Sure jobs are going to disappear, but with each new generation of technology new jobs are created. My job as a web developer didn't exist 30 years ago, and who knows, it might not exist any more 30 years from now. Labor markets evolve as technologies evolve, we just have to teach our children to be adaptable. As far as retail/service jobs go, I think enough people value human communication that we're not going to see a total robot takeover in these areas. People are going to want to go to 'premium' places that employ humans just like people are willing to pay extra for organic groceries.
Also I have to believe that there is a "robot critical mass" that will top out fairly quickly.
Robots are expensive, to be able to afford them you need to have customers that can afford to buy them.
They will only be able to afford them if they have enough work to earn the money to buy them.... I just dont forsee the "jobs apocalypse" that the dog whistlers seem to fear.
Robots have high capital costs, but are cheaper than workers in the US. A single robot is roughly equal to 3 workers since it can operate 24/7 and even if your humans only cost $5/hr, 3 humans would cost you $30k/yr before you even get to health insurance or payroll taxes. God forbid you have workers in Seattle, SF, NYC, etc where you would triple that number again.
Also, some companies (Knightscope comes to mind) lease their robots at hourly rates, so the companies replacing workers don't even need to have the capital themselves.
I see no data to support such a 'disruption'. On a related note why is everywhere i look it's people freaking out over AI. Even the title of the article is telling me to start worrying.
It seems to bizarre to me that of all the potential problems with AI, people seem to focus on employment. Like seriously, if we create AI good enough to displace a majority of humans from employment, I feel like we may have other things to worry about.
You are probably talking about something else, but the worrying should be about wealth distribution after the robots (eventually) take over. No more 'normal' employment can and should be seen as a positive for humanity but not if the production is owned by a handful of people. To me that seems more dangerous than the chance of Terminators roaming the streets.
In a post-scarcity environment where robots do essentially all the work, thus the marginal cost of goods approaches 0, the point of money will be as a signalling mechanism (more iPhones and t-shorts, please; less Kale and paperclips, please) rather than as a reservoir of wealth.
It's not at all clear to me what some weenies will try to use to signify wealth and status, but it need not be money.
There is a difference between the world that has no jobs for people not in a handful of professions because they have each been replaced by different, specialized AI/machinery and not yet human level general AI. The not yet human level general AI will become human and then post human level very, very quickly and, so long as it is friendly, humanity wins all the things.
The danger will be in the journey from the state you describe to the end goal - once we are there feeding people will be no issue and everyone will be obsolete anyway.
We are reaching a tipping point in society. The issue of the "unemployable" class is becoming an issue now. What do we do when someone is not skilled enough to do complex jobs but no one will pay them (when much cheaper machine options are available) to do the simple jobs? We have two options as I see it:
1) Provide a government safety net for those who can not find employment.
or
2) Forget about them, dissolve safety nets and enrich only the upper echelon of society.
I went to such a school. Organizations really should focus on hiring non-compliant workers (or at least not filtering them out) as they will drive the organization forward.
This is a popular response whenever the topic of education is brought up...I hate to trot out the now-hackneyed term "privilege"....but really.
Very few people in society have the privilege of treating education as a route to becoming cultured. The storied universities you cherish were built by the rich for the rich, it is only recently that we have determined that the masses desperately need a grounding in romantic literature. Is it important to you that your accountant know Chaucer? Does your favorite artist really need to know chemistry?
In the end you have to feed yourself. I don't want to be responsible for feeding you and you don't want to be responsible for feeding me. If that means you learn something applied that is only useful for ten years and requires you to learn something else useful in the next ten years, so be it.
As it stands, why do people put such an emphasis on what someone studies as an undergraduate? Personally, I love reading history...read dozens of dense history books a year, and consider myself a decent self-taught historian. My degree is not in history. Why does it need to be?
Note that I am a IS staff worker so my perspective is limited but I also have a recent grad from my school in my family with my oldest daughter.
So some of what I speak of is personal and up close.
I work at a liberal arts university and hear this from faculty: "We don't care about skills, we care about the ability to learn". The problem is that today's learners need to be super learners. They need the ability to do divergent thinking, then need to work collaboratively in teams. Working this way is a skill. They need to be able to solve a wide body of problems safely where failure does not impact grades.
But they don't encourage this sort of learning. And don't even mention the "skill" word which is considered evil. I hear the 500 year old liberal arts model woks just fine.
While our business school quietly is working on these skills and the students are finding great jobs and starting businesses successfully and more all while the liberal arts side is ignoring the future.
The biggest problem I see with higher education right now is that they aren't doing any of the above--they talk big about being open to all viewpoints and ideas. In reality, there is only one set of "acceptable" viewpoints, one set of ideas. It's an echo chamber lacking diversity of thought and lacking in self-reflection. Indoctrination is closer to what exists. While I have no hatred for Liberal Arts at all, it's a self-perpetuating system that is perplexing. For one simple example: I constantly run into marketing people who majored in English but who can't write!
Teaching taught me that the number of students who want to learn how to learn and think is small, but the number of such people who congregate on sites like Slashdot (and now Hacker News) is quite large.
Schools will worry when their funding sources are at risk, and we're (realistically) so far from that world that I doubt any of the powers that be in schools give a damn.
Civics and Ethics (and probably personal financial education) should be mandatory as part of the school curriculum from around 12 years of age and onwards.
Many years ago I read "An underground history of American Education", written by a retired two times New York teacher of the year, which argues that the US system (and really most of the education systems in the West) are based on the system Prussia developed to create their army and the entire goal is to create compliant soldiers, workers and consumers.
The book did sound a little conspiracy theorish, but on the whole it was rather interesting and well there is an entire unschooling movement exactly trying to undo/avoid the damages of the school system.
On a personal basis I didn't get my love of reading, computers or math from school, and mostly it was a waste of time. Did learn the official way to touch type though, so there is that.
These type of articles always come with stark warnings that in the future many people won’t have jobs, however if you compare today’s technology versus the 60s and 70s, the data would tend to disagree.
In the US the unemployment rate is now at it’s lowest point for 15 years, and if it continues to drop like this will be at the lowest for half a century. What’s going on here, is it just the criteria for unemployment has changed?
Unemployment only measures people looking for work. So anyone who is retired (we have an aging population) or who has given up looking (for lack of skills, drug conviction, drug addiction, etc) also don't count. A more interesting graph is labor force participation.
But when so much of the change in labor force participation rate is so easily tracked to aging, why would you make inferences about automation based on that?
I wonder if the presence of automated everything, be it through software or AI or robots is going to be a long cycle self titrating process. If we automate too much, there will be less money in people's hands to buy goods and services and so less demand. The problem with this is that the lag time to seeing this effect is high. Then many people will be impacted.
27 comments
[ 15.5 ms ] story [ 521 ms ] threadRobots are expensive, to be able to afford them you need to have customers that can afford to buy them. They will only be able to afford them if they have enough work to earn the money to buy them.... I just dont forsee the "jobs apocalypse" that the dog whistlers seem to fear.
It's not at all clear to me what some weenies will try to use to signify wealth and status, but it need not be money.
The danger will be in the journey from the state you describe to the end goal - once we are there feeding people will be no issue and everyone will be obsolete anyway.
1) Provide a government safety net for those who can not find employment.
or
2) Forget about them, dissolve safety nets and enrich only the upper echelon of society.
We're currently on the fast track to #2..
History, art, music, mathematics, science, literature... you know, an education, not training.
Very few people in society have the privilege of treating education as a route to becoming cultured. The storied universities you cherish were built by the rich for the rich, it is only recently that we have determined that the masses desperately need a grounding in romantic literature. Is it important to you that your accountant know Chaucer? Does your favorite artist really need to know chemistry?
In the end you have to feed yourself. I don't want to be responsible for feeding you and you don't want to be responsible for feeding me. If that means you learn something applied that is only useful for ten years and requires you to learn something else useful in the next ten years, so be it.
As it stands, why do people put such an emphasis on what someone studies as an undergraduate? Personally, I love reading history...read dozens of dense history books a year, and consider myself a decent self-taught historian. My degree is not in history. Why does it need to be?
So some of what I speak of is personal and up close.
I work at a liberal arts university and hear this from faculty: "We don't care about skills, we care about the ability to learn". The problem is that today's learners need to be super learners. They need the ability to do divergent thinking, then need to work collaboratively in teams. Working this way is a skill. They need to be able to solve a wide body of problems safely where failure does not impact grades.
https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_pa...
But they don't encourage this sort of learning. And don't even mention the "skill" word which is considered evil. I hear the 500 year old liberal arts model woks just fine.
While our business school quietly is working on these skills and the students are finding great jobs and starting businesses successfully and more all while the liberal arts side is ignoring the future.
The whole Willingham book is excellent.
Teaching taught me that the number of students who want to learn how to learn and think is small, but the number of such people who congregate on sites like Slashdot (and now Hacker News) is quite large.
Schools will worry when their funding sources are at risk, and we're (realistically) so far from that world that I doubt any of the powers that be in schools give a damn.
That would upset the policy makers and their paymasters.
The book did sound a little conspiracy theorish, but on the whole it was rather interesting and well there is an entire unschooling movement exactly trying to undo/avoid the damages of the school system.
On a personal basis I didn't get my love of reading, computers or math from school, and mostly it was a waste of time. Did learn the official way to touch type though, so there is that.
In the US the unemployment rate is now at it’s lowest point for 15 years, and if it continues to drop like this will be at the lowest for half a century. What’s going on here, is it just the criteria for unemployment has changed?
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate