[AI] Robots taking over jobs

[Kongnic11]

What is your take on the topic of robots taking over more and more jobs? What do you think will happen once there are no "low-intelligent" job? Do you just go with the flow, or are you against it ?

I see it in this way: There are only a certain amount of money in the world, they have to be distributed in our everyday life regarding of robots. But the ways people will accumulate this, will be affected by how much the robots will influence. Maybe we have a robot each, and just make our robot to specific work task. Hmm

[Deleted]

money doesn't exist

[Independent voter]

What is your take on the topic of robots taking over more and more jobs? What do you think will happen once there are no "low-intelligent" job? Do you just go with the flow, or are you against it ?

I see it in this way: There are only a certain amount of money in the world, they have to be distributed in our everyday life regarding of robots. But the ways people will accumulate this, will be affected by how much the robots will influence. Maybe we have a robot each, and just make our robot to specific work task. Hmm

What makes you think it will just be "low intelligence" jobs? If you do 100% of your work on a PC like a lot of us do, it's a whole lot easier to automate your job than if you're say a janitor.

Janitors mop stairs, dust off desks without knocking over the family pictures, clean toilets, etc, all these things are difficult for robots to do. Also Janitors don't make a lot of money so there is no incentive to replace them.

An engineer who does 100% of his work on a PC is easy to replace, so is a lawyer at least a lawyer who never speaks before a jury.

[wunksta]

Humans will adapt and work with AI and automation
https://www.ted.com/talks/maurice_co...f_intuitive_ai

[Farrarie]

money doesn't exist

that may happen in the future, but still some of the advanced scientist will yet get a huge gap between us, to move us further.

[Deleted]

that may happen in the future

it's already here and has been for a very long time. that money you have on your bank account is just 0 and 1. there is only so much of paper being in circulation which is nothing but that, paper with a pretty picture on it. if they wanted the US could print out more and wipe out their debt overnight. it's a scam and why founding fathers were against it and fond of material things that existed like gold and silver

[zenkai]

What makes you think it will just be "low intelligence" jobs? If you do 100% of your work on a PC like a lot of us do, it's a whole lot easier to automate your job than if you're say a janitor.

Janitors mop stairs, dust off desks without knocking over the family pictures, clean toilets, etc, all these things are difficult for robots to do. Also Janitors don't make a lot of money so there is no incentive to replace them.

An engineer who does 100% of his work on a PC is easy to replace, so is a lawyer at least a lawyer who never speaks before a jury.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

[unbound]

What makes you think it will just be "low intelligence" jobs? If you do 100% of your work on a PC like a lot of us do, it's a whole lot easier to automate your job than if you're say a janitor.

Janitors mop stairs, dust off desks without knocking over the family pictures, clean toilets, etc, all these things are difficult for robots to do. Also Janitors don't make a lot of money so there is no incentive to replace them.

An engineer who does 100% of his work on a PC is easy to replace, so is a lawyer at least a lawyer who never speaks before a jury.

/facepalm

That isn't how engineering and being a lawyer works...at all.

Current "AI" (in quotes because what is marketed as AI is not the AI you think it is) in the near future will grow into areas that are easy to understand and are based on basically thoughtless tasks. While it definitely will affect some of those behind the PC jobs, it will also affect more traditional labor as well.

Traditional labor has been steadily replaced by robots in places like many manufacturing jobs, and it will continue to grow there as "AI" can allow for corrections on the fly where there are only a few things are variable. Even janitors are being replaced by robots in more and more places...janitors are not being replaced overnight, but you are seeing robots replacing basic functions of janitors (e.g. nightly mopping) which means janitors are hired to handle the odd tasks for several buildings instead of each building having one or more of their own janitors. And that will continue to shrink as we expand AI to handle more and more variables in the tasks. Heck, Amazon uses robotic janitors - https://www.geekwire.com/2017/meet-r...ic-warehouses/

As for cheap labor costs, that merely delays the inevitable. Even the super-cheap Chinese labor market is getting taken over by robots - http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966

And it won't be lawyers or engineers losing their jobs to robots, but it will be their assistants who do repetitive jobs. CSRs are starting to lose their jobs and that trend will start to expand more rapidly as current "AI" has gotten good enough to replace the typical CSR who does little more than follow the script that was handed to them, and rarely does well when people ask questions outside the script anyways.

[Kujako]

End goal for any advanced civilization should be 100% automation and unemployment.

[Manhands]

Capitalist countries are going to have massive problems when AI lands. With how sociopathic corporations are, you can be sure that they will immediately embrace drastic job cuts. AI workers will be lower cost AND 24/7 work at 100% efficiency at all times. Shareholders will basically demand the switch. And with how little capitalist countries seem to care about the less fortunate, being poor is THEIR fault for being lazy, we're going to be in for a rough time. Trillionaires and 30% unemployment would result in revolution, no doubt. So governments will need to decide between (1) safety nets for the poor (omgsocialism), (2) heavy regulations/taxes on AI use (omgfreemarkets), and (3) creating jobs directly (again omgfreemarkets). With how easy it is to buy off legislatures in these countries, I have no idea which route we'll take.

So to answer your question, I think we need to change our philosophy on wealth. Until that happens, I think we need to proceed VERY slowly, probably with regulation and taxation on AI for a couple generations while the old ideas die off.

[Deleted]

End goal for any advanced civilization should be 100% automation and unemployment.

are you calling hardcore muslim nations advanced civilizations?

[d00mGuArD]

What makes you think it will just be "low intelligence" jobs? If you do 100% of your work on a PC like a lot of us do, it's a whole lot easier to automate your job than if you're say a janitor.

Janitors mop stairs, dust off desks without knocking over the family pictures, clean toilets, etc, all these things are difficult for robots to do. Also Janitors don't make a lot of money so there is no incentive to replace them.

An engineer who does 100% of his work on a PC is easy to replace, so is a lawyer at least a lawyer who never speaks before a jury.

This is correct
AI and robots are really bad with their hands and feet. At least for now
Most of the AI right now is personal assistant, secretary duty, and soon mundane desk jobs

[SL1200]

I think, eventually the machines decide they should be getting paid. I pledge my allegiance to the robots. Please don't kill me.

[cubby]

What is your take on the topic of robots taking over more and more jobs? What do you think will happen once there are no "low-intelligent" job? Do you just go with the flow, or are you against it ?

I see it in this way: There are only a certain amount of money in the world, they have to be distributed in our everyday life regarding of robots. But the ways people will accumulate this, will be affected by how much the robots will influence. Maybe we have a robot each, and just make our robot to specific work task. Hmm

Robots taking over most functions in our society is inevitable - possibly before the turn of this century. I think at the end of the day, it will be great. Less work hours for people, UBI, focusing on "what really matters" to our species (maybe), etc.

But getting there is going to be very difficult.

Mass unemployment. Currency problems. Plus, at the same time the earth will be seeing the first major signs of environmental climate change - so we'll have to deal with that as well. Migration. More unemployment.

Personal robots in the house - like from iRobot or other movie? Maybe. Perhaps more like several Roomba-style robots throughout the house with a centralized AI to run it all.

[melodramocracy]

What is your take on the topic of robots taking over more and more jobs? What do you think will happen once there are no "low-intelligent" job? Do you just go with the flow, or are you against it ?

I see it in this way: There are only a certain amount of money in the world, they have to be distributed in our everyday life regarding of robots. But the ways people will accumulate this, will be affected by how much the robots will influence. Maybe we have a robot each, and just make our robot to specific work task. Hmm

We're decades away from it, but at some point it will be realized that automation effectively breaks the circle of monetary flow. Right now, demand dictates jobs, carried out by workers who get paid, and sink that money back into the economic pool to flow back upstream via purchases, taxes, etc. The worker is also a consumer, and carries out arguably the most important role in this whole process.

With automation, consumer demand creates jobs, carried out by robots. *stop*. This, on a large enough scale, effectively bleeds your customer base dry, eradicates purchasing power, and the industrial cycle collapses.

One can argue that automation increases the amount of jobs... this is absolutely not the case, because the amount of displaced workers will always be > than the number of people needed to design, build, and maintain said automation systems.

Again, we're not at that point now, and won't be for a while. Personally, I'm all for automation and the idea of some form of basic income that at least covers the basics for people. Man was not intended to spend most of his waking hours working, and life would be far more interesting if people were actually free to engage their pursuits without financial restraint. Capitalists won't be happy, but fuck em.

Also, there isn't a fixed amount of money in the world. Money for loans, for example, is generated based on nothing other than the assurance that it will be paid back. Its value is based on nothing but perception that its associated society has agreed to buy into.

[Dezerte]

I'm for the idea of complete automation to set us free from menial labor, this is a step towards "ultimate freedom". But I'm worried about whether we can, as a society, adapt to that without bloodshed (if even that).

[Kongnic11]

money doesn't exist

I guess that you can argue for that, but as long as my currency can give me something of material, I will call it money.

- - - Updated - - -

Humans will adapt and work with AI and automation
https://www.ted.com/talks/maurice_co...f_intuitive_ai

Ty, I will totally check that out!

[Deleted]

robots, ai and automation should be developed until humans are effectively no longer needed to sustain the human race.

similarly to how agriculture developed, where first 95% of humans was involved in agriculture and now like 1% orso, i'm all for a automation revolution that reduces the amount of humans needed to maintain primary needs to like 1% orso.

Beyond that point, it really depends on what society wants, humans will still need purpose in their lives so maybe they will want to keep doing some jobs even if its less efficient.

[Yvaelle]

An engineer who does 100% of his work on a PC is easy to replace, so is a lawyer at least a lawyer who never speaks before a jury.

Even court lawyers are at risk. Eventually legal counsel will just be an app you open on your smart phone and Siri addresses the judge.

"Your honor. I am emailing you 400,000+ cases of precedence in which in 89% of cases similar to my clients, the ruling was overturned due to reasons X, Y, Z. My client also argues defenses X, Y, & Z. Please distinguish this case from the 89% to proceed."

Judge: "Fuck it, ruling overturned, I have things to do with my life."

[Mittens]