5 ms·

While it's a great idea to train people for the job skills that are on an upward trend, I feel like the article is being fairly short sighted. Automating away

by furyg3 13y ago

While it's a great idea to train people for the job skills that are on an upward trend, I feel like the article is being fairly short sighted. Automating away 50% of the workforce won't happen in a vacuum. It will come with major changes to the political, economic, and social systems. Maybe we decide to let tech do everything while we go fishing (the oft-cited technology utopia that never seems to happen). Maybe we switch to a fixed-income economic model, where it's fine if people decide not to work. Maybe we decide not to automate some components (gasp!). Or use all that extra manpower to philosophize, make art... or war. To say "it's going to be a big problem if 50% of the workforce is made redundant, we better start educating people now!" is exactly what you would expect from an (or 'the') economist. Economic rules are based on people's desires, and people desires may also be revolutionized if most of what they do is done by computers.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
Well, I don't think there's much space for me to agree with you on the issues here, but maybe the past can inform us a little. Historically, virtually 100% of the population was employed in food production. We've automated well past the 50% point by now. What happened to the surplussed workers? (Of the things you listed, I'd actually say "use the extra manpower to philosophize, make art, and make war" is a decent description of what happened.)
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  > What happened to the surplussed workers? They found other jobs. When one industry needs few workers, another always takes up the slack. I've heard this principle stated in different ways in different places over the years. But is it a iron law of nature, or just a thing that goes on until it doesn't? If it will eventually stop (and I think this is likely), how would you tell when it is going to stop? Would you notice if it is already happening? What does the current situation resemble? I have posed this question before ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6853359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6853359 ) No definitive answer yet.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    > But is it a iron law of nature, or just a thing that goes on until it doesn't? Of course it's not a law of nature. I don't understand the way of thinking that leads to considering this (or Moore's law, to bring up another particularly common example) as a law. Inductive reasoning, "it has always been like this, thus it always will be" is not science. One needs to understand casual relationships that give rise to the supposed "law" before asserting that future will look like the past. I don't think that looking at particular industries being automated is very helpful. I'd like to propose a different model: let's put available jobs in a continuum from low-skill to high-skill (in creativity/cognitive load) jobs. In this model we see how technology continues to automate-away lower-skill jobs, climbing up the hill of difficulty. In the past, surplussed workers could find other jobs, because the way we automated things was also low-skill; therefore for every lost trade, new ones were created in its place. But the same technological progress that allows us to automate more and more difficult jobs is upgrading the process of automation. There are less and less low-skill jobs produced per low-skill job automated, and the moment we reach the point when this ratio (automated/new) is > 1, surplussed workers will be increasingly unable to get themselves employed. (Mind you, this is not inductive reasoning, there is a good casual model underneath explaining why this is happening, but I think it's obvious enough that I don't need to elaborate on it now). There's one type of jobs that are, and I believe will be for some time, exempt from the "march of progress" - jobs that require human element. Those are jobs like receptionists in hotels, doctors, psychologists - who we can connect with on emotional/trust based level. I'd personally bet that those jobs are safer than, say, tech sector, which will get automated away eventually if the progress continues.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
      > Inductive reasoning, "it has always been like this, thus it always will be" is not science. No. But it often seems to pass for economics.
      - TeMPOraL 13y ago
        Well, we can clearly see how good are the predictions made by this field ;).
zanny 13y ago
> Maybe we decide not to automate some components Why in the world would you not do this? There will always be a market for "hand crafted", but at a societal level we should never demand human time for things we could have done without that time expense, given equivalent quality.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  I agree with this only if the results are distributed equitably. The alternative is someone making a killing on pitchforks and torches.
- nsxwolf 13y ago
  Go to a casino. You can play a 100% automated roulette machine, or the real thing at a table. Look which one has the most people around it. For at least this one small example, people have already made the choice to prefer human labor.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    This is not human labor, this is human fun. We won't automate away thing we actually like to do.
    - VLM 13y ago
      Which brings up the exploitative effect where in the long run, no one will have service sector jobs except cute young women in skimpy uniforms. Although I find "cute young women in skimpy uniforms" visually highly appealing, I'm not convinced that appealing to my base interests is a societal upgrade. Also a human provider of "fun" isn't necessarily having any fun at all, even if the consumers are.
      - JonnieCache 13y ago
        >no one will have service sector jobs except cute young women in skimpy uniforms. The category list on your local pornographic website begs to differ. The public have an infinite variety of tastes, the question is, do the markets have the imagination to serve them? EDIT: realised this doesn't really address your point, but it's still relevant so I'll leave it here.

by furyg3 13y ago

thaumasiotes 13y ago

Well, I don't think there's much space for me to agree with you on the issues here, but maybe the past can inform us a little. Historically, virtually 100% of the population was employed in food production. We've automated well past the 50% point by now. What happened to the surplussed workers? (Of the things you listed, I'd actually say "use the extra manpower to philosophize, make art, and make war" is a decent description of what happened.)

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
> What happened to the surplussed workers? They found other jobs. When one industry needs few workers, another always takes up the slack. I've heard this principle stated in different ways in different places over the years. But is it a iron law of nature, or just a thing that goes on until it doesn't? If it will eventually stop (and I think this is likely), how would you tell when it is going to stop? Would you notice if it is already happening? What does the current situation resemble? I have posed this question before ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6853359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6853359 ) No definitive answer yet.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  > But is it a iron law of nature, or just a thing that goes on until it doesn't? Of course it's not a law of nature. I don't understand the way of thinking that leads to considering this (or Moore's law, to bring up another particularly common example) as a law. Inductive reasoning, "it has always been like this, thus it always will be" is not science. One needs to understand casual relationships that give rise to the supposed "law" before asserting that future will look like the past. I don't think that looking at particular industries being automated is very helpful. I'd like to propose a different model: let's put available jobs in a continuum from low-skill to high-skill (in creativity/cognitive load) jobs. In this model we see how technology continues to automate-away lower-skill jobs, climbing up the hill of difficulty. In the past, surplussed workers could find other jobs, because the way we automated things was also low-skill; therefore for every lost trade, new ones were created in its place. But the same technological progress that allows us to automate more and more difficult jobs is upgrading the process of automation. There are less and less low-skill jobs produced per low-skill job automated, and the moment we reach the point when this ratio (automated/new) is > 1, surplussed workers will be increasingly unable to get themselves employed. (Mind you, this is not inductive reasoning, there is a good casual model underneath explaining why this is happening, but I think it's obvious enough that I don't need to elaborate on it now). There's one type of jobs that are, and I believe will be for some time, exempt from the "march of progress" - jobs that require human element. Those are jobs like receptionists in hotels, doctors, psychologists - who we can connect with on emotional/trust based level. I'd personally bet that those jobs are safer than, say, tech sector, which will get automated away eventually if the progress continues.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    > Inductive reasoning, "it has always been like this, thus it always will be" is not science. No. But it often seems to pass for economics.
    - TeMPOraL 13y ago
      Well, we can clearly see how good are the predictions made by this field ;).

zanny 13y ago

> Maybe we decide not to automate some components Why in the world would you not do this? There will always be a market for "hand crafted", but at a societal level we should never demand human time for things we could have done without that time expense, given equivalent quality.

toomuchtodo 13y ago
I agree with this only if the results are distributed equitably. The alternative is someone making a killing on pitchforks and torches.
nsxwolf 13y ago
Go to a casino. You can play a 100% automated roulette machine, or the real thing at a table. Look which one has the most people around it. For at least this one small example, people have already made the choice to prefer human labor.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  This is not human labor, this is human fun. We won't automate away thing we actually like to do.
  - VLM 13y ago
    Which brings up the exploitative effect where in the long run, no one will have service sector jobs except cute young women in skimpy uniforms. Although I find "cute young women in skimpy uniforms" visually highly appealing, I'm not convinced that appealing to my base interests is a societal upgrade. Also a human provider of "fun" isn't necessarily having any fun at all, even if the consumers are.
    - JonnieCache 13y ago
      >no one will have service sector jobs except cute young women in skimpy uniforms. The category list on your local pornographic website begs to differ. The public have an infinite variety of tastes, the question is, do the markets have the imagination to serve them? EDIT: realised this doesn't really address your point, but it's still relevant so I'll leave it here.