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

Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

#71

Post by anonymous5133 »

kzrdude wrote: post #65
brobdingnagians wrote: post #46

>“The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.” This could lead to a scenario with what happened when there was aristocracy. Land was a major necessary means of production and was overwhelmingly owned by t…

> Automation could be the new land. A wealthy "owning class" owns all the means of production (and less skilled labor) and has no incentive to open it up. Automation could lead to a small wealthy class, but a rapidly expanding lower class with little access to self-ownership of means of production. This is basically Marx and the theory of capital, e.g already describing our world since industrialization.

automation could also do the opposite....liberalize and spread technology. Imagine a world where owning an "advanced" production robot costs $500-$1,000. Right now people view automation technology as being very expensive but if you look at trends in automation technology the price of that technology is actually declining so even small businesses can utilize the same technology as the mega corporations of the world.

Re: Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

#72

Post by anonymous5133 »

psadri wrote: post #62
brobdingnagians wrote: post #46

>“The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.” This could lead to a scenario with what happened when there was aristocracy. Land was a major necessary means of production and was overwhelmingly owned by t…

I agree with this thesis. However, doesn’t our economic system rely on lots of consumers? If the majority of people are very poor, would this not reduce the overall economy? Then what’s the benefit to the aristocracy?

No, our economic system does not rely on lots of consumers. It relies on people spending money. 1,000 people spending $1 is equivalent to one person spending $1,000. It is the dollar amount of spending that is important, not the total amount of consumers. Another key economic metric is the velocity of money...or how fast money goes from one person to the next. The faster the velocity of money...the better because we assume that when people trade...both are made better off through specialization.

Re: Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

#73

Post by yorwba »

sgt101 wrote: post #67
fvdessen wrote: post #15

Isn't replacing people with machines what we've been doing uninterrupted since the beginning of the industrial revolution ? In what sense is replacing a translator with DeepL different from replacing a farmer with a tractor ? We've gone from more than two third of the population working on the fields to less than 5% and people still have jobs. What has changed that makes us think that this time it will be different ?

Have we replaced translators? Is there a single book translation that has been commercially published that was done by a machine? In diplomacy or negotiations does anyone dare to use a machine translator? I agree that for tourism and casual use machine translators are brilliant, but for the use cases where people needed to pay in the past do they not still pay a person?

They need to pay a person, but that person can start with a machine-translated text and only needs to edit the parts where the machine failed. So the same amount of text can be translated using fewer translators. Although the machine can't do everything a human translator does, it can still partially replace them, just as technology has partially replaced humans before (think a dozen guys with shovels vs. one with an excavator).

Re: Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

#74

Post by Broken_Hippo »

anonymous5133 wrote: post #72
psadri wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this thesis. However, doesn’t our economic system rely on lots of consumers? If the majority of people are very poor, would this not reduce the overall economy? Then what’s the benefit to the aristocracy?

No, our economic system does not rely on lots of consumers. It relies on people spending money. 1,000 people spending $1 is equivalent to one person spending $1,000. It is the dollar amount of spending that is important, not the total amount of consumers. Another key economic metric is the velocity of money...or how fast money goes from one person to the next. The faster the velocity of money...the better because we…

That isn't really true, though.

If 1000 people spend $1000, that isn't the same as a person spending all that in one month. The 1000 people are going to spend the money differently and on a variety of things. Phone bills, electric, car payments, groceries, rent, clothes, entertainment, coffee. Perhaps a restaurant or two or a bar. Might need school supplies and medicine. Even better, these 1000 people are likely to do this monthly.

One person spending 1,000,000 isn't likely to spend it on those categories nor spend that monthly. Even then, the spending is going to be different. The spending is also more likely to be stable.

The economy generally will survive if the one person doesn't spend their 1,000,000. Even if they stop spending that monthly, that'll be OK.

However, the economy will suffer if the many people do not spend 1000 a month, depending on how close the people are to each other. All in one town probably means an employer has had hard times, and eventually other businesses close because of it - unless, of course, things start getting better again.

The economy hurts if trends shift. When folks get more poor and cannot spend on small luxuries or stop buying as mnay cheap clothes, the economy suffers.

The person able to spend 1,000,000 a month likely very much depends on those 1000 people spending 1000 per month, consuming the things they do.

Re: Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

#75

Post by pas »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #49
bksenior wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh. This seems fluffy. This seems more like the Industrial Revolution + Twitter. Just like all the studies that the world is technically better off in every modern metric of improvement (poverty, starvation, mobility..etc, but things feel shitty because you are forced to read about the one dude kidnapping and eating children one state over, I think it's probably just amplified fears (and ultimately seperation of team…

There was far more to it than that. Whole communities arose around the pit, steel works or ship yard. Hundreds or thousands of local families depended on it. Family, friends and everyone in the street was a part of it. When it goes a few shop or driving jobs may be possible but leaves the majority up shit creek with no paddle. > Sure it can crush a generation (see the american midwest from 1960-2020), but most people…

You are right, so is OP, but I don't think OP's post is heartless. It's simply descriptivist (positivist) and not normative. It is what it is, there's no point in sugar coating it.

And yes, of course our response to these facts are even more important. Do we just short steel mill stocks and Pittsburgh bonds or advocate for retraining, for subsidizing emerging industry establishments in the affected areas, etc.

Some of the affected people feel it as elitism, socialism, etc. Usually because outsiders are blind to and ignorant of the local complexities, and also because good fashioned bias and denialism. It's easier to simply deny climate change and hate green liberals than accepting that coal is out. And that software has a much higher ROI due to the marginally aomost zero cost of adding new users/customers than hard labour jobs, etc.

Re: Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

#76

Post by pas »

bduerst wrote: post #34
gotocake wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replacing people with machines isn’t, and has never been the problem. Telling generations of people who depend on the jobs they have to suck it up and move out of the way of progress without good recourse is. Shrugging and telling people to make do with two or three “gig” jobs is a bullshit answer to their concerns, as are empty suggestions to retrain or find a new job. People don’t work a coal face because it’s fun,…

It's been a problem since the luddites in the 19th century, and as we move further into the 21st, human adaptability is going to become a stronger selling point. Nobody really cared as the blacksmith, farm hand, or the secretary lost jobs. Coal mining is a celebrated profession for some reason.

Because density and homogenity. Entire cities are built on coal and related processing, mining, etc.

Whereas farm hands and secretaries have transformed, and were not so densely localized. (And farm hands are still needed, large industrialized farms are still rather labor intensive, just more area can be successfully managed by the same sized staff + a lot more capital/machinery.)

Re: Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

#77

Post by sgt101 »

yorwba wrote: post #73
sgt101 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have we replaced translators? Is there a single book translation that has been commercially published that was done by a machine? In diplomacy or negotiations does anyone dare to use a machine translator? I agree that for tourism and casual use machine translators are brilliant, but for the use cases where people needed to pay in the past do they not still pay a person?

They need to pay a person, but that person can start with a machine-translated text and only needs to edit the parts where the machine failed. So the same amount of text can be translated using fewer translators. Although the machine can't do everything a human translator does, it can still partially replace them, just as technology has partially replaced humans before (think a dozen guys with shovels vs. one with an…

Well - sorta in some use cases; my suspicion is that translators working in this way find most of what the machine can do marginal in value.

Re: Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

#78

Post by CM30 »

anonymous5133 wrote: post #71
kzrdude wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Automation could be the new land. A wealthy "owning class" owns all the means of production (and less skilled labor) and has no incentive to open it up. Automation could lead to a small wealthy class, but a rapidly expanding lower class with little access to self-ownership of means of production. This is basically Marx and the theory of capital, e.g already describing our world since industrialization.

automation could also do the opposite....liberalize and spread technology. Imagine a world where owning an "advanced" production robot costs $500-$1,000. Right now people view automation technology as being very expensive but if you look at trends in automation technology the price of that technology is actually declining so even small businesses can utilize the same technology as the mega corporations of the world.

This is a really good point. Prices for new tech always go down over time, and it's unlikely automation tech will be any different here. It won't just be big companies automating jobs, it'll be people using similar tech for a ton of things.

Of course, there's also an interesting worry that's not connected to jobs here, namely, whether we may end up in a new age of SaaS companies selling automation to small and medium sized businesses as their main business model. Imagine if instead of large companies using tech alone, or people buying these machines alone, the likes of Google/Amazon/Microsoft/whatever started leasing them through an AWS esque service for X amount of dollars a month. We've already got Maker Labs and what not, this could be the future for that.

Re: Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

#79

Post by onetimemanytime »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #46

>“The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.” This could lead to a scenario with what happened when there was aristocracy. Land was a major necessary means of production and was overwhelmingly owned by t…

>>Automation could be the new land. A wealthy "owning class" owns all the means of production (and less skilled labor)

Times have changed, at least a bit. You will see pitchfork revolutions unless state provides basic needs to the masses, via taxation to the robot owners.

Re: Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

#80

Post by sonnyblarney »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #46

>“The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.” This could lead to a scenario with what happened when there was aristocracy. Land was a major necessary means of production and was overwhelmingly owned by t…

'Automation' has been going on quite rapidly for over 200 years and 'more automation' has led to less inequality and definitely more prosperity.

The elites used to pay people to stand around and practically wipe their arses, that quickly diffused as more markets developed, and there were other, better things to do.

The issue is not 'automation', it's 'the rate of automation' and the extent to which the economy can re-absorb those out of work by whatever means: retooling, retirement, UBI, whatever.

Post reply on HN