3
3
0
Is this the true threat from robots?
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/humans-need-not-apply
PLEASE watch the video before answering, certainly before voting. You'll thank me.
C.G.P. Grey argues the forthcoming automation disruption to thinking jobs is unprecedented in human history. What do we do when huge groups of people are not just unemployed but unemployable? Is this different?
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/humans-need-not-apply
PLEASE watch the video before answering, certainly before voting. You'll thank me.
C.G.P. Grey argues the forthcoming automation disruption to thinking jobs is unprecedented in human history. What do we do when huge groups of people are not just unemployed but unemployable? Is this different?
Technology
Robots
Economics
Future
Business
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
2
2
0
Ignoring "bots" for just a moment, and looking at automation as a whole.
Let's take the Phone industry. If you took the "switchboard operator" or the ladies who used to connect the lines from one junction to another, they were replaced by automation. But let's say they weren't... It would take more people than are currently on the planet to handle the current "phone" traffic we have now. Technology is going to make some things obsolete, and it's going to create other things.
Eventually, economics WILL make a significant portion of the population "unemployable." Work will become a "limited resource" however... Automation produces more than enough food, water, and shelter to cover the needs of mankind... Does everyone "need" to work at that point?
I'm not advocating a swap from Capitalism, but... we aren't a pure Capitalism, and really never have been. We can just add other tools to our Economic Toolbox such as the "Guaranteed Basic Income."(or others). As CGP Grey says, it's not designed to be a warning, it's more thought-provoking as to "how we are going to deal with changing realities."
As members of the Military, we're good at changing realities.
Let's take the Phone industry. If you took the "switchboard operator" or the ladies who used to connect the lines from one junction to another, they were replaced by automation. But let's say they weren't... It would take more people than are currently on the planet to handle the current "phone" traffic we have now. Technology is going to make some things obsolete, and it's going to create other things.
Eventually, economics WILL make a significant portion of the population "unemployable." Work will become a "limited resource" however... Automation produces more than enough food, water, and shelter to cover the needs of mankind... Does everyone "need" to work at that point?
I'm not advocating a swap from Capitalism, but... we aren't a pure Capitalism, and really never have been. We can just add other tools to our Economic Toolbox such as the "Guaranteed Basic Income."(or others). As CGP Grey says, it's not designed to be a warning, it's more thought-provoking as to "how we are going to deal with changing realities."
As members of the Military, we're good at changing realities.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I think as long as automation and bots are integrated slowing into society the change will not be drastic. If all of a sudden all the restaurant staff was fired and replaced with a bot, then that would create a huge disruption as people at the individual level are trying to get retrained and adjust to the sudden impact to their life. On the grand scale, as long as it isn't a sudden drop of an entire industry, then society and economics can stay in balance.
The image that comes to mind is from the movie Idiocracy. when the computer fired everyone that worked for Brawndo, there was a huge revolt.
The image that comes to mind is from the movie Idiocracy. when the computer fired everyone that worked for Brawndo, there was a huge revolt.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS , there is no imbalance in a free market beyond the marginal scarcity of finite goods being chased by infinite wants. There is no other system that can better provide for the wants and needs of more, and at the least expense.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSG Gerhard S. Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS's point is that automation brings those finite goods to a point where they approach (but do not reach) the infinite. And key: this includes the labor markets. All of them (eventually). 25% of them in the next 20-30 years...so then what?
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Capt Richard I P. & SSG Gerhard S. - Exactly. As current, using only the US, do we have a "shortage" of things like Water, Food, or Housing? (Scarcity) Or is it more accurate to say we have an Abundance that actually goes to waste (approaching infinite). If the latter is true, doesn't their relative value drop in an inverse relationship?
We essentially have "infinite" clean air, therefore we don't pay for it (directly). Water, Food, and Housing.. all of which exist in abundance "should" eventually hit that same level, but has the competing force of Capitalism. I'm not saying get rid of Capitalism, it's a good system... but it becomes unsustainable if 25% of your workforce has no income. Therefore, come up with a way to get them an income. Forced Labor Programs or Guarenteed Basic Income (both designed to cover Food, Water, Housing) would meet those needs.
As tech gets better, our ability to "produce" overbalances our ability to "consume" which is just bad Economically. It isn't necessarily bad in other ways though. Overproduction can be "Effective" however it is not "Efficient." As an example, if you could overproduce and get rid of world hunger, would you? (we already overproduce btw). What about water? (We already have enough clean water to cover the world's needs. We lack infrastructure to get it delivered) Housing? Think about how many empty houses there are vs homeless we have (if we matched them up, there would be NO HOMELESS in the US). We're already inefficient AND ineffective, and that's inside Capitalism. We could shift that to where we are only inefficient.
We essentially have "infinite" clean air, therefore we don't pay for it (directly). Water, Food, and Housing.. all of which exist in abundance "should" eventually hit that same level, but has the competing force of Capitalism. I'm not saying get rid of Capitalism, it's a good system... but it becomes unsustainable if 25% of your workforce has no income. Therefore, come up with a way to get them an income. Forced Labor Programs or Guarenteed Basic Income (both designed to cover Food, Water, Housing) would meet those needs.
As tech gets better, our ability to "produce" overbalances our ability to "consume" which is just bad Economically. It isn't necessarily bad in other ways though. Overproduction can be "Effective" however it is not "Efficient." As an example, if you could overproduce and get rid of world hunger, would you? (we already overproduce btw). What about water? (We already have enough clean water to cover the world's needs. We lack infrastructure to get it delivered) Housing? Think about how many empty houses there are vs homeless we have (if we matched them up, there would be NO HOMELESS in the US). We're already inefficient AND ineffective, and that's inside Capitalism. We could shift that to where we are only inefficient.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Here's an interesting fact. A little over 100 years ago nearly 50% of the American population was necessary to provide food for the other 50%. Today, only 2% of the population is necessary to supply food for the other 98%. This transformation did not result in a net loss of jobs, for people were needed to build tractors, and mine ore, and build trucks and trailers to haul tractor parts, ore, and food.... Etc... Innovation and mechanisation are not to be feared, they end up creating jobs and giving us the potential for more leisure, AND Productivity.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSG Gerhard S. That sounds like the first two minutes of the video, did you get to the part about massive unemployability?
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Admittedly, I didn't watch the video before making my economics statements above. But having now watched the video it is Clear there will be some challenges in the future, but (and I'm not saying at some point the following won't be attainable), machines, and automation are great when they "keep in their lane", the problem is, though bots, can perform complex tasks, they (at least now, and in the foreseeable future) can't coordinate efforts. For example.. the Pharmaceutical machine CAN test loads of pharmaceuticals, but once it comes up with a good one.. does this machine KNOW how to coordinate their acquisition, testing, production, distribution, and proper use? For example, where the raw materials are to be found, how they are to be extracted, harvested, and processed, gotten onto pharmacy shelves, explained the benefits of a particular drugs to a PERSON over all other drugs for this same purpose.
Clearly these leaps CAN create efficiencies, and increase safety, they can, or will, increasingly take over ever more complex tasks, and will be able to out-think, out-process, and out-perform humans in any number of ways. So, there will actually be an increasing number of jobs for humans directing these new automated activities, and YES, prices will come down... hopefully wages deflate along with those falling prices. The price, however will never be zero, as there is still the acquisition of the raw materials, the price of the creativity that went into the hardware, and software, and coordination processes that make such efficiencies possible.
So, the challenge, is not so bleak as it sounds, in fact the "bots" mentioned are actually a great place to start, by being able to take less skilled people, and expounding on their skills by making them user-friendly teaching modules that are not only taught BY humans, but that also teach humans to be valuable players in the coordination of efforts necessary to turn as yet undiscovered raw materials into finished, useful, and valuable products. As to the idea of bringing products into automated production to the degree there is a lack of want (infinite, or near-infinite supply) I would point out that not only are certain resources finite, but also that the human desire or need for the new, the improved, and the more refined, or the more efficient, IS limitless, and therefore imposes it's own limits on the need for over-saturation of any product or service..
It's also important to note that people had to work 12-18 hours a day just to eek by in centuries past. Automation, and horse power have created specialization, and the ability to have time for both leisure, and creativity. The answer, to adapting to greater productivity may not be as simple as suggesting there will be mass unemployment, but rather it could be that doing so could simply create even more time for people to be creative, foster relationships, and live with greater comfort, at less expense.
Great video though that raises a plethora of interesting questions, that though are not likely to be at issue in the near future, likely will become ever more relevant as technology, and productivity continue to increase. Thanks for posting.
Clearly these leaps CAN create efficiencies, and increase safety, they can, or will, increasingly take over ever more complex tasks, and will be able to out-think, out-process, and out-perform humans in any number of ways. So, there will actually be an increasing number of jobs for humans directing these new automated activities, and YES, prices will come down... hopefully wages deflate along with those falling prices. The price, however will never be zero, as there is still the acquisition of the raw materials, the price of the creativity that went into the hardware, and software, and coordination processes that make such efficiencies possible.
So, the challenge, is not so bleak as it sounds, in fact the "bots" mentioned are actually a great place to start, by being able to take less skilled people, and expounding on their skills by making them user-friendly teaching modules that are not only taught BY humans, but that also teach humans to be valuable players in the coordination of efforts necessary to turn as yet undiscovered raw materials into finished, useful, and valuable products. As to the idea of bringing products into automated production to the degree there is a lack of want (infinite, or near-infinite supply) I would point out that not only are certain resources finite, but also that the human desire or need for the new, the improved, and the more refined, or the more efficient, IS limitless, and therefore imposes it's own limits on the need for over-saturation of any product or service..
It's also important to note that people had to work 12-18 hours a day just to eek by in centuries past. Automation, and horse power have created specialization, and the ability to have time for both leisure, and creativity. The answer, to adapting to greater productivity may not be as simple as suggesting there will be mass unemployment, but rather it could be that doing so could simply create even more time for people to be creative, foster relationships, and live with greater comfort, at less expense.
Great video though that raises a plethora of interesting questions, that though are not likely to be at issue in the near future, likely will become ever more relevant as technology, and productivity continue to increase. Thanks for posting.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Very interesting video, I have seen it before, I follow CGP Grey on YouTube. He has quite a bit of interesting videos, especially if you like thought experiments similar to this one. At the end of the video he issues a challenge on how to prepare yourself for the time when your abilities are being threatened by automation and bots. What can you do individually, and we can do collectively to prepare for it.
One of my thoughts on it is that if automation and bots will reduce the cost of things then hopefully the strength of the dollar will increase, without the economy collapsing, because you can now sell domestic products at a lower price than the competition as an export. The reason why the US (and everyone else) buys cheap "Chinese" products.... is well because its cheaper. Why pay $50 for a toaster when you can pay $8, and buy one every 5 years. Many people can't afford, or choose to purchase the cheaper product knowing that it may not last as long as a more expensive one. (which is evident due to amount of purchasing the US does from cheaper foreign companies).
My point that I'm making is that maybe the US can actually take advantage of the bot/automation revolution that is bound to happen by embracing that movement before other countries can, then we can out-produce at a lower cost and/or higher rate than the competition and then the US can thrive off of the increased GDP. Maybe just maybe the US can overtake all the other nations (specifically the ones that we are purchasing from) on exports. We may be able to live, as a country, off of the sales to other countries because our product is cheaper. Imagine being able to bring back automobile production, textile and electronics to America and be the powerhouse of bot production.
I'm not an economic-philanthropist by any stretch of the imagination, just my imagination.
On the automobile auto-driving. In my perspective, there have been two approaches to making transportation more and more automated. From the advent of the automatic transmission to cruise control. After that the innovation was in a ton of sensors that was able to see what you were doing, and if you were doing something wrong it would notify you.... that has progressed into those sensors being able to take action and do something. For example there use to be lane control sensors that would alert you if you crossed the lane lines by blinking a light on the dash, or vibrating the steering wheel or seat or something. Now those sensors will apply brakes to the opposite side wheels which will friction drag the car back into the lane. Also the crash avoidance sensors now will slam on the brakes if it thinks you are going to collide into something. This method is integrating self-driving cars by assimilation.
The other method to integrating self-driving cars into society is through a startup process... from the ground up. This method takes the idea from scratch and then innovates everything to make the end result possible, then releasing the product to the market (society). This avenue has been in progress for years... and it is the most commonly pointed at thing when self-driving cars are the topic.
However less is brought up about the assimilation approach.
One of my thoughts on it is that if automation and bots will reduce the cost of things then hopefully the strength of the dollar will increase, without the economy collapsing, because you can now sell domestic products at a lower price than the competition as an export. The reason why the US (and everyone else) buys cheap "Chinese" products.... is well because its cheaper. Why pay $50 for a toaster when you can pay $8, and buy one every 5 years. Many people can't afford, or choose to purchase the cheaper product knowing that it may not last as long as a more expensive one. (which is evident due to amount of purchasing the US does from cheaper foreign companies).
My point that I'm making is that maybe the US can actually take advantage of the bot/automation revolution that is bound to happen by embracing that movement before other countries can, then we can out-produce at a lower cost and/or higher rate than the competition and then the US can thrive off of the increased GDP. Maybe just maybe the US can overtake all the other nations (specifically the ones that we are purchasing from) on exports. We may be able to live, as a country, off of the sales to other countries because our product is cheaper. Imagine being able to bring back automobile production, textile and electronics to America and be the powerhouse of bot production.
I'm not an economic-philanthropist by any stretch of the imagination, just my imagination.
On the automobile auto-driving. In my perspective, there have been two approaches to making transportation more and more automated. From the advent of the automatic transmission to cruise control. After that the innovation was in a ton of sensors that was able to see what you were doing, and if you were doing something wrong it would notify you.... that has progressed into those sensors being able to take action and do something. For example there use to be lane control sensors that would alert you if you crossed the lane lines by blinking a light on the dash, or vibrating the steering wheel or seat or something. Now those sensors will apply brakes to the opposite side wheels which will friction drag the car back into the lane. Also the crash avoidance sensors now will slam on the brakes if it thinks you are going to collide into something. This method is integrating self-driving cars by assimilation.
The other method to integrating self-driving cars into society is through a startup process... from the ground up. This method takes the idea from scratch and then innovates everything to make the end result possible, then releasing the product to the market (society). This avenue has been in progress for years... and it is the most commonly pointed at thing when self-driving cars are the topic.
However less is brought up about the assimilation approach.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SFC (Join to see) You're right, Tesla Motors shocked everyone when they followed through on their autopilot systems in 2015. Iterative improvement is bringing the tech to market faster than most people expected.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Wouldn't we be able to produce products NOW at lower prices if we didn't have the government imposing a 35% corporate tax on everything we produce, and then regulating to the degree that prices are driven up even higher, and new businesses and technologies aren't even gotten off the ground due to the complexity and cost of doing so? Before we turn to "bots" en masse, we should look to making us more free to engage in creative, and productive endeavors. We do buy from the Chinese because their products are cheaper... but we often overlook the fact that those products are cheaper only because WE shoot ourselves in the foot by making ours more expensive than they need to be.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with automation, or self-driving cars, so long as they're safer, more efficient, and a better value, in the long run than the alternatives.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with automation, or self-driving cars, so long as they're safer, more efficient, and a better value, in the long run than the alternatives.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SSG Gerhard S.
The causes of the great depression were not the result of fallen productive ability, or of limited resources... It was the result of governmental interference in the monetary, system and in our markets, the advent of income taxes, and other progressive Wilsonian market hindrances. Increasing production through automation will not have
the same effects.
the same effects.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSG Gerhard S. The reference to the depression was just to give a percentage unemployment benchmark in recent memory, not to draw parallels between economic causes of said unemployment.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I had to laugh at the idea of Doctor.bots which apparently would be more successful at diagnosing, treating etc., patients Capt Richard I P.. Certainly automation has improved the lives of many but it has also terminated the lives of many in warfare or the hands of thugs.
Computers are deigned by humans. Artificial intelligence is also designed by humans. That is the rub.
The capabilities of automation will always be limited by the capabilities of the designer to I implement the design - technology and supporting capabilities need to be fully matured before implementation can ne achieved and then replicated.
Computers are deigned by humans. Artificial intelligence is also designed by humans. That is the rub.
The capabilities of automation will always be limited by the capabilities of the designer to I implement the design - technology and supporting capabilities need to be fully matured before implementation can ne achieved and then replicated.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
LTC Stephen F. But Watson is already a better diagnostician than any human can possibly be? No doubt there are downsides to the bots, and its possible the economic disruptions is one of the biggest.
I do think this time is different, machine learning and black box computing mean that the capabilities of the bots can already exceed those of their designers.
I do think this time is different, machine learning and black box computing mean that the capabilities of the bots can already exceed those of their designers.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
I have been through three life-threatening surgeries since I was a teenager Capt Richard I P.. Automation assisted in those surgeries but the minds and hands of the doctors and medical staff were the primary causes of my successful surgeries.
I concur with you that one area that might have be useful for robotics is in medical diagnostics for adults who can communicate. This would require advanced artificial intelligence to function. In 1988 I was misdiagnosed with doctors at Fort Benning as having pneumonia and pleurisy. I was having high fevers and low chills and presented multiple other symptoms. In turned out that I had shingles and a prostate infection. A decade later I had pneumonia every winter but that turned out to be associate with mitral valve disease.
The hard part for medical diagnostics is that by the time we are old enough to communicate effectively we already have a lot of symptoms - some o which are minor but others can yield significant information.
Another area is slight variance within humans. My bladder was a centimeter higher than expected. During colon resection surgery my bladder was nicked early in the surgery with a scalpel as they were slicing an exit port to extract the removed colon section.
If there was way to scan the body without significant radiation that would be useful for surgeries in the future. I have been through a lot of scans with and without contrast and I can no longer have an MRI because of temporary pacemaker wires embedded in my heart.
I concur with you that one area that might have be useful for robotics is in medical diagnostics for adults who can communicate. This would require advanced artificial intelligence to function. In 1988 I was misdiagnosed with doctors at Fort Benning as having pneumonia and pleurisy. I was having high fevers and low chills and presented multiple other symptoms. In turned out that I had shingles and a prostate infection. A decade later I had pneumonia every winter but that turned out to be associate with mitral valve disease.
The hard part for medical diagnostics is that by the time we are old enough to communicate effectively we already have a lot of symptoms - some o which are minor but others can yield significant information.
Another area is slight variance within humans. My bladder was a centimeter higher than expected. During colon resection surgery my bladder was nicked early in the surgery with a scalpel as they were slicing an exit port to extract the removed colon section.
If there was way to scan the body without significant radiation that would be useful for surgeries in the future. I have been through a lot of scans with and without contrast and I can no longer have an MRI because of temporary pacemaker wires embedded in my heart.
(1)
(0)
Gayane Badalian-Very MD. Ph.D
There is a point in the presentation.. Some jobs will certainly be lost to tech...
(1)
(0)
Gayane Badalian-Very MD. Ph.D
LTC Stephen F. - Well, Health care industry is immune to some extent due to intensive regulatory requirement by FDA... Even robotic diagnostics are far from implementations if they act independently... Lets remember FDA regulates devices and software not the Medical Professionals...
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
RallyPoint Team or whichever member-admin may have done so: please note that by changing this from an "answer" to a "shared link" the poll function has been removed. Thus the "voting" reference above becomes nonsensical. Also... due to the quirks of feature build-out I now no longer have the ability to edit the post, so nonsensical it shall stay.
Further: this content type also appears to be hidden from searches, so I guess it'll just fade out rather than being an ongoing discussion of a topic that *might* just be a little more important than whichever politician said which words recently or what minor frustration is riling up the folk about policy changes in the armed forces.
Further: this content type also appears to be hidden from searches, so I guess it'll just fade out rather than being an ongoing discussion of a topic that *might* just be a little more important than whichever politician said which words recently or what minor frustration is riling up the folk about policy changes in the armed forces.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google