AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]

#111

Post by SiVal » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 8:28 AM UTC

vanderZwan wrote: post #102

e0m wrote: post #3

CGP Grey recently put out a video along very similar lines. Worth 15 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&list=UU2C_jShtL7...

He blatantly ignores the issue of energy constraints, more specifically the concept of embodied energy[0], which in the near future will be a very real very limiting factor that right now goes unnoticed because we're burning up energy reserves the earth has built up for hundreds of millions of years. If we do look at this from an energy spending point of view.. this robot/AI revolution is gonna have a few interesting…

There is enormous energy "embodied" in uranium, too. If (when?) the time comes that we can no longer sustain our economies on fossil fuels, we will increasingly turn to nuclear power, which should last us for several more generations.

I'm not promoting this; I'm just predicting it. The sustainability of fossil fuels will be reflected in prices. More demand, political restrictions, and fewer new discoveries: prices go up; conservation, carbon sequestration/removal tech, and growing efficiencies supplemented by new sources such as fracked gas: prices relax. At some point (you say "very near", I say no one knows), hydrocarbon prices will go so high that the developed world will either have to voluntarily undevelop (not going to happen politically) or pay what it costs to solve some nuke problems and live with others, and we will continue to grow our use of energy.

The spread of robotics will proceed apace.

Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]

#112

Post by Joeri » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 8:33 AM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #44

furyofantares wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why the video goes through the history of technology reducing the need for types of labor and doesn't acknowledge that we keep thinking of new things to do. The closest he comes to making an argument that we won't keep making new jobs is that we didn't keep making new jobs _for horses_ which seems to me like arguing that we didn't keep making new jobs for spears and hammers and pencils. I have conc…

CGP Grey went through the analogy of horses and the history of technology to emphasize the line of thinking that the invention of new technology will lead to the creation of new jobs is a fallacy and false. In the past, new technological changes lead to the demise of horses. There were no "new" jobs that horses could fulfill. So it will be with humans.

The analogy is itself a fallacy. The jobs that were displaced were not those of horses, but of horse breeders, trainers, keepers and drivers. The horses in this story were not the laborers but the tools. Those people, unlike horses, could retrain to do a different kind of job which was in-demand. Horse traders could become car salesmen. Horse drivers could become car drivers. The replacement of horses by cars led to an increase in jobs, not a decrease.

Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]

#113

Post by vanderZwan » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 8:34 AM UTC

yen223 wrote: post #109

vanderZwan wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He blatantly ignores the issue of energy constraints, more specifically the concept of embodied energy[0], which in the near future will be a very real very limiting factor that right now goes unnoticed because we're burning up energy reserves the earth has built up for hundreds of millions of years. If we do look at this from an energy spending point of view.. this robot/AI revolution is gonna have a few interesting…

"However, that won't last, and energy-wise, life is far more energy-efficient than machines for most tasks" I really have to question this. Humans are notoriously inefficient at converting nutrition to usable energy.

Even if you calculated as embodied energy instead of just looking at the energy spent directly on a task? Because a large part of the "inefficiency" of living creatures is physical maintenance of the body. If that is included for machines as well, I'm not so sure if they're better off. For now, of course - as soon as we realise energy is a real constraint, we'll surely start optimising for it.

The third link I posted references Geoffrey West who has an interesting high-level physics approach to this issue, but it doesn't really do justice to his points. But I figured posting this 40 minute one, which is much more comprehensive, would be a bit much to ask:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFFVSvAr7Wc

(also has a lot more phycisist's arrogance in the form of cursing, which I find entertaining myself)

Actually, given that city energy spending also grows sublinearly, robot and AI networks probably would as well. So that argument likely won't hold against it.

Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]

#114

Post by vanderZwan » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 8:36 AM UTC

SiVal wrote: post #111

vanderZwan wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He blatantly ignores the issue of energy constraints, more specifically the concept of embodied energy[0], which in the near future will be a very real very limiting factor that right now goes unnoticed because we're burning up energy reserves the earth has built up for hundreds of millions of years. If we do look at this from an energy spending point of view.. this robot/AI revolution is gonna have a few interesting…

There is enormous energy "embodied" in uranium, too. If (when?) the time comes that we can no longer sustain our economies on fossil fuels, we will increasingly turn to nuclear power, which should last us for several more generations. I'm not promoting this; I'm just predicting it. The sustainability of fossil fuels will be reflected in prices. More demand, political restrictions, and fewer new discoveries: prices go…

Good points - and note that I wasn't saying robotics and AIs were not going to happen, just that it will have some added plot twists - but I would argue that this is not true:

> (you say "very near", I say no one knows)

Given that our energy spending grows exponentially, it's certainly going be sooner than later.

Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]

#115

Post by SiVal » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 8:43 AM UTC

JoachimS wrote: post #107

zecho wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't consider a self-checkout lane to be a "robot" in any sense. It's a customer doing the job of a once trained employee. If you've ever been behind someone new to one of these things, they're slow and annoying experiences. The main reason for them is reducing workers necessary during slow sales periods (like overnights, or weekday mornings). And anyway, the job wasn't replaced by a robot in this case. The job wa…

No they aren't robots but tech that as a consequence reduce the number of employees. In Sweden there has been quite a big reduction in number of people working at the checkouts. And even if they are freed up to do other things in the stores, there has been a net reduction in number of employees.

Yes, "robot" isn't the point. "Non-human" is the point. Non-humans replacing humans probably began with animal domestication technology and has accelerated dramatically since then. Once a non-human replaces a human, the switch tends to be permanent, so all human jobs will eventually be replaced unless technology stops progressing (only if there's a global holocaust) or if humans can forever invent new jobs (that humans do better than non-humans) at a rate that matches the takeover of old jobs by non-humans.

Since the takeover is apparently accelerating, humans aren't significantly improving, and non-humans are, it's going to be a difficult race.

Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]

#116

Post by zokier » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 9:12 AM UTC

JoachimS wrote: post #104

zokier wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found it surprisingly shallow in that it didn't really delve into post-scarcity economics. With stuff like basic income or negative taxing the loss of jobs will not look as severe societally.

The big question is being able to finance basic income when a large and growing part of the population is unemployed. Where is the tax base?

> Where is the tax base?

In corporations?

Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]

#117

Post by justincormack » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 10:29 AM UTC

zokier wrote: post #116

JoachimS wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big question is being able to finance basic income when a large and growing part of the population is unemployed. Where is the tax base?

> Where is the tax base? In corporations?

Or on robots?

Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]

#118

Post by justincormack » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 10:33 AM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #90

robertfw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't recommend this video highly enough - it does a great job of showing the science fact instead of contemplating science fiction, illustrating how technology that we have in development NOW is going to impact our economy. I have a feeling that this is an issue is going to creep up on us quickly, and I worry that our governments have proven themselves completely incapable of driving the discussion and making the…

As a roboticist, this video made me very angry. This is not a great showing of science fact, but a strange distortion of the current state of robotics to fit a particular narrative. By the end, it definitely ventures well into the realm of science fiction. I'll point out some of the most egregious examples. This is a pretty long post, but if you spent 15 minutes watching the video, the least you can do is spend 15 mi…

In the UK we do have shops with only self service checkouts (convenience stores, not the larger supermarkets, so far).

Receptionists are an odd case, as telephone access to people has either been removed (use a web interface), or goes direct to where you want. Redesigning the interface.

Law bots will only change if the law changes to be more computer friendly.

Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]

#119

Post by nabla9 » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 12:55 PM UTC

There was only two economists discussing the future of jobs :(

Robotics and automation are changing business from labor intensive to capital intensive. Wage share (share of wages from the GDP) has been going down since early 70's in all OECD countries. Automation will continue to increase that trend together with more competition from third world.

The job loss should be considered as one issue in downward pressure for wages caused by automation. Workers can compete with with automation by earning less. People from developing world will be able to compete against automation longer.

Removing cashiers and logistic workers with automation and more sophisticated vending machines might generate bigger dent to the jobs than self driving cars (They have vending machine in Italy that makes fresh pizza starting from the flour).

Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]

#120

Post by TeMPOraL » Sat, Aug 16, 2014, 1:32 PM UTC

josephagoss wrote: post #94

grondilu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This part in that future is actually made of shares in the stock market. If you want some, you have to buy it. Fortunately anyone can : it's a free market and you can enter with as little as a few hundreds bucks.

But isn't it easier to do away with capitalism altogether so that we can all be equal, no matter the effort we put in? This future of no capitalism people want scares the heck out of me, almost makes everything I've worked for pointless.

> This future of no capitalism people want scares the heck out of me, almost makes everything I've worked for pointless.

The future of continued capitalism scares the heck out of me, because it's the future of more and more people living on subsistence level, slaving away all their lives for increasingly smaller group of wealthy people, until the whole thing either collapses or the economic machine optimizes all humanity away for more profit and the Earth will be left with no people.