The robot doesn’t need to see it if it has the plans in it’s head.
Does the planned schematic reflect the reality of the installation? Does the wiring diagram show how the cable bends under its own tension?
Yes, current infrastructure is not designed for automated maintenance, I'm dealing with that in the software world. It will take more time to retrofit the physical world, but it will happen. If things are remote, they get documented better then onsite people running around with their asses on fire.
I don't think that is an ideological aim of capitalism. It is just an emergent behaviour. In any case, it is a genuine question from someone living in a decent welfare state and happy to continue to do so. I don't really care to engage in debates of who has the moral high ground, just the practical question, if you have an answer.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your tone as challenging, like "who is anyone to say what is fair or not?" technically in the U.S. there is a federal (nation-wide) minimum wage, then there are minimum wages for each state. I am not sure how they are defined, e.g. the federal one is certainly not automatically pegged to inflation. there is a movement to raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour but even that is hard or im…
The effects of raising minimum wages are twofold: long-term businesses will invest more in automation as it will be more profitable; short-term they might fire one or two people who might make sense at 12 but say now at 15 it does not. Actually think about how it affects different size business, large corporations can easily afford the automation, fire many people as they have many others. A small business having to fire someone is more drastic. In the end, you might have big corporation owners doing better, and impoverished small business owners, while not really improving the situation of the employees.
> So how do we create a more fair economy? Well the easiest way would be to forbid private capital.
That's an easy way to create a different kind of unfair economy, but not a way (by itself) to create a fair one. If there is no private capital there is no private ownership. If there is no private ownership then you're back in _The Republic_ ignoring the fact that Aristotle already pointed out the crucial flaw in that desire - people care more for what is their own than for what is held in common > For that which is…
I would imagine the societies we have well documented are better cases for exploring abolishing private property than Aristotle—decent at constructing ontologies, not exactly a sociologist.
I place my heart in writers far more relevant to today than Madison, of all people—the federal government has never looked so sick, the non-representation of our politicians so obvious. I agree that government is fallible; the answer to that is not to revert to locke (or, more likely, a thin veneer of locke over malthus and hobbes).
That's an easy way to create a different kind of unfair economy, but not a way (by itself) to create a fair one. If there is no private capital there is no private ownership. If there is no private ownership then you're back in _The Republic_ ignoring the fact that Aristotle already pointed out the crucial flaw in that desire - people care more for what is their own than for what is held in common > For that which is…
I would imagine the societies we have well documented are better cases for exploring abolishing private property than Aristotle—decent at constructing ontologies, not exactly a sociologist. I place my heart in writers far more relevant to today than Madison, of all people—the federal government has never looked so sick, the non-representation of our politicians so obvious. I agree that government is fallible; the ans…
This comment did not add to your argument. It can be summarized as "I like different philosophers than you" and misses the point. I'll remind you that one's ideas should be based on the merit of those ideas and not where they lie in history or along a political spectrum. Also, to have a discussion you need to bring something more than "I'm right, you're wrong, your guys are old." Otherwise you will continue to not be taken seriously.
I like your hypothetical, but I'm going to change it a little . Let's say Amazon records its warehouse workers and captures data which it can use to train industrial robots at some future date. Those industrial robots have $X of economic value. Who created that value? Did the workers whose data enabled it? Did the DARPA/NSF funded university system who pushed the techniques to the point of being production-ready? Or…
Following this line of reasoning, one must be worried about who one ought to pay when one makes a wheel out of dirt. I mean that honestly. As a society, we agree the buck ends somewhere for the most part. That which is freely available or observable knowledge typically doesn't mandate compensative. Public DARPA knowledge is presumably available to every American citizen (or at least it ought to be, since they presuma…
I think you hit the nail on the head.
DARPA and NSF could very easily attach some IP rights to every project that they fund, but they don't. Maybe they should?
Congress could easily pass a law giving workers an ownership interest in recordings of their work "performance". You can't tape a concert and sell the recording without the musician's permission. Why can you do that with other tasks?
As we speak, there are companies tracking the eye movements of radiologists reviewing charts. I for one think the radiologists should get some ownership stake in the resulting architecture.
All: this article deserves a better discussion than it's gotten so far. It's a rare thing: a new angle on one of the absolutely most-discussed topics here. That's interesting, regardless of where our reactions all land on agree/disagree, like/dislike, us/them and so on. If you're going to add comments to this thread, can you please engage with the specifics of the article?
This article got its central point not only wrong but patently wrong.
Remote work puts downward pressure on the highest salaries [think globalisation but on a smaller scale — poor countries are main beneficiaries of globalisation]. People with a low amount of opportunities will have more opportunities [upward pressure] and the highest earners will need to compete with higher number of people [downward pressure].
It literally decreases inequality.
The article points out that there is a difference in earnings and higher-earning jobs can be done remotely more often, which is not that valuable insight itself but it is meaningless in the context of inequality. People that have jobs that can't be done remotely are 'constant' in this equation — their situation won't change meaningfully.
That it's relevant, given it's such a tiny portion of the population, or that it's an ideal at all. To me the national identity is a 2nd generation immigrant living in a large metro area. That's what I think of as an American.
According to the statistics [1], second generation immigrants are only about 11% of the United States. (6% adult second-generation, 5% still children.) About 19% of the population lives in rural areas [2]. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_areas_in_the_United_Stat...
Not surprisingly, that 11% (plus whatever % is the 1st generation) forms the majority of who I know. It's interesting how people clique.
Less than 2% of the US population is involved in agriculture. We've got more immigrants than farmers.
This idea is false. Intra-generational mobility in the US is quite strong. Half of people in the 1% are not in the 1% a decade later. About 50% of people move up 1 quintile from their starting quintile of income. I don’t have stats on how this compares to EU or other countries, but this shows a majority American people can move between income quantiles in their lifetime. [1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/in…
This. The US has an abnormally high social mobility, even compared to the EU. You have a better chance of moving to the top 1% here than anywhere else. I'm a Tier 1 FAANG engineer and worked very hard to get here, coming from a middle income family. By first studying hard and building projects to get into a Tier 1 university. Tier 1 top-talent engineers are just worth multiples more than lower talent people and deser…
This idea is false. Intra-generational mobility in the US is quite strong. Half of people in the 1% are not in the 1% a decade later. About 50% of people move up 1 quintile from their starting quintile of income. I don’t have stats on how this compares to EU or other countries, but this shows a majority American people can move between income quantiles in their lifetime. [1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/in…
This. The US has an abnormally high social mobility, even compared to the EU. You have a better chance of moving to the top 1% here than anywhere else. I'm a Tier 1 FAANG engineer and worked very hard to get here, coming from a middle income family. By first studying hard and building projects to get into a Tier 1 university. Tier 1 top-talent engineers are just worth multiples more than lower talent people and deser…
That comment that tier 1 top talent engineers is way too universal, to put it kindly. I've worked 20 years as a dev and leader across two tier 1 companies and succeeded, think Faang. I'm maybe from a tier 3 undergrad. Intelligence, hard work, experience are all things that help me, but maybe also hubris, kindness, focus were important too. I was worth a lot because I worked hard and produced a lot. But I've also met way more productive and intelligent and capable people who were not at those tier 1 companies and not from tier 1 universities. It's like the old saw from my youth, if you think you are so great, a super genius, then probably you were not in a selective enough group (whether that is high school, college, grad school, company, life).