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

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

pewinternet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 155 posts

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

#141

Post by anigbrowl »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #123
devonkim wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that strikes me as peculiar about the self-service checkout argument creating more wealth is that it assumes that the store would not have received the revenue if they weren't open at the time. Perhaps this might work in certain urban areas, but even still some places culturally abhor the idea of shopping for anything 24/7. I've heard that Germany doesn't have that many stores open very late because the pur…

Its about if even one store is open late, then every store has to be. Because people go where the store is open. The closed store will absolutely lose those sales.

Some people go where the store is open. I have a Safeway near me that's open until midnight, but it would have to be something of unusual urgency to make me go there late in the evening. Generally I just wait and go to my preferred supermarket a day later.

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

#142

Post by lilsunnybee »

hvs wrote: post #17
JeremyReimer wrote: post #9

If a panel of experts are evenly split on their opinions about the future of jobs, it seems to me that nobody really knows what is going to happen. It's one thing to point to how historically new technology created new jobs to replace those it displaced, but I get the feeling that this time it might be very different. All the rules go out the window when technological acceleration reaches a certain point. I'm not say…

Peoples' wants and desires are infinite. As long as there are things to desire, there will be jobs to do.

Workers capacity to fill those desires for people with capital is limited though. At what point does the majority of un-capitaled humanity become irrelevant?

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

#143

Post by lilsunnybee »

ztko wrote: post #84
QuantumChaos wrote: post #76

From the point of view of classical economics, AI increases the productiveness of capital, and certain specialized kinds of labor (e.g. creating and improving AI). While this increases the total output of society, it also increases inequality. We already have in place mechanisms to deal with inequality, namely income tax and welfare. As the total output of society grows, we will be able to afford more generous kinds…

Why do you say that AI will automatically increase inequality? Not necessarily disagreeing but interested to hear your thoughts. I'm also wary of the impact that AI and robotics may have but am cautiously optimistic. While I do think that many jobs will be displaced by automation, I wonder if we'll also see a labor revolution or rather emergence of a new sector/type of jobs. E.F. Schumacher talked a lot about the deh…

Automation increases the benefits of owning capital over providing labor, in ever growing proportions. The less people are needed to provide labor, and have any resources distributed to them at all, the more fruits accrue solely to capital-holders.

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

#144

Post by JoachimS »

anigbrowl wrote: post #140
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?

The capital-intensive entities that own all the robots and whose revenue comes from human consumption.

Human consumption hinges on the fact that the humans have income to buy stuff to consume. Are you saying we shall tax the company profits in order to pay people basic income to provide means needed to consume stuff to create these required profits. And that the profits are staying in the tax jurisdiction as well as not getting tax breaks the owners lobbied for using previous profits.

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

#145

Post by JoachimS »

justincormack wrote: post #117
zokier wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where is the tax base? In corporations?

Or on robots?

More plausible since it directly connects to the problem at hand. But when you replace humans with algorithms how do you determine what to tax and how much?

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

#146

Post by JoachimS »

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?

Corporations can move out of the jurisdiction with corp tax much easier than humans. And judging by Apple etc, they are pretty good at getting tax brakes, buy legislation.

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

#147

Post by anko »

3pt14159 wrote: post #101
hvs wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peoples' wants and desires are infinite. As long as there are things to desire, there will be jobs to do.

This isn't true. If you could buy a robot that could do everything you could do for a $1 per day then there would be no more human jobs.

There would still be human jobs. It's just most people couldn't afford the robots.

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

#148

Post by justincormack »

JoachimS wrote: post #145
justincormack wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or on robots?

More plausible since it directly connects to the problem at hand. But when you replace humans with algorithms how do you determine what to tax and how much?

Value added taxes/sales are plausible if they are selling stuff.

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

#149

Post by Ma8ee »

vanderZwan wrote: post #139
Ma8ee wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> life is far more energy-efficient than machines for most tasks I'll be blunt and say that that is just bullshit for quite obvious reasons. Your [1] does not support the claim.

"Obvious reasons" is not a very convincing argument, and and I am quite curious why you are saying that a link that literally states things like: "A human-controlled punching machine is 25 to 35 times more efficient than a laser cutter when producing a standard part" "Fibre laser cutters are more efficient than CO2-laser cutters, but their power consumption is still 10 times larger than that of a slower but equally p…

A human-controlled punching machine is not a living thing, a human-controlled nibbling machine isn't a living thing. Thus none of the sentences support the notion that "life is far more energy-efficient than machines for most tasks".

There might be some manually controlled machines that are more energy efficient than some automatic machines, but that would be a very very different fact, and I don't see any reason to believe that it would hold in general. For example the table you linked to doesn't say how much that is produced per energy unit, which would be the relevant measure, and it doesn't take into account that the operator uses a lot of energy. With your kind of arguing I could show that a hand saw was infinitely more efficient than a chainsaw because the hand saw in itself doesn't use any energy at all and we don't count the operator.

A human in standby (resting) consumes about 80W power, and a human that does any kind of work much more than that. Humans use extremely inefficient fuel that takes many times more energy to produce than it makes available to do any kind of work. For most physical work it is easy to find a machine that does the same work using much less energy. In those areas where computers can replace humans they also do the same work using much less energy but also much faster. And then we haven't even taken into account that the human only works for 40 hours per week, need a house that keep her warm and uses a shitload of energy every day just to get back and forth to their workplace.

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

#150

Post by clusterfoo »

seanflyon wrote: post #83
clusterfoo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So long as machines are not far more effective at building (and possibly some day even engineering) those things we desire...

If machines can make everything we want for so cheap that we can't possibly compete that mean that everything we want is incredibly cheap.

But under our current economic system, what you can afford is tied to the value of the goods/services you produce. If we find ourselves in a future where 90% of the population produces nothing, then 90% of the population can afford nothing, no matter how cheap.

Obviously there is a utopian solution, where most goods and services are so cheap to produce, that most people have essentially free access to them.

What is worrying is the dystopian alternative (and probably inevitable adjustment period), where only a tiny fraction of the population is "valuable", and therefore has access to all the benefits of cheap automation, while the other 90% have no value (economically speaking).

We also tend to forget that we live in a sort of intellectual bubble. Just by being able to hold a highly technical job, you are probably already in the upper 90% percent of the intelligence spectrum. 80% of the world's population has an IQ of under 115; and half the world's population is under 100 and can barely grasp any form of abstract logical thinking.

If the vast majority of jobs in the future require high technical or intellectual aptitude, then the vast majority of the earth's population will be left with nothing to do.

Post reply on HN