4 ms·

> No they don't. We've had 200 years of massive automation fueled job destruction, and wages and the demand for labour are massively greater now than 200 years

> No they don't. We've had 200 years of massive automation fueled job destruction, and wages and the demand for labour are massively greater now than 200 years ago. This is different. In the past, technology has been a multiplier for the productivity of workers. The confluence of robotics and AI will mean the eventual evaporation of low-skill and/or laborious jobs as they are completely replaced by automated agents. Unless we somehow go through a revolution in education in one generation, start augmenting humans, or place greater value and importance on artistic/creative endeavors, there simply won't be many things that humans are better/more cost-effective at than machines. Certainly not enough to make up for the displacement of jobs. For example, there are ~3.5 million truck drivers in the US currently. Add those to the number of Lyft, Uber, taxi, etc. drivers. In less than 10 years, those jobs will most likely be completely gone except for bespoke, upscale professional drivers as a luxury. These people do not have a unique skill set they can apply to something else. Remember, low-hanging fruit jobs like working at fast food restaurants and jobs involving manual labor are also gone. That's not even mentioning jobs like customer service via phone or online chat, air traffic controllers, etc. which will be gone. > The last 20 years in particular have overseen the most rapid wage growth in human history. Globalization can only happen once.

aminok 10y ago
>This is different. In the past, technology has been a multiplier for the productivity of workers. No it wasn't. One power loom with 10 operators replaced 2,000 people. The same will be true when a cadre of intelligent robots, with one manager giving them daily instructions, replaces 5 wait staff and cooks at a restaurant. >The confluence of robotics and AI will mean the eventual evaporation of low-skill and/or laborious jobs as they are completely replaced by automated agents. Low-skill work is no more vulnerable to automation than high-skill work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox Ultimately, we humans universally have and will continue to have a set of skills that cannot, for legal reasons, be automated. This gives human services a unique value proposition. Moreover, human labour cannot be mass-produced like machines, so it becomes increasingly scarce, which is why wages have increased 20 fold since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution >These people do not have a unique skill set they can apply to something else. Yes they do have valuable skills. They have a high-level understanding of society, people's intentions and needs, and the tools and technology that enables people to accomplish tasks. A person living in 2017 isn't some empty slate that's indistinguishable from a human living in 1950. The modern person has knowledge about automation that makes them vastly more productive in the modern context. The modern person knows how to use modern tools like smart phones with applications like internet-accessible maps, to maximise productivity, and has unique knowledge about numerous domains that is not publicly available. With respect to the last point: most of the collective knowledge of the economy is not in the public domain, as a public resource. It is mostly diffused throughout the population, as private knowledge. It is this knowledge that makes individuals increasingly productive, and their labour increasingly valuable. >Globalization can only happen once. Industrialization has happened continuously for 200 years. Wages have grown enormously over this time frame. You're being pessimistic for the sake of being pessimistic. Maybe because you're looking to rationalize your universal welfare cheque.

aminok 10y ago

>This is different. In the past, technology has been a multiplier for the productivity of workers. No it wasn't. One power loom with 10 operators replaced 2,000 people. The same will be true when a cadre of intelligent robots, with one manager giving them daily instructions, replaces 5 wait staff and cooks at a restaurant. >The confluence of robotics and AI will mean the eventual evaporation of low-skill and/or laborious jobs as they are completely replaced by automated agents. Low-skill work is no more vulnerable to automation than high-skill work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec's_paradox Ultimately, we humans universally have and will continue to have a set of skills that cannot, for legal reasons, be automated. This gives human services a unique value proposition. Moreover, human labour cannot be mass-produced like machines, so it becomes increasingly scarce, which is why wages have increased 20 fold since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution >These people do not have a unique skill set they can apply to something else. Yes they do have valuable skills. They have a high-level understanding of society, people's intentions and needs, and the tools and technology that enables people to accomplish tasks. A person living in 2017 isn't some empty slate that's indistinguishable from a human living in 1950. The modern person has knowledge about automation that makes them vastly more productive in the modern context. The modern person knows how to use modern tools like smart phones with applications like internet-accessible maps, to maximise productivity, and has unique knowledge about numerous domains that is not publicly available. With respect to the last point: most of the collective knowledge of the economy is not in the public domain, as a public resource. It is mostly diffused throughout the population, as private knowledge. It is this knowledge that makes individuals increasingly productive, and their labour increasingly valuable. >Globalization can only happen once. Industrialization has happened continuously for 200 years. Wages have grown enormously over this time frame. You're being pessimistic for the sake of being pessimistic. Maybe because you're looking to rationalize your universal welfare cheque.