will a robot take your job?

[bcbm]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/will-robots-take-over-our-economy.html

[Let's Get Free]

I think itll be a long time before robots come close to replacing humans, mainly because robots cannot adapt. they do exactly what they were designed to do. humans can do multiple jobs with minimal training. lets say joe runs an auto manufacturing plant. lets say, uh, fred, runs another one. joe uses robots, and fred uses humans.

one day, joe's paint spraying robot breaks down.

Well, you cannot stop production, and another robot will take time to ship in, so Joe can try putting a welding robot in its place with spray paint, but it does not work. the welding robot is not designed to "sweep" the paint across the surface in smooth motions, and what you get is blotchy, messed up coats of paint. Joe curses loudly, and wait for a new paint spraying robot to be installed.

fred over there, his usual team of paint spraying men are out sick. so he pulls one or two welders off the line, and gives em a five to ten minute how to on paint spraying. they have seen their colleagues do this before, so while the first two or three are of a slightly inferior quality, they quickly learn from their mistakes and start pushing through well painted vehicles.
humans adapt. robots break.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I'm a car-mechanic and a diagnosis-specialist...so never.

[bcbm]

I think itll be a long time before robots come close to replacing humans, mainly because robots cannot adapt. they do exactly what they were designed to do. humans can do multiple jobs with minimal training. lets say joe runs an auto manufacturing plant. lets say, uh, fred, runs another one. joe uses robots, and fred uses humans.

its a nice story but automation has replaced a lot of jobs already

[piet11111]

If a robot can replace me its welcome to take my shitty job.

If i get 1 more person complaining to me i will explode.

[bcbm]

i can almost guarantee my job will be automated in the next five to ten years so thats fun

[l'Enfermé]

I am a unique and special snowflake. A million robots can't replace me!

[Questionable]

Isn't heavy automation anathema to a capitalist market? After all if every worker is replaced by a machine, there's no one left to pay a wage with which to buy commodities.

[Rafiq]

They can't produce value indefinitely.

[Althusser]

Full automation of unskilled labor would collapse capitalism. It's just another contradiction that will arise when technology gets to that point.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It'd be incredibly creepy if a robot took my job however I suppose it could be possible.

[Hit The North]

I doubt a robot could get by on my shitty wage :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Kinda worrying that just as I'm considering getting a driving licence, Google comes out with a driverless car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car).

Suddenly I'm wondering if in a couple of decades I'll lose my job to an on-board computer.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

If a robot can replace me its welcome to take my shitty job.

If i get 1 more person complaining to me i will explode.

Need a robot who is able to take the complaints and deal with them in a calm and courteous manner..because I can't do it!! I find it hard to not be sarcastic or *****y with some people.

[Anti-Traditional]

Isn't heavy automation anathema to a capitalist market? After all if every worker is replaced by a machine, there's no one left to pay a wage with which to buy commodities.

Well yes but the individual bourgeois who has cut their costs by half isn't gonna care for the long term future of their class as a whole.

[Hexen]

The title of this thread reminds of this Soviet Cartoon which is relevant to this discussion.

8_fy_BQtHUo

Robots are a ideal worker for capitalists.

[robbo203]

There's quite an interesting discussion going on about robots over at the SPGB website which I came across here

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/robots-demand-china-labour-costs-climb

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Kinda worrying that just as I'm considering getting a driving licence, Google comes out with a driverless car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car).

Suddenly I'm wondering if in a couple of decades I'll lose my job to an on-board computer.

Driverless cars aren't exactly new, but they will never replace drivers, the main reason being that the psychological aspect of being in control and in charge of the driving is the main reason that people sometimes prefer autos to public transport.

Anyway, the day all automobile traffic is automated is the day all automobile traffic should be shut down, the last hindrance to the abolition of the private auto is then already conquered.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Need a robot who is able to take the complaints and deal with them in a calm and courteous manner..because I can't do it!! I find it hard to not be sarcastic or *****y with some people.

That's why i (as a car mechanic) have the letters "RTFM" on the side of my tool-cart. Some people would actually rather go out, in their car, drive to us and take the time to annoy us, in stead of simply read a manual.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Driverless cars aren't exactly new, but they will never replace drivers, the main reason being that the psychological aspect of being in control and in charge of the driving is the main reason that people sometimes prefer autos to public transport.

Maybe so, but tinned asparagus doesn't much care who or what is at the wheel. The psychological aspect will be much easier for promoters of the technology to overcome with regards to freight traffic.


Anyway, the day all automobile traffic is automated is the day all automobile traffic should be shut down, the last hindrance to the abolition of the private auto is then already conquered.

Pity then that capitalism doesn't operate on a rational basis. We already have a post-scarcity situation (at least potentially given agricultural technologies and yields) with regards to food, yet it is still produced as part of various profit-making enterprises, which is why so much of it goes to waste (from a standpoint of pure utility), with any monetary costs for the agricultural industries reduced for the industries (and socialised to the rest of us) by lobbying and subsidisation.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Pity then that capitalism doesn't operate on a rational basis. We already have a post-scarcity situation (at least potentially given agricultural technologies and yields) with regards to food, yet it is still produced as part of various profit-making enterprises, which is why so much of it goes to waste (from a standpoint of pure utility), with any monetary costs for the agricultural industries reduced for the industries (and socialised to the rest of us) by lobbying and subsidisation.

You are of course right - I was speaking about an ideal situation. I wasn't meaning to say it would happen that way under capitalism, it wouldn't. Soon we'll have some further stupid "Personal Rapid Transport" proposals realised, I'm guessing - they even made as many as 10 different proposals here in Sweden, all of them equally daft and pointless - I see a horrible future.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are of course right - I was speaking about an ideal situation. I wasn't meaning to say it would happen that way under capitalism, it wouldn't. Soon we'll have some further stupid "Personal Rapid Transport" proposals realised, I'm guessing - they even made as many as 10 different proposals here in Sweden, all of them equally daft and pointless - I see a horrible future.

PRT seems to me to be rather a niche technology (perhaps handy for getting around large airports and similar places), unless urban centres start getting the kind of centralised and coordinated infrastructural (re-)development that late capitalism has so far displayed no knack for whatsoever.

I can certainly imagine taxis and similar services still being around in 20-30 years, but personally I'm more interested in a freight job hence my concern.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

PRT seems to me to be rather a niche technology (perhaps handy for getting around large airports and similar places), unless urban centres start getting the kind of centralised and coordinated infrastructural (re-)development that late capitalism has so far displayed no knack for whatsoever.

I can certainly imagine taxis and similar services still being around in 20-30 years, but personally I'm more interested in a freight job hence my concern.

I wouldn't mind driving trains - one of few things I'd consider wasting my time on. But, a bit worried they'll just automate that too, once they have adaptable AI's there's no stopping it (though, I think it's not the sort of thing that should be prioritised to be automated, not just because of personal proclivities, but because it's not that hard labour, nor is it very intensive-- but the margins, the margins-)

[Delenda Carthago]

http://interactivist.autonomedia.org/node/1287

[bcbm]

Need a robot who is able to take the complaints and deal with them in a calm and courteous manner..because I can't do it!! I find it hard to not be sarcastic or *****y with some people.

actually i would say many if not most, at least large, businesses that have a customer service department try to solve complaints through an automated system before you ever get to talk to a human being and as computers become more capable this will only expand.


Full automation of unskilled labor would collapse capitalism.

Isn't heavy automation anathema to a capitalist market? After all if every worker is replaced by a machine, there's no one left to pay a wage with which to buy commodities.

don't be so sure. we are already seeing vast sections of working people being more or less forced out of the economy completely, or to a 'subsistence' level of work and there is no sign of this trend stopping. a global bourgeoisie and middle stratum of workers could probably be enough to support an economy, leaving the rest of us superfluous to production.

[piet11111]

When large portions of the population are being made idle you will end up with a situation like Greece and revolt will be inevitable.

[kalpona]

the more important question would be will a robot take over humans when they reach a point where their intellectual knowledge is higher than us

[I <3 short shorts]

God I hope so. Let his shiny metal ass wipe shit off toilets seats for awhile see how he copes. Bet he comes away with at least 3 new mental disorders, frank yang style.

Kalpona, are you talking about the singularity?

If so I heard a great rebuttal saying if this did happen, due to lack of any biological reward systems, sex, shelter, achieving staus stc, the robot would have no desire to do anything let alone control or kill us. It would realise as carbon stardust there is no difference to being conscious or dead, we are just billion year old carbon.

According to this guy anyway.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Kalpona, are you talking about the singularity?

If so I heard a great rebuttal saying if this did happen, due to lack of any biological reward systems, sex, shelter, achieving staus stc, the robot would have no desire to do anything let alone control or kill us. It would realise as carbon stardust there is no difference to being conscious or dead, we are just billion year old carbon.

According to this guy anyway.

That's a rubbish argument. A genuinely intelligent machine is going to display complex goal-seeking behaviour as we do, it just won't acquire or pursue those goals and objectives from evolutionary imperatives like we do, unless we program those imperatives in (or it somehow becomes subject to natural selection).

[I <3 short shorts]

That's a rubbish argument. A genuinely intelligent machine is going to display complex goal-seeking behaviour as we do, it just won't acquire or pursue those goals and objectives from evolutionary imperatives like we do, unless we program those imperatives in (or it somehow becomes subject to natural selection).

It is impossible for a machine to become subject to natural selection and people would never be dumb enough to program ambition or for example jealousy into a super computer.

I think his arguement was far better than yours, you seem to be invested in hoping the singularity happens, like Kurzweil.

[redblood_blackflag]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/will-robots-take-over-our-economy.html


No matter how much technology seems to be taking over production, etc- it will never make human labor obsolete.
Even if a system is set up to where the machines are near fully self-sustaining, with machines which repair machines, etc, etc, - there will still need to be a human fixing any repair machines if repair machines break, if the system goes haywire, in case the robot which is meant to fix the system goes hayware, the machine to fix the machine which fixes the system goes haywire, etc, etc, etc.


I would say most peoples goals are something along the lines of get the most back for the least effort- i mean, going the opposite route, getting the least for the most effort, isn't very efficient, or a good idea, in my opinion.
Technology allows production to increase while the actual exertion of physical labor is minimized.

If a specific technology, say, autos, make moving more stone by one person possible, what would be the oppsite direction?
that we should just be rid of trucks, so that everyone can carry stone on their backs? I mean, that would probably create a lot of "job opportunity," eh?

[redblood_blackflag]

"“Smart machines may make higher G.D.P. possible, but also reduce the demand for people—including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots.”

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/will-robots-take-over-our-economy.html#ixzz2JmQdaNhh"

Paul Krugman is a delusional hack.
1. Society is non-existent. It can't create or manipulate things. it doesn't have a mind capable of viewing things as valuable. Only individuals do/can.
2. so the gdp goes up, and society is wealthier, but, only people who own the machines?
So society is richer, but all the wealth belongs to those who own the machines?
Well, either society is richer, or people who own the machines are richer, and "society' then = "those who own the machines."
3. The demand for human labor in specific "jobs" would be reduced by the machines, but demand for other "jobs" may just as soon arise- If anything I would imagine that at least engineers and robots trades and production, and everything having to do with that, would go up. and, "smart people" ? What does that even mean?

[Regicollis]

My best hope for the future is some kind of techno-socialism where the machines have taken over all the dangerous and boring jobs. A fully mechanised society like that would only work under socialism.

If a capitalist society makes a huge part of the population superfluous the economic inequalities will soon lead to the downfall of that society.

[Spurcatu]

Taking from what is Marx's Labour theory of value (which we all know) is that the worker spends a certain amount of time to generate variable capital or what is needed to support his own existence through production, but to that value is the added value as surplus value which consists of added time to the working day that should sustain the worker alone and from which the capitalist draws profit. Technology comes into the process of production as constant capital which can not be useful on its own and it needs to be operated by the worker.
The profit finally is the surplus value divided to constant capital plus the variable capital(profit=surplus value/machines+workers) as the capitalist cannot hold each time the amount of profit he gathers but he has to reinvest a part of it into the machines or hiring new workers.
But as constant capital grows variable capital reduces.
So if the rate of surplus value which is surplus value divided to variable capital grows slower than the technological rate of improvement which is constant capital divided to variable capital than the overall profit will fall.
So in order to get profit again they have to pull out the constant capital, reduce surplus value and let variable capital grow again by hiring workers again.
Increase in usage of technology makes people useless but technology is made for the use of people and to make productivity more profit wise efficient, so finally if technology removes its user then technology itself will become useless because there will be no one to use it in the process of production. Also if people get removed from their task there will be no one left to buy the product that got out because they are no longer paid, there is a big mass of unproductive unemployed people, so products are being made faster/better due to increase in technological process but there is no profit made out of them or profit is made at a lower rate than the time when someone was making that product without the technological improvement.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is impossible for a machine to become subject to natural selection

Only because we don't know how to make machines that can autonomously build copies of themselves. That's an engineering problem, not a scientific one.


and people would never be dumb enough to program ambition or for example jealousy into a super computer.

Perhaps not, but emotion is not necessary for there to be paperclip maximisers (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer).


I think his arguement was far better than yours, you seem to be invested in hoping the singularity happens, like Kurzweil.

I'm thinking I'll probably be dead before a singularity happens, if one ever does happen in the first place. I also look at past visions of the future and see their contemporary hopes, fears and aspirations within them, and it doesn't take a great leap of logic to understand that today's visions of the future are no different in that respect.

[Ocean Seal]

If a robot can replace me its welcome to take my shitty job.

If i get 1 more person complaining to me i will explode.
So people aren't allowed to complain about being forced onto the dole?

[piet11111]

So people aren't allowed to complain about being forced onto the dole?

What i was saying is that i have a shitty job where i often have people complaining to me about how i do that job.

For instance using a machine to clean streets of weeds growing between the bricks and people complaining why i am not cleaning somewhere else that i am in the process of working towards.
Or they complain that this should have been done sooner but guess what ? i do not set my own tasks and they simply refuse to accept that at times.

Its people like that who i want to shut up and let me do my damned job without their complaining to me.

[RedAnarchist]

I guess a robot could do some of the work I do as a HR Systems Administrator, but there are parts which require human action.

[Yazman]

the more important question would be will a robot take over humans when they reach a point where their intellectual knowledge is higher than us

Why would this necessarily happen? Assuming we ever did create true machine intelligence, they would be people just like us. The prospects for anthropological study would be brilliant. Ignoring that for a second though, we have to remember that if there really were true machine intelligence, they would be thinking, feeling, cultural beings as well and not necessarily the "evil robots" that Hollywood and many science fiction authors portray them to be. Nor would they be a monolithic bloc. Humans are not a monolithic bloc by any means - so why would any other sapient lifeform be? Surely there would be just as many of these "people" for integration with human society as there might be "separatist" or "fascist" ones?

As far as automation goes - I can understand the concerns people have in terms of automation leaving many people without jobs. However, long-term is mass automation such a bad thing? In a long-term sense it reduces the need for humans to do menial labour. Technological progress may leave people out of work, but it creates many more unexpected avenues for work as well.

We should also remember that automation of human labour has been ongoing for centuries now. It isn't a new thing. Many millions of workers were put out of work by automation in the 19th century and in some areas small movements opposed to it sprung up - see the infamous luddites, for example. But, in most cases, they found work elsewhere, eventually, as new industries and new avenues built up. Until we have something like true machine intelligence there will always be work that humans are required to do, and as a result automation therefore means less people doing menial, repetitive labour and more people doing complex tasks that require higher education.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why would this necessarily happen? Assuming we ever did create true machine intelligence, they would be people just like us. The prospects for anthropological study would be brilliant.

I agree that building a genuine artificial intelligence would have implications for anthropology, but I disagree that any such entities would be "people just like us". They might be people in the sense that they have long-term goals and complex behaviour displaying overt self-awareness, but none of that suggests necessarily having human emotions or motivations.


Ignoring that for a second though, we have to remember that if there really were true machine intelligence, they would be thinking, feeling, cultural beings as well and not necessarily the "evil robots" that Hollywood and many science fiction authors portray them to be. Nor would they be a monolithic bloc.

This is good as far is goes. But it is important to remember that the minds of AIs (or any software-based intelligence) can be infinitely more flexible than human brains, the neurons of which can be arranged in a large but ultimately limited number of configurations. Another issue is that AIs, by their very nature as mechanical and/or electronic entities, are going to have a different kind of "life experience" to humans. As members of society they are not going to face the same medical and social issues that we do.


Humans are not a monolithic bloc by any means - so why would any other sapient lifeform be? Surely there would be just as many of these "people" for integration with human society as there might be "separatist" or "fascist" ones?

I'd say that would really depend on whether AIs come to regard themselves as a distinct social group or class.

[Yazman]

I agree that building a genuine artificial intelligence would have implications for anthropology, but I disagree that any such entities would be "people just like us". They might be people in the sense that they have long-term goals and complex behaviour displaying overt self-awareness, but none of that suggests necessarily having human emotions or motivations.

Well, yes. I didn't mean to imply that they would be like humans in the sense of the range of human emotions or motivations - just that it is possible that they could be self aware individuals with complex behaviours and an array of motivations (and possibly emotions) all of their own. So that needs to be taken into account.


This is good as far is goes. But it is important to remember that the minds of AIs (or any software-based intelligence) can be infinitely more flexible than human brains, the neurons of which can be arranged in a large but ultimately limited number of configurations. Another issue is that AIs, by their very nature as mechanical and/or electronic entities, are going to have a different kind of "life experience" to humans. As members of society they are not going to face the same medical and social issues that we do.

That is also true. They will not of course fit into society in the same way that a human would. Their experience of life would be drastically different to ours, even for those that may potentially have actual physical bodies (such as a robot). As members of society they would likely face issues all of their own that humans do not. It depends on how their intelligence presents, and when.


I'd say that would really depend on whether AIs come to regard themselves as a distinct social group or class.

Indeed. This would of course be an important, defining factor in how we analyse their position in society.

[rylasasin]

Isn't heavy automation anathema to a capitalist market? After all if every worker is replaced by a machine, there's no one left to pay a wage with which to buy commodities.

1. Not in the short term. Which, let's face it, is pretty much all capitalists really care about.

2. unfortunately that last statement would assume that capitalists actually have enough class conciseness to care about the long term effects of their actions. Or that their actions are even somewhat sane. They aren't.

When they see new automating technology, the capitalist doesn't think "Oh if I implement this, everyone will implement this, putting workers out of work and lowering the value of my commodities, so no one can buy them." They don't see that until it actually happens.
What they see instead is "Automation = Less workers to pay for less time = less money goes into the production process = super-profit". And then the next capitalist sees this, and the one after that, etc etc etc.

That being said there was (is?) a 'movement' trying to mix this theory of full automation with capitalist production, called Demand The Good Life (http://www.demandthegoodlife.com/) (or as I like to call it, "Demand the Good Laugh")

... needless to say it's completely laughable. Although sadly I've yet to see any sort of detailed Marxist (or even Bourgeois) analysis of it (though possibly because even a quick glance can prove just how utterly idiotic it is, though still it would be fun/nice to see a more in-depth refutation.)

[bcbm]

When large portions of the population are being made idle you will end up with a situation like Greece and revolt will be inevitable.

not necessarily

[piet11111]

not necessarily

Well the cappies wont want to pay to have them on welfare.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I do think though that there does have to be a point at which the contradiction mentioned by rylasasin can no longer endure. You don't have to be a Marxist to be disgusted with titanic gaps in relative wealth, or to realise that production isn't being organised in a rational or humane manner.

[the last donut of the night]

a global bourgeoisie and middle stratum of workers could probably be enough to support an economy, leaving the rest of us superfluous to production.

what do we do then?

lol actually serious, i'm curious about your opinion

[bcbm]

Well the cappies wont want to pay to have them on welfare.

there are plenty of places with unemployment rates like greece in the world, some with nothing resembling welfare, and revolt is not the inevitable outcome.


what do we do then?

retraining, crime, suicide, drop out, whatever it takes to survive.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

there are plenty of places with unemployment rates like greece in the world, some with nothing resembling welfare, and revolt is not the inevitable outcome.

It would be impossible for capitalist relations to continue to have legitimacy with most people if increasing amounts of those same people are in a state of unemployed poverty and if state and capital are using more and more openly oppressive means to maintain their power.


retraining, crime, suicide, drop out, whatever it takes to survive.

Oh good grief, suicide is the exact opposite of survival.

[Pessimist]

It's a damning thing about capitalism that creating machines to handle our burdens is considered a disaster. If we ever make a fully functional robot that can take on most human tasks but that doesn't have emotions (and therefore doesn't mind) that should be a huge cause for celebration.

Even under capitalism though, I think it's possible there would be a guaranteed basic income if robots became common enough. Of course for that to happen the profit from using robots would have to be so large that it would not only be cheaper than workers, but cheaper than workers + basic income for all.

[bcbm]

It would be impossible for capitalist relations to continue to have legitimacy with most people if increasing amounts of those same people are in a state of unemployed poverty and if state and capital are using more and more openly oppressive means to maintain their power.

doesn't mean revolt is the inevitable outcome.


Oh good grief, suicide is the exact opposite of survival.

you don't say. 'whatever it takes to survive' is a separate item on the list.