Live data from Hacker News

100% Unemployment: on keeping busy when the robots take over

hyponymo.us

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: 100% Unemployment: on keeping busy when the robots take over

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and you have no way of automating yourself because you don't know squat about programming. Automating existing work is more than just programming; a big part of it is expertise provided by people knowledgeable about the existing workflow. None of the projects I've been on that involved automating existing work involved only programmers and no one with experience doing the work.

Yes, I know, and I appreciated that fact in the post upthread. The point here is, if you go with the suggestion of 'redemeer that "if you get automated away, you get 0", said accountant will have no incentive to help with the automating, and every incentive to make it as hard as possible - which I think is not the result we want to have. To get a happy ending for everyone, we need coordination, not competition.

> The point here is, if you go with the suggestion of 'redemeer that "if you get automated away, you get 0", said accountant will have no incentive to help with the automating

If you go with a principal that if you are involved in automating the job away, you get some reward, the accountant may have some incentive to help (especially if it is likely to happen, but with perhaps lesser quality -- but still perhaps a net cost savings to the company -- anyway, which would result not only in the company getting less than if the accountant was actively involved, but the accountant getting less as well.)

Re: 100% Unemployment: on keeping busy when the robots take over

#72
post #12

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…

hairdresser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccP-ayh6Wlc

waiter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBuIhH9aaSA

singer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kM3n64WJmo

prostitute: soon (fleshlight+occulus)

masseuse: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004BXJZB2/ref=as_li_tl?ie=...

athlete: http://robogames.net/index.php

actor: there are tons of CGI actors in movies

croupier: slot machines, video poker, etc

Re: 100% Unemployment: on keeping busy when the robots take over

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and you have no way of automating yourself because you don't know squat about programming. Automating existing work is more than just programming; a big part of it is expertise provided by people knowledgeable about the existing workflow. None of the projects I've been on that involved automating existing work involved only programmers and no one with experience doing the work.

Yes, I know, and I appreciated that fact in the post upthread. The point here is, if you go with the suggestion of 'redemeer that "if you get automated away, you get 0", said accountant will have no incentive to help with the automating, and every incentive to make it as hard as possible - which I think is not the result we want to have. To get a happy ending for everyone, we need coordination, not competition.

> "if you get automated away, you get 0"

No, I actually said the opposite.

If you get automated away, by yourself or by anyone else, you instantly get the bonus and you're instantly fired.

The accountant has every incentive to either be an amazing accountant so that any automation would be a pale imitation (everyone wins), or he can choose to automate himself away, move to the next job, automate himself away and pick up the bonus there, and so on (everyone gets their due).

This is competition, and I think it's a happy ending for meritocracy. The only people who lose are those who desire to continue to be paid while not generating value.

Re: 100% Unemployment: on keeping busy when the robots take over

#74
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I hate political labels. What do you mean by saying "he's a marxist"? Does subscribing to one of Karl's ideas require automatically subscribing to every other? 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 i…

All of Marx's other ideas naturally follow from the one: who should own the means of production?

Well, you can start with the same question and reach different conclusions. Does this mean that you're still wrong? And does the fact that Marx was wrong about one thing means he was wrong about everything else? It's too easy to group some idea with some others and then dismiss the whole thing by noting that one the other ones are wrong.

Re: 100% Unemployment: on keeping busy when the robots take over

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I know, and I appreciated that fact in the post upthread. The point here is, if you go with the suggestion of 'redemeer that "if you get automated away, you get 0", said accountant will have no incentive to help with the automating, and every incentive to make it as hard as possible - which I think is not the result we want to have. To get a happy ending for everyone, we need coordination, not competition.

> "if you get automated away, you get 0" No, I actually said the opposite. If you get automated away, by yourself or by anyone else, you instantly get the bonus and you're instantly fired. The accountant has every incentive to either be an amazing accountant so that any automation would be a pale imitation (everyone wins), or he can choose to automate himself away, move to the next job, automate himself away and pick…

Oh, I'm sorry. After re-reading your comment for the third time I realized you said something exactly opposite than what I thought.

Re: 100% Unemployment: on keeping busy when the robots take over

#76

I have dreamed on building a program that learns to program. Maybe I need to look into it again.

There's that old joke about a Lisp programmer who's looking for a job - "will write code that writes code that writes code that writes code for money" ;).

Re: 100% Unemployment: on keeping busy when the robots take over

#77
post #12

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…

Sure and there will always be some demand for horses for various purposes but the total demand for horse labour is way below its peak in 1915. Do you foresee any future technology which might reinvigorate the demand for horses?

Re: 100% Unemployment: on keeping busy when the robots take over

#78
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of Marx's other ideas naturally follow from the one: who should own the means of production?

Well, you can start with the same question and reach different conclusions. Does this mean that you're still wrong? And does the fact that Marx was wrong about one thing means he was wrong about everything else? It's too easy to group some idea with some others and then dismiss the whole thing by noting that one the other ones are wrong.

What, specifically, was Marx wrong about?

Re: 100% Unemployment: on keeping busy when the robots take over

#79
post #40

If we dealt rationally and benevolently with it, 100% unemployment would be an age of abundance... almost a post-scarcity society. I do not expect to see it soon, but I think it's possible. If technology continues to advance at the same pace it has for the past 50 years and if we can engineer our way out from under the impending fossil fuel energy crunch, I'd say it's probable within the century. Even before things g…

Indeed. Our real problem is that of coordination, and that there is no easy path from here to there - if we keep just following the market's lead hoping it will magically solve everything, we're not going to get to that age of abundance.

Like I said in another thread: free marketers have adopted the Marxist notion of historical inevitability and automatic progress.

I don't think it works that way. We get the future we construct. If we just trust the means to produce the ends, we will just get some random future selected for us by impersonal and amoral evolutionary and economic forces that don't give a damn about our well being.

Re: 100% Unemployment: on keeping busy when the robots take over

#80
post #72
post #12

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…

hairdresser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccP-ayh6Wlc waiter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBuIhH9aaSA singer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kM3n64WJmo prostitute: soon (fleshlight+occulus) masseuse: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004BXJZB2/ref=as_li_tl?ie=... athlete: http://robogames.net/index.php actor: there are tons of CGI actors in movies croupier: slot machines, video poker, etc

My point wasn't that elements of those jobs couldn't be done (or even done better, by some measures) by machines, but that there exist people with a strong preference to humans in those jobs.

Take croupiers; we have very good video poker, automated roulette tables, virtual blackjack, but still lots of humans dealing out cards (especially in the high roller rooms). I was at a casino in Las Vegas two weeks ago; the robot roulette gave strictly better payouts (36 to 1) than the human-run table (35 to 1) for single number bets, but there were still people at the tables.

Post reply on HN