3 ms·

true, although the point I was making is that sooner or later fields like agriculture, energy, manufacturing, transportation, logistics and others will be compl

by zyb09 15y ago

true, although the point I was making is that sooner or later fields like agriculture, energy, manufacturing, transportation, logistics and others will be completely automated and just require coders to operate. That leaves some other fields, but these are huge parts of the economy. That's not gonna happen tomorrow of course, but we'll gradually get towards is and coder demand is just increase steadily over time.

crpatino 15y ago
I do not think this is accurate either. Just because something is possible (and it is a big IF to say that it is possible to reach 100% automation, economy wide) does not mean that it will end up being that way. Consider, let's say, manufacturing. We have pretty much nailed down the details of how to automate a factory. Still, we do not see that the world manufacturing has been dominated by the most technologically advanced countries. When you automate, you have to pay upfront for your robots (with a ROI measured in years). With human operators, you defer payment until after you have collected the benefits of their labor (in terms of finished product inventory, not revenue). Not that it has not been tried, car companies tried to pull it off in the 70's, because in the books it looks like the robot is an asset, while the payroll is a liability. But they all discovered the hard way that cash is king and have been struggling with imminent bankruptcy ever since. Instead, the big powerhouses are less advanced countries with large pools of young workers and weak labor laws. There a manufacturer can get started with much less capital and pay as it goes, instead of building these huge, high-maintenance, illiquid capital investments. And when the market shifts (and it always does) they can retool an pivot much faster too. Apply the same logic to economic activities where bussiness processes are not throughly documented or even understood (like crafts and professions), or those which depend on contingent uncontrollable factors (like agriculture), and you will see that the idea of a fully automated society is beyond human reach. Maybe if we manage to build a super-intelligence to solve all these problems for us, we may have a chance, or maybe there are fundamental limits that just cannot be overcome. But in either case, as of today, I think this is more science-fiction than actual science.
- pyoung 15y ago
  I can't dig up the link, but I recently stumbled across an article that highlighted a start up that was building a robot that would kill weeds (for agricultural purposes), replacing migrant workers. I agree that not all workers will end up being programmers, but a shift towards automation is inevitable as routine human labor will eventually be too costly and inefficient, regardless of the location. China is already starting to show signs of rising labor costs due to an improving economy and a shortage of labor. I would bet against human labor in the long run, as counting on lax labor laws and a population of workers who are willing to tolerate abject poverty as a method for keeping production costs down seems like an unsustainable solution.
  - crpatino 15y ago
    I am not saying it is not technically possible, but that it might not make financial sense long term. Nor I am saying that we should do without any automation (agriculture, by the way is already highly mechanized), I consider that there might be a sweet spot beyond which further development is not worth the hassle.

by zyb09 15y ago

crpatino 15y ago

I do not think this is accurate either. Just because something is possible (and it is a big IF to say that it is possible to reach 100% automation, economy wide) does not mean that it will end up being that way. Consider, let's say, manufacturing. We have pretty much nailed down the details of how to automate a factory. Still, we do not see that the world manufacturing has been dominated by the most technologically advanced countries. When you automate, you have to pay upfront for your robots (with a ROI measured in years). With human operators, you defer payment until after you have collected the benefits of their labor (in terms of finished product inventory, not revenue). Not that it has not been tried, car companies tried to pull it off in the 70's, because in the books it looks like the robot is an asset, while the payroll is a liability. But they all discovered the hard way that cash is king and have been struggling with imminent bankruptcy ever since. Instead, the big powerhouses are less advanced countries with large pools of young workers and weak labor laws. There a manufacturer can get started with much less capital and pay as it goes, instead of building these huge, high-maintenance, illiquid capital investments. And when the market shifts (and it always does) they can retool an pivot much faster too. Apply the same logic to economic activities where bussiness processes are not throughly documented or even understood (like crafts and professions), or those which depend on contingent uncontrollable factors (like agriculture), and you will see that the idea of a fully automated society is beyond human reach. Maybe if we manage to build a super-intelligence to solve all these problems for us, we may have a chance, or maybe there are fundamental limits that just cannot be overcome. But in either case, as of today, I think this is more science-fiction than actual science.

pyoung 15y ago
I can't dig up the link, but I recently stumbled across an article that highlighted a start up that was building a robot that would kill weeds (for agricultural purposes), replacing migrant workers. I agree that not all workers will end up being programmers, but a shift towards automation is inevitable as routine human labor will eventually be too costly and inefficient, regardless of the location. China is already starting to show signs of rising labor costs due to an improving economy and a shortage of labor. I would bet against human labor in the long run, as counting on lax labor laws and a population of workers who are willing to tolerate abject poverty as a method for keeping production costs down seems like an unsustainable solution.
- crpatino 15y ago
  I am not saying it is not technically possible, but that it might not make financial sense long term. Nor I am saying that we should do without any automation (agriculture, by the way is already highly mechanized), I consider that there might be a sweet spot beyond which further development is not worth the hassle.