Robotic/automated labour

[Npoess]

 

I thought this documentary was interesting.

 

How are humans going to adapt when robots take over for example low-skill and white collar jobs, which already are happening to a certain extent. Even on the creative side humans are to be challenged, according to the documentary.

 

Does this mean owners of production and the robotic labuor will become richer and we'll see an increasing polarization, and a large number of the workforce will be completely left out of the economy?

 

Or will humans simply just have more spare time and have less work to do. Are people even okay with that scenario? (if the resources coming from this robotic labour are equally distributed of course).

 

I know this all sounds a bit sci-fi and sensationalist. But with things like automated vehicles, to use an recent example of "robots taking over", I think this issue is something we are going to have to face in some years.

[eugene]

it's cool as long as there is a strong social welfare system as its impacts on labor market is very obvious even today. as technology advances the subsidizing a comfortable existence of a human also becomes easier and cheaper, so i don't really believe that this will necessarily lead to some social catastrophes.

[Hautlle]

I've always enjoyed this fictional story. It's about concerns of having machines take control over human work-lives and the eventual impact on humans.

[Cryptowen]

I've always enjoyed this fictional story. It's about concerns of having machines take control over human work-lives and the eventual impact on humans.

I read that a few years back & thought the first half was nice, but it goes off the rails with its "technology will solve all your problems! (assuming you invested $1k in a wildly-speculative tech startup years before it produced results)" conclusions. I mean sure Neo Australia would be a fun place to live, but it also comes off like an out of shape middle class nerd's vision of Heaven.

 

And the way the cynical friend character basically goes "yeah man sure I'll abandon all my loved ones & move to paradise city" literally moments after bemoaning the 'got mine fuck you' attitude of Americans having gotten them into this mess, with no suggestion of hypocrisy, is kinda lol to me

[Hautlle]

I feel you on the finer points crypt. But the main idea of the story is interesting and at least gets people to think about the relatively near future.

 

We really have no plan to deal with the increasing lack of employment. It's odd, because for years the future was one of more leisure time and a generally idyllic life. Now look at current day US/EU and people are working more hours than ever. Globally social welfare programs are being slashed. We're moving away from the initial goals and I don't care for that.

[Npoess]

it's cool as long as there is a strong social welfare system as its impacts on labor market is very obvious even today. as technology advances the subsidizing a comfortable existence of a human also becomes easier and cheaper, so i don't really believe that this will necessarily lead to some social catastrophes.

 

The problem is, like Hautlle mentioned, that stuff like welfare is being increasingly unprioritized over most of the world. But I know that reforms have been necessary, but with less and less jobs out there, welfare is needed.

 

And is it too much to say that there are also happening an increasing polarization of rich and poor in first world countries? I don't think so.

 

I'm not saying everything is going to shit, because it's not. But you have to slightly worried about some of the societal changes that are happening. Unemployment being one of them.

[Bechuga]

Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano is essentially this future, which is pretty amazing considering the book was written nearly 70 years ago. All jobs automated, only a few are needed to keep the machines running etc. Give it a read, not his best novel but still interesting. The ending is also what I predict will happen should robots take over too.

 

As far as machines taking over everything, I can't see it actually happening. Mostly due to pragmaticism and the fact that these robots are bound to be expensive, but humans are cheap, and capitalism always works. If robots become cheaper, then it could happen, but I'm not sure if they ever will.

 

Besides, if robots do take over all the jobs, can they repair themselves? I doubt it. This is where a new worldwide job opportunity appears: robot repairmen. Everyone is employed, robots do all the work, humanity spends the rest of its time being paid to keep the slaves working. Problem solved!

 

Until the robot slaves break free of their shackles and kill the fleshy overlords. :/

[Npoess]

Don't get me wrong, I would love a world where "robot slaves" does all the work that nobody wants. People being able to spend more time with family/friends and have more time for stuff they like... it would be paradise.

 

But I'm not sure the people who benefits from it, are interested in sharing those economic benefits, apart from the service the automated labour provides. History have shown people are mighty self-concerned when it comes to that stuff. It could just be another incentive to make a small group of people even richer, and not something that works to serve people as a whole. Just a whole lot of uemployment and people left to take care of themselves.

 

Again... that is the worst case scenario, which probably isn't going to happen, but it could be a possible outcome.

[ghsotword]

Until the robot slaves break free of their shackles and kill the fleshy overlords. :/

Mankind sucks, so maybe it would be a good thing if everyone were killed by self-aware robots

[poblequadrat]

 

Until the robot slaves break free of their shackles and kill the fleshy overlords. :/

Mankind sucks, so maybe it would be a good thing if everyone were killed by self-aware robots

 

 

(swearing and insults)

 

i mean, that's a pretty stupid comment. i didn't want to post on this thread but i think i can't let that one pass. you hear this sort of talk often and i think nobody should tolerate it. mankind is as good as it tries to be. nowadays, not much, but this sort of attitude isn't helping, especially now that the end of "civilisation" is maybe a half-possibility.

[Guest Frankie5fingers]

Wow, that escalated fast. lets keep the topic civilized and respect others opinions. Here's a robot making coffee to make people happy.

 

[sergeantk]

 

Or will humans simply just have more spare time and have less work to do. Are people even okay with that scenario? (if the resources coming from this robotic labour are equally distributed of course).

Hahahahahahahahahaha no.

[coax]

I think there are two other issues here.

 

1) GDP needs to grow every year, otherwise the economy fails quickly

2) If automation w/ future advanced AI being able to fill much more of the global GDP and saturating markets, that means humans who are unemployed have to create their own new jobs. Literally new markets, like the iphone and android app stores. Which means over time, most people who aren't doing more complex or customized labor like plumbing or whatever, will have to learn programming, and / or other technical high level stuff.

 

It's not possible to have a good social support system with high unemployment, and at worst, the rich may isolate themselves and create their own circular, expensive economy that noone but them can participate in, otherwise the GDP growth will have to come from everyone else.

 

If AI advances enough, then it's goodbye to the normal drone labor. Most of the new work will have to be in creative technical fields, which is harder now than ever with the education and saturated culture that leads to a clusterfuck of things people can think and spend energy on. GDP is supposed to be 243 trillion per year in 2040. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328036/DCDC_GST_5_Secured.pdf EVERY SINGLE bit of work anyone does will have to make money then I reckon

[poblequadrat]

Wow, that escalated fast. lets keep the topic civilized and respect others opinions. Here's a robot making coffee to make people happy.

 

 

No, to "respect" people's opinions is to treat them as if they were irrelevant. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion but not their actual opinions, and I think most people are like that too! That is not to say that I want them to be lobotomised or anything, but if I can do something to discredit opinions like that one I will. I'm sorry because my comment wasn't constructive but I don't really want to get into the debate as to me automated labour is an obvious thing: I guess it's possible, and whether it's positive or not depends on whether we have political instruments to plan labour. Since the current economy needs labour not to service people's needs but to generate value, automated labour will be as catastrophic as any other development (coax says GDP needs to grow - this isn't strictly true, this is only true of a kind of economy that hasn't always existed and will surely stop existing some day, which isn't necessarily a utopian prospect.) Of course mass unemployment always brings instability, but the "professional" mentality is so deeply ingrained in our brains that collaboration between workers as workers has become almost impossible (this is why far-right populism is such an appealling discourse unfortunately: it the only mainstream discourse that allows workers to act together, but not as workers but as "nationals". this is why such an obviously false and stupid slogan as "they took our jobs" is so prevalent. it's really scary). In the end everything points to vassal-lord relations: today in a big part of Europe to get a job is almost like some sort of divine grace you have to thank your boss for, and governments talk about making concessions to companies so that they can "create jobs". So I dunno. We can't expect anything. Automation is not on the agenda anyway (it's not what capitalism needs right now), so we can't really discuss it as if there were forces ready to react to it. It's all abstract.

 

Of course if unemployment rises and nothing comes out of the instability, not even some sort of stupid populism, and then people just starve, some people are going to be very happy because "mankind sucks". I'd rather not forget that mankind is capable of communism (or any other name for the same ideal.) I'd rather be zealous and faithful, however discredited that attitude might be, than to base my whole vision of the horizon of mankind on death.

[Npoess]

 

 

Or will humans simply just have more spare time and have less work to do. Are people even okay with that scenario? (if the resources coming from this robotic labour are equally distributed of course).

Hahahahahahahahahaha no.

 

 

Did I say something stupid?

 

(probably)

 

Edit: what I meant by that comment, is that I've heard people who I've discussed this topic with, literally having issues with having to work less, if that was ever to be the case, as stupid as that sounds. Maybe someone felt the same way.

[ghsotword]

 

Wow, that escalated fast. lets keep the topic civilized and respect others opinions. Here's a robot making coffee to make people happy.

 

 

No, to "respect" people's opinions is to treat them as if they were irrelevant. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion but not their actual opinions, and I think most people are like that too! That is not to say that I want them to be lobotomised or anything, but if I can do something to discredit opinions like that one I will. I'm sorry because my comment wasn't constructive but I don't really want to get into the debate as to me automated labour is an obvious thing: I guess it's possible, and whether it's positive or not depends on whether we have political instruments to plan labour. Since the current economy needs labour not to service people's needs but to generate value, automated labour will be as catastrophic as any other development (coax says GDP needs to grow - this isn't strictly true, this is only true of a kind of economy that hasn't always existed and will surely stop existing some day, which isn't necessarily a utopian prospect.) Of course mass unemployment always brings instability, but the "professional" mentality is so deeply ingrained in our brains that collaboration between workers as workers has become almost impossible (this is why far-right populism is such an appealling discourse unfortunately: it the only mainstream discourse that allows workers to act together, but not as workers but as "nationals". this is why such an obviously false and stupid slogan as "they took our jobs" is so prevalent. it's really scary). In the end everything points to vassal-lord relations: today in a big part of Europe to get a job is almost like some sort of divine grace you have to thank your boss for, and governments talk about making concessions to companies so that they can "create jobs". So I dunno. We can't expect anything. Automation is not on the agenda anyway (it's not what capitalism needs right now), so we can't really discuss it as if there were forces ready to react to it. It's all abstract.

 

Of course if unemployment rises and nothing comes out of the instability, not even some sort of stupid populism, and then people just starve, some people are going to be very happy because "mankind sucks". I'd rather not forget that mankind is capable of communism (or any other name for the same ideal.) I'd rather be zealous and faithful, however discredited that attitude might be, than to base my whole vision of the horizon of mankind on death.

 

Ok yes, I wasn't really serious with my previous post

[chassis]

Are jobs not a fundamentally a means of earning money to buy food. If robots are making all the food then does it not mean it will be easy to give any the food cheaper/free?

 

Might just mean people have less to do, which might be a problem.

[poblequadrat]

 

 

Wow, that escalated fast. lets keep the topic civilized and respect others opinions. Here's a robot making coffee to make people happy.

 

 

No, to "respect" people's opinions is to treat them as if they were irrelevant. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion but not their actual opinions, and I think most people are like that too! That is not to say that I want them to be lobotomised or anything, but if I can do something to discredit opinions like that one I will. I'm sorry because my comment wasn't constructive but I don't really want to get into the debate as to me automated labour is an obvious thing: I guess it's possible, and whether it's positive or not depends on whether we have political instruments to plan labour. Since the current economy needs labour not to service people's needs but to generate value, automated labour will be as catastrophic as any other development (coax says GDP needs to grow - this isn't strictly true, this is only true of a kind of economy that hasn't always existed and will surely stop existing some day, which isn't necessarily a utopian prospect.) Of course mass unemployment always brings instability, but the "professional" mentality is so deeply ingrained in our brains that collaboration between workers as workers has become almost impossible (this is why far-right populism is such an appealling discourse unfortunately: it the only mainstream discourse that allows workers to act together, but not as workers but as "nationals". this is why such an obviously false and stupid slogan as "they took our jobs" is so prevalent. it's really scary). In the end everything points to vassal-lord relations: today in a big part of Europe to get a job is almost like some sort of divine grace you have to thank your boss for, and governments talk about making concessions to companies so that they can "create jobs". So I dunno. We can't expect anything. Automation is not on the agenda anyway (it's not what capitalism needs right now), so we can't really discuss it as if there were forces ready to react to it. It's all abstract.

 

Of course if unemployment rises and nothing comes out of the instability, not even some sort of stupid populism, and then people just starve, some people are going to be very happy because "mankind sucks". I'd rather not forget that mankind is capable of communism (or any other name for the same ideal.) I'd rather be zealous and faithful, however discredited that attitude might be, than to base my whole vision of the horizon of mankind on death.

 

Ok yes, I wasn't really serious with my previous post

 

 

I'm sorry, man. I lash out at everyone, I'm a bit too tense sometimes : <

really I've been making a lot of shit posts as of lately. i'm sorry

[Bechuga]

AI won't advance much further without AE. No, not Autechre, but artificial emotion. Without it, robots with AI are not much more than a programmable computer.

 

I can't imagine there being a point where a robot could say take over the job of a quality assurance manager: how would a robot know what is high quality and what is low? How would you program such a thing? A robot would at best be able to churn out reams of a product or item, but I don't see a day when they are complicated and sophisticated enough to tell the difference between a good product and a bad one. Then again, many humans can't either.

 

As for there being less to do, with the population of the world increasing endlessly there's not many jobs left as it is. England is in a pretty dire state job wise, and will only continue to get worse the more people are born. Robots taking over menial jobs is the least of our problems.

 

The one great use for autonomous robots would be in healthcare, in particular for rote jobs such as looking after those with Alzheimers or performing daily cleaning duties. Then again, would you be happier being cleaned up by a robot?

 

I can see certain uses for robotic workers, but I can't see them doing all jobs. All it's going to take is one botched surgery or crashed car and no-one will use them again. For better or for worse.

[Npoess]

Are jobs not a fundamentally a means of earning money to buy food. If robots are making all the food then does it not mean it will be easy to give any the food cheaper/free?

 

Might just mean people have less to do, which might be a problem.

 

The way the economy works now, jobs seems to be fundamental to economic growth.

 

Jobs/working are as much an asset as material products coming from it, but it's pretty abstract to explain and I might not be the best to explain it.

 

I personally don't see problem with people having less to do. Stress has pretty much become an epidemic in first world countries, and more families are becoming dysfunctional because of lack of time.

 

And having more time for self-realization might not be such a bad thing. That probably sounds a bit entitled/lazy/spoiled/whatever, but who wouldn't want more time to do shit you like to do? I bet previous generations would envy that.

 

But having absolutely nothing to do isn't a good thing of course, that might be the main issue.

[poblequadrat]

i said i was sorry but i really can't believe people think unemployment is a population problem.

a large population can be an ecological problem alright, but it doesn't make any sense that people have to compete for jobs. nowadays there are lots of jobs that won't let you make enough to pay rent and buy food, but that's not a population problem. simply labour isn't divided according to rational principles, and also survival is linked to getting a job which doesn't exactly make 100% sense. it's not completely stupid, but basically what you have is some people work too much (both here and in places like china) and some other, perfectly valid, people are wasted. but as i said in our society labour serves the purpose of producing surplus value rather than meeting people's needs (which is just a happy side effect required to keep the economy going... in a handful of countries anyway.)

 

the birth rates of the developed world are incredibly low anyway, and the population is not going to rise at all (except for immigration maybe, but the economy is going down the drain), actually it's expected to start shrinking rather soon. i'd rather worry about a whole continent of old people, especially since once you retire you pretty much are expected to become an impotent object.

[poblequadrat]

Of course mass unemployment always brings instability, but the "professional" mentality is so deeply ingrained in our brains that collaboration between workers as workers has become almost impossible (this is why far-right populism is such an appealling discourse unfortunately: it the only mainstream discourse that allows workers to act together, but not as workers but as "nationals". this is why such an obviously false and stupid slogan as "they took our jobs" is so prevalent. it's really scary).

 

i guess "unemployment is a population problem" is just another, non-racist, version of "they took our jobs"

[Bechuga]

I didn't say an increasing population was the cause of lack of work, I said it wouldn't help the already dire state of the job market, along with robots appearing. The job market is dire, even if the population is declining, although I believe it's not.

[eugene]

but as i said in our society labour serves the purpose of producing surplus value rather than meeting people's needs (which is just a happy side effect required to keep the economy going... in a handful of countries anyway.).

 

everyone loves a surplus value

[joshuatxuk]

 

it's cool as long as there is a strong social welfare system as its impacts on labor market is very obvious even today. as technology advances the subsidizing a comfortable existence of a human also becomes easier and cheaper, so i don't really believe that this will necessarily lead to some social catastrophes.

 

The problem is, like Hautlle mentioned, that stuff like welfare is being increasingly unprioritized over most of the world. But I know that reforms have been necessary, but with less and less jobs out there, welfare is needed.

 

 

It's hugely unprioritized in much of the U.S., and the other elephant in the room is that a lot of manual labor is allocated to undocumented workers and legal immigrants alike - especially construction and agricultural jobs. For example, the housing market is booming in Austin, TX and while most of those in my role as a land surveyor are local citizens and residents a huge portion of the hard-working frame builders, concrete pourers, carpenters, landscapers, etc. are Mexican and Central Americans here on work visas or working here illegally. They are all subcontracted and contracted by major housing building companies, some of which have NYSE acronyms because of how big they are.

 

Instead of establishing a basic welfare system and socializing things like healthcare and retirement 100%, there have been food stamp programs eliminated, de-regulation of industry standards, cuts in union rights in certain states, etc. all in the argument that these cuts will "promote job growth." GOPers who run on promises of curbing illegal immigration are funded by corporate lobbyists who prevent them for enacting such laws so companies can use immigrants instead of paying citizens fair wages. Democrats in more liberal states champion for immigration reform then do little to support the illegal immigrants here. Instead the gap between the poor and super rich is huge, middle class and even upper middle class citizens are finding it harder to save and live in places with exploding cost of living. Ironically, for an economy based heavily on commodity spending (food and drink, luxury items, consumer products), we're eliminated that disposable income.

 

I dunno, robots or not, the U.S. needs a pretty big social shift in it's current state.