3 ms·

It is not happening in the next decade but the change will come a lot faster than a century. As the tech needed for it is improving rapidly as well as getting c

It is not happening in the next decade but the change will come a lot faster than a century. As the tech needed for it is improving rapidly as well as getting cheaper. And I think many people are thinking in all or nothing scenario but long before everything is completely autonomous they will bring in efficiency where 1 person with autonomous helpers will be completing jobs that needed multiple people before.

keiferski 3y ago
That will still take decades, if not a century. Manufacturing and developing millions of robots that walk around and do repairs (not to mention making them economically affordable) is not something that’s going to happen soon. What’s more likely is that robots replace human factory workers first.
- rjsw 3y ago
  If the robots have a longer working life than the humans they replace then they don't have to be cheaper. Doing physical work breaks down your body relatively quickly.
  - vasco 3y ago
    Yeah but humans expect return on investment before they die.
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      Stock reflects future money flows today. If you can sell stock, or leverage it for loans, then you get access to future profits as soon as there is a reasonable expectation they will eventually show up. Amazon's growth model was based entirely on this effect for many years. No need for profits, company's value skyrocketed as anticipation compounded.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I think longevity is the one thing humans still beat machines for? Cars, even electric, don't last as long as our bodies. Of course, there's a whole bunch of other differences, like the machines don't need to wait 18 years after construction for physical labour, they don't need to be trained for 21 years for mental labour, they don't sleep, and the "working lifespan" target is about 47 years rather than the full 84 years average human life expectancy at birth in developed nations.
    - alx_the_new_guy 3y ago
      >Cars, even electric, don't last as long as our bodies. Because they're not built to, presumably because manufacturers are greedy and want to sell you a new one, and buying a new one is encouraged by consumerist culture. Let's say effective human lifespan for physical labor is ~40 years (20 to 60). On average, commercial aircraft last 20-30 years, meanwhile the US military plans to keep B-52s in service at least through 2050s, which will make them roughly 100 on average. It's not that machines can't last a century with proper care and maintenance, it's that they're not designed to.
- xbmcuser 3y ago
  I understand why you think that but because of the trajectory of solar and battery tech as well as the trajectory of cpu/gpu and ai. I think the change will accelerate rather than slow down as one of the main input for producing anything ie energy is going to be cheaper and will keep getting cheaper for the foreseeable future. So the cost of producing robots with robots will keep getting cheaper so developing millions of robots would become a lot cheaper a lot faster. Though with all the jobs humans will lose who will be able to pay the robots for their services is the question.

keiferski 3y ago

That will still take decades, if not a century. Manufacturing and developing millions of robots that walk around and do repairs (not to mention making them economically affordable) is not something that’s going to happen soon. What’s more likely is that robots replace human factory workers first.

rjsw 3y ago
If the robots have a longer working life than the humans they replace then they don't have to be cheaper. Doing physical work breaks down your body relatively quickly.
- vasco 3y ago
  Yeah but humans expect return on investment before they die.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    Stock reflects future money flows today. If you can sell stock, or leverage it for loans, then you get access to future profits as soon as there is a reasonable expectation they will eventually show up. Amazon's growth model was based entirely on this effect for many years. No need for profits, company's value skyrocketed as anticipation compounded.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I think longevity is the one thing humans still beat machines for? Cars, even electric, don't last as long as our bodies. Of course, there's a whole bunch of other differences, like the machines don't need to wait 18 years after construction for physical labour, they don't need to be trained for 21 years for mental labour, they don't sleep, and the "working lifespan" target is about 47 years rather than the full 84 years average human life expectancy at birth in developed nations.
  - alx_the_new_guy 3y ago
    >Cars, even electric, don't last as long as our bodies. Because they're not built to, presumably because manufacturers are greedy and want to sell you a new one, and buying a new one is encouraged by consumerist culture. Let's say effective human lifespan for physical labor is ~40 years (20 to 60). On average, commercial aircraft last 20-30 years, meanwhile the US military plans to keep B-52s in service at least through 2050s, which will make them roughly 100 on average. It's not that machines can't last a century with proper care and maintenance, it's that they're not designed to.
xbmcuser 3y ago
I understand why you think that but because of the trajectory of solar and battery tech as well as the trajectory of cpu/gpu and ai. I think the change will accelerate rather than slow down as one of the main input for producing anything ie energy is going to be cheaper and will keep getting cheaper for the foreseeable future. So the cost of producing robots with robots will keep getting cheaper so developing millions of robots would become a lot cheaper a lot faster. Though with all the jobs humans will lose who will be able to pay the robots for their services is the question.