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.
AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]
101–110 of 155 posts
Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]
#102CGP Grey recently put out a video along very similar lines. Worth 15 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&list=UU2C_jShtL7...
If we do look at this from an energy spending point of view.. this robot/AI revolution is gonna have a few interesting twists and turns along the way. One has to remember, the evolution of life has been a constant "economic" struggle for limited resources, with energy being the most limiting factor. Right now our economic development is largely based on a temporary liberation from that. However, that won't last, and energy-wise, life is far more energy-efficient than machines for most tasks[1] (I'm not entirely sure how this translates to robotics and computers, but for now I doubt they win). Energy spending also scales sub-linearly for living things[2], and I'm not sure if that holds true for machines.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_energy
[1] http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/03/how-sustainable-is-di...
[2] http://peakenergy.blogspot.se/2011/07/geoffrey-b-west-why-ci...
Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah. That's why Germany manages to generate >30% of their energy via renewables. They are this immensely huge country with wide open spaces, flooded with sunlight. Wait. They're not. Turns out that you don't need a high-voltage DC grid, you need decentralized power. And you don't need huge contiguous chunks of land, either - you need everybody to be involved. That doesn't rule out that we might need other energy sourc…
There's no doubt that the US can learn from the shear audacity and willingness to invest in our country's long term energy plan like Germany has done with the Energiewende. However, we can't pretend that Germany, in terms of its size, existing infrastructure, and structure of the electricity industry, is at all comparable to the US. While I agree with you that decentralized power will be the way of the future, there'…
Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]
#104CGP Grey recently put out a video along very similar lines. Worth 15 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&list=UU2C_jShtL7...
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.
Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economist Louis Kelso ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Kelso ) was talking about many of these issues in the 1950's. He proposed the concepts behind Binary Economic Theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_economics ) which helped usher into law the Employee Stock Ownership Program (ESOP). Whether or not you agree with it, it is certainly interesting to learn about. It isn't something that is widely taught.
That's excellent and very relevant. "Kelso claimed that in a truly free market wages would tend to fall over time, with all the benefits of technological progress accruing to capital owners"
`Binary productiveness is distinctly different from the conventional economic concept of productivity. Binary productiveness attempts to quantify the proportion of output contributed by total labor input and total capital input respectively, Adding capital inputs to a production process increases labor productivity, but binary economic theory argues that it decreases labor productiveness (i.e. the proportion of the total output with the support of both labor and capital that the labor inputs could have produced alone). For example, if the invention of a shovel allows a laborer to dig a hole in quarter of the time it would take him without the spade, binary economists would consider 75% of the "productiveness" to come from the shovel and only 25% from the laborer.`
`Kelso used the concept of productiveness to support his theory of distributive justice, arguing that as capital increasingly substitutes for labor..."workers can legitimately claim from their aggregate labor only a decreasing percentage of total output", implying they would need to acquire capital holdings to maintain their level of income.`
and
`...Kelso had uncovered over years of intensive reading, research and thought, drastically modifies the classical paradigm which has dominated formal economics since Adam Smith. It concerns the effect of technological change on the distributive dynamics of a private property, free market economy. Technological change, Kelso concluded, makes tools, machines, structures and processes ever more productive while leaving human productivity largely unchanged. The result is that primary distribution through the free market economy (whose distributive principle is "to each according to his production") delivers progressively more market-sourced income to capital owners and progressively less to workers who make their contributions through labor.`
Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]
#106CGP Grey recently put out a video along very similar lines. Worth 15 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&list=UU2C_jShtL7...
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.
Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not saying that robots are going to take literally every job ever. Only the majority of them. I believe I read that stores don't encourage self-checkouts very much because having humans around significantly decreases shoplifting. This may be less necessary if we get better AIs for monitoring security cameras. I've never read anything about self-driving cars being impossible in bad weather, only that no has done…
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…
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.
Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
He's not saying that robots are going to take literally every job ever. Only the majority of them. I believe I read that stores don't encourage self-checkouts very much because having humans around significantly decreases shoplifting. This may be less necessary if we get better AIs for monitoring security cameras. I've never read anything about self-driving cars being impossible in bad weather, only that no has done…
Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]
#109CGP 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…
I really have to question this. Humans are notoriously inefficient at converting nutrition to usable energy.
Re: AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs [pdf]
#110CGP 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…