5 ms·

It seems to me until we need a real conversation of the ethics of automation and how we can do it without destroying the lives of the workers we are displacing.

• beachstartup 10y ago
  > I wouldn't work on software that puts people out of jobs how can you tell? what is the heuristic here?
  • lanestp 10y ago
    I switched to game development! F2P might be obnoxious but it's not going to take someone's job. That's not to say that there aren't ethical issues here. My boss wants to automate customer service operations with customer service bots. So I'm not even safe there.
    • 6d6b73 10y ago
      You could argue that games put a lot of people out of work. After all people playing games might not be interested in other forms of entertainment, thus killing these other industries. Also, people spending a lot of time playing games might not want to go out to meet with other people, which in turns kills the restaurant industry,the oil industry (less miles driven), car industry (less accidents) etc.
      • kazagistar 10y ago
        And, in fact, games are one of the cheaper forms of entertainment that people partake in, so the destruction of jobs is pretty damn high.
      • beachstartup 10y ago
        i know people who dropped out of college or otherwise destroyed their lives because of video games.
    • incongruity 10y ago
      People make choices every day about how to spend their money, entertainment is no different. People spend time and money gaming now may have spent it bowling, going to movies, bars, baseball games, etc. in the past. En masse, those shifts put people out of work. The problem happens when it happens so quickly that we can't re-allocate workforce or if it happens at such a scale that we can't find use for masses of low-eductation/low-skill workers.
    • beachstartup 10y ago
      > So I'm not even safe there. i think the larger point in this entire discussion is that nobody is safe anywhere, both on the receiving and delivering end of the job-killing.
• duaneb 10y ago
  > A few years ago I made a vow to myself that I wouldn't work on software that puts people out of jobs. Arguably the whole point of software is to automate tasks that would have been done by humans. How do you avoid this when making useful software?
  • sxates 10y ago
    Who lost a job because of an Xbox game? I think you could argue that software like Adobe Creative Suite and Microsoft Office are net positive on job growth. Software can empower people to do entirely new kinds of jobs.
    • stale2002 10y ago
      Other entertainment industries that require more labor. That person playing the video game is choosing NOT to go to the movies, or the sports game, or the bar.
    • qyv 10y ago
      Word processors somewhat help replace the typing pool. Not to mention the affect that have had on the printing/typesetting industry. Image manipulation software allows a single person to produce far more work that hundreds of people working by hand. This is the exact purpose of software: to make people more efficient and powerful in their tasks.
      • ghaff 10y ago
        In general, "office automation" software (as it was once often called) combined with, over time, email, self-service travel sites, and associated changing expectations has largely eliminated whole classes of jobs. I never had a personal secretary/admin but I've had ones who handled a group of 5-10 people. And even mid-level execs had personal admins when I was starting out.
    • duaneb 10y ago
      > Who lost a job because of an Xbox game? Book authors, most likely. > I think you could argue that software like Adobe Creative Suite and Microsoft Office are net positive on job growth. Yea, I can see that. It's still replacing earlier jobs typesetting, editing, printing, distributing, etc etc. > Software can empower people to do entirely new kinds of jobs. I agree with this too, though I don't know if it's a positive thing. This computer revolution was supposed to increase quality of life, not employment. I'd rather have sustainable income for everyone rather than shitty jobs for everyone, and it seems like automation encourages the latter.
• rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Maybe the idea of mass employment needs to be reconsidered. The early Jeffersonian model of the United States pictured Americans as living largely self-sufficient lives on small farms, making everything they need for themselves like food, furniture, barns for livestock. Except it also included slaves. Are computers that much different than slaves? Perhaps only in that they are not regarded as a form of life, but they still serve us as we desire, they can be bought, sold, or smashed with a baseball bat by disgruntled office workers. If most transportation can be done with autonomous cars, if most goods can be produced by 3D printers which source material from mines and facilities owned by robots, if there is no need for human labor on a massive scale, then it might become more of a cost than a benefit for people to be working. Most of us do not like to work, but we have to work. I like my job, but I would prefer a world in which I did not need to do it and could do other things instead.
• draw_down 10y ago
  I think we need to be honest with ourselves that this is the system we live in, and sadly it does destroy people's lives.
  • yoz-y 10y ago
    In short term yes. But in long term the humanity will profit. One could argue that combines & co have put massive amount of people out of jobs but you do not see people complaining that 98% of the world population is no longer working on the fields. Eventually people will find other jobs. It is our duty to ease the transition for the people who are touched by it _now_.
• stale2002 10y ago
  But wasn't everyone talking about how Foxconn was evil for taking advantage of the workers in the third world? Well that problem is fixed now! These workers are no longer being taken advantage of because they don't work there anymore.
• kirykl 10y ago
  At the same time this destroys the lives of line workers it helps the lives of the robotic technicians, designers, producers, and part manufacturers
• modoc 10y ago
  The entirety of technology/engineering/materials advances over the last thousands years has had the net effect of making certain jobs obsolete or least needed in much smaller numbers. Buggy whip makers being the oft-cited example, but dyers, seamstresses, thatchers, brick makers, carpenters, etc... Automation, efficiency improvements, and material/product longevity increases all dramatically change the job landscape. And yet we're still employing the majority of an ever-expanding population. Things seem to simply shift around....
  • lanestp 10y ago
    The problem right now is the jobs aren't shifting. Chronic unemployment is the norm for young people and less educated older workers. We are automating WAY faster than new jobs can be created.
    • modoc 10y ago
      That seems to be untrue. Global and US unemployment rates are either normal or better than usual (looking over the past 10, 20, or 100 years). http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-economy-employment-idUSKCN0UX2PD http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-economy-employment-... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gworxUlu27o/VPmu_-G-ykI/AAAAAAAAikE/ovom3v9-2IY/s1600/UnemployFeb2015.PNG http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gworxUlu27o/VPmu_-G-ykI/AAAAAAAAik... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/US_Unemp... etc...
• JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > A few years ago I made a vow to myself that I wouldn't work on software that puts people out of jobs. That implies you can't do anything to make people more productive. If you produce software that makes people more productive, some companies will do more with the same people, but other companies will employ less people. Either way, though, you'll put some people out of jobs, and not all of those people will get the new jobs you create; even if you create more jobs than you destroy, you can't guarantee that everyone who had a job before will have one after. Improving productivity via some new tool has a similar effect to replacing low-skilled jobs with high-skilled jobs, just with a smaller scale and skill differential. I don't think you can reasonably use "number of people put out of a job == 0" as a sole value metric, to the exclusion of all else. It's certainly worth including "number of people put out of a job" one of many factors you value, but not to the exclusion of all other values.
  • mathgeek 10y ago
    Another thought that comes to mind is that if you're not going to work on anything that "puts people out of jobs," it would seem hypocritical to use any tools that make your job easier. After all, if you're able to increase your own productivity, then we don't need as many developers. It's one of those thoughts that feels good, but really isn't practical.
    • dllthomas 10y ago
      Maybe. Improving efficiency can sometimes increase consumption of a resource.
    • JoshTriplett 10y ago
      Exactly. Along the same lines, don't do anything to improve your interview process and find more productive people, because otherwise you could employ more less productive people, if you value "number of jobs" above all else.
• golergka 10y ago
  So, you'd rather pay a worker doing worthless work?
• yummybear 10y ago
  Tractors automated farming. Printing automated writing. Robots automate assembly. Though admittedly there may be some immediate negative consequences, the long term benefits far outweigh those.
• vijayr 10y ago
  A few years ago I made a vow to myself that I wouldn't work on software that puts people out of jobs. Don't most software fall in this category though?