21–30 of 93 posts
[deleted]
The automation that is happening now has never happened in the history of the human race. You simply cannot extrapolate from past events and say it'll be like that again.
With that in mind, a computer can never truly replace a human, as there would never be a purpose in creating a machine that 'wants' things that are different to its owner. Along the same lines, as robots fulfil each current human want, new wants will simply emerge.
A trite example - A robot that cleans my floor satisfies a current want, but I want a robot that cleans my whole house - every surface. After that's fulfilled, I'm likely to want a robot that can reconfigure the house based on my predicted needs, and after that, a robot that works in conjunction with others to make sure my preferred dwelling config is available in the right place and the right time every night. I'm likely to keep working in my job to have this, and my career will no doubt evolve to reflect the group need that people have for these robots.
The selfless robot in Interstellar is a realistic scenario - incredibly helpful, but programmed to want what its owners want. Imagine endless configurations of that - I think it's a likely future.
'Stupid' machines have been replacing humans since the industrial revolution, but humans have just taken a position higher up the chain. The article claims that 'smart' machines will end this process - I disagree. The greed of human nature will mean we always have to work.
Edited for phrasing.
[deleted]
This argument keeps coming up. The problem is this is based on exactly one data point. So saying "historically..." is hardly relevant! The automation that is happening now has never happened in the history of the human race. You simply cannot extrapolate from past events and say it'll be like that again.
[deleted]
This is a serious problem, because the more physical wealth can be provided by robots, the more those status games necessarily become about obtaining power over other humans. This puts capitalism, as an enabler of this kind of status games, on a path to escalating conflict not just with democracy but with human rights.
Of course, many would say that this is already happening. For now, the conflict is simply at a level where human rights violations and everything that goes with it can still be exported to third world countries.
At my last job, something I tried to push unsuccessfully was a company-wide automation initiative. Imagine a company-wide incentive structure for automation whereby if you automate 90-100% of your job, you receive massive bonuses. If you completely automate your job, the bonus could be the entirety of your annual salary as a single payout. Or perhaps a combination of bonus and equity. So now you're out of a job. But…
It's hard to change the status quo, specially when there are paychecks directly involved. At a company I worked for, after they realized that things couldn't go on anymore without massive automation, their first approach was to introduce it into the infrastructure lifecycle and require all new infrastructure to be heavily automated. That allowed the legacy stuff to die slowly without much disturbance. Another differe…
If it worked, it would make for an impressive news story which could spark others to follow suit.
Imagine an economy where everyone's job was to automate their job...
At my last job, something I tried to push unsuccessfully was a company-wide automation initiative. Imagine a company-wide incentive structure for automation whereby if you automate 90-100% of your job, you receive massive bonuses. If you completely automate your job, the bonus could be the entirety of your annual salary as a single payout. Or perhaps a combination of bonus and equity. So now you're out of a job. But…
- If you automate away your non-tech co-worker (someone who can't contribute much to the automation of jobs other than his own), will he get the bonus? If so, how do you assure people doing the automating won't feel treated unfairly as the non-tech guy just got bonuses for doing nothing?
- If someone automates you away, will you get anything? Will you be angry?
- If you keep automating away your co-workers, who's gonna be left to help you automate yourself away? (assume for a moment that you have the most difficult to automate job in the company)
I mean... this could work if you'd manage to set up incentives so that everyone in the company works together and not against each other. But I'm not sure how to do this, especially in a way which doesn't leave anybody feeling he's being treated unfairly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument keeps coming up. The problem is this is based on exactly one data point. So saying "historically..." is hardly relevant! The automation that is happening now has never happened in the history of the human race. You simply cannot extrapolate from past events and say it'll be like that again.
It is more based on thousands of years of data. Every generation likes to think that they are unique, and that "this time everything is different". In reality life will go on.
I really can't imagine 100% unemployment, because I think there will always be a demand for actual human people in some roles: hairdresser, waiter, singer, prostitute, masseuse, athlete, actor, croupier, etc. Will robots/AI be good enough to do all these jobs? Sure, they might even be now. But as long as some people want to be sung to / served by / entertained by an actual flesh-and-blood human, there will still be e…
Instead of having a robot hairdresser, what if cutting hair wasn't even a thing? e.g. maybe we'll all get holo-wigs that let us change hairstyles as easily as profile pictures.
Similarly we don't talk to switchboard operators to enter URL in the browser addressbar. We've got AI that does it better and doesn't judge :)
At my last job, something I tried to push unsuccessfully was a company-wide automation initiative. Imagine a company-wide incentive structure for automation whereby if you automate 90-100% of your job, you receive massive bonuses. If you completely automate your job, the bonus could be the entirety of your annual salary as a single payout. Or perhaps a combination of bonus and equity. So now you're out of a job. But…
This is essentially a stand-in for workers "owning the means of production". Congrats, you are now a marxist (dirty commie according to some).
I know you meant this as a joke, but I want to emphasize a general point - one of the things that totally dumb down conversations about economy is people grouping ideas under labels like "communist" or "libertarian" or whatever and evaluating them in batches.
At my last job, something I tried to push unsuccessfully was a company-wide automation initiative. Imagine a company-wide incentive structure for automation whereby if you automate 90-100% of your job, you receive massive bonuses. If you completely automate your job, the bonus could be the entirety of your annual salary as a single payout. Or perhaps a combination of bonus and equity. So now you're out of a job. But…