. Given the possibility of remote work, there's no insurmountable reason why the only land worth living in should be concentrated in a few urban centers. https://sites.google.com/s/0BzzRwqIB2K0dSWhkTXBSTTltTDg/p/0B...

403 forbidden.

My bad.

https://sites.google.com/view/virtuouscycleinvestment/projec...

Post reply on HN