4 ms·

Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free? That's not how it went. People find n

Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free? That's not how it went. People find new ways to create value all the time, and yet every time we invent anything new people keep saying "all the jobs are going away." It has yet to happen in spite of the agricultural, industrial, and now tech revolutions.

TigeriusKirk 6y ago
Which new way of creating value will be immune to automation?
- rakoo 6y ago
  Art ?
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  Maintenance of automation objects, although that's not entirely new it will expand at the same rate as the automation itself, maybe slightly lagging behind. Improvements to automation; automation on top of automation. Planetary colonisation planning.
  - totony 6y ago
    I can see all of those being done better by an AI in the future. Maintenance is already done a lot by machines right now, I don't see that changing.
- gwright 6y ago
  There is a difference between thinking that many jobs might be automated away and the hidden assumption in your question that all jobs will be automated away. Why do you think all jobs are vulnerable?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- thisisbrians 6y ago
  Robots/AI can't even automate many of the existing ways. Examples abound, but: robots/AI can't replace carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, or couriers yet. In knowledge work, they're far from replacing engineers, designers, or authors. They can barely walk on two feet, struggle to open doors and climb stairs, and can't think originally. And we have a long, long ways to go before they can. I'm not worried about "automation" as long as I can clean a toilet and a robot can't.
randomsearch 6y ago
I think the problem is that humans sell labour that is either physical or mental. Already lost physical work has been automated (see, eg agriculture). So we retreat into mental work, the knowledge economy. But what happens when we have decent AI that can perform most mental tasks? It doesn’t feel like a continuation of what’s gone before, it feels like a step change. When the machine dominates man in all employable qualities, then it’s game over and capitalism breaks down for most people. I wish I were wrong, but I can’t see a way out of that. Perhaps it’s good, ultimately, because people may no longer have to work in the future. An optimistic view I guess is to work out how we transition to a new economic system that both continues to generate wealth and to share it. That sounds very much like a problem that must be solved centrally, which we are not good at, so perhaps therefore (based on historical patterns) we will have to await such an extreme level of capitalism that a revolution forces complete automation hand in hand with sharing wealth, ie coordination will only happen when all alternatives (corruption, brutal autocratic rule, state capitalism, etc) are proven unsustainable.
michannne 6y ago
"Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free?" How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc. Its not like agriculture was invented and suddenly anyone who wasnt farming was philosophizing, there is always something productive for you to do. Having a UBI without replacing the people who actually do the productive work is just rewarding those who don't work, you didn't suddenly remove the need for work, someone still has to do all that work that needs to get done, but now there is less incentive for them to do so when they can just kick back and worry about someone else doing it. A UBI is a socialist fantasy that will only ever work if you have a slave force (read: AI) that does work for free.
- thisisbrians 6y ago
  "How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc." This is exactly my point.
  - michannne 6y ago
    No, your point from what I understand is that even given a UBI, people will find new productive work to do. My point is 1) that with a UBI in place, there is no incentive for people to do any of these new productive jobs, and 2) a UBI by itself doesn't suddenly eliminate the need for the old productive jobs. If all of the old productive work is automated, then yes, I agree that people will find new productive work to do. But a UBI will take away any incentive for anyone to look for new productive endeavors.
    - thisisbrians 6y ago
      I actually wasn't talking about UBI; I was talking more generally about automation eliminating jobs being a shaky premise. However, I still disagree with you; UBI (as currently proposed) would provide so little income that most would still have to do at least some work to maintain their standards of living. Paying me $1,200 a month would not cause me to suddenly sit on my ass, for example. And, capitalism can still exist alongside UBI: if you want more money, compete in the market to get it.

TigeriusKirk 6y ago

Which new way of creating value will be immune to automation?

rakoo 6y ago
Art ?
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
Maintenance of automation objects, although that's not entirely new it will expand at the same rate as the automation itself, maybe slightly lagging behind. Improvements to automation; automation on top of automation. Planetary colonisation planning.
- totony 6y ago
  I can see all of those being done better by an AI in the future. Maintenance is already done a lot by machines right now, I don't see that changing.
gwright 6y ago
There is a difference between thinking that many jobs might be automated away and the hidden assumption in your question that all jobs will be automated away. Why do you think all jobs are vulnerable?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thisisbrians 6y ago
Robots/AI can't even automate many of the existing ways. Examples abound, but: robots/AI can't replace carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, or couriers yet. In knowledge work, they're far from replacing engineers, designers, or authors. They can barely walk on two feet, struggle to open doors and climb stairs, and can't think originally. And we have a long, long ways to go before they can. I'm not worried about "automation" as long as I can clean a toilet and a robot can't.

randomsearch 6y ago

I think the problem is that humans sell labour that is either physical or mental. Already lost physical work has been automated (see, eg agriculture). So we retreat into mental work, the knowledge economy. But what happens when we have decent AI that can perform most mental tasks? It doesn’t feel like a continuation of what’s gone before, it feels like a step change. When the machine dominates man in all employable qualities, then it’s game over and capitalism breaks down for most people. I wish I were wrong, but I can’t see a way out of that. Perhaps it’s good, ultimately, because people may no longer have to work in the future. An optimistic view I guess is to work out how we transition to a new economic system that both continues to generate wealth and to share it. That sounds very much like a problem that must be solved centrally, which we are not good at, so perhaps therefore (based on historical patterns) we will have to await such an extreme level of capitalism that a revolution forces complete automation hand in hand with sharing wealth, ie coordination will only happen when all alternatives (corruption, brutal autocratic rule, state capitalism, etc) are proven unsustainable.

michannne 6y ago

"Isn't this like saying that the invention of agriculture will mean society has to start feeding hunter gatherers for free?" How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc. Its not like agriculture was invented and suddenly anyone who wasnt farming was philosophizing, there is always something productive for you to do. Having a UBI without replacing the people who actually do the productive work is just rewarding those who don't work, you didn't suddenly remove the need for work, someone still has to do all that work that needs to get done, but now there is less incentive for them to do so when they can just kick back and worry about someone else doing it. A UBI is a socialist fantasy that will only ever work if you have a slave force (read: AI) that does work for free.

thisisbrians 6y ago
"How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc." This is exactly my point.
- michannne 6y ago
  No, your point from what I understand is that even given a UBI, people will find new productive work to do. My point is 1) that with a UBI in place, there is no incentive for people to do any of these new productive jobs, and 2) a UBI by itself doesn't suddenly eliminate the need for the old productive jobs. If all of the old productive work is automated, then yes, I agree that people will find new productive work to do. But a UBI will take away any incentive for anyone to look for new productive endeavors.
  - thisisbrians 6y ago
    I actually wasn't talking about UBI; I was talking more generally about automation eliminating jobs being a shaky premise. However, I still disagree with you; UBI (as currently proposed) would provide so little income that most would still have to do at least some work to maintain their standards of living. Paying me $1,200 a month would not cause me to suddenly sit on my ass, for example. And, capitalism can still exist alongside UBI: if you want more money, compete in the market to get it.