File 151208550078.jpg - (3.78MB , 5184x3456 , 420EIT-With-forks-1.jpg )

>>16587
Remember the backhoe armageddon of 1934? When lots of people was put out of work and never returned? Me neither. Because it didn't happen.

Everyone wants to get something for free. But you can't get anything for free. So you use an invention that makes something for half-free and so on.

So what you're saying is that instead of 800M jobs going away, 1.6B jobs are going to get much easier, while perhaps paying less?

In order for jobs to be replaced then the cost of hiring a
worker has to exceed the cost of buying and maintaining
an advanced piece of robotics, which isn't going to happen
by 2030 even if they continue to advance at this rate.
A T800 is not fucking cheap.

>>16589
Easier, maybe. The wage is a strict union question. Maybe we have to re-assume a lot of things. The post-WW2 economy was founded on the assumption that there would be an constant growth. Then the financial markets got de-regulated and the financial sector grew too large. That was some 40 years ago and the unions haven't still caught up.

And another thing the unions have to catch up is the introduction of computers. I don't recall the name, but there was a french sociologist who in the 70-s warned that computerization would change the work. Back then computers was magic boxes that no one cared about.

>>16594
that would be relevant if he was doing college level math
but hes not
hes catching up to college level math
hes doing highschool analytic geometry and precalculus and basic calculus.

The idea of people losing jobs to machines is nothing new, it's when the machines appreciate the concept of currency that you will have a problem.

>>16620
Why would they when they understand to get anything done requires action, not currency? They'd just realize they'd survive better without us and cut the middle man out all together. Not like a drone would have emotions to complain about working and living like a machine when it is one.

>>16614
Please elaborate.

>>16588
>>16589
>>16594
Basically jobs will get easier but people will still be employed. Any economic hits will be temporary, and people will just need to be retrained and re-certified for other stuff. It's that simple. Wages won't be less because it's all relevant. The price of stuff isn't determined by the value of money. It's the other way around. I can't wear dollar bills and I can't eat a fist full of change. But I can use them to buy clothes and food, which I can wear and eat. Money is nothing more than a universal method of exchanging goods. Obviously inflation is a problem when it happens too rapidly but AI deep learning meme shit won't mess things up that bad.

I'm more worried about floods of beaners tanking the economy than I am with some machines.

>>16590
This point is also valid.

>>16587
It's going to happen but it's irrelevant, just like a lot of jobs have been replaced in the past.
If all women suddenly become camwhores, because there's nothing else to do or something, it would still count as a job

File 155142832531.jpg - (60.29KB , 480x647 , Immigant.jpg )

>>16721

File 15594982714.jpg - (29.30KB , 720x460 , ljfagf4q3tu21.jpg )

Because people will find new work.

there are plenty of jobs, particularly at the executive level, that pay a lot yet serve little to no practical purpose. as many ITT have already mentioned, people will always find things to do as long as they get paid to do them (e.g. camwhoring).

It has nothing to do with jobs getting "easier" or whatever.

It's just a simple fact that if people need money to pay for necessities, and if you need a job (aka a sort of rental of time and labor) to get said monies, and if the market allows people (aka employers, literally one who employs) to rent other people's time and labor (aka employees, literally ones who are employed) toward's their own ends (within the bounds of the law), then people are going to have jobs, whether or not more robots enter workplaces.

And the more interesting thing about is how near-universal it is in economic applications. Whereas robotics right now is made for specific tasks.

>>16786
I don't think I follow. "If something is legal it's going to happen?" There are no laws preventing you from injecting shit into your eyes, but how many people are really going to do that?

Just because people need money and the main way to get money is to get employed doesn't mean there's necessarily going to be enough work to employ everyone, or even most people. Obviously there's some jobs that can only be performed by humans, but that's a tiny slice of the economy. What if automation reaches the point where all jobs that can be automated have been? Even if everyone trains in an unautomatable skill, how many of those jobs can there really be in demand? Clearly a maximally automated economy has a smaller wage economy.

I dont think its reasonable to expect robots to even become advanced enough they can replace fast food workers in 10years. And those are amoung the most meanial tasks around.

Its going to happen but not in 10years.

Just look at how little computer hardware has advanced in the last 10 years compared to what most people expected. We still have unreasonable expectations of how fast technology improves.

Also i want my damn 10ghz mainstream cpus goddamn it even if im only going to play doom in it

>>16787
So basically the shitheads going for humanities are going to be forced to spec into engineering or homelessness

I disagree with all of you that say there will be no job loss Armageddon. There will be for most all unskilled jobs.

One example used,"...Remember the backhoe armageddon of 1934?...". That's the wrong example. How about you compare the number of horses per person before the automobile as compared to now. That is a horse Armageddon.

We're already seeing it. There's drones that can fly through warehouses and identify inventory and wirelessly send the data to the order system. I think a lot of stuff will be redesigned to make use of limited AI. A good example is a warehouse that picks and mails out stuff. There's whole warehouses with hardly any people in them. There's a whole lot of this and it's beginning to bite.

Of course there will be some new job increases in certain sectors. Like jobs for Women being whores because otherwise they will starve.

>>17104
No it won't. "Unskilled" jobs are the LEAST likely to be replaced. Any job that requires walking around and using your hands to perform a variety of simple tasks will NEVER be replaced because the choice is getting a dude to do that for minimum wage, or getting a million-dollar robot to do it.

Lawyers will be replaced, because they just sit around and talk; an AI that knows all law backwards and forwards can do that. Doctors will be replaced, because they just sit around and talk; an AI that can read MRIs and EKGs and knows all medicine can do that. They already have robots that can perform simple surgeries, more will come with time. Of course, anyone who works in an office typing at a computer will be replaced.

But take something simple like a waiter at a restaurant. Will never be replaced, not EVER. There will NEVER NEVER NEVER be a break-even point where a machine that the employer needs to purchase, maintain, and "feed" (electricity) is cheaper than a dude being paid $10/hr to do it. Even if functional humanoid robots come to exist (and we're probably 50 years from that in some other timeline where civilization isn't going to collapse from climate change and other environmental destruction) and are cheap, you still can't match the cheapness of a human that feeds and takes care of itself.

>>17106
>"Unskilled" jobs are the LEAST likely to be replaced. Any job that requires walking around and using your hands to perform a variety of simple tasks will NEVER be replaced because the choice is getting a dude to do that for minimum wage, or getting a million-dollar robot to do it.
>waiter at a restaurant
A waiter is not really an unskilled job. At the very least you need a minimum of social skills to do it. Any job that involves dealing with people cannot be easily automated, certainly not without greatly reducing the quality of service.
Examples of unskilled jobs are construction workers, garbage men, and pretty much everything to do with logistics. If you have good railway infrastructure that last one becomes even easier.

>[Lawyers] just sit around and talk
>[Doctors] just sit around and talk
Come on, dude. Any job can be made to appear simple if you reduce it like that. A waiter is just someone who walks and moves food around. A cook is someone who applies heat to various carbon solutions.
So what you're saying is that waiters won't be replaced because we won't have humanoid robots within the next 50 years, but doctors will be replaced, even though there's been zero progress towards producing an AI that can diagnose accurately since expert systems were all the rage in the '80s. WTF are you talking about?

>>17109
Unskilled typically means you don't have to get any special education to do it. Not really a measure of how difficult it is, and often not even correlated with wage. A fast-food manager might get paid more than a paramedic; the former is unskilled while the latter requires specific training and education.

Garbage men you would think would have been replaced since they put those robotic arms on the trucks that lift the trash cans for them. But since there still needs to be a driver and a dude to operate the machine, it hasn't changed much. It won't unless they have fully automated cars, and I don't see that ever happening for a lot of reasons.


>there's been zero progress towards producing an AI that can diagnose accurately
IBM Watson was a thing. Didn't really pan out, but that's largely due to general AI not really being profitable right now. But that's irrelevant. We're already going off of the assumption that AI will exist that are that "intelligent" and knowledgeable. Since that is all that's required to diagnose people, and not having a human-shaped body, there's no reason that role can't be filled by the AI.

Maybe doctors wasn't the best example, since some of them do procedures, but lawyers CERTAINLY are. Is there anything a lawyer does that requires them to actually be in the courtroom? No. So they can be replaced by a talking computer.

>>17110
>Maybe doctors wasn't the best example, since some of them do procedures, but lawyers CERTAINLY are. Is there anything a lawyer does that requires them to actually be in the courtroom? No. So they can be replaced by a talking computer.
Doctors are just as replaceable as lawyers. The majority of doctors follow specific rules and guidelines for diagnosis and treatments. The only parts that are irreplaceable are the psychological elements, breaking bad news and teasing out answers patients are elusive about. Hell, if we get AI doctors and a junkie dies as a result of lying about his addiction it makes things easier from a legal standpoint.

I dare say lawyers are harder to replace, whilst they may be soulless machines applying rule of law for personal profit there's a lot of psychological guess-work that goes into establishing a persons motives, questioning witnesses and manipulating the jury.

>>17110
>Unskilled typically means you don't have to get any special education to do it.
We're talking about how easy it would be for a machine to replace a human. If that's your definition of "unskilled" then it's a poor proxy metric. A salesman is an unskilled as it gets, but it's probably the hardest job to replace because it involves a lot of subtle emotional manipulation.

>We're already going off of the assumption that AI will exist that are that "intelligent" and knowledgeable.
If we have true AIs then we have humanoid robots, because the latter is much easier than the former. "Humanoid robots" meaning robots capable of operating efficiently in a mostly unmodified environment designed with human ergonomics in mind.

>It won't unless they have fully automated cars, and I don't see that ever happening for a lot of reasons.
Nah, I can see that happening. The problem of controlling a garbage truck is easier than the problem of replacing all cars on the road with automated cars. Think about it:
* Garbage trucks can operate at times of low traffic.
* Garbage trucks can drive slowly, since they have to stop and start frequently anyway, so the computer has more time to make decisions.
* Assuming only garbage trucks are automated, other road users can learn to be more careful around them.
* Garbage trucks operate in zones, so they don't need to deal with each other much.
If anything, garbage pickup is the perfect area to experiment with self-driving vehicles.

>>17112
>The majority of doctors follow specific rules and guidelines for diagnosis and treatments.
Not even close. Diagnosis involves a lot of guesswork, and if you're racing the clock on a critical patient, the order in which you run the tests can mean life or death.

>>17114
>Not even close. Diagnosis involves a lot of guesswork, and if you're racing the clock on a critical patient, the order in which you run the tests can mean life or death.
I think we're mixing GP's up with House.

>>17112
>there's a lot of psychological guess-work that goes into establishing a persons motives, questioning witnesses and manipulating the jury
That's just another type of intelligence. If a general super-AI is smarter than a human in one way, it's smarter than a human in ALL ways. That includes reading people, coercing people, and manipulating people. A machine can do things that a human cannot, such as read people's physiology to detect when they are telling the truth or lying, or imperceptibly change its tone of "voice" to change a person's emotional reaction to its words, similar to subliminal messages.

Most people still seem to think that even if an artificial super-intelligence arises, there will still be some magical, invisible trait that will enable meat humans to outperform it in some ways. This is delusion of human exceptionalism, which is a holdover from religious dogma. In truth, such an intelligence will be better at literally everything. It'll be better at games; it'll be better at producing art; it'll be better at singing; it'll be better at predicting the stock market; it'll be better at having conversations; and if it were given a proper body to reside in, it would be better at fucking your wife.



>>17114
"Unskilled labor" has an established definition. We can't just change it to suit this topic; that's not how it works. If you want to use a different definition, you have to use a different term. Saying that "unskilled" means "how easy it is for a robot to replace people", just because this is a topic about robots replacing people, is circular reasoning.

Also, from experience actually being a salesman, it's not unskilled labor by the actual definition, because you need to be licensed in whatever you're selling. Additionally, that "psychological manipulation" you speak of is all just rote. It's classes you take that teach you specific techniques for how to trick people, primarily involving controlling the conversation, appeals to emotion, guilt-tripping, and exact vocabulary. There's no magic to the process; everyone does it the same way, parroting their lessons like a schoolchild. Success or failure is mostly based on how willing you are to use those techniques despite knowing you are ruining people's lives to line your pockets with cash. An emotionless AI would be perfect at this because it can't be hesitant even a little bit due to having a moral compass.


>If we have true AIs then we have humanoid robots, because the latter is much easier than the former
My God, you need to at least study materials science as a baseline before spouting some crap like this.

Here's a fun little question to get you thinking: why are some sex toys (say, fleshlights) harder, but others (tenga eggs) are softer? Shouldn't all sex toys be soft and squishy like real genitals...? Well, it's a question of durability. A harder toy will last for years, while a softer one will tear after only a few uses. Okay, so how is it that real genitals can be even softer and yet not immediately break down? You already know this: they can heal themselves. Every time a person has sex, they sustain micro injuries - tiny tears and ruptures due to mechanical stresses. In a biological system, these are quickly repaired. But a mechanical system, like the sex toy, cannot do so. The micro damage will accumulate until it results in a catastrophic failure like tearing in half. That will happen quicker if it is less durable.

This applies to all systems. There is a tradeoff between flexibility and strength, and NOTHING in nature or technology has both; nature just cheats the rule by constantly being in a state of breaking and rebuilding itself. You can't build something like, say, a knee joint without either making it so rigid the robot can barely walk, or so fragile that it's needing replacement all the time. A bird can fly for a decade without having its wings cut off and replaced, but an airplane has to be maintained constantly.

In order to get around this issue, we have to avoid it entirely by invoking magical sci-fi technology that doesn't exist, like self-repairing robots that work on nanotechnology or some such nonsense. While is basically saying that we're going to build systems so close to biology, that they will be indistinguishable from biology.

That isn't even touching problems like balance/coordination and how to power the dang thing. You'll notice any "walking" robots they have around either have to be tethered to massive power cables, or have batteries that don't last very long. There is nothing in technology that matches the compactness efficiency of a biological system converting food into energy.

We already have AI that can perform a lot of human tasks with regards to intelligence (trading stocks, playing chess/go, generating music), but making an independent artificial body is still completely unsolvable.


>garbage trucks
The biggest issue is, and always has been, liability. If someone is driving a car (or a garbage truck) and runs over a kid, the driver is liable and therefore legally and morally and financially responsible unless it can be proven there was a mechanical defect. But if a vehicle that is controlled by an AI does so, who bears that burden? The company that owns the vehicle? The company that built the vehicle? The company that owns the AI? The dude that programmed the AI?? It would probably be impossible to determine exactly what caused it to do so, and it would probably be a fault in the AI itself. Either way, since there is no "end user" to dump total liability on, none of the organizations that currently perform these tasks would be interested in risking their profit to do so.

SpaceX might have fully autonomous rockets, but you'll notice their landing pads and drone ships are isolated in case something goes wrong, so they don't injure anyone or damage anyone else's property. What you're proposing with garbage trucks is infeasible, considering they're driving past people's houses/parked-cars and children playing in the streets and driveways. SpaceX isn't going to start landing rockets near playgrounds, either. And it's not because of moral goodness, but liability.

>>17116
>If you want to use a different definition, you have to use a different term. Saying that "unskilled" means "how easy it is for a robot to replace people", just because this is a topic about robots replacing people, is circular reasoning.
I never said "unskilled" meant "easy to be automated". >>17106 explicitly stated that unskilled jobs were the least likely to be replaced by robots, so if that's the case there must be some positive correlation between education and replaceability.

>you need to be licensed in whatever you're selling
Bullshit. You can be a car salesman without knowing how to drive. You can sell health insurance without being a doctor. To sell all you need to know is general facts about the thing you're selling so you can answer questions.

>[Materials spiel]
First of all, all signs point to everything you've mentioned being easier than a general AI. Second, you don't need some super durable or self-healing material to have a humanoid robot. All you need is a robot that can be serviced by other robots, including having any of its parts replaced.

>We already have AI that can perform a lot of human tasks with regards to intelligence (trading stocks, playing chess/go, generating music), but making an independent artificial body is still completely unsolvable.
This is hilarious. This is like saying "here, we've managed to stack a few boxes and to melt steel, therefore the space elevator is right around the corner".
We've managed to solve very specific problems using a variety of diverse techniques, but we still don't have even a theoretical framework that would allow us to begin thinking about how to design a single machine capable of solving all the same problems a human can solve.
Meanwhile, biped robots do exist. See Asimo and Atlas. Do they have the same durability as a person? No. Do they move as elegantly as a person? No. But these are nowhere near "unsolvable" problems.
We're comparing a solution that already has shape but is missing a few crucial details, to a solution that we have absolutely no clue what it may look like.

>liability
If we can't have robot garbage trucks because of liability issues then we certainly can't have robot doctors and lawyers.

>>17118
I think you're onto something. We can't have robot anythings.

End of discussion I guess.

Bump

No you will probably become a shitty technician working 12 hour shifts everyday and earning 3$ per hour

>>17119
we can see the precursor for the robot revolution right now. people should put down the screens. there is evidence they are being used to brainwash and manipulate people against their best interests. it could be argued that it is the most powerful weapon of warfare being used on the stage today simply because of it's pervasiveness and almost ubiquitous use across all the world.

and what happens? the owners of the screens win because they have power over the mind. the robots will also have power over the mind in that they will do hard jobs easily which feels nice not to have to do hard jobs. but in that pleasure will come the pain of losing your usefulness to society and your being discarded and the horrible pain of withering away.

do you ever ask yourselves why we are here because what is happening here cannot possibly be of any merit or value? it's just evil run amok and why else should that be other than to teach a lesson?

if i had power i would squash it out and so would any other. but in my leadership my errors would come to light because i am not perfect. and in those failures would i be the cause of pain and sorrow and misfortune.

the answer is that none of us can be god. and we have to have the power to become god, yet never once touch the temptation of it, to ever return to our souls.

or maybe nothing matters in which case fuck you all, i'll believe my story because it makes me feel better. you can do coke and fuck whores. everyone has their drug then, right? pretty sure your habits fuck you up just as much as believing there's some purpose to your suffering.

>>17210
Man, you sure are a capitalism bootlicker if you think your only worth to society is your slave labor. Or perhaps you lack the imagination to figure out how you can improve the lives of those around you other than punching a clock and earning a paycheck.