4 ms·

Maybe, but we've been losing jobs to robots for over 300 years now.

by Flavius 8y ago

_i____ii_______ 8y ago
I think we are in a different place than the Luddites were.
maxxxxx 8y ago
There have been quite a few revolts during that time.
jedberg 8y ago
Up until now, they have mostly been replacing physical labor, which allowed the workforce to shift to service and mental labor. But now the machines are replacing service and mental labor. There is no where for a human to shift to this time.
- hutzlibu 8y ago
  "But now the machines are replacing service and mental labor. There is no where for a human to shift to this time." As far as I know, computers on their own are not very good engineers, programmers, physicians, etc. I also believe creativity in general is a kind of unsolved problem. The art/music computers made so far ... not worth mentioning. (except as awesome research projects)
  - harshreality 8y ago
    The number of jobs requiring that kind of creativity is very small. Of course there will be a need for engineers, and physicians, to interface with other humans and to integrate answers from narrow, specialized AIs into real-world solutions, but that's not the bulk of everyday work even in high-skill jobs. If AI cuts the amount of work someone has to do in half, the outcomes are on a continuum between two extremes: either effective hourly wage for work doubles and people work half the time, or the job market shrinks by 50%. But what would actually happen is closer to 33% less work and the job market shrinks by 25% too. "People are still smarter and more adaptable than narrow AI" is completely irrelevant. What matters is the workload reduction offered by the narrow AI. The OP didn't say all jobs by 2030, it said 800M. Obviously there will still be lots of jobs, but not enough. Too many people unemployed and broke, combined with not enough of a social safety net for food, housing, and medical care, will result in social unrest and, if that's not dealt with well enough, it will progress to social breakdown, which either means a revolution (to institute a new government that does implement appropriate safety nets) or a martial-law type of scenario, neither of which is pretty. Below-average doctors, engineers, and lawyers will be at risk of being out of work. On-site blue collar jobs are safer, as a percentage. Robots can prefab things in factories, but it will be a long time before automated robots can build or repair anything on-site with the efficiency of humans + power tools. ETA: I think you overestimate the number of people required to handle most of the problems you think need work. And the current free market doesn't agree that they need more work, or it would price those jobs higher and more people would jump into those labor pools. In some cases, the jobs require serious specialization (maybe not advanced degrees, but a fair amount of training) and not just anyone can do them... in which case even the optimal labor pool size would barely scratch the surface of the coming AI-caused unemployment crisis. Even a massive public works effort to employ tens of millions of workers to deal with aging infrastructure, or to build green tech, is not a permanent solution. Most of those jobs would be gone in a decade, and then you're right back to where you started, only worse because AI will have gotten better. Massive government spending (including on temp public works projects) is essentially UBI for a lot of able-bodied people. I don't object to that, but it needs to be limited to public works projects that are really necessary, and then you have to figure out where you're going to get the money to pay for them when the govt is already running trillion-dollar deficits. Is 5% debt inflation per year not good enough? Should we try 10%? 15%?
    - hutzlibu 8y ago
      "Robots can prefab things in factories, but it will be a long time before automated robots can build or repair anything on-site with the efficiency of humans + power tools. " Thats the point. Robots are and will be for quite some time if not forever, pretty dumb amd needs human supervision for any complex task that cannot be encapsulated. Also .. with climate change etc. etc. ... there is so much needed work to be done. And population gets older ... and needs much more medical therapeuts, physicians etc. So much pollution and garbage. So much ugly things all around. There is an endless amount of needed work around. And if the current economic system does not adjust for that, then there is something very wrong with that and not that robots doing shitty jobs.
    - hutzlibu 8y ago
      "the current free market " Thats my point. I do not consider the current markets very free. Very distorted by many factors, but that is another topic. "Most of those jobs would be gone in a decade, and then you're right back to where you started, " That is probably the most optimistic asumption about what it takes to change the whole energy base of our current economy, I heard so far. Anyway, even if: Space for example is huge. I see some (infinite) potential there. And on infinite other projects to make this world more beautiful instead of the opposite.
    - hoaw 8y ago
      > On-site blue collar jobs are safer, as a percentage. Robots can prefab things in factories, but it will be a long time before automated robots can build or repair anything on-site with the efficiency of humans + power tools. It is hard to replace someone like that, but you can make their work meaningless. You could e.g. make electrical wiring that is trivial to install and self-diagnoses. So now it is "Uber Electrician".
- hoaw 8y ago
  I don't see it as much of a problem. Unless only a minority gets to enjoy the increase in productivity, which is what we are mostly seeing now.
- 8bitsrule 8y ago
  Robot killer for hire. Will work for food.

Maybe, but we've been losing jobs to robots for over 300 years now.

_i____ii_______ 8y ago

I think we are in a different place than the Luddites were.

maxxxxx 8y ago

There have been quite a few revolts during that time.

jedberg 8y ago

Up until now, they have mostly been replacing physical labor, which allowed the workforce to shift to service and mental labor. But now the machines are replacing service and mental labor. There is no where for a human to shift to this time.

hutzlibu 8y ago
"But now the machines are replacing service and mental labor. There is no where for a human to shift to this time." As far as I know, computers on their own are not very good engineers, programmers, physicians, etc. I also believe creativity in general is a kind of unsolved problem. The art/music computers made so far ... not worth mentioning. (except as awesome research projects)
- harshreality 8y ago
  The number of jobs requiring that kind of creativity is very small. Of course there will be a need for engineers, and physicians, to interface with other humans and to integrate answers from narrow, specialized AIs into real-world solutions, but that's not the bulk of everyday work even in high-skill jobs. If AI cuts the amount of work someone has to do in half, the outcomes are on a continuum between two extremes: either effective hourly wage for work doubles and people work half the time, or the job market shrinks by 50%. But what would actually happen is closer to 33% less work and the job market shrinks by 25% too. "People are still smarter and more adaptable than narrow AI" is completely irrelevant. What matters is the workload reduction offered by the narrow AI. The OP didn't say all jobs by 2030, it said 800M. Obviously there will still be lots of jobs, but not enough. Too many people unemployed and broke, combined with not enough of a social safety net for food, housing, and medical care, will result in social unrest and, if that's not dealt with well enough, it will progress to social breakdown, which either means a revolution (to institute a new government that does implement appropriate safety nets) or a martial-law type of scenario, neither of which is pretty. Below-average doctors, engineers, and lawyers will be at risk of being out of work. On-site blue collar jobs are safer, as a percentage. Robots can prefab things in factories, but it will be a long time before automated robots can build or repair anything on-site with the efficiency of humans + power tools. ETA: I think you overestimate the number of people required to handle most of the problems you think need work. And the current free market doesn't agree that they need more work, or it would price those jobs higher and more people would jump into those labor pools. In some cases, the jobs require serious specialization (maybe not advanced degrees, but a fair amount of training) and not just anyone can do them... in which case even the optimal labor pool size would barely scratch the surface of the coming AI-caused unemployment crisis. Even a massive public works effort to employ tens of millions of workers to deal with aging infrastructure, or to build green tech, is not a permanent solution. Most of those jobs would be gone in a decade, and then you're right back to where you started, only worse because AI will have gotten better. Massive government spending (including on temp public works projects) is essentially UBI for a lot of able-bodied people. I don't object to that, but it needs to be limited to public works projects that are really necessary, and then you have to figure out where you're going to get the money to pay for them when the govt is already running trillion-dollar deficits. Is 5% debt inflation per year not good enough? Should we try 10%? 15%?
  - hutzlibu 8y ago
    "Robots can prefab things in factories, but it will be a long time before automated robots can build or repair anything on-site with the efficiency of humans + power tools. " Thats the point. Robots are and will be for quite some time if not forever, pretty dumb amd needs human supervision for any complex task that cannot be encapsulated. Also .. with climate change etc. etc. ... there is so much needed work to be done. And population gets older ... and needs much more medical therapeuts, physicians etc. So much pollution and garbage. So much ugly things all around. There is an endless amount of needed work around. And if the current economic system does not adjust for that, then there is something very wrong with that and not that robots doing shitty jobs.
  - hutzlibu 8y ago
    "the current free market " Thats my point. I do not consider the current markets very free. Very distorted by many factors, but that is another topic. "Most of those jobs would be gone in a decade, and then you're right back to where you started, " That is probably the most optimistic asumption about what it takes to change the whole energy base of our current economy, I heard so far. Anyway, even if: Space for example is huge. I see some (infinite) potential there. And on infinite other projects to make this world more beautiful instead of the opposite.
  - hoaw 8y ago
    > On-site blue collar jobs are safer, as a percentage. Robots can prefab things in factories, but it will be a long time before automated robots can build or repair anything on-site with the efficiency of humans + power tools. It is hard to replace someone like that, but you can make their work meaningless. You could e.g. make electrical wiring that is trivial to install and self-diagnoses. So now it is "Uber Electrician".
hoaw 8y ago
I don't see it as much of a problem. Unless only a minority gets to enjoy the increase in productivity, which is what we are mostly seeing now.
8bitsrule 8y ago
Robot killer for hire. Will work for food.