Robots Don't Complain or Demand Higher Wages or Kill Themselves...(economist.com)
economist.com
Robots Don't Complain or Demand Higher Wages or Kill Themselves...
http://www.economist.com/node/21525432
10 comments
New industry will be service-orientated. Even if robot cooks can make a better pizza, people will tell themselves that human-made ones are more individual, and taste better.
As the price of human labor goes to zero, humans will be increasingly used as marketing props.
In a democracy or socialist state, handouts or negative taxation will redistribute wealth.
As the price of human labor goes to zero, humans will be increasingly used as marketing props.
In a democracy or socialist state, handouts or negative taxation will redistribute wealth.
What evidence do we have that handout are increasing with the recent increase in automation? My sense is they're going in the opposite direction and have strong momentum.
And I will tell you that few people will chose human made pizzas just for the experience, especially if their wages are going to zero.
And I will tell you that few people will chose human made pizzas just for the experience, especially if their wages are going to zero.
I hope you realise that if you look at the numbers it's unlikely that the people who are making the human-made pizzas will earn enough to pay for human-made pizza.
It's like there is a a pyramid of salaries and we just have to admit that we're trimming bits off the bottom of the pyramid. (IMHO)
It's like there is a a pyramid of salaries and we just have to admit that we're trimming bits off the bottom of the pyramid. (IMHO)
[deleted]
Services like tourism and healthcare are in growing demand, however there is a shift going on there, too, e.g. airbnb, innovative medical devices etc. Unfortunately, an expensive services sector cannot sustain an economy on its own. It works in rich countries where people can afford to spend the money they make on other sectors for premium products and services. The issue of how to avoid unemployment and "keep people busy" in a socially fair way will be an active discussion in the following years.
What do we do when there is an excess of human labor?
We get to work building some really awesome space ships and start colonizing other planets. Seriously.
We get to work building some really awesome space ships and start colonizing other planets. Seriously.
USA seems to have an excess of human labour and they're scaling back the space program in favour of private enterprise. From what I see of the private enterprise is that not much is happening as they seek those specialised in certain skills.
You could put faith in several people groups like Copenhagen Suborbitals, CSTART, OSM and the like, but like above they seek those specialised in certain skills.
That's to discount the paradox of technology efficiency: Food becomes cheaper but unemployed people can't pay for it.
You could put faith in several people groups like Copenhagen Suborbitals, CSTART, OSM and the like, but like above they seek those specialised in certain skills.
That's to discount the paradox of technology efficiency: Food becomes cheaper but unemployed people can't pay for it.
The unemployed people are uneducated and unable to make space ships.
The educated and skilled people will be busy working on military tech, farmville, and face recognition software. You know, technologies aimed at pacifying the masses.
The educated and skilled people will be busy working on military tech, farmville, and face recognition software. You know, technologies aimed at pacifying the masses.
I would love to see a more accessible version of Mechanical Turk that a broader range of people could use. Maybe something in a kiosk format that could be put in low income neighborhoods. Even the most uneducated can answer a question like "Is there a person in this picture?", and anyone could earn money for a meal for several hours of work.
I'm sure there are several other examples of new types of low level employment that will arise as automation increases. In a world where everything is automated, there is no such thing as "too much training data".
I'm sure there are several other examples of new types of low level employment that will arise as automation increases. In a world where everything is automated, there is no such thing as "too much training data".
[deleted]
The 40 hour work week is a relic of the industrial age, right? Things are different today, and the technology sector is a good example: top talent produces a disproportionately large amount of work, while there are practically very few "menial" positions that could be filled in with low skilled employees. Maybe we should expect this to become a much more common pattern in the future; once construction workers, waiters, window cleaners, drivers get replaced with robots we are left with a sizeable population of unemployable people. Maybe a revival of agriculture or sth will absorb those people.
At Foxconn in the last five years there have been 17 reported suicides out of ~1 million workers. The US rate in 2007 was, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, 11.5 suicides per 100,000 people, or ~35x higher than the Foxconn rate.
Foxconners are not unusually predisposed to kill themselves. It's a jingoistic myth.
Foxconners are not unusually predisposed to kill themselves. It's a jingoistic myth.
How many of those 11.5/100k have been done at work, though? The 17 and this quote seem to imply those are just the ones happening at the buildings themselves:
>To pacify its increasingly restive workers, Foxconn has repeatedly bumped up their wages, improved facilities, provided counselling and swathed its factories with nets to catch anyone leaping from a window.
And, for comparison, the WHO gives numbers that are closer to each other, though still surprising individually: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicider...
>To pacify its increasingly restive workers, Foxconn has repeatedly bumped up their wages, improved facilities, provided counselling and swathed its factories with nets to catch anyone leaping from a window.
And, for comparison, the WHO gives numbers that are closer to each other, though still surprising individually: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicider...
This debate isn't about jobs.
The question is this: will the powerful still value human life when robots are better than manual workers?
Wealth keeps concentrating in the hands of a small minority.
Unskilled workers increasingly look like nothing but a drain on resources, unable to produce anything valuable or afford education.
Many many billionaires have little respect for unskilled human life and libertarians do not believe in free education or social services.
When the bottom 50% of society finally ends up with no money, no marketable skills, and no military prowess, what is going to happen to them?
The question is this: will the powerful still value human life when robots are better than manual workers?
Wealth keeps concentrating in the hands of a small minority.
Unskilled workers increasingly look like nothing but a drain on resources, unable to produce anything valuable or afford education.
Many many billionaires have little respect for unskilled human life and libertarians do not believe in free education or social services.
When the bottom 50% of society finally ends up with no money, no marketable skills, and no military prowess, what is going to happen to them?
> ...libertarians do not believe in free education or social services.
I'm an ex-libertarian and have moved to a more centrist position, but this is disingenuous. Libertarians generally want the right to make their own decisions and are anti-coercion. However, many of them are big believers in philanthropy and true voluntary social contracts - just not the kind enforced by the barrel of a gun.
They're not opposed to education or social services - just of funding them by force. It might seem like a small thing, but it's not - if a society could built that achieves high levels of education and prosperity without coercion, most people would think that's a good outcome.
Libertarians frequently believe this is possible. They might be wrong, but the attitude is not "let them eat cake" - it's "my life, my choice for what I do with it, take your hands off of me." But many or most believe in learning and prosperity.
I'm an ex-libertarian and have moved to a more centrist position, but this is disingenuous. Libertarians generally want the right to make their own decisions and are anti-coercion. However, many of them are big believers in philanthropy and true voluntary social contracts - just not the kind enforced by the barrel of a gun.
They're not opposed to education or social services - just of funding them by force. It might seem like a small thing, but it's not - if a society could built that achieves high levels of education and prosperity without coercion, most people would think that's a good outcome.
Libertarians frequently believe this is possible. They might be wrong, but the attitude is not "let them eat cake" - it's "my life, my choice for what I do with it, take your hands off of me." But many or most believe in learning and prosperity.
It's unrealistic because the people with the money are not going to give it away unless you force them. In the industrial revolution the wealthy had a motivation to educate the masses: get better workers and fill the military.
What now though? Robots are better soldiers AND workers. Carnegie and Rockefeller were motivated by foreign competition to help people with education and social services. Rockefeller in particular focused his social services on birth control to reduce overpopulation because he saw little value in human life at the bottom of society.
Now that masses are simply not needed for anything, and the masses no longer are a military threat due to extreme military tech, the masses have no bargaining chips other than appealing to the humanity of the plutocrats.
And I fear that many of the plutocrats agree with Ayn Rand when she says, "I don't want your appeals to my better nature. Appeal to my self-interest."
How does someone with no money, no marketable skills, no way to afford education, no ability to exert physical power, continue to survive when the upper class only accepts appeals to their self-interest?
What now though? Robots are better soldiers AND workers. Carnegie and Rockefeller were motivated by foreign competition to help people with education and social services. Rockefeller in particular focused his social services on birth control to reduce overpopulation because he saw little value in human life at the bottom of society.
Now that masses are simply not needed for anything, and the masses no longer are a military threat due to extreme military tech, the masses have no bargaining chips other than appealing to the humanity of the plutocrats.
And I fear that many of the plutocrats agree with Ayn Rand when she says, "I don't want your appeals to my better nature. Appeal to my self-interest."
How does someone with no money, no marketable skills, no way to afford education, no ability to exert physical power, continue to survive when the upper class only accepts appeals to their self-interest?
Rockefeller in particular focused his social services on birth control to reduce overpopulation because he saw little value in human life at the bottom of society.
That's pretty interesting. Being European, I don't know much about US industrialists and US population policy. I'd like to learn more about this. Do you have books / articles you'd advise on this subject?
That's pretty interesting. Being European, I don't know much about US industrialists and US population policy. I'd like to learn more about this. Do you have books / articles you'd advise on this subject?
How does someone with no money, no marketable skills, no way to afford education, no ability to exert physical power, continue to survive when the upper class only accepts appeals to their self-interest?
Appeal to enlightened self-interest is more powerful than appeal to someone's "better nature". Find the sweet spot where those two meet. It does happen (that those two things meet) and that's the target if you want meaningful, effective change. Rome had a policy of "bread and circus" -- to keep the masses fed and passively entertained in order to avoid rioting in the streets. I follow a similar policy in my household when facing difficult situations. It's very effective.
Appeal to enlightened self-interest is more powerful than appeal to someone's "better nature". Find the sweet spot where those two meet. It does happen (that those two things meet) and that's the target if you want meaningful, effective change. Rome had a policy of "bread and circus" -- to keep the masses fed and passively entertained in order to avoid rioting in the streets. I follow a similar policy in my household when facing difficult situations. It's very effective.
You're not thinking this through.
Rome had to avoid rioting because Rome didn't have tear gas.
China does not have to avoid rioting. They are comfortable with using tanks to kill thousands of unarmed protestors.
The circumstances have changed since Rome. Technology has changed them.
Rome had to avoid rioting because Rome didn't have tear gas.
China does not have to avoid rioting. They are comfortable with using tanks to kill thousands of unarmed protestors.
The circumstances have changed since Rome. Technology has changed them.
I don't think it's as simple as that. Wealth is a product of society and population. Billionaires need people to have decent incomes to buy their products or there isn't any money to hoard. Best to keep those folks pacified so you are reasonably safe walking around in life as a billionaire or you become a prisoner of your wealth. It seems to me the masses don't need billionaires in order to exist but billionaires need the masses in order to exist. Henry Ford stated he wanted his factory workers to all be able to afford a car so there was a consumer market available. If billionaires are too draconian, it can come back to bite them. Even presidents get assassinated. Piss off enough people badly enough and it stops being safe to be you, no matter who you are.
PS -- There are riots in London currently going on:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2861840
http://news.yahoo.com/london-rioters-battle-police-shooting-...
PPS -- I've seen a couple of comments on HN indicating the rioters are staying ahead of the police using Blackberries. I find this funny given your remarks about how technology has changed things.
PS -- There are riots in London currently going on:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2861840
http://news.yahoo.com/london-rioters-battle-police-shooting-...
PPS -- I've seen a couple of comments on HN indicating the rioters are staying ahead of the police using Blackberries. I find this funny given your remarks about how technology has changed things.
Many many billionaires have little respect for unskilled human life
Which billionaires do not value unskilled human life? How many billionaires are their in the world? Are there really many, many of them that feel that way? Are they really all that selfish that they would happily destroy millions of lives? What does that benefit them?
Which billionaires do not value unskilled human life? How many billionaires are their in the world? Are there really many, many of them that feel that way? Are they really all that selfish that they would happily destroy millions of lives? What does that benefit them?
Actions speak louder than words. Billionaires stand by while the miserable and hopeless suffer.
Billionaires fund FOX News to indoctrinate the middle class and push them toward self-destruction. Which billionaires are funding universal liberal educations or a culture of empowerment?
By their actions the upper class is saying that they don't want a middle class. They are saying: if the middle class is so stupid to fall for Rupert Murdoch propaganda and Evangelical Christianity, then they deserve to be enslaved.
The alternative would be to fund liberal educations, fund free mental health services, fund enlightening media like PBS rather than saying, "If the middle class won't fund it it doesn't deserve to exist."
So many of the elite put all the burden on others. It's true that people should take care of themselves, but they don't. Mental illness is epidemic. Are the wealthy going to stand by and watch as the middle class implodes? Not all plutocrats are malicious, but the majority are indifferent, and their actions speak this.
Billionaires fund FOX News to indoctrinate the middle class and push them toward self-destruction. Which billionaires are funding universal liberal educations or a culture of empowerment?
By their actions the upper class is saying that they don't want a middle class. They are saying: if the middle class is so stupid to fall for Rupert Murdoch propaganda and Evangelical Christianity, then they deserve to be enslaved.
The alternative would be to fund liberal educations, fund free mental health services, fund enlightening media like PBS rather than saying, "If the middle class won't fund it it doesn't deserve to exist."
So many of the elite put all the burden on others. It's true that people should take care of themselves, but they don't. Mental illness is epidemic. Are the wealthy going to stand by and watch as the middle class implodes? Not all plutocrats are malicious, but the majority are indifferent, and their actions speak this.
Which billionaires are funding universal liberal educations or a culture of empowerment?
I have no clue what a "culture of empowerment" is, but as to funding education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/09/mark-zuckerberg-to-donat...
Another billionaire was recently in the news for donating $40k to a Republican governor. He also donated $7M to PBS, $35M to educating people about evolution and $78M to educating people about science in general didn't make the news.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch#Philanthropy
These are just a few that I can think of.
Peter Thiel also funds education, though probably not the sort of education you wish he would fund.
I have no clue what a "culture of empowerment" is, but as to funding education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundati...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/09/mark-zuckerberg-to-donat...
Another billionaire was recently in the news for donating $40k to a Republican governor. He also donated $7M to PBS, $35M to educating people about evolution and $78M to educating people about science in general didn't make the news.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch#Philanthropy
These are just a few that I can think of.
Peter Thiel also funds education, though probably not the sort of education you wish he would fund.
Those numbers are a drop in the bucket and generally are not targeted at increasing the size of the middle class. Remember that the lower class is literate.
Conspicuously absent: - lowering cost of higher education - lowering cost of mental health services - lowering cost of land / rent
Literacy doesn't create a middle class. Higher education, mental health, and ownership of land does. These issues never seem to be touched by philanthropists because philanthropists are ambivalent about the middle class.
Peter Thiel is a total elitist by the way. He has no interest or love for uneducated, mentally ill masses and is just the kind of guy who would probably quote Ayn Rand when people are starving to death.
Conspicuously absent: - lowering cost of higher education - lowering cost of mental health services - lowering cost of land / rent
Literacy doesn't create a middle class. Higher education, mental health, and ownership of land does. These issues never seem to be touched by philanthropists because philanthropists are ambivalent about the middle class.
Peter Thiel is a total elitist by the way. He has no interest or love for uneducated, mentally ill masses and is just the kind of guy who would probably quote Ayn Rand when people are starving to death.
Any system that relies on people's (especially powerful people's) good will and voluntary charity is doomed to failure.
When they have no marketable skills, they'd better learn some. In the absence of mental or physical handicaps, I don't see any reason why people would be incapable of doing this.
It seems like the mental/physical floor required to get a job is getting higher.
i would say "education floor" is getting higher. very few jobs fully utilize human mental capacity.
Why marketable skills? Why not useful skills. I find the focus on marketing as much as a problem as everything else.
Education is expensive and hard. If the people at the top don't reach down with a helping hand, few from the bottom will be able to stand. Is this the world we want to live in? Social Darwinism?
When it eventually happens, society will have to change.
viva la revolution baby!
viva la revolution baby!
This is the classic view, but things have changed.
Robots do not just make better workers, they are also better warriors. How many Chinese peasants does it take to kill a single UAV? How many protestors can modern riot police crowd control using sophisticated psychological warfare combined with advanced nonlethal weaponry?
Once the violent, unskilled, uneducated, unmoneyed lawbreakers are rounded up by the riot police and thrown in jail... then what? The Chinese are not shy about executions. How about humane lethal injections for everyone?
Robots do not just make better workers, they are also better warriors. How many Chinese peasants does it take to kill a single UAV? How many protestors can modern riot police crowd control using sophisticated psychological warfare combined with advanced nonlethal weaponry?
Once the violent, unskilled, uneducated, unmoneyed lawbreakers are rounded up by the riot police and thrown in jail... then what? The Chinese are not shy about executions. How about humane lethal injections for everyone?
I guess it could happen gradually (as these things usually do). But the original poster was talking about 50% of the population (500 million people in China alone). I have a hard time believing anyone could think that killing off half a billion people would be the way to go (rather than trying to work change into your social structure). It just sounds too James Bond villanesque.
Also, if 50% of people are unemployed there will be a lot of people who are employed who sympathise with them, so we are really talking about 80% plus.
Also, if 50% of people are unemployed there will be a lot of people who are employed who sympathise with them, so we are really talking about 80% plus.
I have a hard time believing anyone could think that killing off half a billion people would be the way to go ... It just sounds too James Bond villanesque.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Number_of_deaths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_an...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Number_of_deaths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_an...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
And those are just the groups who actually achieved it. Many more thought about it or tried it.
The OP said he "can't even believe that anyone could think of [mass murder]."
Think!
Lack of imagination, lack of historical awareness, or just plain willful ignorance?
The OP said he "can't even believe that anyone could think of [mass murder]."
Think!
Lack of imagination, lack of historical awareness, or just plain willful ignorance?
Lack of imagination, lack of historical awareness, or just plain willful ignorance?
Or perhaps I was just chose the wrong turn of phrase? No need to go on a pedantic nerd rage.
Of course people could think about it. Of course people have killed millions of people in the past.
What I was trying to say is that any sensible leader in a industrialised nation would not choose exterminating 50% of their population instead of than trying to affect social change.
Of course we could have another Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot who tries for genocide again. But killing 50% of your population is much different to killing 5%. Those 50% are going to have friends so you'd be up against 80-90% of the population. It would just be more sensible to try to redistribute wealth at that stage.
But yes, I'm sure whack jobs can think about these things and with modern weapons you could probably do it etc.
Or perhaps I was just chose the wrong turn of phrase? No need to go on a pedantic nerd rage.
Of course people could think about it. Of course people have killed millions of people in the past.
What I was trying to say is that any sensible leader in a industrialised nation would not choose exterminating 50% of their population instead of than trying to affect social change.
Of course we could have another Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot who tries for genocide again. But killing 50% of your population is much different to killing 5%. Those 50% are going to have friends so you'd be up against 80-90% of the population. It would just be more sensible to try to redistribute wealth at that stage.
But yes, I'm sure whack jobs can think about these things and with modern weapons you could probably do it etc.
[deleted]
They are not "better warriors." UAVs are not completely robots. They need someone to control them. There is not a single military in the world where robots have surpassed human beings in most capacities. Perhaps the only one being bomb control, and even then, they aren't autonomous.
The "rich" people need the poor people. Without other classes, there is no rich. If everyone is in jail, who buys the goods?
What is money worth if there is no one to compare it to? If everyone is poor or in jail...why do you want money? For what? To do what? To drive a nice car that no one cares about because they can't afford food?
People are too quick to overestimate robotics and artificial intelligence. 100 years ago we were supposed to have flying cars, laser guns and teleportation. These were exaggerated views, just as ours are now.
The "rich" people need the poor people. Without other classes, there is no rich. If everyone is in jail, who buys the goods?
What is money worth if there is no one to compare it to? If everyone is poor or in jail...why do you want money? For what? To do what? To drive a nice car that no one cares about because they can't afford food?
People are too quick to overestimate robotics and artificial intelligence. 100 years ago we were supposed to have flying cars, laser guns and teleportation. These were exaggerated views, just as ours are now.
It will take just 1 good hacker with ideals
This. You do not want to have too many poor people or somebody will take advantage of this and use them to overthrow whomever is in power and put himself in power.
Tanks make this a difficult proposition.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Only if you have brainwashed the tank crews (which admittedly does happen in the military).
In this scenario, I'd imagine the tank crews to be automated too.
Yes, this would be a big problem if warfare was to become fully automated.
I guess we have to hope that when the ability to completely automate warfare that the people in power aren't genocidal sociopaths.
I guess we have to hope that when the ability to completely automate warfare that the people in power aren't genocidal sociopaths.
In this situation a tank crew would be attacking their fellow country men, so one would hope hope they would be questioning their orders to fire on civilians.
If they didn't question the orders you would have to question whether they were brainwashed into thinking the fellow country men were deserving of attack.
A lot of militaries train their soldiers to not question the orders of their superiors. I believe the US military does allow a solider to question orders, but I would expect that it is not encouraged.
If they didn't question the orders you would have to question whether they were brainwashed into thinking the fellow country men were deserving of attack.
A lot of militaries train their soldiers to not question the orders of their superiors. I believe the US military does allow a solider to question orders, but I would expect that it is not encouraged.
Police fire on and kill civilians every day in the USA, why would someone in the military behave any differently if ordered to do so? They've already agreed to obey to kill at someone else's request.
The precedent has already been set in the biggest country in the world.
The Tiananmen square massacre was committed by the current Chinese government. Do you think they've grown a conscience in the last 20 years? Or does killing over a thousand (1,000) civilians agitating for Democracy just make it that much easier to kill a hundred thousand (100,000) civilians later on?
The Tiananmen square massacre was committed by the current Chinese government. Do you think they've grown a conscience in the last 20 years? Or does killing over a thousand (1,000) civilians agitating for Democracy just make it that much easier to kill a hundred thousand (100,000) civilians later on?
You don't have to look too hard for a real-life example of this scenario. Just look at what happened in Libya and other countries affected by the Arab Uprising - how military behaved in different countries. They're facing this dilemma right now.
ck2 wrote: Police fire on and kill civilians every day in the USA, why would someone in the military behave any differently if ordered to do so? They've already agreed to obey to kill at someone else's request.
I think we are in agreement. I was just trying to clarify my comment above because I was confused as to why my previous comment had been down voted. +1 for you :-)
I think we are in agreement. I was just trying to clarify my comment above because I was confused as to why my previous comment had been down voted. +1 for you :-)
US law in this area is largely illusory. It makes reference to "lawful orders", but provides little guidance on what would constitute an "unlawful order". Getting it wrong means prison, and getting it right can still mean prison -- the last case I heard about, the military court basically said "the order is lawful unless you are told otherwise by a superior officer", making the entire question moot.
Rodney Brooks stressed how the first nation that embraces new robot technology in their industries will have huge economic advantages over other nations. (he's a highly influential roboticist, MIT AI researcher, co-founder of the company that makes the Roomba and other robots (military mostly)).
He stated in a conference (2009) that for robots to be successful in manufacturing, they needed :
1- object recognition skill of a 2 year old child
2- language capability of a 4 year old
3- manual dexterity of a 6 year old
4- social understanding of an 8 year old
I guess Foxconn is eyeing robots that are close to reaching those numbers.
ref. : conference I mentionned: http://fora.tv/2009/05/30/Rodney_Brooks_Remaking_Manufacturi...
He stated in a conference (2009) that for robots to be successful in manufacturing, they needed :
1- object recognition skill of a 2 year old child
2- language capability of a 4 year old
3- manual dexterity of a 6 year old
4- social understanding of an 8 year old
I guess Foxconn is eyeing robots that are close to reaching those numbers.
ref. : conference I mentionned: http://fora.tv/2009/05/30/Rodney_Brooks_Remaking_Manufacturi...
Surely robots are already successful in manufacturing. Just look at.. well.. just about anything you own that has a weld in it..
I guess that's not the cool sort of robotics though.
I guess that's not the cool sort of robotics though.
Oh yes, definitely. The robots used, however, are still "first generation", so to speak. They do not adapt to the product. They are designed to build one thing, to automate one task, and they do that (insert screw of shape X into hole of shape Y).
What Brooks speaks of is a new generation of robots. Robots that can be shipped from a factory that builds iPods to a factory that builds car wheels. They take way less space than the first generation, and they adapt. So if your product decides it's going to use nails instead of screws, you don't need to redesign your robot line.
In the US, it's mostly behaviour-based AI that got a big push at MIT in the 90s and have been used in the US military for the passed decade... seems like they're ready for manufacturing now :D
What Brooks speaks of is a new generation of robots. Robots that can be shipped from a factory that builds iPods to a factory that builds car wheels. They take way less space than the first generation, and they adapt. So if your product decides it's going to use nails instead of screws, you don't need to redesign your robot line.
In the US, it's mostly behaviour-based AI that got a big push at MIT in the 90s and have been used in the US military for the passed decade... seems like they're ready for manufacturing now :D
Automation is bad for the economy. Think of the tens of millions of phone operators put out of work by rotary pulse dialling exchanges. Where are they now? Those 100 or 200 million phones worldwide won't connect themselves!
This won't last forever though. Once true strong AI is created we will be able to automate everything. It might not happen for centuries but eventually we will be forced to rethink the way society functions.
Perhaps people will pay a premium for a "human made" sticker on the side?
Perhaps people will pay a premium for a "human made" sticker on the side?
Saying true strong AI is like saying once teleportation is available, we can live anywhere in the world! Or that if we use nuclear fission for our power production, it will be too cheap to meter. Reality is a bit more sticky, and strong AI is a long ways away.
If strong AI exists.
Humans think they can control everything. We can't. Even if Robots were to automate everything, what happens when a tsunami hits Japan? Destroys sources of power, robots, the power grid. What do they do then?
We talk about all this "AI" as if it's close to fruition. It is not close to fruition. The "robots" Foxconn is getting aren't autonomous. They're just machines that do what they are told to do.
Humans think they can control everything. We can't. Even if Robots were to automate everything, what happens when a tsunami hits Japan? Destroys sources of power, robots, the power grid. What do they do then?
We talk about all this "AI" as if it's close to fruition. It is not close to fruition. The "robots" Foxconn is getting aren't autonomous. They're just machines that do what they are told to do.
Wanted to share this - Robot comes from the slavic (czech, russian, bulgarian and others) word - rabota - WORK.
And created by Czech playwrite Karel Čapek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R._(Rossum%27s_Universal_Ro...
Noteworthy, I think, because it'd seem natural for a technology to be named by the people who created it, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes its the people who dreamed of it.
Noteworthy, I think, because it'd seem natural for a technology to be named by the people who created it, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes its the people who dreamed of it.
My memory recalls it's not just work, but slavery.
"Origin of ROBOT Czech, from robota compulsory labor; akin to Old High German arabeit trouble, Latin orbus orphaned — more at orphan First Known Use: 1922" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot
"Origin of ROBOT Czech, from robota compulsory labor; akin to Old High German arabeit trouble, Latin orbus orphaned — more at orphan First Known Use: 1922" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot
If Foxconn is the "Apple" of chinese manufacturing - high value customers, largest workforce etc, I wonder if they will be trendsetting in their move to robotics.
Many other companies in China will be watching very closely on how it works for them, and may do the same if it succeeds.
Many other companies in China will be watching very closely on how it works for them, and may do the same if it succeeds.
yet
but that would be a trivial instruction set to upload.
So where will the low wage jobs run to? Perhaps African nations will pick up the slack. What happens to the unemployed chinese laborers then? Marx is still relevant after all these years....
Automation.
Does NOT.
Destroy.
Jobs.
Is the economy smaller today than in 1911? Are there fewer jobs today? Are there less worthwhile jobs today? Exactly the opposite in every case. Automation may eliminate A job in the near-term but in the long-term it creates and enhances wealth. Ultimately every dollar spent makes its way from one person to another person.
Robots don't have bank accounts.
Does NOT.
Destroy.
Jobs.
Is the economy smaller today than in 1911? Are there fewer jobs today? Are there less worthwhile jobs today? Exactly the opposite in every case. Automation may eliminate A job in the near-term but in the long-term it creates and enhances wealth. Ultimately every dollar spent makes its way from one person to another person.
Robots don't have bank accounts.
Well, there is one fix to that:
Automation does not destroy skilled jobs.
Unskilled jobs, however, are hit by automation.
For theUS, the problem is how off-track our education system has gotten in terms of job preparedness.
We have lots of people who worked hard, got lots of student debt, and have no jobs. Which is actually still small (the unemployment rate for people with college degrees is what, 4-5%?). We have lots of unskilled labor who went through our public school system. That's a problem.
We need to bring trade schools back.
Also, did anyone else notice the use of the verb "hire" when talking about robots?
Automation does not destroy skilled jobs.
Unskilled jobs, however, are hit by automation.
For theUS, the problem is how off-track our education system has gotten in terms of job preparedness.
We have lots of people who worked hard, got lots of student debt, and have no jobs. Which is actually still small (the unemployment rate for people with college degrees is what, 4-5%?). We have lots of unskilled labor who went through our public school system. That's a problem.
We need to bring trade schools back.
Also, did anyone else notice the use of the verb "hire" when talking about robots?
How does one define "skilled"? I suspect that the definition is something like "A job is skilled if it can't be automated". If we go with that definition then yes, by definition automation destroys unskilled jobs.
Roughly: you have to apprentice or go to school (trade school, college, what-evs) to do it.
Building on Donald Knuth's definition of an artist (someone who does work that cannot yet be automated, such as a programmer), it seems like today the most efficient economy is one that automates everything that can be automated, so that all of its population work as artists.
The argument that automation destroys jobs assumes that at least part of the population does not have the propensity to be artists. This is the crucial point that this whole debate rests on.
In other words, are there people who are so un-creative that everything they could produce can be automated? If there are, then such people will lose jobs due to automation and will not gain back any alternative jobs.
I think on a site like HN the debate is skewed because most of us are high IQ people who, so far, don't have any trouble competing with robots. If there were robots who could do everything I can do and do it cheaper than I, why would anybody hire me?
The argument that automation destroys jobs assumes that at least part of the population does not have the propensity to be artists. This is the crucial point that this whole debate rests on.
In other words, are there people who are so un-creative that everything they could produce can be automated? If there are, then such people will lose jobs due to automation and will not gain back any alternative jobs.
I think on a site like HN the debate is skewed because most of us are high IQ people who, so far, don't have any trouble competing with robots. If there were robots who could do everything I can do and do it cheaper than I, why would anybody hire me?
The question here is -- which jobs will remain longest. Is that "high IQ" jobs? Computers are wonderful at solving well-defined "high IQ" problems, like playing chess or performing register allocation. And creativity is just an ability to generate original solutions to the problem. Computers are more than capable of doing that.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
We're getting to where it's all about creativity.
We're getting to where it's all about creativity.
Can you imagine a future where most of the menial and factory tasks that are now jobs are performed by robots? In this case it certainly does eliminate jobs, with no guarantee that others will be created.
The wealth created goes to the company that made the robot, and the one that utilizes the robot. The people who used to have jobs get left out of the wealth transfer.
I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, just that it will happen and maybe we need a new economic model to deal with this future.
The wealth created goes to the company that made the robot, and the one that utilizes the robot. The people who used to have jobs get left out of the wealth transfer.
I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, just that it will happen and maybe we need a new economic model to deal with this future.
Companies become more dependent on automation in order to increase efficiency. In the near-term this leads to higher profits. However, because automation reduces overhead, competition will result in lower prices. The end result is that increased profits are only temporary, ultimately the main result is merely cheaper goods. And cheaper goods mean increased amounts of discretionary income. That money ultimately goes elsewhere, creating new jobs that didn't exist before or causing growth for old jobs that used to be niche.
Yes, I can imagine a future where most of the menial and factory jobs are performed by robots. Just as I can imagine a present where the majority of the population isn't farmers, or where "computers" are devices rather than people, or a present without elevator operators, switchboard operators, lamp lighters, or milkmen.
Yes, I can imagine a future where most of the menial and factory jobs are performed by robots. Just as I can imagine a present where the majority of the population isn't farmers, or where "computers" are devices rather than people, or a present without elevator operators, switchboard operators, lamp lighters, or milkmen.
Fine, but we're to the point, or almost there, where nearly every job that can be done by someone of IQ 85 or below will be automatable. Intelligent people will be in demand for a while.
But what about below average intelligence people? People who are sub-literate and can't jump from job to job, learning skills quickly? Diligent, hard working people who just can't outwork a robot?
But what about below average intelligence people? People who are sub-literate and can't jump from job to job, learning skills quickly? Diligent, hard working people who just can't outwork a robot?
What we do with homeless dogs? History says - convert them to eunuchs.
This is assuming that there is no price collusion and that capital costs of market entry are generally negligible.
I can imagine a future in which robots are cheaper and more capable than a broad swath of humanity at everything. Jobs will be lost.
Job creation for the sake of jobs is wasteful. And these are crummy jobs being replaced by robots; just look at the suicide rates. Regardless, robots still need to be maintained, they increase energy consumption, and they lower costs. Workers will be needed. Just elsewhere.
The wealth goes to the people creating the robots and the people maintaining the robots.
Automation is a great thing. I'm still waiting for an economic model to be put into place where (decent) food, shelter, and health insurance are provided free of cost because of automation. The necessity of having a job is so ingrained into our culture, I want to see what it'd be like when it's entirely optional.
The wealth goes to the people creating the robots and the people maintaining the robots.
Automation is a great thing. I'm still waiting for an economic model to be put into place where (decent) food, shelter, and health insurance are provided free of cost because of automation. The necessity of having a job is so ingrained into our culture, I want to see what it'd be like when it's entirely optional.
I'm still waiting for an economic model to be put into place where (decent) food, shelter, and health insurance are provided free of cost because of automation.
I think socialism might be the economic model you are looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Job creation for the sake of jobs is wasteful.
I used to think this (and still do) but it is important to make sure people have something that fills in their time otherwise you'll end up with all sorts of societal problems like drug abuse, vandalism etc. Some people get a bit weird if they have too much time on their hands.
I think socialism might be the economic model you are looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Job creation for the sake of jobs is wasteful.
I used to think this (and still do) but it is important to make sure people have something that fills in their time otherwise you'll end up with all sorts of societal problems like drug abuse, vandalism etc. Some people get a bit weird if they have too much time on their hands.
Robots don't have bank accounts.
But those who manufacture, sell and buy them do. And they won't be very eager to share the returns of their investment with the rest of the society, at least a capitalist society like the ones we have today.
But those who manufacture, sell and buy them do. And they won't be very eager to share the returns of their investment with the rest of the society, at least a capitalist society like the ones we have today.
[deleted]
Automation gives you more bang for your money. Consider the wrist watch, only the rich could own one. Now is a throw away item. Even the poor can own such advanced technology. Except that instead of the wrist watch now is a smart phone.
What do we do when there is an excess of human labor? Everyone here is opposed to make work for good reason. But a suggestion that solves the moral issue of what to do with an unemployed human who is not contributing due to a lack of labor demand has not been proposed in the general case. It is typically waved away by saying, "There will be a new industry." But can we really not imagine that this new industry will remain un-automated for long? What about the new industry that begins by being automated?
I am not opposed to automation in the slightest. I think that if we can automate every task in the world, that would be the best thing. If anything I am just opposed to insisting that as technology changes, we must maintain the same social values and behaviors.