3 ms·

If you replied to my comment in a comment chain, I'd assume it's directly addressing my comment. Otherwise a top level comment suffices. I don't understand you

If you replied to my comment in a comment chain, I'd assume it's directly addressing my comment. Otherwise a top level comment suffices. I don't understand your last point, why would there be lower demand for high automation? What do you mean "valuing basic labors well" in the context of automation?

ddingus 6y ago
If profit is the motive for automation, what happens when people have less or no income? Who buys the product so automated?
- cercatrova 6y ago
  I mean that's a different discussion. I'm an advocate for UBI. I'm not an advocate for purposefully stopping technological progress just so people can have jobs. Jobs are just a means to an end, not the end in itself. Just give people money if jobs don't exist anymore.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    Don't these things overlap some? More complete automation is ultra expensive. Wages, in general, are flat. Cost and risk exposure on the rise in many parts of the world, and in the US in particular. This is a real barrier to more complete automation. Maybe give people money, health care, lower cost and risk exposure now? Or, maybe value labors differently? Or?
    - cercatrova 6y ago
      Why is automation expensive? Robots are usually cheaper than full time workers. And sure, that can be done, but again we're talking about automation currently, not a 4 hour work day.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        The actual manufacture of a robot, depending on its scope of automation, ranges from inexpensive to insane. Most industrial robots are in the upper middle. Some simple robots are cheap, mostly mechanical. So, just making one overlaps both our points of view. Setting mechanical ones aside, the programming, test, safety, and depending on what is needed, interactions between multiple ones is very expensive! A seat of software can cost a years wage for an assembly line worker, and the people needed to do this work tend to be highly educated and expensive as well. That can change, and maybe will as tech advances and more advanced computation, sensing and such continue to scale. But, for the foreseeable future, doing that work is expensive and time consuming. And the product of it tends to be fairly rigid. Changes are not cheap either, though they can be a smaller fraction of the original build, depending on both the change and how robust the initial build was. Maintenance is a factor too, as is aging systems and the software footprint required. I have experience with these industrial machines (FANUC and the like), and they definitely cost less over time than people do, but only at scale and on well defined tasks in well defined conditions. The initial investment is a lot more than people. Where there is any "turbulence", task change, part change, condition change, people do prove far more efficient. As a general rule, robots that are more capable, in the sense of fully replacing skilled people, are a lot more expensive. Where the tasks require less of people, and conditions are constant, they are much cheaper. In my manufacturing career, 80's and 90's I spent time automating and training people to exceed automation performance. Have been on both sides of the discussion. Improvement just is not cheap. Today a lot more is possible, but the basic dynamics remain unchanged. We are far away from being able to generally replace people. And we flat out are not capable of that where the labor involves taking care of one another and or performing the many basic labors we all depend on far more than we realize. This is why I make a point of suggesting we value basic labor differently, and in general, higher. We need it, for one. People, like the HN audience, are not cheap and what we can do is not common. We get valued for that, and there is downward pressure on it all generally. However, if we suddenly have to perform basics ourselves, our output goes way down, and that too is expensive. Having more of our time available is worth far more than the compensation is for basic labor. Most people are not like us, and the training needed, assuming the basic skill is present, is expensive as well. Most jobs are basic labors too. That means most wages are not contributing to demand, and as those numbers rise, with costs and risks, the issues grow more acute.

ddingus 6y ago

If profit is the motive for automation, what happens when people have less or no income? Who buys the product so automated?

cercatrova 6y ago
I mean that's a different discussion. I'm an advocate for UBI. I'm not an advocate for purposefully stopping technological progress just so people can have jobs. Jobs are just a means to an end, not the end in itself. Just give people money if jobs don't exist anymore.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Don't these things overlap some? More complete automation is ultra expensive. Wages, in general, are flat. Cost and risk exposure on the rise in many parts of the world, and in the US in particular. This is a real barrier to more complete automation. Maybe give people money, health care, lower cost and risk exposure now? Or, maybe value labors differently? Or?
  - cercatrova 6y ago
    Why is automation expensive? Robots are usually cheaper than full time workers. And sure, that can be done, but again we're talking about automation currently, not a 4 hour work day.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      The actual manufacture of a robot, depending on its scope of automation, ranges from inexpensive to insane. Most industrial robots are in the upper middle. Some simple robots are cheap, mostly mechanical. So, just making one overlaps both our points of view. Setting mechanical ones aside, the programming, test, safety, and depending on what is needed, interactions between multiple ones is very expensive! A seat of software can cost a years wage for an assembly line worker, and the people needed to do this work tend to be highly educated and expensive as well. That can change, and maybe will as tech advances and more advanced computation, sensing and such continue to scale. But, for the foreseeable future, doing that work is expensive and time consuming. And the product of it tends to be fairly rigid. Changes are not cheap either, though they can be a smaller fraction of the original build, depending on both the change and how robust the initial build was. Maintenance is a factor too, as is aging systems and the software footprint required. I have experience with these industrial machines (FANUC and the like), and they definitely cost less over time than people do, but only at scale and on well defined tasks in well defined conditions. The initial investment is a lot more than people. Where there is any "turbulence", task change, part change, condition change, people do prove far more efficient. As a general rule, robots that are more capable, in the sense of fully replacing skilled people, are a lot more expensive. Where the tasks require less of people, and conditions are constant, they are much cheaper. In my manufacturing career, 80's and 90's I spent time automating and training people to exceed automation performance. Have been on both sides of the discussion. Improvement just is not cheap. Today a lot more is possible, but the basic dynamics remain unchanged. We are far away from being able to generally replace people. And we flat out are not capable of that where the labor involves taking care of one another and or performing the many basic labors we all depend on far more than we realize. This is why I make a point of suggesting we value basic labor differently, and in general, higher. We need it, for one. People, like the HN audience, are not cheap and what we can do is not common. We get valued for that, and there is downward pressure on it all generally. However, if we suddenly have to perform basics ourselves, our output goes way down, and that too is expensive. Having more of our time available is worth far more than the compensation is for basic labor. Most people are not like us, and the training needed, assuming the basic skill is present, is expensive as well. Most jobs are basic labors too. That means most wages are not contributing to demand, and as those numbers rise, with costs and risks, the issues grow more acute.