How will we survive if machines are taking most jobs?

[Vexen]

How will we survive if machines are taking most jobs?

[Itoero]

4 hours ago, Vexen said:

How will we survive if machines are taking most jobs?

Surviive? Machines aren't killing us you know. And machines don't take most jobs.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

And machines don't take most jobs.

Depends on which jobs you include in "most," and also what timeline / time horizon you use:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/forecasting-a-robot-driven-workplace/

[Itoero]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Depends on which jobs you include in "most," and also what timeline / time horizon you use:

Most jobs I know can't taken over by machines. For most jobs you need a conscious mind.

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Most jobs I know can't taken over by machines. For most jobs you need a conscious mind.

machine learning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning

Quote

An artificial neural network is an interconnected group of nodes, akin to the vast network of neurons in a brain.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_in_healthcare

Quote

 

Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is the use of algorithms and software to approximate human cognition in the analysis of complex medical data. Specifically, AI is the ability for computer algorithms to approximate conclusions without direct human input.

What distinguishes AI technology from traditional technologies in health care is the ability to gain information, process it and give a well-defined output to the end-user. AI does this through machine learning algorithms, which can recognize patterns in behavior and create its own logic. In order to reduce the margin of error,

 

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

Most jobs I know can't taken over by machines. For most jobs you need a conscious mind.

We'll just keep going around in circles until you better define A) which actual jobs / job types you mean, and B) what you mean by "most." This is very much a conversation where details matter.

[Itoero]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

We'll just keep going around in circles until you better define A) which actual jobs / job types you mean, and B) what you mean by "most." This is very much a conversation where details matter.

 A) which actual jobs / job types you mean, =>I mean all jobs. The jobs where you don't have to make conscious choices are very limited. People use machines. Many tasks are taken over by machines. But those machines still need to be used  or controlled by people.

[pzkpfw]

The way I see it, machines don't buy goods or services.

While machines can and will take over many kinds of job, the owners of those machines/robots will still need a market to sell whatever those jobs do, to.

e.g. say car manufacturing is totally taken over by robots. Great for the profitability of the car factories. But, if "everyone" has lost their job to a machine, who buys those cars?

(Yeah, a bad and only partly worked through example.)

So there'll be a re-balancing, if things go that way. Either people will find other kinds of jobs, or there's going to be a serious change in the way society works - more redistribution of wealth (taxation --> social benefits) and jobs (job sharing). Stuff like that.

 

(I remember doing a school project when I was 12 (1982). It was about the "future" as posited by some "futurist". Apparently when machines eventually do all that work we would all get more leisure time. We'd all be working just 3 days a week and spending the rest of the time at the tennis club or something. I doubt it will ever be quite like that in reality, but there will be changes.)

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

 A) which actual jobs / job types you mean, =>I mean all jobs. The jobs where you don't have to make conscious choices are very limited. People use machines. Many tasks are taken over by machines. But those machines still need to be used  or controlled by people.

I see that you’re incredibly unfamiliar with this topic. Thought I could help share some of what I’ve learned or hopefully learn things from you in the process. Thanks for comfirming that won’t be happening. 

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

But those machines still need to be used  or controlled by people.

Again, this depends completely on which jobs and which machines you’re describing. 

[Itoero]

You react two times on the same comment.

21 hours ago, iNow said:

Again, this depends completely on which jobs and which machines you’re describing. 

And since there is a massive amount of jobs and machines it's meaningless to talk about a certain amount of jobs/machines.

But which machines don't need to be used or controlled by people? Examples?

I'm interested in (experimental) evidence….not in those science-fiction predictions.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

But which machines don't need to be used or controlled by people? Examples?

I'm interested in (experimental) evidence….not in those science-fiction predictions.

There’s no need to suggest I’m referencing science fiction. I work with some of the largest companies on the planet who are executing on exactly these priorities. 

At some point, generally at least one human is involved today, but that need not continue given what’s happening with machine learning. 

It really depends on how you see human involvement. Is it sufficient to dismiss AI when one human can now do work previously available to thousands of humans? I’m trying to avoid an absurd discussion. 

To that end, a good example is national trucking. Truck driving jobs are going away and being replaced by self-driving trucks. 

Sure, some humans will continue changing tires, and others loading or unloading freights on docks, but the AI alone will remove the need for approximately 7 million people. 

That matters. No consciousness needed. 

So I guess I’ll ask where you want to take this discussion. I’m not arguing that no humans will ever be needed. I’m saying tens of millions will not for a sizable percentage of vocations. 

In the meantime, here’s another example where AI will be removing the need for humans (I.e. it’s not just truck drivers):

 

 

[taeto]

Was it Robert Heinlein who wrote a profetic SciFi story about a reality in which machines have taken over to do practically all tasks, and humans are left with having to consume goods? The people worst off would be forced to consume exorbitant amounts of food and luxury items, while only a few lucky ones would be allowed to live in a simple living space, eat just a sufficient amount of food, and maybe even go to work now and then. It was scary to read as an impressionable teenager, and it was written so as to not sound really that appealing.  

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, taeto said:

Was it Robert Heinlein who wrote a profetic SciFi story about a reality in which machines have taken over to do practically all tasks, and humans are left with having to consume goods? The people worst off would be forced to consume exorbitant amounts of food and luxury items, while only a few lucky ones would be allowed to live in a simple living space, eat just a sufficient amount of food, and maybe even go to work now and then. It was scary to read as an impressionable teenager, and it was written so as to not sound really that appealing.  

2

There will be push back, besides where do the consumers come from?

[Sensei]

22 minutes ago, taeto said:

Was it Robert Heinlein who wrote a profetic SciFi story about a reality in which machines have taken over to do practically all tasks, and humans are left with having to consume goods? The people worst off would be forced to consume exorbitant amounts of food and luxury items, while only a few lucky ones would be allowed to live in a simple living space, eat just a sufficient amount of food, and maybe even go to work now and then. It was scary to read as an impressionable teenager, and it was written so as to not sound really that appealing.  

That does not differ much from situation like in ancient Rome e.g. a few thousands of aristocrats and millions of slaves working for them..

Reminding you, in e.g. Europe, peasants were locked to village and local landlord, disallowed to move without permission of lord etc. etc.

Now check what they did in China recently:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/china-bans-23m-discredited-citizens-from-buying-travel-tickets-social-credit-system

"People accused of social offenses blocked from booking flights and train journeys"

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by Sensei

[Itoero]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

In the meantime, here’s another example where AI will be removing the need for humans (I.e. it’s not just truck drivers):

AI is necessary for many tasks (in space in water...) But there are sufficient people for 'safe' jobs so there is no need for AI automatization  in many jobs related to science/social science.

Moving companies, schools and insurance companies (and many more) have no need for AI automatization so why would they spend money on automatization?

This is an interesting article. "Every study we could find on what automation will do to jobs, in one chart" https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610005/every-study-we-could-find-on-what-automation-will-do-to-jobs-in-one-chart/#comments

"There are about as many opinions as there are experts."

Edited March 8, 2019 by Itoero

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Itoero said:

AI is necessary for many tasks (in space in water...) But there are sufficient people for 'safe' jobs so there is no need for AI automatization  in many jobs related to science/social science.

Moving companies and insurance companies (and many more) have no need for AI automatization so why would they spend money on automatization?

This is an interesting article. "Every study we could find on what automation will do to jobs, in one chart" https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610005/every-study-we-could-find-on-what-automation-will-do-to-jobs-in-one-chart/#comments

"There are about as many opinions as there are experts."

2

Stop burying your head in the sand it won't change the inevitable.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

insurance companies have no need for AI automatization so why would they spend money on automatization?

why indeed...

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, Itoero said:

there are sufficient people for 'safe' jobs so there is no need for AI automatization  in many jobs related to science/social science.

STEM jobs represent (generously) about 5-7% of total jobs. If you need to view such a narrow slice of the total economy to support your assertion, then it's pretty clear that your assertion is weak.

STEM jobs total about 8.6 million. Forecasts over the next 10 years suggest, however, that 375 million jobs globally could be displaced. 47 percent of U.S. workers have a high probability of seeing their jobs automated over the next 20 years. 54% of EU jobs are at risk of computerization. 60% of occupations could have 30% or more of their processes automated

When viewed in terms of orders of magnitude, I feel it's safe to assume that my point is the better supported one here. Even your own source claims massive numbers of job losses, and argues only that forecasting an exact number is challenging.

I'm not claiming to be an expert. I'm claiming that the numbers don't seem to back you up here.

24 minutes ago, Itoero said:

why would they spend money on automatization?

Because a one-time up front investment of capital is significantly cheaper and more cost effective than continued long-term operating costs and payroll outlays (which only increase further when considering healthcare costs.)

Essentially every executive in every industry will make this choice without hesitation if their cash flow and credit availability allows it in the present (and we've seen this repeatedly already where kiosks have automated and displaced jobs in food service and airport check-ins).

Edited March 8, 2019 by iNow

[swansont]

On 3/6/2019 at 5:29 PM, pzkpfw said:

 e.g. say car manufacturing is totally taken over by robots. Great for the profitability of the car factories.

That's a good example to use. The robots are used because the tasks are repetitive and often in an environment where humans aren't well-suited without some sort of mitigation. Painting, for example. Loud noises. Uncomfortable posturing. Robots are a good candidate for those kinds of jobs. Relatively high volume, and leveraging the robustness of a machine. No thinking required.

How many jobs are there like that?

There are other areas where automation has been applied, but it really hasn't happened quickly, because of the limitations of the automation. AI/machine learning is still quite limited. There doesn't seem to be an abrupt transition looming. The self-checkout at my grocery store requires a human supervisor. It's not uncommon to get errors in weighing the product you've scanned, and that has to be cleared. Machines jam when giving change. They still need to check ID if you want to buy beer or wine. The advantage is that one person seemingly can supervise ~6 self-checkout stations without too much of a bottleneck. It saves them from having to pay a couple of cashiers who might otherwise <gasp> be unoccupied part of the time. 

But there doesn't seem to be any massive shift to robots happening. It's incremental.

[CharonY]

I think the discussion is a bit misguided if one focuses on safe and unsafe groups and try to figure out how the job market is going to look from based on that. The reason is that disruptive technologies upset the job market and forces a re-arrangement of labour. In the short term it results in loss of jobs in the "unsafe" category. It implicitly assumes a zero sum game with a net loss in case of displacement. However, this is only true in the short run, where fast deployment of disruptive technologies cannot be absorbed by shifts in the labour market.

We can understand part of this change in term of increase in productivity and we do not need to wait for the future to see the consequences. Most industrialized countries have suffered massive declines in manufacturing jobs, which the current administration likes to blame on trade deficits. In truth, manufacturing sectors have produced more over the last decade, but have lost jobs due to increased productivity (i.e. automation). While this resulted in short-term in losses in jobs, as a whole, the economy benefited from the increase in productivity and also forced reallocation of jobs to different sectors (in the long term, unemployment declined).

Thus historically the disruptive effects of automation and technology has resulted in reshuffling of the workforce, but has not really created a decline in employment per se. Whether the future labour market can absorb the changes it would depend on whether new jobs are being created, the workforce is flexible enough to be reallocated (e.g. education, location) and the rate of existing jobs being displaced.

That being said, there some issues that are most likely going to happen, which include the aforementioned short-term unemployment increase, but also increasing inequality. The squeeze is on low-income workers, which have also higher barriers to obtain skills that make them more flexible (and thus benefit from a shifting labour market). Another possibility is (e.g. by minimizing worker's rights and powers) higher productivity may not be associated with higher wages. That would exacerbate the inequality between wage income and capital income (the latter of which would benefit greatly from higher productivity).

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think the discussion is a bit misguided if one focuses on safe and unsafe groups

That's a question of trust

[jajrussel]

On 3/5/2019 at 11:54 AM, Vexen said:

How will we survive if machines are taking most jobs?

We will have to keep taking jobs that machines can't do. Until they run out. Then it is a matter of waiting for people to run out of patience. Governments will prepare and will behave very much like any human to maintain power. They will use an elect people to maintain power they will give machines to those people and tell them to use them. Those people will. People will die. They will use fear to justify killing those who would take their power away from them. The corruption that they allow because there is profit in it. They will clamp down on. First with jail then death, because jails are not cheap. Power is about money. Human beings are resources now. It will be evident then.

We like to watch TV shows and read books about survival. There are always heroes. There won't be any heroes, just survivers. The machines are getting smarter. This tablet seems incredibly stupid considering all I wanted it to do is correctly predict and spell the words I want to you use. I say that so cavalierly as if it is it should be simple. Considering the length of time I have been waiting it obviously isn't simple, but it is getting better. In fact sometimes it does so we'll that I become suspicious that at times it is intentionally tormenting me, but then I brush the thought off because I would rather think that it is my imagination, or would prefer to believe that I am going insane rather than accept that a machine would intentionally torcher me.

History is a chronological list of humans surviving. It gets ugly, but then there are the Cherry blossoms, the country side villas, the wine... Paris in the spring time.

For me there is the chair in the back yard next to my garden. For others a Harley on the highways.

Machines can be a good thing. Like doing dangerous jobs. I'm not positive but I think that if a study was done a lot of work injuries probably occur to people who work with, or on machines. The injuries and the lives lost have yet to cause people to take a stand against machines, and they never really will because people will have to say the really hard things that those who are not affected don't want to hear, and when people who don't want to hear something they can respond very harshly.

One would think that a balance would best serve. I don't think it will reach the point of how will we survive, with machines taking most jobs. Not unless we learn to design sentient machines that needs, and wants to buy products. My printer seems to be getting there but to date it still needs me.   

 

 

[dimreepr]

48 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

We will have to keep taking jobs that machines can't do. Until they run out. Then it is a matter of waiting for people to run out of patience. Governments will prepare and will behave very much like any human to maintain power. They will use an elect people to maintain power they will give machines to those people and tell them to use them. Those people will. People will die. They will use fear to justify killing those who would take their power away from them. The corruption that they allow because there is profit in it. They will clamp down on. First with jail then death, because jails are not cheap. Power is about money. Human beings are resources now. It will be evident then.

We like to watch TV shows and read books about survival. There are always heroes. There won't be any heroes, just survivers. The machines are getting smarter. This tablet seems incredibly stupid considering all I wanted it to do is correctly predict and spell the words I want to you use. I say that so cavalierly as if it is it should be simple. Considering the length of time I have been waiting it obviously isn't simple, but it is getting better. In fact sometimes it does so we'll that I become suspicious that at times it is intentionally tormenting me, but then I brush the thought off because I would rather think that it is my imagination, or would prefer to believe that I am going insane rather than accept that a machine would intentionally torcher me.

History is a chronological list of humans surviving. It gets ugly, but then there are the Cherry blossoms, the country side villas, the wine... Paris in the spring time.

For me there is the chair in the back yard next to my garden. For others a Harley on the highways.

Machines can be a good thing. Like doing dangerous jobs. I'm not positive but I think that if a study was done a lot of work injuries probably occur to people who work with, or on machines. The injuries and the lives lost have yet to cause people to take a stand against machines, and they never really will because people will have to say the really hard things that those who are not affected don't want to hear, and when people who don't want to hear something they can respond very harshly.One would think that a balance would best serve. I don't think it will reach the point of how will we survive, with machines taking most jobs. Not unless we learn to design sentient machines that needs, and wants to buy products. My printer seems to be getting there but to date it still needs me.   

9

if we make it through a century the machines could do everything we can. power struggles will have a different meaning to what we see now. the glass is always full.  

if the machines can do everything, money will have little meaning.  

[jajrussel]

55 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

if we make it through a century the machines could do everything we can. power struggles will have a different meaning to what we see now. the glass is always full.  

if the machines can do everything, money will have little meaning.  

It was a good link you provided. I can relate to the last sentence of the article. Though I don't relate despondency to apathy, and don't know why the writer choose to use them as if they mean the same thing. Yes, despondency can lead to apathy, but it can also lead to one believing that the glass is always full and the desire to keep trying. Apathy says we are all done in the end anyway, so, whatever... Note, I'm not saying whatever. Please don't assume I am. Some of the monsters are real you can only slow them down. The human race taken over by machines is not a real monster because common sense will lead to a balance first. 

[dimreepr]

All we can know is,  tomorrow will be different. Is that despondent or apathetic or acceptant...

[iNow]

This struck me as interesting: