4 ms·

I'm sure there is a good critique of that Frey and Osborne paper. Epistemologically, it sounds weird to assign 'probabilities of automation.' I don't have the t

by shas3 10y ago

I'm sure there is a good critique of that Frey and Osborne paper. Epistemologically, it sounds weird to assign 'probabilities of automation.' I don't have the time to read the paper in detail, but here are a few things: 1. Automation doesn't imply that jobs go away. Classic example, deposits and withdrawals were automated by ATMs. Yet, the number of cashiers increased. 2. Automation by itself is not sufficient. Will we reach a point where it is cheaper to automate a job than hire a person? Think of non-forklift lifting/moving of heavy stuff, we don't really need people doing this manually, robots should be able to do it. But we see with the Boston Dynamics robots that we are many years or decades away from commoditizing lifting robots. 3. 'useless' class already exists. Employment and usefulness aren't necessarily the same. There are many millions of people in jobs that are 'useless' by some metrics (gas station attendant, supermarket cashiers, etc).

Anderkent 10y ago
>3. 'useless' class already exists. Employment and usefulness aren't necessarily the same. There are many millions of people in jobs that are 'useless' by some metrics (gas station attendant, supermarket cashiers, etc) Actually, those jobs are still there. The current useless class are the people who are not capable of holding a modern job. And they're not receiving the support from the society that they should. When you take away someone's ability to support themselves because there are new, more efficient ways of using the shared resources, they're entitled to compensation [1]; but as a society we don't have a good way of enforcing that. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/burdens/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/burdens/
- DashRattlesnake 10y ago
  > supermarket cashiers Why do you think they're useless? They certainly aren't currently [1]. Someone has to do their work, either paid employees or unpaid volunteers (i.e. customers). [1] at least until that Amazon fantasy-land store becomes a practical reality, if it ever does
  - Anderkent 10y ago
    I don't, did you reply to the wrong comment? I explicitly said that's not the useless class right now.
    - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
      Yep, sorry about that. I meant to reply to the parent.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Half the cashier's job is automated (tallying is managed by scanning in the items, payment is handled by using the customer facing CC machine; they only handle cash, checks, and manual entry of produce). Bagging is often handled by cashiers, customers, or dedicated baggers. Baggers are cheap, the only skill required is to know not to put eggs beneath a half-gallon of milk (though many seem not to know this anymore). Cashiers cost more because you have to trust them. Handling cash can be handled by automatic machines (as evidenced by the many self-checkout systems) with one person dedicated to 4-8 checkout stations to assist with issues, check customer IDs, etc. It's not that they're useless, but cashiers' utility is greatly diminished these days with automation reducing the skill, trust, and number of personnel required.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      This is what I think most people miss when they criticize automation. It's not that an android-looking robot will come and stand in your spot and do your job, it's that automation makes one person more effective, and able to do the job of multiple people.
    - neaden 10y ago
      The supermarket I go to recently got rid of all of its self checkout lines and replaced them with additional express (15 item or less) lines. I'm not sure their reasoning for it but I don't think cashier automation is a sure thing.
    - wahern 10y ago
- yazan94 10y ago
  > And they're not receiving the support from the society that they should. When you take away someone's ability to support themselves because there are new, more efficient ways of using the shared resources, they're entitled to compensation What do you suppose is fair compensation for being replaced in that fashion? I think this is more complicated than just touting that we deserve basic income. Does an able-bodied person who chooses to not work deserve the same income as someone who is handicap and cannot work? And then the question arises of what amount of income is deemed sufficient? In an age where income inequality is more of an issue than before[1], does someone on a basic income government program deserve as much as someone who obtained a degree and has a low paying job[2] (the averages here seem to be ~$35k for a low paying job. Keep in mind that the poverty level is about $16k[3] for a family of 2). How do you pay people on a basic income government program enough for a livable situation without making it unfair for people who are working for maybe just double the poverty limit? [1] http://inequality.org/income-inequality/ http://inequality.org/income-inequality/ [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=low+paying+college+degrees https://www.google.com/search?q=low+paying+college+degrees [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=federal+poverty+level https://www.google.com/search?q=federal+poverty+level
  - vostok 10y ago
    > How do you pay people on a basic income government program enough for a livable situation without making it unfair for people who are working for maybe just double the poverty limit? What about progressive taxation? Someone at double the poverty line might pay 10% and someone making $10 million might pay 60%.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Automation doesn't imply that jobs go away. Classic example, deposits and withdrawals were automated by ATMs. Yet, the number of cashiers increased. Did the number of cashier's per customer (or perhaps more significantly, as a share of the population -- not labor force) increase? If you look at even AEIs graph [0] that they use to try to sell idea that ATMs didn't kill cashiers' jobs, it shows cashiers increasing rapidly during the very slow rollout of ATMs in the 1970s and 1980s, and the growth tapering off to very slow growth as ATMs take off in the 1990s and beyond (and remaining relatively flat even after the number of ATMs itself flattens in the mid-00s, probably as ATMs basically reached saturation but are still increasing functions, reducing the need for more tellers.) [0] http://www.aei.org/publication/what-atms-bank-tellers-rise-robots-and-jobs/ http://www.aei.org/publication/what-atms-bank-tellers-rise-r...
- weberc2 10y ago
  Why is your proposed metric better than the original? Honest question.
  - sophacles 10y ago
    Not the parent, but all other things remaining the same, population growth alone will drive the need for more cashiers. Since ATMs did not stop population growth, percentage based metrics help account for that. So the different types of numbers can help drive home different points: * in absolute numbers, ATMs didn't cause any job losses. * in relative numbers, there are less job opportunities in this space. (e.g. there used to be a need for 1 cashier per N people, not there is only a slot for 1 cashier per 2N people). The second type of thinking is what people are worried about - if we keep reducing percentage of people who are needed to do stuff, what the other folks do?
    - Anderkent 10y ago
      There's also the factory vs car improvement difference. Factories did not make workers obsolete; cars did make horses obsolete. I'm not sure we can ahead of time tell whether particular technological improvements are more like factories or cars.
cr0sh 10y ago
> Think of non-forklift lifting/moving of heavy stuff, we don't really need people doing this manually, robots should be able to do it. But we see with the Boston Dynamics robots that we are many years or decades away from commoditizing lifting robots. Perhaps if we keep insisting that robots need to look like a human in some form factor. Otherwise, we are already there. We already have fully autonomous forklift robot systems in warehouses and other similar jobs. I know such robots will also be used in construction and elsewhere, if they aren't already (all of the heavy equipment manufacturers are working on such systems today). Smaller lifting tasks (think in a grocery store or other retail outlet) could be done by smaller but similar machines. Change the shelving system and/or the packaging to accommodate the objects being lifted and put into place, and the entire thing can likely be automated. I can easily see stores like Walmart or Costco doing this. Right now, the only thing stopping them is the cost (the robots themselves are one thing, changing the shelves, packaging, stores, etc - that's going to be a great expense). Perhaps as time goes on, they'll do it first in new stores being built.
- shas3 10y ago
  Who said anything about human form factor? I said non-forklift, I meant things like: last mile delivery of furniture and appliances, packing and moving, etc. where most of the lifting is manual. These are situations where things are more unstructured than a warehouse. The kind of problems for which Boston Dynamics seems to be building robots.

by shas3 10y ago

Anderkent 10y ago

>3. 'useless' class already exists. Employment and usefulness aren't necessarily the same. There are many millions of people in jobs that are 'useless' by some metrics (gas station attendant, supermarket cashiers, etc) Actually, those jobs are still there. The current useless class are the people who are not capable of holding a modern job. And they're not receiving the support from the society that they should. When you take away someone's ability to support themselves because there are new, more efficient ways of using the shared resources, they're entitled to compensation [1]; but as a society we don't have a good way of enforcing that. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/burdens/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/burdens/

DashRattlesnake 10y ago
> supermarket cashiers Why do you think they're useless? They certainly aren't currently [1]. Someone has to do their work, either paid employees or unpaid volunteers (i.e. customers). [1] at least until that Amazon fantasy-land store becomes a practical reality, if it ever does
- Anderkent 10y ago
  I don't, did you reply to the wrong comment? I explicitly said that's not the useless class right now.
  - DashRattlesnake 10y ago
    Yep, sorry about that. I meant to reply to the parent.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Half the cashier's job is automated (tallying is managed by scanning in the items, payment is handled by using the customer facing CC machine; they only handle cash, checks, and manual entry of produce). Bagging is often handled by cashiers, customers, or dedicated baggers. Baggers are cheap, the only skill required is to know not to put eggs beneath a half-gallon of milk (though many seem not to know this anymore). Cashiers cost more because you have to trust them. Handling cash can be handled by automatic machines (as evidenced by the many self-checkout systems) with one person dedicated to 4-8 checkout stations to assist with issues, check customer IDs, etc. It's not that they're useless, but cashiers' utility is greatly diminished these days with automation reducing the skill, trust, and number of personnel required.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    This is what I think most people miss when they criticize automation. It's not that an android-looking robot will come and stand in your spot and do your job, it's that automation makes one person more effective, and able to do the job of multiple people.
  - neaden 10y ago
    The supermarket I go to recently got rid of all of its self checkout lines and replaced them with additional express (15 item or less) lines. I'm not sure their reasoning for it but I don't think cashier automation is a sure thing.
  - wahern 10y ago
yazan94 10y ago
> And they're not receiving the support from the society that they should. When you take away someone's ability to support themselves because there are new, more efficient ways of using the shared resources, they're entitled to compensation What do you suppose is fair compensation for being replaced in that fashion? I think this is more complicated than just touting that we deserve basic income. Does an able-bodied person who chooses to not work deserve the same income as someone who is handicap and cannot work? And then the question arises of what amount of income is deemed sufficient? In an age where income inequality is more of an issue than before[1], does someone on a basic income government program deserve as much as someone who obtained a degree and has a low paying job[2] (the averages here seem to be ~$35k for a low paying job. Keep in mind that the poverty level is about $16k[3] for a family of 2). How do you pay people on a basic income government program enough for a livable situation without making it unfair for people who are working for maybe just double the poverty limit? [1] http://inequality.org/income-inequality/ http://inequality.org/income-inequality/ [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=low+paying+college+degrees https://www.google.com/search?q=low+paying+college+degrees [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=federal+poverty+level https://www.google.com/search?q=federal+poverty+level
- vostok 10y ago
  > How do you pay people on a basic income government program enough for a livable situation without making it unfair for people who are working for maybe just double the poverty limit? What about progressive taxation? Someone at double the poverty line might pay 10% and someone making $10 million might pay 60%.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Automation doesn't imply that jobs go away. Classic example, deposits and withdrawals were automated by ATMs. Yet, the number of cashiers increased. Did the number of cashier's per customer (or perhaps more significantly, as a share of the population -- not labor force) increase? If you look at even AEIs graph [0] that they use to try to sell idea that ATMs didn't kill cashiers' jobs, it shows cashiers increasing rapidly during the very slow rollout of ATMs in the 1970s and 1980s, and the growth tapering off to very slow growth as ATMs take off in the 1990s and beyond (and remaining relatively flat even after the number of ATMs itself flattens in the mid-00s, probably as ATMs basically reached saturation but are still increasing functions, reducing the need for more tellers.) [0] http://www.aei.org/publication/what-atms-bank-tellers-rise-robots-and-jobs/ http://www.aei.org/publication/what-atms-bank-tellers-rise-r...

weberc2 10y ago
Why is your proposed metric better than the original? Honest question.
- sophacles 10y ago
  Not the parent, but all other things remaining the same, population growth alone will drive the need for more cashiers. Since ATMs did not stop population growth, percentage based metrics help account for that. So the different types of numbers can help drive home different points: * in absolute numbers, ATMs didn't cause any job losses. * in relative numbers, there are less job opportunities in this space. (e.g. there used to be a need for 1 cashier per N people, not there is only a slot for 1 cashier per 2N people). The second type of thinking is what people are worried about - if we keep reducing percentage of people who are needed to do stuff, what the other folks do?
  - Anderkent 10y ago
    There's also the factory vs car improvement difference. Factories did not make workers obsolete; cars did make horses obsolete. I'm not sure we can ahead of time tell whether particular technological improvements are more like factories or cars.

cr0sh 10y ago

> Think of non-forklift lifting/moving of heavy stuff, we don't really need people doing this manually, robots should be able to do it. But we see with the Boston Dynamics robots that we are many years or decades away from commoditizing lifting robots. Perhaps if we keep insisting that robots need to look like a human in some form factor. Otherwise, we are already there. We already have fully autonomous forklift robot systems in warehouses and other similar jobs. I know such robots will also be used in construction and elsewhere, if they aren't already (all of the heavy equipment manufacturers are working on such systems today). Smaller lifting tasks (think in a grocery store or other retail outlet) could be done by smaller but similar machines. Change the shelving system and/or the packaging to accommodate the objects being lifted and put into place, and the entire thing can likely be automated. I can easily see stores like Walmart or Costco doing this. Right now, the only thing stopping them is the cost (the robots themselves are one thing, changing the shelves, packaging, stores, etc - that's going to be a great expense). Perhaps as time goes on, they'll do it first in new stores being built.

shas3 10y ago
Who said anything about human form factor? I said non-forklift, I meant things like: last mile delivery of furniture and appliances, packing and moving, etc. where most of the lifting is manual. These are situations where things are more unstructured than a warehouse. The kind of problems for which Boston Dynamics seems to be building robots.