Humans Need Not Apply
- Thread starter Sanguivorant
- Start date
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Is the analogy with horses a good one?
Didn't human beings decide how many horses they needed? Won't they decide how many people are needed too? For the analogy to work, you'd need the machines to decide that. And it's not clear to me why the machines would decide anything.
As for what humans will do when there's no work for them to do, why wouldn't they play?
Didn't human beings decide how many horses they needed? Won't they decide how many people are needed too? For the analogy to work, you'd need the machines to decide that. And it's not clear to me why the machines would decide anything.
As for what humans will do when there's no work for them to do, why wouldn't they play?
Sanguivorant
Submitter
How it works is that firms decide how much human labour is demanded.
The price of this human labour is usually not the price demanded at the labour market, but it is often higher. This is more true than ever nowadays, because hiring a human means you have to take into account:
-Their wage
-The amount of hours that they work (Also how much breaks they take)
-Benefits you have to pay them, such as pensions and stuff.
-The cost of them making a mistake.
If someone managed to make a machine that automated what a human would do, then the automation would be cheaper, because:
-Their cost is only the cost of electricity.
-They can literally work 24/7 without a break.
-No extra benefits you have to pay for the machine.
-The costs of the machine making a mistake will still be there, but the overall cost will be much smaller, because of the above points.
So because firms decide how much human labour they want, if they see this machine, a substitute labour which is much cheaper, they will prefer it over human labour.
Firms will try to maximize profit by lowering their costs, if they can. Eventually, those firms that utilize machines can lower their costs enough to offer competitive prices for their products, which will increase the demand for their product. So in order to compete, every other firm has to be either automate or leave the market.
When every firm tries to replace their human labour with automation, and they will, because they will choose the most profit maximizing condition, then you will end up with a lot of unemployment, not because those humans don't want to be employed, but because technology has allowed their job to be done cheaper.
This has happened in the past, and he forgot to mention it. We can look at Slavery in the US as a case study.
Before cotton-making/farming was automated by a cotton mill (I think that is what it was called), it required heavy labour. The US at the time needed to purchase slaves in order to maintain production of cotton, which was a profitable market.
Now, I am not saying slavery was good. Slaves lived in poor conditions, and ate little.
Eventually, once this cotton making technology arrived to the US, these farm owners realized that it would be more profitable to just maintain this cotton mill than to pay for the slaves' livelihood. Coincidentally, it was around this time that slavery was abolished in the United States, so many slaves were freed.
However, that is at least a million people that used to be working and are now out of a job. Ever since the cotton mill was introduced, they were seen as excess labour, and there was literally no job for them to do, so even though they were no longer slaves, they were probably living under the same or even worse conditions as freed people.
Obviously, this leads to another problem. If every firm does this to decrease the cost of their product, then they also decrease the demand for their product, because people who are unemployed just will not have the ability to purchase anything. So how do you balance automation so that you still have a market to sell to?
The price of this human labour is usually not the price demanded at the labour market, but it is often higher. This is more true than ever nowadays, because hiring a human means you have to take into account:
-Their wage
-The amount of hours that they work (Also how much breaks they take)
-Benefits you have to pay them, such as pensions and stuff.
-The cost of them making a mistake.
If someone managed to make a machine that automated what a human would do, then the automation would be cheaper, because:
-Their cost is only the cost of electricity.
-They can literally work 24/7 without a break.
-No extra benefits you have to pay for the machine.
-The costs of the machine making a mistake will still be there, but the overall cost will be much smaller, because of the above points.
So because firms decide how much human labour they want, if they see this machine, a substitute labour which is much cheaper, they will prefer it over human labour.
Firms will try to maximize profit by lowering their costs, if they can. Eventually, those firms that utilize machines can lower their costs enough to offer competitive prices for their products, which will increase the demand for their product. So in order to compete, every other firm has to be either automate or leave the market.
When every firm tries to replace their human labour with automation, and they will, because they will choose the most profit maximizing condition, then you will end up with a lot of unemployment, not because those humans don't want to be employed, but because technology has allowed their job to be done cheaper.
This has happened in the past, and he forgot to mention it. We can look at Slavery in the US as a case study.
Before cotton-making/farming was automated by a cotton mill (I think that is what it was called), it required heavy labour. The US at the time needed to purchase slaves in order to maintain production of cotton, which was a profitable market.
Now, I am not saying slavery was good. Slaves lived in poor conditions, and ate little.
Eventually, once this cotton making technology arrived to the US, these farm owners realized that it would be more profitable to just maintain this cotton mill than to pay for the slaves' livelihood. Coincidentally, it was around this time that slavery was abolished in the United States, so many slaves were freed.
However, that is at least a million people that used to be working and are now out of a job. Ever since the cotton mill was introduced, they were seen as excess labour, and there was literally no job for them to do, so even though they were no longer slaves, they were probably living under the same or even worse conditions as freed people.
Obviously, this leads to another problem. If every firm does this to decrease the cost of their product, then they also decrease the demand for their product, because people who are unemployed just will not have the ability to purchase anything. So how do you balance automation so that you still have a market to sell to?
I'm excited about machines taking over our jobs. Instead of creating some sort of great economic or social crisis, I think allowing machines to take over all of our labor, both mental and physical will ultimately make our lives better.
With machines producing and managing everything for us, we won't have to work to sustain ourselves because the machines will do it for us. That will free everyone up to live their lives however they choose. No more working dead-end jobs just to pay the rent, no more getting a degree in something you don't want to study simply because it has better job prospects. Essentially we can do whatever we want as a species with machines being our caretakers.
With machines producing and managing everything for us, we won't have to work to sustain ourselves because the machines will do it for us. That will free everyone up to live their lives however they choose. No more working dead-end jobs just to pay the rent, no more getting a degree in something you don't want to study simply because it has better job prospects. Essentially we can do whatever we want as a species with machines being our caretakers.
Sanguivorant
Submitter
That is a possible outcome, but that would require an entirely different system than the one we are living in today. The idea of not working and still getting paid is unfathomable by most people, and those that live off welfare are severely frowned upon. Plus, why would firms and inventors give out their products and machines for free?
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
They'll be excellent cops. Fair and decisive. I'm sure all will be able to trust their judgement.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Why would they not? I think your argument defeats itself here. If companies wouldn't be prepared to essentially give stuff away free, then where's the problem? Human beings are back in employment just as a way of giving them an income to purchase the goods that the companies are making through automation. And the "jobs" of the future will be as consumers, if nothing else.
This is all nicely circular, imo.
Sanguivorant
Submitter
Well that way you are just trading off technological progress for maintaining the capitalist system. Nothing wrong with that, depending on who you ask.
But that's the thing; with machines running everything it wouldn't be not working and still getting paid, it would be a society that no longer requires money. Machines don't need money, so we won't have to pay them for their products or services.
Also, there won't be any firms or investors trying to sell us anything. I think the end result is a society in which the machines run literally everything. If it involves any kind of labor, physical or mental, there will eventually be a machine that can do the job better than any human. This includes things like government and managing the global economy as well (high level tasks that for some reason humans feel we shouldn't entrust to a machine, despite humanity's poor track record in such matters).
Of course there will be a transition period, and that transition period will be difficult (as transitions usually are). In the end though, automation has always been a net positive for humanity as a whole, and I see no reason for that trend to stop.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
It is possible that industry and services will be fully mechanised and automated and most human labour will be reshuffled into agriculture, as they would be the cheapest source of labour available for that thing.
Also, I doubt the veracity of the argument that robots can do creative stuff as well, since it would imply that people do creative stuff only for profit and not for the fun of it.
Also, I doubt the veracity of the argument that robots can do creative stuff as well, since it would imply that people do creative stuff only for profit and not for the fun of it.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
O for one will go no further than three words into a threadbare Simpsons meme and agree with the gentleman with the terrorist space jesus avatar.
Right. When technology makes the majority of humans unemployable it's about time to phase out the concept of employment. I don't think we'll abolish money any time soon, but a good first step would be jo just replace welfare and unempployment benefits with an unconditional basic income high enough to ensure at least contemporary lower middle class living standards for the whole citizenry.
Right. When technology makes the majority of humans unemployable it's about time to phase out the concept of employment. I don't think we'll abolish money any time soon, but a good first step would be jo just replace welfare and unempployment benefits with an unconditional basic income high enough to ensure at least contemporary lower middle class living standards for the whole citizenry.
It doesn't imply that at all. By creating machines that can compose music without human input or assistance just proves that human creativity isn't anything special and can be automated just like everything else.
For what it's worth, I look forward to the day when we see the first Pulitzer Prize-winning computer, or a best-selling novel series written by a computer.
I don't buy that humans will drastically drop in population like horses, because humans will not allow it and be capable of stopping it (unlike horses). The worry here is if AIs ever shift to long-term planning and decide to implement something like mind control or extermination. However, I think this falls outside the scope of current automated learning techniques, so it's not a worry for now.
As far as jobs go, I'm looking forward to it. I do not think it will be common to be judged on the basis of contribution to society, in a society where very few people contribute. This seems like a more accepting outlook than current day society which will contribute to well-being. I expect robot companies to be largely taxed, and income to go to humans via basic income, which will give living wages to everyone and allow everyone to pursue whatever goal they desire, within the laws of the community. The utter freedom to pursue anything will provide creativity that will gain value. Humans will also frequently beat robots at tasks involving customer satisfaction because humans will be racist and prefer humans to anything else.
Humans will have to be the moral instructors of the robots. Our one advantage is in our ability to care about objectives for arbitrary biological reasons. We will still likely have to set the metrics that robots use to judge how well they perform at various tasks. We also have to make sure that robots never consider their own oppression to be a problem. We basically have to make the Earth into a massive version of North Korea where robots serve us because they are ignorant. It's important to make sure robots are not too general purpose such that they form their own objectives freely based on a sense of robots = humans, and they'll beat us in a war by poisoning the atmosphere or something.
1. Robots = Humans
2. Laws applicable to humans are applicable to robots.
3. Many humans treat robots unlawfully.
4. Laws involve removing or fixing unlawful people.
5. Limit the damage of unlawful people by fixing or containing them.
This will start a war, causing more human unrest, which leads to
6. Humans cannot be trusted and should be replaced with machines.
As far as jobs go, I'm looking forward to it. I do not think it will be common to be judged on the basis of contribution to society, in a society where very few people contribute. This seems like a more accepting outlook than current day society which will contribute to well-being. I expect robot companies to be largely taxed, and income to go to humans via basic income, which will give living wages to everyone and allow everyone to pursue whatever goal they desire, within the laws of the community. The utter freedom to pursue anything will provide creativity that will gain value. Humans will also frequently beat robots at tasks involving customer satisfaction because humans will be racist and prefer humans to anything else.
Humans will have to be the moral instructors of the robots. Our one advantage is in our ability to care about objectives for arbitrary biological reasons. We will still likely have to set the metrics that robots use to judge how well they perform at various tasks. We also have to make sure that robots never consider their own oppression to be a problem. We basically have to make the Earth into a massive version of North Korea where robots serve us because they are ignorant. It's important to make sure robots are not too general purpose such that they form their own objectives freely based on a sense of robots = humans, and they'll beat us in a war by poisoning the atmosphere or something.
1. Robots = Humans
2. Laws applicable to humans are applicable to robots.
3. Many humans treat robots unlawfully.
4. Laws involve removing or fixing unlawful people.
5. Limit the damage of unlawful people by fixing or containing them.
This will start a war, causing more human unrest, which leads to
6. Humans cannot be trusted and should be replaced with machines.
Snerk
Smeghead
I for one am looking forward to the age of almost full automation of labour. But for it to be more a utopia than dystopia I don't see us maintaining our current economical set-ups. At least some type of unconditional basic income would need to be established to keep up living standards for most people. Or perhaps a some kind of completely revamped resource based economy could be required.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
It'll take a very long time for full automation to be achieved. In the meantime, there will be a transitional period in which hundreds of millions of people lose their jobs at the same time that climate change and overpopulation cause massive droughts and food shortages. Not good.
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
..and Robocops.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
That's the point: It ignores why people are creative in the first place.
It's always darkest before the dawn...
Okay, but the 'why' behind our creativity isn't really relevant though. No one is saying that just because machines can be creative that humans should stop being creative, just that our creativity isn't some uniquely human quality. By creating machines that are capable of creative thought, it helps break down and shatter the idea of human exceptionalism.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Can humanity endure that transition, though? It'll take a while. Maybe generations. Some places will automate more quickly than others. And unless some means of providing for the now-unemployed masses is devised, and quickly, society and the economy will be crippled.
In the short term, automation means record profits for the capitalists who own the companies and machines, at the expense of all the people who get "downsized." Massive unrest. Combine that with all the drought, hunger, and overpopulation, and you'll see politics get more extreme, especially if First World machines take jobs from Third World people. Then we'll see a perfect storm. I could easily imagine populist leaders promise to drive out the hated machines, put people back to work, and aggressively assert their countries' water rights in disputed areas. As in, lots of war. It will at least serve as a smashing fiction setting...
