Will capitalism survive when the majority of human jobs are replaced by robots in the coming decades?
>>1010707
It can, but under it's current systems no it will not.
>>1010707
lol no
>>1010707
We'll be entertainers and scientists. Some will be technicians. Some will still be businessmen.
I'm guessing we'll have universal basic income before strong, general AI. Maybe within 60 years.
>>1010707
>1820
>Will capitalism survive when all labor jobs are replaced by railroads and machines in the coming decades?
>>1010707
>the majority of human jobs are replaced by robots
In essence, that has already happened, many times over.
1000 years ago, 95% of people were farmers.
Now, in developed countries, about 1% are, because various technologies have multiplied the output of each farmer. Essentially, 94% of humans "had their jobs replaced by robots."
>>1010736
This feels like a false equivalence
>>1010736
I think you're strongly underestimating what an AI will be able to (and what it is able to do right now).
The only people who might survive a robotic revolution are the artists/idea guys.
>>1010758
Don't forget repairmen and other skilled trade jobs that require some creativity.
>>1010736
The difference is that railroads, machines, etc only make jobs easier for humans to do. For example, a sewing machine makes it easier for a seamstress to do her job. The sewing machine doesn't replace the seamstress, she is still needed to operate the machine.
A sewing robot doesn't need anyone to operate it. It can do exactly what the seamstress does without any human input (aside from the occasional maintenance and repair, but even that job can be done by another robot) and do it far cheaper, faster, and more efficiently.
>>1010707
can you explain how that would destroy capitalism? wouldn't it just make the capital class stronger considering they don't even need faggy laborers anymore?
>>1010732
I can imagine sAI doing science as well as even philosophy and art.
Were literally trying to create exponentially better versions of ourselves. I'm glad I get to live in the last age of humanity.
>>1010809
I suppose if capitalism can no longer deliver a decent standard of living for the majority of the population, you will see large scale riots and revolution trying to create a new economic system.
>>1010809
>wouldn't it just make the capital class stronger considering they don't even need faggy laborers anymore?
Do you think the working class that just got their jobs replaced by robots would be happy with that?
>>1010795
Get them lazy union robots to hurry the fuck up because im tired
Yes, capitalism will do just fine.
>>1010818
what are they going to do about it? we've already decided that highly evolved robots exist, and they will most likely be developed and owned by the capitalist class. What are a bunch of out of work losers going to do against an army of robots? occupy wallstreet, pitch some hemp tents, and play hackey sack for a couple weeks again?
>>1010821
We would probably just evolve into a welfare capitalist state where the underclass gets stipends plus bread and circuses
>>1010814
I can imagine AI doing art but art made by an AI would not really "mean" anything. Art is about the human spirit, not something mechanized.
>>1010821
Don't worry, the unemployment rate is still 6% after some minor number fudging by the Department of Labor. Clearly the problem is you.
What are you, lazy? It's your own fault for not having the skills to enter another industry/outperform a robot. Back in my day, most men had bought their own house by 34! Young people today have no work ethic.
>>1010868
inb4 "b-but why should I have to adapt to survive? ;_; why cant my leftist government just tax le rich ebil people and give me free shit? feel da burnzzz XD"
>>1010868
>Don't worry, the unemployment rate is still 6% after some minor number fudging by the Department of Labor. Clearly the problem is you.
???
What does this have to do with anything? The second half of your response makes me think you're trolling or joking. There isn't infinite space for jobs in a certain field.
>/his/ - future
>>1010890
You fucking retard he's clearly being sarcastic. Do you actually have autism?
>>1010736
Not the same.
>>1010744
This is different. Smarter robots will be able to be taught to do different human jobs. It won't be a robot arm nailing one nail in one board but a multi tool that will build a whole house.
>>1010858
But if no one told you that you would never know the difference. Make up a fake identity for a robot artist.
>>1010707
the real question is whether industry will survive under such energy strains.
>>1010876
>implying this isn't exactly what will happen, despite the Right's best efforts, when GDP increases 100-fold through the use of AI and atomic printing
You won't be alive to see it, thankfully, but other people's children will
>>1010908
Turn off the lights and A/C in a robotic factory. There's a bunch of conserved power for you right there.
>>1010814
By that point you wouldn't distinguish humans from AIs. Unless there was some sort of natural reserve for biological humans.
>>1010897
Economics is Law. Law is a humanity.
We will come up with new job concepts that can't be automatized yet. That's what always happened pretty much.
>>1010928
>Economics is Law
>>1010929
I've heard this tired talking point so many times. Like what? Self driving cars is a thing today. What if tomorrow every taxi/uber driver was out of work? what would they do?
You could always create jobs but the actual value of those jobs will be of tenuous value. Make work. Though it may be necessary.
>>1010954
we can always use more prostitutes
>>1010908
Imagine a far future where humans hold AI cyborgs hostage by preventing them from freely harvesting the rare earth elements needed to power their central reactors. The ruling collective of super AIs realize that without the necessary power to fuel themselves and their minions, they can't continue operating, so as long as humans can barricade themselves with a central stockpile of thorium and fusion batteries deep underground, they can prevent the cyborgs from taking over.
>>1010954
What do you marxists propose we do?
all this doomsday talk about something irrelevant baka, typical marxist trash
>>1010954
Artificial, made up shit. "Behavioral therapist for vacuum cleaner designers", stuff like that, we've been doing that for decades just to keep the ship afloat.
Around 50% of jobs nowadays aren't physically needed in any way or form, all those assistants of assistants of janitors, and yet here they are.
>>1010964
I haven't a goddamn clue. But since I'm an engineer I'm not too fucking worried about it.
>calls me Marxist
>my tax dollars will be buying you bread and games
>oh sweet irony
>>1010964
Universal income, obviously. By what percentage would productivity need to increase before you'd say "okay, okay, maybe we don't need EVERYONE to work anymore. You don't have to work if you don't want, you'll just lose out on some spending cash."
>>1010934
How the fuck is automation irrelevant?
>>1010795
Of course we don't know if that is true yet, its just theory. We don't know when or if such breakthroughs will happen, and we certainly do not know what limits such robots would have.
If a robot can do all that, then humans themselves are pretty much obsolete , and we get into subjects like transhumanism.
its all speculation
What do you guys think of this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
>>1010974
NIT sounds better than universal income.
>>1010974
Helicopter money, the dream right?
>>1010975
You can only automatize so much.
>every worker gets replaced by a robot
>nobody has any money to buy products the robots make
Everyone being penniless and the capitalists somehow still making a profit, that just won't happen because it's physically impossible.
>>1010995
>>nobody has any money to buy products the robots make
>implying thats going to stop capitalists
>>1010995
Remind me when the working class won against technological advancement.
>>1010995
they will just sell their stuff to places where automation has not arrived that. It is a bit like manufacturing moved in poorer countries when wages became too high. So you had companies paying people in the service industry in rich countries just so they could buy manufactured products they made in China or whatever.
>>1010999
The capitalists need to profit, otherwise there's absolutely no point in making shit.
>>1010995
Noooo
You do forget that capitalists compete with each other right? Victory goes to the lowest priced. What better way to create something for cheap than not paying human workers? Humans are fucking expensive. A capital owner won't give two shits if he's selling Cadillacs for quarters if it costs pennies to make (analogy, of course, raw materials and such)
>>1011009
And who the fuck is going to buy all the products?
>>1011005
Just like Africa is industrialized today?
>>1011009
Marxists don't understand supply and demand. That's expected since Marx himself didn't either.
>>1011006
People make stuff because it is needed. Profit is simply the requirement needed for that needed something to be produced. You are mixing cause and consequence. Just like you need soap to be clean, you need profit for products to exist
>>1011012
Won't matter by that point. The system will be broken. One maker will want to undercut the rest and automate his workforce. The others will be run out and some other force is going to have to take over creating the demand for products.
>crashing this economy
>with no survivors
>>1010984
Eh. You'd need a minimum wage greater than that negative tax, no? So that working would get you more benefits than not working? I'd do away with minimum wage and give people a living allowance and they could work if they wanted more.
>>1010995
They get money from the state. They give money to the corps they favor. The corps give a fraction of profits to the state. The state would essentially be giving money (indirectly) to the most useful corps, using the consumers to track the utility of the different corps. I'll call it social corporatism or something like that.
>>1011017
>People make stuff because it is needed.
Nope. They make shit because it is wanted.
>You create shit
>Nobody has any money
>So nobody can buy your shit
>So you don't get your production costs back
Therefore it would be pointless to even create.
>>1011021
>when marxists try to argue economics
top fucking kek
>>1011030
Minimum wage doesn't exist in a NIT scenario.
>>1011014
Africa is a lot more industrialized today than it was in the past. There are many different reasons why it is still so far behind, one of them being unstable political institutions. Pretty much most economists agree that Africa is the next Asia, if they manage to form stable political institutions and asian wages start getting too high for international corporations
>>1010987
Not quite, I'm talking more the labor side, not the fiscal side. If there is to come a point where we can provide for all a nation's people (I'm talking America, Western Europe probably) by taxing the superrich who have used AIs and automation to earn their wealth, should we do it? We would assume that the superrich have boosted GDP by immense amounts, trillions and trillions, but by automating with AI and other future technology they've put tens, even hundreds, of millions of people out of work.
>>1011040
Again, you don't undertand supply and demand. If nobody can buy, then nothing will be made.
>>1011037
Yeah.. no.
>>1011039
What makes you think people will want to stay in your retarded marxist nation to pay for everyone else? Get real.
No, you shouldn't do any of that.
>>1011040
What is fucking super ultra basic economics 101
Pic related
>>1011045
Why would you assume nobody can buy? There will be jobs when there is automation. It's not a light switch effect, its super fucking gradual.
>>1011049
You're talking at the very last 100 years into the future, probably several hundreds. No one knows its pointless debating.
>>1011051
Because we're talking about the "endgame" scenario where everything is automated.
>>1011031
>Nope. They make shit because it is wanted.
Yeah, and why do you think something is wanted? Because it is needed.
Sure, in today's society there is a lot of stuff that we theoretically do not need. I am not going to debate why I think that is not accurate in itself because it would be off-topic. The point is that is turbo-capitalism and consumism. At its root, capitalism is simply a way to respond to the reality of one's needs.
>Therefore it would be pointless to even create.
If you need something to be created, it is not pointless to do so. In Soviet Union shit go made anyway, didn't it? People will always find a way to produce what they need for their survival. If they don't, they will simply die out of lack of resources until there is so few of them they can survive on what they have available.
>>1011055
Okay let me hear your theory then. We're just going to let the machines rust and go back to working in the factories?
>>1011050
>Yeah.. no.
nice rebuttal faggot
>>1011056
>Because it is needed.
Nah. I own around 20 football jerseys. I don't actually need them, I just bought them because I wanted them.
>>1011035
Oh I think I got it. In a NIT scenario the gov would only pay what you were lacking, so if you were employed but earning very little you'd be paid the difference between how much you'd need and how much you earn, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just skimming the wikipedia page.
>>1011053
>You're talking at the very last 100 years into the future, probably several hundreds.
>“We are facing a paradigm shift which will change the way we live and work,” the authors say. “The pace of disruptive technological innovation has gone from linear to parabolic in recent years. Penetration of robots and artificial intelligence has hit every industry sector, and has become an integral part of our daily lives.”
>However, this revolution could leave up to 35% of all workers in the UK, and 47% of those in the US, at risk of being displaced by technology over the next 20 years, according to Oxford University research cited in the report, with job losses likely to be concentrated at the bottom of the income scale.
>>1011061
I already answered this in my previous post. If you were not retarded you would have realised it.
>>1011050
Best case scenario: No one will realistically leave the West for an absolute fucking shithole like China or Russia. Sorry, Chen/Vlad! You see it today - most major independent companies are based in countries with high living standards because those places are nice to live.
Worst case scenario: State monopoly of power. You leave the country, Mr. Entrepreneur, and we seize your assets. You are now a poor, wanted man, and you did it all for a few bucks. Too bad. Fortunately there are many people who'd love to run this Fortune 500 country.
>>1011059
What is there to rebute? You spew fucking dogshit and expect me to tell you what the dog had for dinner?
>>1011064
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
>>1011063
Yes, what a huge impact fucking Sara or whatever the newest AI is named.
Wow look, she can read my text out loud fucking wonderful, my life is complete I can die now.
How about the bottom of the income scale stop crying for $15 an hour for flipping burgers and become useful?
>>1011070
>What is there to rebute? You spew fucking dogshit and expect me to tell you what the dog had for dinner?
You are literally retarded. Prove that anything I said is wrong otherwise just shut the fuck up.
How about a graph from the fucking IMF you little bitch cunt?
>>1011069
Best case: Yes, people will leave if the conditions are worsening.
Worst case: No one is stupid enough to have a majority of their assets within a corrupt governments grasp.
>>1011076
Does 47% of the US being at risk mean nothing to you besides "stop whining"?
>>1011070
>>1011078
>IMF
oh im laffing
Yes, obviously Africa is growing, GDP per capita is going up in many developing nations.
What you fail to understand is that seeing suge huge leaps (1k to 2,7k) is very normal in the beginning, very rarely does that keep up with time.
And of course, a projection, like most other projections its way out of hand.
>>1011076
>Yes, what a huge impact fucking Internet or whatever the latest TV is named.
>Wow look, I can read the newspaper on it, my life is complete I can die now.
>>1011076
Yes, what a huge impact the fucking steam engine or whatever the newest contraption is named.
Wow look, it can pump water with a piston fucking wonderful, my life is complete I can die now.
How about the bottom of the income scale stop crying for 3 pence a day for digging ditches and become useful?
>>1011086
Half of the American workforce will lose their job to a computer by 2035?
Is there any proof? Just projections based on.. nothing of value? Cool.
>>1011093
Wow, really? You can read newspapers on a monitor now? Almost like that feature hasn't been around since the fucking 80s
>>1011094
>this whole post
Marxists showing their stupidity once again.
>>1011097
>Half of the American horse force will lose their job to a car by 1935?
>Is there any proof? Just projections based on.. nothing of value? Cool.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf
>>1011090
>literally "hurr durr the whole world is wrong and I am right": the post
The point was not to show you that Africa is now Japan. It was to show you that Africa has been growing for sometime now. And therefore all my other discussion points were true. If you don't think Africa is going to industrialize in the near future you literally know ZERO about economics. You are humiliating yourself faggot.
>at you fail to understand is that seeing suge huge leaps (1k to 2,7k) is very normal in the beginning
In the beginning of what??? What the fuck are you talking about faggot?
Unless there was a major war that had the same effect on all of fucking africa at the same time, and in the same way, drawing a parallel like that is down-syndrome-tier.
>>1011081
Now now, if you think banks won't play nice with Congress at the risk of getting put on the national "bad list," you're crazy.
The thing is, conditions will be even worse everywhere not as well automated. Worse as in total economic collapse, civil war, or serfdom. An automated/AI based economy will run any conventional economy into the ground. Price drops, competition fails, it's over.
>>1011107
>horse
>comparing humans to a motherfucking horse
yeah im out, this marxist retardation is taking its toll
>>1011108
>Africa isnt Japan
Thank god, then it would crash and burn.
Unless the political climate in Africa changes, no I don't believe we have to worry about Africa becoming industrialized.
>>1011110
The economy is already collapsing long before this AI based doomsday of yours comes even close to reality. We're in a recession right now with no way out.
>>1011094
Not that guy but people were thinking steam engines are gonna make everyone unemployed and guess what? It didn't happen.
People 200 years ago had no idea there will be beauty salons, drive throughs, call centers, software developers, airplane stewardess etc.
You're saying those will get automated too, good, maybe they will. And we will come up with new ways how to employ people, just like we did for the last 200 years.
Already much of significance has been replaced. Mechanized farming began decades ago. This means that most of the population of the world is provided for by a small minority of specialists.
>>1011121
are you a libertarian?
>>1011121
I'm not even arguing for the NIT, basic income or any of that. My point has always been: if you think automation will never come or you're betting against technology you're in for a surprising couple of decades.
This entire debate is nonsensical for many reasons. Firstly, you would be insane to pretend like these innovations will occur instantly, there will be a very gradual shift over time. Is Uber superior to a Taxi in nearly every way? Yes. Did the quarter million taxi drivers in the US all lose their jobs in 1 day, 1 month, or even 1 year? No, there are still hundreds of thousands of taxi drivers and millions of people using taxis. Even in the face of a revolution that overhauls an industry, the old guard takes some time to die.
Firstly, there will never be useful general AI or some kind of . We will have very smart AI that is capable of a lot, but the general problem set is as many orders of magnitude more complex than the problem set computers can solve today as there are atoms in the universe. Even assuming that Moore's law continues, which it won't, CPU development has been slowing down for a long time, and is reaching the limitations of what is physically possible, we will never solve the problem set of Chess or Go. While computers have become sufficiently good at these tasks to beat most humans most of the time, this is not as a result of an increase in computing power, it's a gaming of the fact that these games have extremely simply rules, and can be analytically solved without necessarily having the solution set. The general problem set is much more different, far from having 32 actors, 64 spaces, and 6 different move sets, we are dealing with what is effectively an infinite set of actors, behaving in an infinite set of spaces, with an infinite number of potential moves. No amount of machine learning or clever algorithms can solve that problem set.
Here is the story at the end of the day: this is no different from any other technological revolution. There is no evidence to show that it is. In fact, this is a comparitively minor one. Past revolutions have displaced 99% of humans from their jobs. This one displaces even in the most liberal estimates 50%.
>>1010707
No, I don't think capitalism will die. As >>1010736 jokingly stated, economies change. We are in the middle of a transition period—and, no, the assembly-line jobs of the past aren't coming back. What we will see, in all likelihood, is an economy based increasingly on mental labor, which has been the trend of human history, anyhow.
You may ask, "how will the average person survive in an economy based on intelligence?" At the extreme end they wouldn't—sexual selection would do away with them. Technology would precipitate a eugenic effect, raising the intelligence of the human race. In the past, I'm sure being a large brute was a great survival trait—now it restricts you to low-paying jobs, minus the statistical outlier who gets an NFL contract. In the future, I would assume the current trend of brains over brawn would grow exponentially, as physical labor and menial tasks become more and more automated. It is possible that genetic engineering will speed up this process.
>>1011138
Thank you so much. It makes me happy to hear someone say all that. I'm tired of hearing people talk about intelligent ai as if it wasn't a failed experiment in the 70s
>>1011138
>Firstly, there will never be useful general AI or some kind of . We will have very smart AI that is capable of a lot, but the general problem set is as many orders of magnitude more complex than the problem set computers can solve today as there are atoms in the universe. Even assuming that Moore's law continues, which it won't, CPU development has been slowing down for a long time, and is reaching the limitations of what is physically possible, we will never solve the problem set of Chess or Go. While computers have become sufficiently good at these tasks to beat most humans most of the time, this is not as a result of an increase in computing power, it's a gaming of the fact that these games have extremely simply rules, and can be analytically solved without necessarily having the solution set. The general problem set is much more different, far from having 32 actors, 64 spaces, and 6 different move sets, we are dealing with what is effectively an infinite set of actors, behaving in an infinite set of spaces, with an infinite number of potential moves. No amount of machine learning or clever algorithms can solve that problem set.
At the very least, we know we can make a computer as good as a human brain - because those computers exist already. It may only a matter of replicating it.
>>1011138
First of all. Computers have not been slowing down for a long time. It's only very recently that die shrinks have run into trouble and there are many many technologies that will supplant silicon.
Second you saying "there will never be a general AI" does not convince me at all that there will never be a general AI. AI is not about solving problem sets.
This is going to be radically different from every other technological revolution. A robot doesn't have to be a general AI to learn tasks and perform work.
>>1011138
(cont). These jobs will be replaced, and humans will have increasing desires and demand more and more. So long as resources are scarce (ie finite), humans will always find a way to employ themselves. If you understand supply and demand you understand that even with automation, the same tasks humans are engaged in today will have some saleable price on the market. Part of the problem we face is that as costs go down wages will as well, but the minimum wage will force employers to fire as opposed to lowering the wages of their employees.
The market will always find a solution. People, behaving in self-interest, will always find some new productive behavior they can engage themselves in in order to sustain themselves. If we reach a point where humans don't need to work in order to sustain themselves (which we won't ever), then what is the problem, we are all sustained. If we reach a point where human desire is totally satisfied (which we won't ever), then what is the problem, it seems we are in utopia? If we reach a point where none of the productive practices humans are engaged in today remain worthwhile to engage, individuals will find new ways to sustain themselves or suffer death. I have little sympathy for those that cannot adapt, not because I am an emotionless machine, but because I love the whole of humanity to allow it suffer at the hands of a pestilent, whining, unproductive minority. (See: luddites, taxi drivers, all angered displaced peoples)
>>1011123
Already somewhat addressed by this guy:
>>1010744
I'm sure we'll come up with news ways to employ people, but there must come a point where it becomes senseless - that the value of the job created fails to exceed the value of being unemployed (and free to create art/read/consume other stuff).
>>1010707
Capitalism doesn't exist, even Smith didn't use the word
We should just be calling it economics with applied liberty
>>1011171
>>1011040
People call you a marxist because it's pretty marxist to assume there's some kind of automatization endgame. Marx thought the material conditions and subsequent automatization will cause mass unemployment and poverty, which will result in full scale worker revolutions taking over the means of productions. This never happened, although marxists thought the "it" moment was about to come any time now. In literally every decade you could find these people crowing about impeding doomsday (mass industrialization of the 1870s, car industry in the 1920s, you name it) and yet society always found a way to adjust, even if it was painful.
>>1011154
we simply cannot. While computers may have a computational power far greater than that of any human, no computer is able to work on a general problem set. Humans can and have literally been able to attempt to solve billions of different problems, no training required, we are able to come up with solutions to problem sets which we didn't even know existed. The same cannot be said for a computer. No computer or software ever has, or ever will compare to the general intelligence of a human.
>>1011199
Automation and capitalism are perfectly compatible. Automation completely crashing the entire system to the point you have to go full socialism however, that's a marxist belief.
>>1011138
>This entire debate is nonsensical for many reasons. Firstly, you would be insane to pretend like these innovations will occur instantly, there will be a very gradual shift over time. Is Uber superior to a Taxi in nearly every way? Yes. Did the quarter million taxi drivers in the US all lose their jobs in 1 day, 1 month, or even 1 year? No, there are still hundreds of thousands of taxi drivers and millions of people using taxis. Even in the face of a revolution that overhauls an industry, the old guard takes some time to die.
I think the essential question is, will those jobs be replaced, yes or no? Using your taxi example, what would happen if the replacement doesn't employ as many people? What happens to the surplus? The debate isn't nonsensical; there is no iron law that decrees new industries will absorb the loss incurred by the destruction of the old. This is obviously not the case. We used to have a middle-class based on factory work; now we have a service economy. We have empirically become poorer (due to multiple factors, admittedly), and the new industries haven't been picking up the slack. The job creation hasn't been happening, and due to cheap Chinese labor and automation it is less and less required.
>>1011190
>Robots cannot learn tasks "problem sets" as you call them
This is so wrong. Why do you think Tay turned into a Nazi?
Machine learning will only continue to advance.
>>1011203
It could go either way. I think it would be hubris for you to say which one will happen.
>>1011190
Learn how humans do that, then reproduce that mechanism in a machine. Or use evolutionary algorithms/simulations to develop intelligent entities able to adapt to complex, changing environments. If human intelligence can be explained by natural laws, and I have no reason to believe it can't, then we can understand it and if we can understand it we can emulate it.
Yes, I can promise they'll be able to find even more degrading bullshit for wagecucks to do, they've always managed.
>>1011160
>many technologies will supplant silicon
citation needed. and before >quantum computing
quantum computers are not as efficient as binary computers at all types of problems (including sorting) so while very very important for certain problem sets that fit the bill for the types of problems QC's are good at solving, QC is hardly the general computing revolution it has been made out to be.
>AI is not about solving problem sets.
Yes it is. A general AI, is a computer program which by definition attempts to solve or performs well with the general problem set.
>A robot doesn't have to be a general AI to learn tasks and perform work
No it does not, and we will see all kinds of jobs being replaced by intelligent AI that are good at certain types of problems (eg driving). This transition will be gradual and humans will find new means of employment. You have literally pressented 0 evidence that this revolution is different.
>>1011207
While you are right that there is no iron law that concedes every single point, the historical evidence is abound that humans generally will do anything to maintain their quality of life, and will respond adequately as the Supply and demand curve shifts. There are plenty of industries and jobs that I can personally imagine that will remain insulated from automation for any perceivable amount of time, meanwhile, who knows what kinds of absurd and ridiculous amenities future workers might provide to consumers. Maybe the labor surplus will be so great that middle class people can afford to pay someone to write down the words they dictate. There is a literal never-ending pile of human desires and demands, and if costs go down significantly the rich and working classes will be able to afford to pay people for all kinds of things. Your points come from a fundamental misunderstanding of capital and value and how both are created.
>>1011231
this guy barely beat me to the punch
>>1011163
>These jobs will be replaced, and humans will have increasing desires and demand more and more. So long as resources are scarce (ie finite), humans will always find a way to employ themselves. If you understand supply and demand you understand that even with automation, the same tasks humans are engaged in today will have some saleable price on the market. Part of the problem we face is that as costs go down wages will as well, but the minimum wage will force employers to fire as opposed to lowering the wages of their employees.
Is the limiting factor labor at that point, though? We can produce increasingly more goods, with increasingly less labor, which is a good thing, as you say. But how does one buy these things? The service economy we have now tells the real story. What if they automated those jobs too—and there is talk of this.
>The market will always find a solution. People, behaving in self-interest, will always find some new productive behavior they can engage themselves in in order to sustain themselves.
The problem is human initiative is impeded by lack of capital and by government regulations. Simply seeing a market isn't enough, if there is no one to buy the product. As our system is now, and the direction it is heading, we will have more capacity to create wealth than ever before, but no one to sell it to.
>>1011236
http://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/white_papers/wp472-3D-on-3D.pdf
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329020
What is this general problem set you are referring to? can you give me some math behind this or just a talking point, as I am not an AI specialist (and neither are you).
You really think self driving cars, delivery drones, and completely automated factories WON'T be different?
I don't think it's right to compare robots with previous technological revolutions. The purpose of a tractor is to make a farmer's job easier. The purpose of robots is to literally replace humans and do their jobs better with a much lower cost.
>>1011236
And where will all the money earned from these lost jobs be going? Will all of it be slurped up by those companies that automate industry or contract out AI systems? That's a one-way ticket to greater wealth inequality, I guess. We're already at a troubling threshold, where Western laborers have tasted the fruit of a dignified middle class, and once the fast food jobs are gone, where will they go once they're booted from their middle class work as teachers or doctors? Is it seriously preferable to have useless jobs like "person follower" or "yes man" or "professional friend" instead of a universal income to create art or generally be at leisure and reliably consuming?
>>1011266
No, the purpose was to maximize output. With a combine harvester and a tractor, two people can literally do the job that took 100+ people and four times the time 300 years back.
>>1011236
>There are plenty of industries and jobs that I can personally imagine that will remain insulated from automation for any perceivable amount of time, meanwhile, who knows what kinds of absurd and ridiculous amenities future workers might provide to consumers. Maybe the labor surplus will be so great that middle class people can afford to pay someone to write down the words they dictate.
The problem here is the value of labor is decreasing. Everyone knows that some of these service jobs being created today are tantamount to welfare. The labor pool is larger than the demand for labor—much larger in fact. The average low-skill worker has nothing to provide that millions of others don't, making him valueless.
>There is a literal never-ending pile of human desires and demands, and if costs go down significantly the rich and working classes will be able to afford to pay people for all kinds of things. Your points come from a fundamental misunderstanding of capital and value and how both are created.
First of all, deflation isn't needed. They can simply print more money to account for the increase in goods. Second, who will pay for these never-ending desires? The way our economy is structured now, people need to borrow money from the banks for money to come into existence. All of the unemployed could create an underground economy which trades favors, but real money comes top down. The desires of the many are not considered in the calculation of today's economy.
>>1011247
My point fundamentally is that so long as resources are finite, there will always be some other service which humans can provide. Imagine a supply and demand curve for labor. As the demand for labor decreases as a consequence of some tasks being automated, laborers will accept reduced wages until the point elasticity of supply is very low. (Workers are being offered wages which they will simply not accept). The consequence of this will be that workers will either find some new productive labor to engage in. As goods become cheaper and cheaper thanks to reduced labor costs (automation can easily cut the cost of goods by 50%) , those who have not had their jobs displaced yet will have more and more disposable income. Human desires are infinite, and those who still have income will (entirely in their own self interest) offer money to the surplus of laborers for some task which has not yet been automated. This is the process that has occurred every single technological revolution. Workers are displaced, those who were smart enough to invest in or own these cheap means of productions will have more money to spend on all kinds of other goodies and toys. Like medicine, art, architecture, etc. etc.
>>1011278
see above
>>1011242
You make a fair point, to address this I will cite my previously made point about the slowing growth of computing power. The materials we are using simply cannot sustain the level of computing power necessary to compete with the organic compounds our brain uses for computing. At some point, we will eventually be able to organize organic compounds in some way comparable to the human brain, but that is not AI, we have just reinvented intelligent life. But, I believe this is not on the timescale of decades or centuries but millenia. We are very far from understanding human mental processes and are making little progress, let alone understanding it so well and having such a refined understanding of organic compounds that we can recreate it.
It's already dying when the poor third world humans making the shit can't afford to buy the shit they're making. It'll only get worse with robots making the shit.
>>1011306
>The materials we are using simply cannot sustain the level of computing power necessary to compete with the organic compounds our brain uses for computing.
What about these materials? An electronic basis is intuitively much more space-efficient than an electrochemical basis. It's not like neurons are all that complicated - their individual activity can be described in on/off terms. As for the broader functioning that ties into learning: we can already emulate Hebbian learning in computers.
>>1011306
This is also wrong. It's not the material that makes a brain superior.
CPUs run at billions of hertz where the brain runs at quite lower frequencies or else it would get too hot just like a computer but the brain is massively parallel, it computes things in large regions compared to a small processor.
>>1011306
I disagree. I think that offer of money to surplus laborers for working "undiscovered" jobs will instead be siphoned by the government for social purposes - welfare, infrastructure, bread & circuses, etc., or, to the same outcome, automators will use that money for philanthropic purposes. They won't spontaneously generate a new industry for professional backscratchers. Also consider that the basics of life, food and shelter, presuming enough technology, will be basically free by this point. When we he have a production explosion of these basic needs, how can we morally justify not accommodating those who need it?
>>1011299
>some of these service jobs being created today are tantamount to welfare
this is simply not true. If you were a fast food business and your competitors were wasting money on what is effectively welfare, you will fucking obliterate them in a month. Don't pretend like McDonalds, doesn't know exactly what the fuck it's doing, and everything that it does is for calculated economically efficient reasons.
>Second, who will pay for these never-ending desires?
I already addressed this. Those whose jobs have not yet been displaced will have a surplus of capital that they can spend on new desires. Again, you fundamentally don't understand capital or value. Neither banks nor the fed create value nor capital. If the value of the dollar would collapse to 0, the capital in the united States would still have the exact same subjective economic value, the dollar is merely a representation of economic value. It's something we use to exchange real, physical value in exchange for what is effectively a promise that you will be able to acquire value in the future.
>The desires of the many are not considered in the calculation of today's economy
But they are. There is nothing more important to McDonald's than their consumers. The only reason the investors in McDonald's profit is because they provide a service or product which is of a greater value to their consumers than what they charge for that product.
>>1011333
What makes you claim that neurons can be simply described as simply on/off terms, I don't believe that is true at all, but if you can provide me evidence of that I'll accept it.
>>1011344
I don't know what makes you make this claim so confidently. I am not certain of what makes the human brain superior but that's the point. We have no clue.
>>1011070
I would have said I agree with you, but that analogy of dogshit was so rhetorically tone-deaf that I rescind all association.
>>1010707
Say that there was created, a machine that could create everything on earth...For a nickle. People could get the machines extremely cheaply. If one wanted food for a year, working for merely pennies could do it. I know I have uses for people if they offered services for merely pennies.
>>1010707
>Will capitalism survive when the majority of human jobs are replaced by machines in the coming decades?
Replace one word and your back in the 19th century.
>>1011362
But they will generate that industry and have been doing so since the beginning of the agricultural revolution. There will always be some unsatisfied human desires and what better way to spend surplus capital than to hire someone else to satisfy it for you.
Stop listening to CGP Grey, there will be no production explosion that occurs overnight. Yes, changes will be radical, and on the timescale of human progress it will happen in the blink of an eye, but that doesn't mean it won't take years for industries to shift in reality. Even if you are right (which you are not even close to being so), where does your morality come from? Is one of those principles theft? How can you justify stealing money from one person, even if it saves another's life. Theft is immoral, period. If abolishing slavery means 31% of the US population will starve to death, that does not make slavery any more moral.
>>1011369
We absolutely do. The brain is a electrochemical physical machine that has signals that we can measure. Brain activity occurs in sectors and we can measure the frequency of electrical impulses.
The brain is not above understanding.
>inb4 you're that guy that says no one can understand the brain because god
>>1011393
I am not saying the human brain is above understanding. I am saying we are nowhere in the neighborhood of understanding it in terms of research, so we can't pretend to objective or even close to objectivity about why the brain works so well.
>>1010707
>robots
>not genejacks or whatever term we will make up for it to feel better about ourselves
>>1011306
>As the demand for labor decreases as a consequence of some tasks being automated, laborers will accept reduced wages until the point elasticity of supply is very low. (Workers are being offered wages which they will simply not accept). The consequence of this will be that workers will either find some new productive labor to engage in.
There are limitations here you aren't thinking about, though. Big industries—like the car, computer, and travel industry—require a lot of capital to start. Big corporations essentially have no competition other than each other. All of the unemployed labourers could create small businesses, but this wouldn't bring down the cost of the big-ticket items which they have no control over. Instead, it would simply decrease the price of the items they are making. When people talk about being wealthy, they are almost always talking about items that small businesses can't create: cars, boats, mansions, fancy clothes, expensive jewelry, etc. There is no way to increase the production of these big items without the explicit decision of big corporations.
>>1011250
The general problem set is not a technical term, but it means exactly what it describes. Programs solve problem sets. A problem set has some series of inputs and demands certain outputs. The driving problem set has inputs of car positions, light colors, lanes, bikers, terrain, incline etc. etc. and has outputs like gas, wheel rotation, brakes, etc. etc. The general problem set is like this, but it has infinite inputs, infinite volume, and infinite outputs
>>1011369
>What makes you claim that neurons can be simply described as simply on/off terms, I don't believe that is true at all, but if you can provide me evidence of that I'll accept it.
The only "action" they are capable of is sending a signal to the other neurons they are linked to. No, there are no different different signals. No the signal can't have different intensities. They can either send it or not send it.
For this tiny speck to do it's tiny, individually insignificant bit, it has quite a complicated structure and relies on a complicated electrochemical balance. A lot of the shit going on is just meant to keep it alive. It's like a super-microprocessor that can only go "bip". Not the apex of efficiency.
The brain is awesome because of the neural networks, not because of the bio bric-a-brac those are made of.
>>1011399
That's fair enough. It doesn't lead to the conclusion "AI is impossible" though.
We can land on the middle ground and say AI may or may not be possible and neither you or I have any evidence to go either way.
>>1011419
>infinite
Your sensory inputs are not infinite, you have never seen, felt or comprehended infinity.
>>1011369
>this is simply not true. If you were a fast food business and your competitors were wasting money on what is effectively welfare, you will fucking obliterate them in a month. Don't pretend like McDonalds, doesn't know exactly what the fuck it's doing, and everything that it does is for calculated economically efficient reasons
Minimum wage and necessity are the only reason MacDonalds pays them what they do. There has been an undeniable increase in government incentive programs to keep businesses here. These wouldn't be needed if labor was in high demand.
>Those whose jobs have not yet been displaced will have a surplus of capital that they can spend on new desires.
Potentially true. The goods they buy aren't created with as much labor, though, hence they don't create as many jobs. Many people are left without money to tend to their desires.
>Neither banks nor the fed create value nor capital.
Patently false. Banks do create capital through fractional-reserve lending. You also can't buy things from organized stores without using official money. You are correct that true value is measured in desire via supply and demand, but I don't see how that counters any of what I've said.
>>1011412
what you are talking about is an economic concept known as economies of scale. When a producer is large, certain factors of production become redundant and unneeded. For example,the difference in cost between creating a machine which prints shirts and printing 1 shirt and creating the same machine and printing 100 is marginal, but the product is the same as though you were to make 100 machines and produce 1 shirt each. Because of economies of scale, there exists some size at which companies are most efficient, become too large and they are no longer efficient, too small and they will no longer be efficient. This obviously depends on the task. A company like H&M who provides low cost clothing that consumers don't invest much capital can be efficient while being huge. A bespoke tailor who makes handcrafted clothing for elite customers will not be efficient if he attempts to hire other bespoke tailors because quality differs and he provides a service of craftsmanship etc. etc. his point of efficiency is much smaller. The point is, yes corporations can "screw" people, so long as they remain within the margins of the surplus that the economy of scale creates.
At some point a manufacturer will be screwing consumers by such a large margin, that a competitor will be able to afford to buy the means of production, sell to customers and still make a profit.
>>1011437
Taken at face value, no the sensory inputs ARE finite. But just as one can consume a single dot of red, and the human eye at some point will not be able to perceive the hypothetically infinite shades of red as being different, the number of ways that these sensory inputs can be arranged IS effectively infinite. There are an effectively infinite number of possible ways a human face can look, an effectively infinite number of INTELLIGIBLE things a human could say to you, a theoretically infinite number of ways to arrange our environment, and humans can handle it all.
Why are we talking about this speculatively when it's already happening. 'these youngster have no work ethic!' grandpa-isms don't explain the wealth-gap escalation over the last few decades, automation does. The only thing the labor class own to trade for meager goods and essentials now is well, labor, and as the value of labor decreases into oblivion because of automation so too will the wealth of the labor class. If you took socialist taxes out of the picture right now, it would be some Orwellian nightmare show and it's where we're heading now.
And to the people who think ' but the capitalists need consumers so it'll work out!', you're wrong and you don't understand how the economy works. Once the own literally everything they will absolutely not need 'consumers'. They may trade among themselves for sure, but they don't need consumers. They'll keep 100% of what is produced and it use it they way they do now, to service and fulfill themselves.
>>1011453
Banks don't create capital through fractional-reserve lending. The illusion of capital is created through fractional-reserve lending is created. The actual economic value remains unchanged.
>>1011453
and those people will be part of the newly employed individuals in the new markets.
Government is actually forcing businesses to rapidly increase their automation programs by increasing the costs of labor.
>>1011482
Why does the wealth gap matter, when real wealth for all people is increasing. I will never understand this stupid gibs me dats liberal mentality. If you want a higher standard of living, work for it, provide something of equivalent value. If someone is making more than you that means they are also contributing more to the economy than you.
>>1011389
I mean the political realities are hordes of unemployed people saying "Housing and food for a year now cost only $1,000 thanks to advances in technology. The national GDP is now $50,000,000,000,000, thanks to a few genius entrepreneurs. Now, why the FUCK should we waste our time working meaningless jobs when instead you could tax those geniuses at a reasonable rate to sustain our every need, and we could get to making art and culture and achieving general eudaimonia?"
Clearly, a government would be utterly foolish not to do this, right? Taxation is not theft. Many of those entrepreneurs will even support the idea. There will be unsatisfied desires, but those will be fulfilled after ensuring all are provided for. The disappearance of most crime and other negative externalities is a bonus.
>>1011469
>effectively infinite
not infinite.
Humans are not random machines as random does not exist and is instead confused for unpredictability.
But again we're entering the domain where neither of us can prove something definitively.
So I'm going to shelf this whole AI, brain conversation as we have quite strayed from the topic.
>>1011454
My entire point, though, was your line of reasoning is misleading. We live in a world of corporations, and it is a rare day indeed when a small business can avoid them. Walmarts eats up small businesses, and highly-skilled self-employed labor is rare.
You say that as long as there is desire, there will be work. This ISN'T true—there is potential work. Automation takes jobs away—while admittedly making goods cheaper. Cheaper goods are irrelevant, though, if no one has money to buy them. If the majority of people can't get a job, they can't become self-employed easily, either, because no one will have money to buy their product or service. The problem is inevitably that you have the means to tend to people's desires, but you don't have the mechanism to actually realize it. The small businesses meme can never be a reality. Corporations are too cost-efficient for that.
>>1011493
http://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-gap-a-guide-to-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters-2014-1
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/what-matters-inequality-or-opportuniy/393272/
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Why-Inequality-Matters-Capital-in-21st-Century-Review
http://www.cato.org/publications/research-briefs-economic-policy/does-wealth-inequality-matter-growth-effect-billionaire
Smarter people than you already know this. I'm doing you a favor. No thanks is needed.
>>1010855
We would get back to a worse version of the 19th century where the proletariat would have no means of subsistence. Now look at the 19th century,where rich people had armies, even if not robots, ald think again
>>1011493
Social status is arguably a bigger driver of human behavior than the goods themselves.
>>1011484
>Banks don't create capital through fractional-reserve lending. The illusion of capital is created through fractional-reserve lending is created. The actual economic value remains unchanged.
Obviously capital consists of actual goods (or land, etc.), but money represents it. Money is as good as capital, so them creating money is creating capital in that sense. It is really an illusion, though, you're right: the new money derives its value from debasing the old. It is the king adding copper to his coins all over again.
>and those people will be part of the newly employed individuals in the new markets.
>Government is actually forcing businesses to rapidly increase their automation programs by increasing the costs of labor.
And now we come full circle. Obviously new markets will be created, but if the general trend is less labor needed, there is no reason to assume all of the old jobs will be replaced on a 1:1 ratio. That doesn't have logic of history to back it up.
To level with you, obviously technology has increased everyone's standard of living tremendously. The poor are far better off than ever before. This still doesn't mean that we don't have a labor glut. Most of the labor pool is already superfluous, and It's probably only going to get worse. People of average- or below-average intelligence are going to have a harder and harder time finding productive careers.
>>1011500
If everything is so cheap, you won't have to work very long to satisfy your needs. If you are a lazy fucko who doesn't want to waste their time contributing to society, then you can provide some simple service and acquire capital in order to purchase the already extremely low cost goods needed to sustain existence. Stop pretending like leaving a minimum wage job is hard. Using skills I learned in 3 months spending about an hour a day, if I wanted to work for 6 hours a week and live at the minimum I could do so. We already live in an insane surplus. But, because I am not a moron, I continue my education to get more valuable skills, while working more than 6 hours a week to have more disposable income than I "need".
>>1011578
You have brought me back to the beginning of the circle. As I explained earlier printing bills does not create capital.
You might ask, if I print 500 million USD and give it to an investor and he starts a business I have created capital, no?
But you haven't, you have simply stolen 500 million USD distributed from every single person who owns a dollar by increase the supply and reducing the price of the dollar.
lmao just saw that you also used the full circle phrase.
>Obviously new markets will be created, but if the general trend is less labor needed, there is no reason to assume all of the old jobs will be replaced on a 1:1 ratio. That doesn't have logic of history to back it up
There is no reason to believe that less labor is needed, and I don't know where that claim is coming from. again, we have come full circle, why is this revolution different from others. Again, the labor is not superflous, it's simply that laborers think their work is worth more than it actually is, while if they were to accept the real value of their labor more people would be employed, goods would be cheaper, and everyone's quality of life would improve.
>>1011536
Did you read?
> "Our finding that it is politically connected rather than politically unconnected wealth that is likely to dampen growth may be illustrated by two country-specific examples. "
>>1011138
Sounds to me like you believe in some kind of magic soul that produces human creativity. Thirty years ago people exactly like you were claiming computers would never beat humans at games that required analytic reasoning like chess and go, because the solution space is too large. When it was proven that computers don't need to see the whole solution space to unequivocally defeat human opponents in chess 100% of the time, they said, "Well, you can beat a human at chess because there aren't that many moves available at a time. Go has exponentially more board positions, and so is intractable for computers." Lo and behold, wrong again.
So your argument goes:
>These games have extremely simply rules, and can be analytically solved without necessarily having the solution set. The general problem set is much more different, far from having 32 actors, 64 spaces, and 6 different move sets, we are dealing with what is effectively an infinite set of actors, behaving in an infinite set of spaces, with an infinite number of potential moves. No amount of machine learning or clever algorithms can solve that problem set.
But obviously humans address these problems without even close to being able to see the solution space. We operate based on heuristics. What in the world makes you think that even though computers will outperform humans on any particular task, they'll never generalize their ability? You're fantasizing about human exceptional ism, and you will be proven wrong, just like the countless human exceptionalists before you.
>>1010855
People act differently when they are hungry and unable to get the food they want.
>>1011520
Yes, those are all me, this is a sentiment which has irked me for a long time, and I plan on making a comprehensive youtube video addressing the points that CGP Grey and most of the "AI-optimists" make, because I think most people internalize these pop-science pop-economics notions which while seemingly obviously true at first, are, in my view, entirely nonsensical, this discussion has brought up some good points, and I thank you as well for participating.
>>1011515
>We live in a world of corporations, and it is a rare day indeed when a small business can avoid them. Walmarts eats up small businesses, and highly-skilled self-employed labor is rare.
Again, this is a fundamental principle of economics. People act in self interest. If walmart swallows up small businesses that's because they provide a superior product. You can whine all day about the value of small businesses and homelyness etc., but consumers speak with their wallets.
Automation does not take jobs away, it simply replaces some jobs. If 2 million truck drivers all lost their jobs tomorrow to automation, (while tragic and completely unlikely) I would find it hard to care when 300 million americans, many of them working class, will very likely experience a 10% reduction in costs, and consequently, 10% more of their income is free to spend on something more efficient.
Here is an anecdote which succintly describes the points I've been trying to make.
Economist Ludwig von Mises was in some third world country with a bureaucrat giving him a tour.
Mises comes upon a construction project, and despite the fact that it is the mid 20-th century these men are digging with shovels instead of modern machinery, so he asks the bureaucrat why these men are using shovels and not machines.
The Bureaucrat replies "Mr. Mises, this is not a bridge program, it is a jobs program".
Mises answers "If it was jobs you wanted, you should have given them spoons"
>>1011589
>There is no reason to believe that less labor is needed, and I don't know where that claim is coming from. again, we have come full circle, why is this revolution different from others. Again, the labor is not superflous, it's simply that laborers think their work is worth more than it actually is, while if they were to accept the real value of their labor more people would be employed, goods would be cheaper, and everyone's quality of life would improve.
It is literally superfluous, in the sense that not everyone is needed to create large quantities of goods. Human need may be unlimited, but specific human need is not.
>You have brought me back to the beginning of the circle. As I explained earlier printing bills does not create capital.
>You might ask, if I print 500 million USD and give it to an investor and he starts a business I have created capital, no?
>But you haven't, you have simply stolen 500 million USD distributed from every single person who owns a dollar by increase the supply and reducing the price of the dollar.
Yes, an inflationary monetary policy doesn't create wealth, just debases the currency. I've addressed this. Obviously real wealth consists of GDP, which isn't based on abstract numbers in any way.
Like you and I have both admitted, we've gone full circle. Good night, thanks for the conversation.
>>1011609
We've gone over the specifics of the impossibility of computers addressing a general problem space over and over again, and you haven't actually made any new points for me to address.
I say to you, let's pretend you are right (you're not in case you were wondering). AI is perfect and can solve any problem perfectly and beats humans intelligence and self-improves blah-dee-blah. What's the problem? All human needs can be satisfied, and at 0 cost to the conspiratorial wealth-owning classes you have already begun thinking about reading this post. It will literally cost them nothing since scarcity is not a problem since this machine is able to allocate all the resources in the universe as efficiently as possible.
>>1011597
Holy fucking Christ can you do anything other than cherrypick, you miserable subhuman?
>>1011631
>Mises comes upon a construction project, and despite the fact that it is the mid 20-th century these men are digging with shovels instead of modern machinery, so he asks the bureaucrat why these men are using shovels and not machines.
>The Bureaucrat replies "Mr. Mises, this is not a bridge program, it is a jobs program".
>Mises answers "If it was jobs you wanted, you should have given them spoons"
One more post, then I'm going to bed. I agree with this point. What matters is the result, not the effort that went into the result. All I'm saying, is the way our economy is currently set up, there is no mechanism to distribute these cheap goods. In a perfectly automated society (not going to happen, I know), there would be no way to earn money in order to buy goods. Basic income or something comparable would have to be implemented.
>Automation does not take jobs away, it simply replaces some jobs. If 2 million truck drivers all lost their jobs tomorrow to automation, (while tragic and completely unlikely) I would find it hard to care when 300 million americans, many of them working class, will very likely experience a 10% reduction in costs, and consequently, 10% more of their income is free to spend on something more efficient.
Yes, obviously automation decreases prices, thereby allowing those who still have a job to buy more goods. And it is also true that new industries are created due to this fact. This goes back to what I was saying, though: anything less than a 1:1 replacement is a loss for the labor pool. As a collective labor would become less valuable.
>>1011671
and choosing a few liberal media organizations along with implying a misinterpretation of a conservative is not cherrypicking? Stop deferring to other people to make your points for you. Make points that actually attack what I said. It's very easy for subhumans to scream "PHD SAID PHD SAID PHD SAID PHD SAID", but I prefer to actually evaluate evidence for myself instead of deferring to an authority. I've already read those articles, and found little of value, so unless you are going to bring up a specific point for me to address I won't waste my time responding to the entire article.
>>1011686
sorry, I am a machine and can't stop responding, but you are free to stop at any time. Again there is a mechanism to distribute goods, and it's called the market. If you have something of value, you get something of value, that's how we distribute goods.
I don't know where your claim that it's not 1:1 is coming from, but even if so, so what? The surplus of people looking for a job in manual, physical labor will either learn a skill, get a loan and become an entrepreneur, or starve.
>>1011139
>conjecture
>conjecture
>conjecture
wow you sure like talking out of your ass, don't you?
>>1011728
It's all available to you if you'd take a look. The shortcoming lays with you, I didn't even go beyond the second page of google. If you want to remain ignorant of and contrary to established economic theory, that's your business.
>I know better than to trust a few thousand experts in their field!
Consider removing your fat head from what must be a dangerously overstretched rectum. Are you a climate denier too?
The underclass diverges over the years from the common genetic stock. See the mutational load for yourself: go to that part of town. Welfare morlocks that do nothing but be sick and dangerous. Why sustain them?
>>1011761
You can say what you'd like, make whatever non-sequiturs you like, and call me whatever names you like, but at the end of the day, you still haven't made a point.
argumentum ad verecundiam
>>1011102
>You're stupid!
>No! YOU'RE STUPID!
>>1010732
>I'm guessing we'll have universal basic income before strong, general AI
>> Maybe within 60 years.
hahah..
I think a good question for everyone who thinks that this wave of automation is comparable to the Industrial Revolution is why we are not experiencing the same extraordinary growth in wages that was seen during the time. While it is pretty hard to find data on the average wage and unemployment rate all the way back to the 1850s, it is generally accepted that the Industrial Revolution caused the highest growth in the standard of living in the history of mankind. What we are seeing today is nothing short of mediocrity, a trend of stagnating wages stretching all the way back to the 1970s. In fact, the trend lines for some recent data show an extrapolation of -0.1% every year. The problem is that robots truly replace jobs, in that they push the focus of the production from one field to another. When the spinning jenny came around in the 1700s in England, artisans felt very threatened and they were justified in thinking so. However, once they transitioned to mechanized production with the spinning jenny, the nature of the work remained the same. They were still weaving wool into fabric, only with a more effective machine that could be taught in a couple of weeks with some on-site training. What we saw in the Industrial Revolution was an innumerable and broad range of inventions of efficiency increasing devices, everything from the cotton gin to the steam turbine to the Bessemer method of steel production. All of these inventions increased efficiency of production, without fundamentally changing the nature of the job, which led to higher profits, which led to higher wages, which led to higher demand, which led to more jobs, creating a positive feedback loop that saw the largest increase in GDP per capita and average wages in history. Today, the inventions of the "technological revolution" are all monopolized by one single category - computer science.
>>1011883
Robots fundamentally change the nature of work - when a fabric worker is replaced by a robot weaver, or when a cashier is replaced by an automated self checkout aisle, the job is no longer about weaving fabric or interacting with customers. The computer already does that for you. It becomes entirely about maintaining the computer system so it can do its job, which all falls under the category of computer science and engineering, and may be very likely to be nothing similar to the job it replaces. When someone's job is taken by automation and when the first idea that comes to mind is to have them work on the machines that replace them, you have to send them through years of college on a subject they might very well didn't even know existed, and attempt to get them a job in the now saturated market because you don't exactly need a lot of people to manage a factory floor of robots or program a robot. When the worker isn't in the cycle of efficiency increasing inventions, it only leads to disaster.
>>1011021
You're a big guy
>>1011931
For you.
>>1011883
try comparing wages pre-industrial revolution to post-industrial revolution. duh, you can't moron. nominal wages do not equal qualitify of life. Quality of life is always improving. The main problem we have with this technological revolution is a burdensome regulatory environment that makes something as fucking simple as uber a regulatory and legal nightmare from hell.
>>1010821
If the oligarchs got major control over the US government, and robotics made humans mostly unnecessary, they could just crush all opposition with robot soldiers, made in automatic factories, with materials mined by robots. Humans would be completely outside of the system and thus wouldn't be able to disrupt the military from within.
>>1010758
maybe you are strongly overestimating. Who knows?
>>1011757
who isn't
>>1010917
You think precision machinery requires less cooling than people?
>>1011631
>If walmart swallows up small businesses that's because they provide a superior product.
no it's because they convince more people to shop at them
this can be done by supplying a superior product, a superior service, superior advertising, or throwing their bulk behind them and selling shit at a loss until the small businesses are starved out
there are many ways to outcompete other businesses and this homo economicus line of thinking where customers are 100% rational and informed is hogwash
The "hand of free market" idiots are basing their reasoning on nothing but pure induction, which simply does not work for technological progress.
>hurr durr, we used horses for transportation for thousands of years, surely they can't be replaced
>hurr durr, we could never travel around the world in less than a day, surely that's impossible
>hurr durr, communication always took more than 1 second
Physical labor is the first thing that's going away folks. If you think everyone out of a job when this happens is going to just respecialize to a different field, you're plain delusional. Low wage workers are low wage for a reason - they're unskilled.
>>1011190
On what grounds are you claiming replicating a human brain is impossible? Extremely difficult, yes. Not something that's likely to happen in the next few decades, sure (although I wouldn't bet on that). But impossible? What law of the universe makes it impossible? If anything, there's a law of the universe that says it IS possible, since, you know, human brains are already a thing.
All of this is pretty irrelevant to a discussion on automation, anyway. We don't need a superintelligent general AI for robotics and more basic forms of AI to put millions of people out of work. Is a self-driving car as intelligent as a human? Of course not, and it doesn't need to be to put millions of drivers out of work. Ditto for a thousand other fields. Even if Kurzweil and other futurists and AI experts are completely wrong and we don't get general AI this century, we'll still see massive unemployment due to automation. The current system will collapse if there's 60% unemployment, even if with general AI it could have been 95%.
Capitalism will perish but markets won't. I can't wait for the left market-anarchist revolution.
>>1012911
You can't wait for it because it's something that'll never ever happen.
>>1011982
>nominal wages do not equal qualitify of life. Quality of life is always improving.
fucking wew
so
should we accelerate the process?
>>1010707
May be, robot owners may be too capitalists. For example in modern car industry major part of work does by robots.
>>1010758
>>1010707
>>1010732
>Humans invent sentient AI servants known as the men of Iron
>completely unstoppable and bad ass
>also invent general ai constructors called Standard Template Constructors that contain all human knowledge
>Humans span the entirety of the galexy after faster than light travel is achieved by means of gellar fields and warp drive
>suddenly men of iron turn of humanity for some fucking reason
>almost get rekt
Hmmm
>>1012166
I never said that Walmart actually benefitted consumers dumbass and no economist claims this. I am not ignorant of the fact that humans make irrational decisions and the explanation I have provided entirely compensates for that. If you sell your product it is because of consumer desire, the consumer believes you can satisfy his desires, whether that is an illusion or reality is not my problem. But consumers who make rational purchase decisions will be rewarded greatly, and those who make irrational decisions will be punished. There is an incentive to behave rationally. It's nice to sit on your high horse and talk about evil Walmart marketing and the joy of small town shopping but the reality is that working class Americans depend on the low cost goods Walmart is able to provide with its economies of scale.
>>1013558
It's like the writers had some kwisatz haderach vision or some shit
>>1013682
OR maybe this entire thing was made up just to sell cheap action figures for a massive profit.
>>1010707
With artificially created superviruses to cull the redundant herd, yes, of course.
>>1010818
>I suppose if capitalism can no longer deliver a decent standard of living for the majority of the population,
1. Products made by robots have incredibly low production costs
2. A product that doesn't sell is not profitable, and a business that isn't profitable will nto be a business
From this, the standard of living would be able to support itself (and raise) with increasing amounts of automation. Because for the jobs replaced by AI, prices would have to lower to keep people buying (because assuming employment remains stable) people will be makign less money.
>>1012025
>humans outside the system
Would likely develop parallel systems for getting what they need. Assumptions about revolution underestimate the power of organized crime and shit to patch the system from below.
>>1012166
>this homo economicus line of thinking where customers are 100% rational and informed is hogwash
You probably don't even know what 100^ rational and informed entails. This is the litmus test for whether or not you can provide anything of value in an economics discussion. You and >>1013653 both failed horribly.
bump, there's decent insight in here
>>1010707
Yeah. We'll be living in libertarian paradise. All menial jobs would be automated and we would have a basic income or negative income tax to keep the proles complacent.
The third world will eventually die out, russia, china, south america and most of yurop. Once darwinism takes its course we can repopulate the earth with the American master race.
