Machines replacing humans

[Esper]

Not in the cyborg/AI way, but in the workforce way. Time goes on, more human jobs are being replaced by machines and/or more efficient technology that doesn't require (as much) human work to get the same results.

So what's to happen with the human workforce? People gotta eat, gotta provide for their families. Can we have all this nifty technology without displacing people?

 

[Nah]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano_(novel)

Ok but really, it's sort of an odd situation. On one hand, machinery does a significantly better job than human workers due to their precision, output, and ability to work endlessly for nothing in return. And that's kinda needed in a world with an ever expanding population and shit.

But on the other hand, it also greatly limits the kinds of jobs available to people. There will always be some kind of work that machines cannot do, but what would be left is really not stuff that everyone is capable of doing. Nevermind that craploads of people would be competing for the same few jobs.

And as nice as it might sound that nobody would ever have to work, people need work, at the very minimum, to have something to do with their lives.

 

[Arsenic]

Isn't Wendy's replacing its cashiers with Kiosks?

I'm not a big fan of replacing the human workforce with Machines. Soon enough there will be very limited jobs, and I'm more than sure the murder rate will skyrocket as people do anything to get that job so they can feed their families.

There's only one group of people that benefit from machine workforce. Big business owners. The rich will be made more rich and the poor/middle-class will just kinda fade into death...

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

There exists people who prefer to take jobs that take very little effort than high-paying jobs like doctors or fire fighters, so of course they'll be the ones who will be against machines replacing their only career choices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano_(novel)

Glad you brought this up. This is exactly why fictional media needs to be taken seriously because they commentate what may be considered dangerous to human society such as machines and how must try to avoid them at all costs. Unfortunately, no one would listen to them because they're, well, fiction.

 

[Somewhere_]

Its the same failed argument the Luddites exploited during the Industrial Revolution.

Machines depress wages or replace jobs, but raise real wages. And new jobs and industries are created in the process.

Taken to the logical extreme, goods and services, healthcare, housing, etc would be dirt cheap, so you dont need the income.

However, in the short-term, workers do lose jobs. But it is a gain the long-term.

 

[Esper]

There exists people who prefer to take jobs that take very little effort than high-paying jobs like doctors or fire fighters, so of course they'll be the ones who will be against machines replacing their only career choices.

Its the same failed argument the Luddites exploited during the Industrial Revolution.

Machines depress wages or replace jobs, but raise real wages. And new jobs and industries are created in the process.

Taken to the logical extreme, goods and services, healthcare, housing, etc would be dirt cheap, so you dont need the income.

However, in the short-term, workers do lose jobs. But it is a gain the long-term.

But not everyone can become a firefighter, doctor, and/or retrain for a new job. And people still gotta eat in the short term. Basic income and/or sufficient government assistance doesn't exists for most people and many people are against the idea of that anyway. Not everyone has savings they can rely on or can afford to use savings that might be needed for school, medical bills, etc.

 

[Somewhere_]

But not everyone can become a firefighter, doctor, and/or retrain for a new job. And people still gotta eat in the short term. Basic income and/or sufficient government assistance doesn't exists for most people and many people are against the idea of that anyway. Not everyone has savings they can rely on or can afford to use savings that might be needed for school, medical bills, etc.

And that is very unfortunate. But there is no reason to hold back progress just for some people. We have grown insanely more rich since the Industrial Revolution... including those same Luddites! So its not as bad as a short-term loss as one may think.

And there are solutions to this potential issue. While it may be a small issue, basic income may be a temporary solution until the jobs are created.

 

[Esper]

And that is very unfortunate. But there is no reason to hold back progress just for some people. We have grown insanely more rich since the Industrial Revolution... including those same Luddites! So its not as bad as a short-term loss as one may think.

And there are solutions to this potential issue. While it may be a small issue, basic income may be a temporary solution until the jobs are created.

I'm not advocating holding back progress (though I do worry that some of the big tech brains don't fully consider the consequences of what they do because they are so sure they can do no wrong), but of providing for people hurt by progress. Helping people whose livelihoods are hurt because of automation or whatever. Telling people to just get a new job (the current method) isn't really feasible for many people.

 

[Somewhere_]

I'm not advocating holding back progress (though I do worry that some of the big tech brains don't fully consider the consequences of what they do because they are so sure they can do no wrong), but of providing for people hurt by progress. Helping people whose livelihoods are hurt because of automation or whatever. Telling people to just get a new job (the current method) isn't really feasible for many people.

right, but those same people will be able to acquire newly created jobs, as well as currently unemployed people.

And talking about helping those people out in the meantime is a different discussion lol.

 

[Nah]

What newly created jobs though?

 

[Esper]

right, but those same people will be able to acquire newly created jobs, as well as currently unemployed people.

No, but see, when you shut down a factory that makes cars to build a new one that uses mostly robots the people who lose their jobs know how to make cars, not how to maintain robots that make cars. And there will be fewer jobs at the new factory so even if everyone could do the new work only some of them will be able to get new jobs. That's the whole point of using new tech, to do a job better/quicker/etc. than people do and with fewer people.

Like, yeah, technology does create new jobs, but it generally doesn't create as many as it displaces. That's why only 1-2% of people in America work in farming today while over a hundred years ago that number was something like 50%. And the jobs tech does create are often tech jobs, which not everyone is suited to or has the qualifications for.

And talking about helping those people out in the meantime is a different discussion lol.

But it's not? It's exactly what my first post was about and the ideas overlap so much it's basically the same issue.

 

[Sektor]

Subject title misleading 2/10. Just joking, really. It is an interesting development, but as of yet machines are still not advanced enough to completely take over several industries that require critical thinking and hospitality. Further more, I would say that the police have a longer lasting position than Fire Fighters potentially. We're getting to the point where you can remote control nearly everything so I wouldn't be surprised to see an automated hose show up. Detectives are safe and trucking jobs in terms of loading and unloading (as of now) are safe, although probably not for very much longer. I for one, accept the rule of our new binary overlords.

 

[Somewhere_]

No, but see, when you shut down a factory that makes cars to build a new one that uses mostly robots the people who lose their jobs know how to make cars, not how to maintain robots that make cars. And there will be fewer jobs at the new factory so even if everyone could do the new work only some of them will be able to get new jobs. That's the whole point of using new tech, to do a job better/quicker/etc. than people do and with fewer people.

Like, yeah, technology does create new jobs, but it generally doesn't create as many as it displaces. That's why only 1-2% of people in America work in farming today while over a hundred years ago that number was something like 50%. And the jobs tech does create are often tech jobs, which not everyone is suited to or has the qualifications for.

But it's not? It's exactly what my first post was about and the ideas overlap so much it's basically the same issue.

"That which is seen, and that which is not seen" -Frederick Bastiat (great piece by Bastiat btw)

"That which is seen:"

Technology does not necessarily create new jobs in the same industry. For example, the farming industry. However, history has showed that this is the case much (if not most) of the time, such as the Industrial Revolution.

"That which is not seen:"

The real wages that increase create jobs in other industries, meaning, in addition to newly created jobs in the same industry, the new jobs in other industries far, far outweighs the displaced jobs.

 

[donavannj]

"That which is seen, and that which is not seen" -Frederick Bastiat (great piece by Bastiat btw)

"That which is seen:"

Technology does not necessarily create new jobs in the same industry. For example, the farming industry. However, history has showed that this is the case much (if not most) of the time, such as the Industrial Revolution.

"That which is not seen:"

The real wages that increase create jobs in other industries, meaning, in addition to newly created jobs in the same industry, the new jobs in other industries far, far outweighs the displaced jobs.

We're not far off from a potential mass-automation wave, though. We've already got AI that can be made to self-modify for improvement, and this is far from the only instance, it's just the first that I could find. And you'd be surprised at just how easily replaceable by automation most current jobs are with current tech that is commercially available or with tech that is in prototyping stages and could be readily available within the next 20 years.

The trends of the past may no longer apply since all the trends of the past still had human intelligence and awareness needed to operate said machinery. The future machinery automation revolution will likely bring with it machines that consistently outperform humans in the majority of fields and that could easily be capable of self maintenance. The prototypes and basic frameworks for these techs already exist today.

 

[Megan]

No talk about how machines will someday replace politicians and make important decisions for the country they rule or how machines will replace psychologists because they're way better in understanding the inner workings of a human being than actual human beings? No? Good.

Ask yourself: what jobs are taken over by machines? The wast majority consists of jobs nobody _wants_ to do. Jobs that need to be done, but are so unfullfilling that you have to wonder why people don't go mad while doing them. I certainly don't need another try at throwing frozen pastries into boxes all day.

I'd even go so far as to say that the only people who really get affected by losing their jobs are those without a clear perspective. However that's a problem where the market/country has to partially take the blame for doing a shit job as they don't advertise different options as well as they should.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

No talk about how machines will someday replace politicians and make important decisions for the country they rule or how machines will replace psychologists because they're way better in understanding the inner workings of a human being than actual human beings? No? Good.

I know one form of A.I. that'll do the job better on politics and psychology:

Spoiler:

We're all puppets tied in strings when it comes to jobs after all, except for him.

 

[Degurchaff]

It's quite possible that Humans will be replaced by Robots as time goes on Or perhaps there will be people that are transformed into robots There is a small possibility somewhere in the world maybe it will turn out as it did in I-Robot.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

 

[donavannj]

No talk about how machines will someday replace politicians and make important decisions for the country they rule or how machines will replace psychologists because they're way better in understanding the inner workings of a human being than actual human beings? No? Good.

Ask yourself: what jobs are taken over by machines? The wast majority consists of jobs nobody _wants_ to do. Jobs that need to be done, but are so unfullfilling that you have to wonder why people don't go mad while doing them. I certainly don't need another try at throwing frozen pastries into boxes all day.

I'd even go so far as to say that the only people who really get affected by losing their jobs are those without a clear perspective. However that's a problem where the market/country has to partially take the blame for doing a shit job as they don't advertise different options as well as they should.

It's more than just the menial jobs that 90% of people don't want that will be at risk going forward. We have a lot of crazy technologies already in prototyping stages that if successful could remove many, many more jobs in non-manual labor fields and even in fields like programming.

 

[Esper]

It's more than just the menial jobs that 90% of people don't want that will be at risk going forward. We have a lot of crazy technologies already in prototyping stages that if successful could remove many, many more jobs in non-manual labor fields and even in fields like programming.

Algorithms are already designing things like furniture and other "creative" objects that you'd normally expect a person would need to be involved in.

https://www.wired.com/2016/10/elbo-chair-autodesk-algorithm/