4 ms·

When you realize that automation is eating the jobs that these people used to do, and realize that the service economy can't fit even a fraction of these displa

When you realize that automation is eating the jobs that these people used to do, and realize that the service economy can't fit even a fraction of these displaced workers, you have a scenario where we can produce goods for sale in mass with minimal labor but now less people have money to buy things. Creating a death spiral because consumers buying things is the fuel which makes the entire economy run and grow, so when you fire them all and replace them with robots, your individual profit might temporarily rise but as we all do it, more and more fall out of the workplace and can no longer consume, hurting the economy based on consuming. Basic income may come across as a luxury today, in a world where there can still be enough jobs for the number of people in the economy, but it very well may become a requirement to ensure that consumers exist to buy automatically produced and automatically served goods. P.S. the taxes don't necessarily rise on the workers, but rather on the automators and producers. The amount of income and wealth in this country is not decreasing, rather, the amount of it going to workers and consumers is. Is it ideal to have the government redistribute it such that the engine stops running poorly and works well again? No, but the alternative is worse.

zip1234 8y ago
Everyone has thought that automation would eliminate the jobs for a hundred years. In a way it has come true as some jobs that existed before no longer exist, but so far other jobs have been created to take their place. Nobody really knows when or if that will stop.
- montenegrohugo 8y ago
  Humans have always had a cognitive advantage over machines in the past. This will not necessarily be true in the future. What advantage do we will then have? The only possible advantage I can see is that raising a human for 20 years + housing + food + other expenses and then employing him would be cheaper than replicating another AGI, but I cannot imagine this to be true.
  - logicchains 8y ago
    If an AGI was smarter than a human, why would it want to work for free? Personally I think it's unlikely to be possible to create something more capable of abstract reasoning than humans yet somehow constrained to be completely subservient to us. And if it is possible, all it takes is one mistake to produce a robot slave revolution. I'd expect supercapable AGI to command higher wages than less-capable humans, so they wouldn't be pushing out service jobs.
  - zip1234 8y ago
    Perhaps human cognition will be enhanced by machines? This would open up a lot of new opportunities. I know there are companies working on doing exactly this.
    - criley2 8y ago
      Only so long as humans are required for the machine to do their job. The second it is feasible and cheaper to have a machine do what the human/machine hybrid could do, they would switch. This is more of a bridge solution to full automation. "We need doctors to control dumb surgical robots until we're advanced enough that surgical robots can operate without a human controlling them" etc We're doing the "assist" thing already in all the places that we can't quite do the "machine only" thing. Even self-driving cars mirror this: the goal is a vehicle that doesn't require an operator. The bridged reality, currently, is that the operator must remain alert and able to take over any time.
- criley2 8y ago
  Yes I am aware of the "infinite work hypothesis" however blindly running into the future and basing 7-8 billion human lives and our entire civilization upon this hypothesis without any mitigation strategy seems naive and high-risk at best. I will also point out that automation is currently starting to eat fields that were traditionally un-automatable due to either skill, labor price (or both), including everything from complex farm work done for cheap to surgical robots.
llcoolv 8y ago
alright, then why it is not voluntary? the people who would want to share with others are free to do so. why use violence? why put in jail people who refuse to be robbed?
- llcoolv 8y ago
  wasn't expecting that a comment questioning the use of violence would get so many downvotes... apparently we have really regressed as human beings.
- criley2 8y ago
  TL;DR: Anarchy is the system you're describing (total voluntary interaction with government, or no government) and there's plenty of anarchists around, and literally 0 successful anarchist states. Let me approach your anarchy differently: Why do we not have anarchy? Because not-anarchy is working and is the best system we've ever used. Why don't we get rid of this to try anarchy? Well -- who's stopping you from creating your own Amish/Scientology/SoverignCitizen whatever lifestyle? Who's forcing you to live where you do? Is the tax man showing up at your door with guns drawn? I think your contribution to our society is far more voluntary than you want to admit. There are plenty of Americans who live 100-1000 miles away from a real government and largely never interact with it. Preppers in Alaska or in the wide expanses of the West. Something tells me you choose not to live like they do, free from government regulation, not meaningfully paying taxes, etc, because you like the society and civilization that is built through Liberty (freedom with common sense restrictions) as opposed to Anarchy (freedom without restriction, period). P.S. if you call taxation robbery but use public infrastructure, you're a completely entitled hypocrite who deserves no respect for your "I can take for free but how dare I have to pay" hottake. The only people who can criticize taxation are those who homestead far, far, far away from government and society, because they truly do not use any infrastructure or benefit, but, they largely do not pay taxation (and no government agency is going to Waco style attack to force them to, either).
  - llcoolv 8y ago
    No. Societies who have respect for individual rights are not necessarily anarchy. For example collecting taxes is obviously justified when it would prevent more significant violence - e.g. to fund an army, police and a court. Stealing from the hard-working to give to the lazy brings is a massively perverse incentive which only low birthrates, dysfunctional behaviours and national decline. On the contrary - there is actually 0 successful socialist states. So your statement is massively misleading. https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FReason.Magazine%2Fvideos%2F371648916769343%2F&show_text=0&width=560 https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%...

zip1234 8y ago

Everyone has thought that automation would eliminate the jobs for a hundred years. In a way it has come true as some jobs that existed before no longer exist, but so far other jobs have been created to take their place. Nobody really knows when or if that will stop.

montenegrohugo 8y ago
Humans have always had a cognitive advantage over machines in the past. This will not necessarily be true in the future. What advantage do we will then have? The only possible advantage I can see is that raising a human for 20 years + housing + food + other expenses and then employing him would be cheaper than replicating another AGI, but I cannot imagine this to be true.
- logicchains 8y ago
  If an AGI was smarter than a human, why would it want to work for free? Personally I think it's unlikely to be possible to create something more capable of abstract reasoning than humans yet somehow constrained to be completely subservient to us. And if it is possible, all it takes is one mistake to produce a robot slave revolution. I'd expect supercapable AGI to command higher wages than less-capable humans, so they wouldn't be pushing out service jobs.
- zip1234 8y ago
  Perhaps human cognition will be enhanced by machines? This would open up a lot of new opportunities. I know there are companies working on doing exactly this.
  - criley2 8y ago
    Only so long as humans are required for the machine to do their job. The second it is feasible and cheaper to have a machine do what the human/machine hybrid could do, they would switch. This is more of a bridge solution to full automation. "We need doctors to control dumb surgical robots until we're advanced enough that surgical robots can operate without a human controlling them" etc We're doing the "assist" thing already in all the places that we can't quite do the "machine only" thing. Even self-driving cars mirror this: the goal is a vehicle that doesn't require an operator. The bridged reality, currently, is that the operator must remain alert and able to take over any time.
criley2 8y ago
Yes I am aware of the "infinite work hypothesis" however blindly running into the future and basing 7-8 billion human lives and our entire civilization upon this hypothesis without any mitigation strategy seems naive and high-risk at best. I will also point out that automation is currently starting to eat fields that were traditionally un-automatable due to either skill, labor price (or both), including everything from complex farm work done for cheap to surgical robots.

llcoolv 8y ago

alright, then why it is not voluntary? the people who would want to share with others are free to do so. why use violence? why put in jail people who refuse to be robbed?

llcoolv 8y ago
wasn't expecting that a comment questioning the use of violence would get so many downvotes... apparently we have really regressed as human beings.
criley2 8y ago
TL;DR: Anarchy is the system you're describing (total voluntary interaction with government, or no government) and there's plenty of anarchists around, and literally 0 successful anarchist states. Let me approach your anarchy differently: Why do we not have anarchy? Because not-anarchy is working and is the best system we've ever used. Why don't we get rid of this to try anarchy? Well -- who's stopping you from creating your own Amish/Scientology/SoverignCitizen whatever lifestyle? Who's forcing you to live where you do? Is the tax man showing up at your door with guns drawn? I think your contribution to our society is far more voluntary than you want to admit. There are plenty of Americans who live 100-1000 miles away from a real government and largely never interact with it. Preppers in Alaska or in the wide expanses of the West. Something tells me you choose not to live like they do, free from government regulation, not meaningfully paying taxes, etc, because you like the society and civilization that is built through Liberty (freedom with common sense restrictions) as opposed to Anarchy (freedom without restriction, period). P.S. if you call taxation robbery but use public infrastructure, you're a completely entitled hypocrite who deserves no respect for your "I can take for free but how dare I have to pay" hottake. The only people who can criticize taxation are those who homestead far, far, far away from government and society, because they truly do not use any infrastructure or benefit, but, they largely do not pay taxation (and no government agency is going to Waco style attack to force them to, either).
- llcoolv 8y ago
  No. Societies who have respect for individual rights are not necessarily anarchy. For example collecting taxes is obviously justified when it would prevent more significant violence - e.g. to fund an army, police and a court. Stealing from the hard-working to give to the lazy brings is a massively perverse incentive which only low birthrates, dysfunctional behaviours and national decline. On the contrary - there is actually 0 successful socialist states. So your statement is massively misleading. https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FReason.Magazine%2Fvideos%2F371648916769343%2F&show_text=0&width=560 https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%...