4 ms·

> The question is will we iteratively destroy each job until 5% of the current workers still can afford an opulent living while the other 95% are crushed by mis

> The question is will we iteratively destroy each job until 5% of the current workers still can afford an opulent living while the other 95% are crushed by misery If 95% are crushed by misery, where will the 5% get their money from? I'm guessing money will only be exchanged between the 5%, meaning the economy will be a lot different. Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? That amount of people will surely form a formidable army. What will save the 5%? > Seeing how most politicians paint unemployed as subhumans that barely deserve to live, I am not that optimistic :-/ Changing the way we treat unemployed people is surely a necessary step forward, but it's not black and white. There are people who don't want to work because they're lazy or incompetent. There are people who want to work and are very competent, but can't find a suitable job. There are many types of people in between.

Iv 10y ago
> If 95% are crushed by misery, where will the 5% get their money from? I am not sure I see the problem. The 95% need goods and food. They buy it from the 5%. The 5% decide of the amount of money they accept to redistribute to the 95%. That can go on for a while. > Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? Absolutely. But I am arguing that if your path toward a positive income has revolt as a necessary step, it is improvable. And even so, there is a risk: > What will save the 5%? What makes you think that soldiers will be sparred from automation? > There are people who don't want to work because they're lazy or incompetent. There are people who want to work and are very competent, but can't find a suitable job. It sounds to me that society would then benefit by having the lazy or incompetent people kept out of the work pool and paid to not work instead of having to make themselves absolutely necessary. If you have worked in any medium or big organization I am sure that you can think of people who would have actually saved their employer's money by receiving a salary and not come to work.
pythia__ 10y ago
>Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? Security robots! More seriously, as robots do more and more, people will start to place a premium on having a human do the work where they notice the difference (so, not Amazon warehouses but probably the local Starbucks). With this factored in, 95% unemployment is unlikely until artificial general intelligence.
- Iv 10y ago
  Would you pay a premium for being served by a human? Do you pay a premium to have a driver, to have a maid, to have a chef, when you can do without? I know I would not. If a machine gives me accurate medical advice, I wont go to the doctor. If a machine makes good burgers, I won't pay a random student to flip burgers for me. It would actually feel awkward and quite contemptful to ask a human to do the task of a robot.
  - pythia__ 10y ago
    I'll answer your specific questions first. Driver, no. Maid, no. (But keep in mind that robot maids/janitors are considerably farther away than self-driving cars. Cleaning environments not specifically designed for it is really complicated and I expect humans to outperform robots at it for longer than at most other kinds of physical labor.) For a fancier meal than burgers, yes, I'd pay a premium to have a human chef cook it. Doctor, definitely not in most cases. As for it being "awkward and contemptful," I suspect you are imagining humans perform a task exactly as a robot would. That will be the minority of cases, because the economics are strongly against it in most. Instead, you'll pay humans for their ability to customize their work or the products they produce in a way that isn't economical to automate. (Burger flipping is doomed for this reason -- not much to differentiate humans form robots there.) Hence, chefs, plumbers, tailors, auto mechanics, specialist doctors, interior decorators, etc. will be assisted by "weak" AI but won't be replaced by it.
    - Iv 10y ago
      I have seen this kind of denial for more than 20 years now. I have seen people argue that driving could not be automated, that people would never accept an automated cashier, that webshops would never compete against physical shops. The level of performance and customization that robots can achieve in every single of the task you quote is far superior to humans'. I expect none of your list items to present any technical problem in 10 years. Maybe plumber, give it 20.
      - pythia__ 10y ago

Iv 10y ago

> If 95% are crushed by misery, where will the 5% get their money from? I am not sure I see the problem. The 95% need goods and food. They buy it from the 5%. The 5% decide of the amount of money they accept to redistribute to the 95%. That can go on for a while. > Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? Absolutely. But I am arguing that if your path toward a positive income has revolt as a necessary step, it is improvable. And even so, there is a risk: > What will save the 5%? What makes you think that soldiers will be sparred from automation? > There are people who don't want to work because they're lazy or incompetent. There are people who want to work and are very competent, but can't find a suitable job. It sounds to me that society would then benefit by having the lazy or incompetent people kept out of the work pool and paid to not work instead of having to make themselves absolutely necessary. If you have worked in any medium or big organization I am sure that you can think of people who would have actually saved their employer's money by receiving a salary and not come to work.

pythia__ 10y ago

>Also, what will keep the 95% from revolting? Security robots! More seriously, as robots do more and more, people will start to place a premium on having a human do the work where they notice the difference (so, not Amazon warehouses but probably the local Starbucks). With this factored in, 95% unemployment is unlikely until artificial general intelligence.

Iv 10y ago
Would you pay a premium for being served by a human? Do you pay a premium to have a driver, to have a maid, to have a chef, when you can do without? I know I would not. If a machine gives me accurate medical advice, I wont go to the doctor. If a machine makes good burgers, I won't pay a random student to flip burgers for me. It would actually feel awkward and quite contemptful to ask a human to do the task of a robot.
- pythia__ 10y ago
  I'll answer your specific questions first. Driver, no. Maid, no. (But keep in mind that robot maids/janitors are considerably farther away than self-driving cars. Cleaning environments not specifically designed for it is really complicated and I expect humans to outperform robots at it for longer than at most other kinds of physical labor.) For a fancier meal than burgers, yes, I'd pay a premium to have a human chef cook it. Doctor, definitely not in most cases. As for it being "awkward and contemptful," I suspect you are imagining humans perform a task exactly as a robot would. That will be the minority of cases, because the economics are strongly against it in most. Instead, you'll pay humans for their ability to customize their work or the products they produce in a way that isn't economical to automate. (Burger flipping is doomed for this reason -- not much to differentiate humans form robots there.) Hence, chefs, plumbers, tailors, auto mechanics, specialist doctors, interior decorators, etc. will be assisted by "weak" AI but won't be replaced by it.
  - Iv 10y ago
    I have seen this kind of denial for more than 20 years now. I have seen people argue that driving could not be automated, that people would never accept an automated cashier, that webshops would never compete against physical shops. The level of performance and customization that robots can achieve in every single of the task you quote is far superior to humans'. I expect none of your list items to present any technical problem in 10 years. Maybe plumber, give it 20.
    - pythia__ 10y ago