we don't have an employment crisis.
lol
[img] 
[/img]
Lol yourself.
If you think that the number of people out of work (2.2m) is a crisis and that it's due to increased automation since.. 2007.. then.. well.. you're daft!
as yet unsuited to machines: a world of artists and therapists, love counsellors and yoga instructors.
Whooo, sounds like hell.
You don't consider the loss of stable jobs, zero contract hours etc to be somewhat of a crisis?
This is entirely within the realms of speculation based on no evidence, so for that reason I'm out*.
* I'm not flouncing, I just wanted to say that 🙂
You don't consider the loss of stable jobs, zero contract hours etc to be somewhat of a crisis?
Yes, but I'm not sure it's down to automation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/17/rise-of-the-machines-economist_n_4616931.html
Of course it's down to speculation, even with the industrial revolution we have no real context to understand the effects of automation as it is simply happening so quickly.
[img] 
[/img]
Mcafee is the MIT Ted talks chap from the video I posted earlier.
That's the point I was making though, however the technology doesn't need sentience as in self-awareness. All it needs is an understanding of it's limited area, if it understands what statistical tool to use instead of needing a human to press the buttons or program R then you no longer need a statistician at the other end. Maybe a clever baboon.
This already exists.
Demand forecasting statistical models are now so sophisticated they can pick which model to use, apply it, learn from their own mistakes. The technical jargon is "machine learning".
But the typical response to having this software isn't to cut staff or wages. The main response is to try to use this data to be more productive. Sell more stuff for the same effort, to grow.
We just have to hope that there's a limit to the intelligence level of these artificial machines; can we ever really create an artificial conscious being?
We are so unbelievably far away from achieving this. The recent news story about a piece of software passing the Turing Test was total PR-fuelled BS. Problems like pathfinding have been solved with stuff like [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm ]A*[/url], and while that's a lot more complex in the real world, if you can feed the system enough sensing/mapping/data it's surmountable.
These behaviours look intelligent, but they're only small components of anything that might constitute a mind. They're not minds any more than [url= https://www.youtube.com/user/FestoHQ/videos ]Festo[/url]'s work are species. Syntax doesn't map well to reasoning ability yet, or if it does, it's for very specific, well documented and solvable cases like Chess. Likewise, AI from video games is a piece of technically sophisticated theatre, but take it out of those extremely narrow contexts and it's really fragile.
This and everything above seems to suggest our jobs are pretty basic and we're all kind of sh*t at them 🙂
Millions of people are being lifted out of poverty around the world. The fact that this may not be happening to the same extent in the developed world, shouldn't blind us from the fact.
Rather than getting fat and lazy, perhaps capitalism (to the extent that it exists) has simple moved locations. Bored with being abused here in Europe.
Capitalism was being abused in Europe ? How tragic.
It is for the millions of young unemployed. Most lefties are concerned about that. It is a tragic waste of young talent IMO and mainly avoidable.
can we ever really create an artificial conscious being?
Yes. Any system that knows about itself is self aware. Can we mimic a human being - not a chance. But why would we, other than for the hell of it?
Consciousness is quite hard to define. There are self monitoring systems that know about themselves. But artifical intelligence is so completely unlike human intelligence our human/animal definitions don't really apply imo.
Yes. Any system that knows about itself is self aware. Can we mimic a human being - not a chance.
Really? We will once we have a strong enough understanding of the human brain at a molecular and neuronal level, have the computing power and simulate the brain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
But the typical response to having this software isn't to cut staff or wages. The main response is to try to use this data to be more productive. Sell more stuff for the same effort, to grow.
Again, suggest where the people who are at risk of losing their jobs to the new kinds of automation may go? Are all taxi drivers going to become marketers for taxi companies? There's only so many service industry jobs that could fill the ridiculous amounts of lay offs being predicted. New jobs roles you say? Give me an example of a future job role that might be created by the vast increase in automation? How many of these new jobs are they going to produce?
Again, all the links that I've posted seem to indicate that the best economists in the world are not sure, some on here seem to think that the free market will blindly sort out any mess that we create.
Junkyard says that he worries about GM food, **** GM food, that's nothing compared to the scientific, social and ethical uncertainty thrown up by artificial intelligence and robotics. I'm not sure that even nuclear weaponry held as much existential threat in the long term to the survival of the human race.
ernie_lynch - Member
"At the end of the day, robots don't buy consumer goods."
Only because consumer goods buying robots haven't been developed...
The concept was explored in a S-F story from about 60 years ago.
we still struggle to compete with China and the US where the culture is to work like dogs
While my experience of China would suggest you are correct my experience of of the US I have not found they work any harder than the UK work force. What there does appear to be though are more reasonable paid mid level jobs and a much wider variety / selection across more industries. I'm not sure how productivity is measured, if its GDP / hours worked then the grater number of reasonable paid jobs suggestion that they have some decent skill level could be the cause of this higher productivity. We just have too many of our industries relying on low paid work.
Whilst I would agree that a large swath of traditional roles are under threat, it ultimately comes down to a question of survival. No one is entitled to work, positions have to be earned and kept by contributing. If you're in the professional sector allegedly at threat, chances are you've already experienced how hard work creates opportunities. I don't think these people will simply roll over and accept sudden destitution. As others have pointed out, they'll build on the developments, not be supplanted by them.
@molgrips - seeing as you mentioned a Star Trek style economy, have a read of this:
[url= https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-economics-of-star-trek-29bab88d50 ]The Economics of Star Trek - The Proto-Post Scarcity Economy [/url](not as dry as it sounds!)
it ultimately comes down to a question of survival. No one is entitled to work
If no one is entitled to work, are they entitled to benefits? Also, are people entitled to life? Your whole "survival" thing makes me instinctually believe that you're a social darwinist.
IMO, a certain standard of living and a job to go to is a human right.
The Economist said there's a near 100% chance estate agents will disappear. Woooh and indeed, hoo 😀
Nowt new about your thoughts I had them over 30 years ago owing to above advert.
If no one is entitled to work, are they entitled to benefits? Also, are people entitled to life?
and what about oxygen?
There are a lot of people in tech and video games who dish out tough meritocracy talk, and I suspect they'll stop the instant their job is replaced by code (happening right now, and while [url= http://blogs.msdn.com/b/seliot/archive/2010/04/18/what-is-an-sdet.aspx ]SDET[/url]s I know tend to be increasing test capacity through automation, at some point their job is likely to switch into replacing QA staff).
I'd really like to see more study given to the idea of [url= http://basicincome.org.uk/interview/2013/08/health-forget-mincome-poverty/ ]basic income[/url], but even so much as studying it seems like an impossibility in the current political and tabloid climate.
Also Pat, your link is the biggest load of libertarian horsetwaddle that I've ever read. And I count myself as a left-wing libertarian.
If no one is entitled to work, are they entitled to benefits?
And if they're entitled to neither, where are they to go? If they stand still too long they'll be charged rent. Maybe a return to the Victorian Workhouse idea; huge swathes of people kept on the march. Herded by robots.
@Tom, I'm not posting it like it's a blueprint for the future of mankind, just something with interesting points to consider. Which do you find so horestwaddley?
As for entitlement to benefits, yes, I believe people are. I also think the basic income argument is increasingly relevant, hence the reason for posting that link. I don't think people are simply entitled to work though. Their has to be an exchange of effort for reward that is satisfactory to both parties. Or should we just put a halt on progress altogether, because certain people are afraid they don't have the creativity to imagine doing something different with their skills and experience?
This history of technology is one of automation allowing humans to do more. New industries get get created e.t.c. The invention of chainsaws did not stop lumberjacks existing, more trees can be cut by one person but people just move jobs and industries.
You are all assuming the robots will be any good 😉
Why would it be surprising that certain existing jobs would disappear? It happens all the time. People adapt as they always have done.
(The only use for most robots in human shape is for purposes of relatability and drama in media :P)
This history of technology is one of automation allowing humans to do more. New industries get get created e.t.c. The invention of chainsaws did not stop lumberjacks existing, more trees can be cut by one person but people just move jobs and industries.
The problem is that in our present climate it seems to expand income inequality, and while previously people backed that up with the idea of "job creators", even the World Bank have recently admitted that trickle down economics is horse sh*t.
That inequality isn't necessarily a property of automation, but it's a property of our current economy reflected in it, and it's bad for us all.
No they (W Bk) haven't. Interesting they show that at the global level the income distribution patterns have been quite different to the ones described at the national level. Globally, the biggest gains have been middle income families, the biggest losers have been the well off before the super high earners who have gained but not at the same rate as middle income. It's like an s on its side but not exactly (edit just checked WB literature it's a supine s apparently)
We frame the argument at the national level and miss the fact that global inequality has narrowed to the benefit of many middle to lower income groups.
It strikes me that technological change is serving as some sort of intangible yet unstoppable bogeyman in the argument re income inequality. Isn't it just one factor in a complex situation there? Yes, it can be used by the powerful few to increase that power, but on the other hand access to better tools has given more people the chance to fulfil their potential, and many have/are doing so.
Shouldn't we be more concerned about how the powerful can use their influence to control legislation etc than whether or not better tools undermine or empower us?
global inequality
Income or wealth thm? Clarification needed.
In this case, income. There has been a shift in income distribution from the developed to the emerging world and that will continue. There is a burgeoning 322m middle class urban Africans emerging rapidly as an example. Income inequality patterns vary depending on your terms of reference. Poorer countries have benefitted at the expense of richer ones.
As the FT article put it earlier (and going back to the OP)
The early 19th century Luddites had it wrong when they destroyed new labour-saving machinery in the north of England. The only way their reasoning would apply today is if you believe human nature in the 21st century is dramatically different: that either there will not be new wants and needs; or that, even if there were, most people would lack the skills to find work in the new fields where those wants and needs are being created.
In this case, income.
Thanks. You may continue. But you ought to make it clear in future.
Yes sir!
Since we were talking about income anyway it wasn't really necessary but glad to help those who need it! 😉
it wasn't really necessary but glad to help those who need it!
Hint: I knew it was income you were talking about. It always is.
even the World Bank have recently admitted that trickle down economics is horse sh*t.
Trickle-down has been dead at the World Bank since at least 1973, when MacNamara took over.
THM.... from what I've read between country income inequality has reduced but within country inequality....globally....has increased.
If what I remember is correct, then you need to think about statistics properly.
Why would it be surprising that certain existing jobs would disappear? It happens all the time. People adapt as they always have done.
Again, utterly simplistic way of looking at the issue. The problem is that the rate of change is forecasted by some to be unprecedented and the effects of this are expected to cause massive social issues. It would probably be wise to consider social polices that aim to reduce any resultant social unrest.
Are all taxi drivers going to become marketers for taxi companies?
Serious question - what happened to all the hand weavers, spinners and threshers?
Here's another one: If everything becomes automated, and all these people are out of work - there's going to be a lot of people looking for work. So the workforce will become cheap again, perhaps? Cheaper than the machines? And if everyone's out of work who's going to buy all the services that are being produced by these automated businesses?
Perhaps it'll self-regulate, as long as it doesn't all happen at once..
@Tom, I'm not posting it like it's a blueprint for the future of mankind, just something with interesting points to consider. Which do you find so horestwaddley?
I'll attempt to read it again when I'm less tired but I felt the writer was disappearing up his own backside about half way through. I'll try and decipher it again tomorrow.
Serious question - what happened to all the hand weavers, spinners and threshers?
Serious question, did hundreds if not thousands of different jobs become irrelevant within a few decades during the 18th century? No, what became irrelevant was quite literally those three jobs and a couple of others.
So the workforce will become cheap again, perhaps? Cheaper than the machines? And if everyone's out of work who's going to buy all the services that are being produced by these automated businesses?
A) Think about your first question.
B) Your second question can be resolved by massive income inequality and a 2 tier economy weighted towards luxury goods...eg answer C in my first/second post.
No they (W Bk) haven't.
Trickle-down has been dead at the World Bank since at least 1973, when MacNamara took over.
Fair enough, I got suckered by that.
It was a decade later that we had heads of state pushing it though, and there's still a significant bunch of people who believe (or profess to, for various ends). I think that's a significant problem when tech and automation can empower them.
I believe in tech as something that can benefit all and increase resilience, but not much seems to encourage that. Seven or so years peripheral exposure to startup people has given me a profound cynicism and disbelief in those generally pushing tech, because a lot of them are just rolling the dice to get rich and exhibit a profound distaste for regular jobs or lifestyle businesses. A lot of startup/tech output is so ambiguous, and as [url= https://twitter.com/hondanhon ]this guy[/url] recently put it, the twee way they present themselves is (potentially) kind of like Oppenheimer mugging at the camera and doing a thumbs up after the detonation of Trinity.
(… to overstate it!)
did tens of thousands of different jobs become irrelevant within a few decades during the 18th century?
Different jobs? No. Are you suggesting that'll happen in a few decades now?
Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people did become redundant in a very short space of time though.
Seven or so years peripheral exposure to startup people has given me a profound cynicism and disbelief in those generally pushing tech
Yeah, it's a good way of redistributing wealth though isn't it? From venture capitalists to graduate software engineers 🙂
What did that Oxford paper say? 47% of all jobs at risk of automation by 2035? Claims and predictions like that need to be scrutinised properly and if they have any outside chance of coming true, policy ideas need to be thought about in the event that it does actually happen. I'll reread the paper in the morning.
Unless that is, you believe in letting the markets run themselves. I don't have the same unwavering belief in capitalism that you do Molgrips.
Fairly late to this one so I'm guessing I'll be going over old ground...
30 years ago I can remember 6 or 7 men working on my dads farm and they were all fairly busy. Through modernisation of buildings, better equipment that number dropped. Now 3 of them run a farm 5 times the size and have time for a couple of decent holidays every year. That and production costs have dropped to meet peoples expectation of cheap food.
Saying nobody is entitled to a job is a bit harsh but nobody is entitled to keep doing the job they are doing now for life. Things change, if you don't move with it then you probably won't get a job. Even worse is some of the examples I see over here in Tasmania where people are still in the "I work in forestry, if you get rid of that what will my children do" as if the aspirations of their kids should never go beyond their parents.