I-I'm scared /sci/. It's gonna be okay right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
The transition to an automated workforce will be rocky but the end result will be desirable, effectively enabling people to have complete self determination in what they do with their time. While people are panicking at the robots taking their jobs, they will be enjoying the highest standard of living ever achieved and sooner or later everyone will calm their tits.
There's nothing to be afraid of, anon.
>>6699243
Luddites are retarded.
Machines will replace stem last so good for me.
>>6699243
Alright, here's some reasons not to be scared:
1. The current system is dependent on a huge cheap labor force to provide for the needs of the world, as automation increases, ability to provide products to the rising classes in developing nations will increase, consumer base grows, and economic activity increases.
2. Visible destruction. He points to a list of jobs at the end, talks about them being replaced by automation, and asks us to imagine the horror. Well, to take a bullshit tactic from him, let's imagine we're living at the start of the first agricultural revolution. Metal plows, crop rotations, and other improvements mean that much of society is freed from the burden of farm life. If he were alive then, he might talk about how everyone will fall into poverty from the lack of work, which would be utter horseshit. Technology has always multiplied labor, and created jobs we couldn't have imagined. For instance, let's look at clothing.
the future of clothing automation might lead to a few things: It might lead to clothing requiring almost 0 effort to produce, and cheap clothing is churned out for the masses. But simultaneously, it could mean that consumers could own nicer clothing than ever before, imagine a suit, cut out to your exact dimensions and sewn together for the same cost as an ill-fitting garment of today. People want things cheaper, but they also want things nicer, if I have faith in anything, it's that human desire outstrips production, and probably will forever.
>>6700899
Absolutely this. The fear of the Luddites is that after technology obsolesces that there will be nothing. Which is completely unfounded, automation, hell even tools, has made things much easier and given birth to unthought of jobs.
Plus automation's happening at a rate where jobs won't disappear overnight. People that do these things for a living know that their jobs are at the whims of technology, and any responsible human being should be planning for when that happens. It only gets a kink in it when labor unions (not all) tend to push the idea that the jobs they unionize are sacrosanct and immune from progress
>>6700899
3. Assuming that automation in an industry destroys all the jobs. He spoke as if automation was going to get rid of all retail clerks and cashiers. Sure, some stores might go all robot, or some might use the automation tools to improve customer service while maintaining service positions. To make blanket statements like entire industries are going to be wiped out(even transportation, which will probably shrink, but who knows to what degree) anytime soon is presumptuous to the point of absurdity.
I had a few more points but they can rest. The basic assumption in the video is that if everything gets cheaper we're all going to buy the same shit but at lower prices, and presumably horde the rest of the cash. Realistically, people will buy more luxury goods, and there will be some balancing out. Long term structural unemployment is more often caused by mismatched training, poorly designed incentives(welfare that cuts off at a certain income level, concentrating poverty in projects, etc), and burdensome regulation than overproductive machinery. Worrying about automation taking all of our jobs now is like worrying about what cold fusion is going to do to the energy sector, simultaneously short sighted and seeing too far into the future.
>>6700924
Yes, this essentially. Additionally, the guy in the video infuriatingly talks as if his assertions have already been proven, and had a bad effect. Literally from the vid:
>There is a terrifying amount of working automation in labs and warehouses around the world
Really? Terrifying? He vilifies automation, but completely ignores any sort of real numbers or evidence, or even a positive example staring him in the face. How a poorly produced video with stick figures and stock footage got so much attention is beyond me.
Oh, and Emily Howell is basically a musical algorithm that processed styles of pianists, and made new patterns, a programmed kaleidoscope.
>>6699258
this may have a desirable end result just like a war will have desireable end results however people will still suffer, many will still DIE.
>>6700937
>tations, and other improvements mean that much of society is freed from the burden of farm life. If he were alive then, he might talk about how everyone will fall into poverty from the lack of work, which would be utter horseshit. Technology has always multiplied labor, and created jobs we couldn't have imagined. For instance, let's look at clothing.
How in the world is clothing not going to be replaced? A robot can measure my sizes, a robot can point me to the right clothes, a robot with VR can even show me what they would look like on me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIDT-PpENkY
I dont understand how rational people cannot comprehend the complete automation of everything. Why would it ever stop unless we are at maximum automation? You are imposing arbitrary boundaries to what can be automated for no reason other than.. oh wait, you dont have a reason. You just say "there will be other jobs". Yes, there will be other jobs, but not in the way you think.
At most there will be highly intelligent people, maybe even genetically enhanced, who work towards exploring things robots HAVE NOT AUTOMATED YET.
Seriously that is going to be the only job of the future: to automate more jobs away. That is already my job every fucking day because I'm a programmer: I'm trying to make specific kinds of tasks automatic. Every day. Now these tasks are software only because I have no clue about robotics but the robots field is growing fast, ever heard of raspberry pi? Only 5 years ago I would not have dared to imagine to write microcontroller code. Now it should be fairly easy to set up a home automation system.
All of this is a GOOD THING. We need to be freed from the shackles of idiotic labor, the human species is destined to conquer time and space, not fucking serve food on plates.
What is NOT a good thing is how nobody is prepared for it. People will suffer because they are being lied to.
>>6700899
>ell, to take a bullshit tactic from him, let's imagine we're living at the start of the first agricultural revolution. Metal plows, crop rotations, and other improvements mean that much of society is freed from the burden of farm life
Yes and these people who were "FREED" of the "BURDEN" of farm labor had to find OTHER JOBS. And if they couldnt, imagine if there was no other thing they could possibly master in sufficient skill level in their life times because they only have a puny human brain.. then we are at the szenario that the video talks about.
>>6700899
You fail to see the main point. Once a strong AI is invented it will be better than you in every aspect. Even their looks will be better. (pic very much related)
You just can't compete with something like that. It would know everything, it would think faster, work faster and be more loyal than you could ever be.
Unless you can come up with a reason why an employer would prefer you, then I'd have to say your point is incorrect.
inb4: He'll hire me because I'm human....
No, this won't happen and we have proof for that, even today. Homeless and unemployed people are already around.
>>6700957
Yes, and just look how that turned out! Society is so much worse off isn't it? HURR DURR TERKADURRRRRRR
>>6700963
I'm not worried about being literally physically replaced by a better version because by the time we have that, we already have very advanced body modifications. I will be a machine just like them, so there is no difference.
>>6700966
wtf are you even saying? We dont know how it turned out for many many common people of that time. Probably some died because they lost their lifelihoods, however the skill levels of that time were all very low. A human can easily learn any task of that time in a WEEK.
That "week" is getting larger and larger to the point of being larger than a human lifetime.
>>6700971
>We dont know how it turned out for many many common people of that time.
Who cares? Oh god, forbid someone has to find a new job so that human civilization can progress, oh the humanity! If only we could just all go back to subsistence farming, then everyone could have a job and be happy! Fuck off retard. Turn off your computer and go live in the woods, you wanker.
>>6700973
Fucking idiot, I'm not even arguing against whatever you think you are responding to, I'm in no way opposed to human progress, I'm merely suggesting that it has some negative consequences that may not be easily avoided by everyone. But go ahead and keep being a fucking idiot, I'm sure it will work out in your future paradise.
>>6700963
Case in point, once a strong AI is invented. Do you realise the infantile position that AI is at at the moment?
Let me make this clear, we're not talking some kurzweil bullshit where the singularity is in 2045, it's a long way away. Secondly, the type of automation being feared is:
1. Robotic automation, which can be viewed as an extension of labor multiplying devices. Some things, inspection, maintenance, etc. Will be needed for a robotic factory. Additionally, countries with heavy robotic automation(japan, germany, etc) haven't experienced unemployment.
and
2. Automation of computer processes. This is a situation where the process is dependent on the developer, and usually a lot of this work is done to improve time so that things like xml sheets can be generated and business decisions can be made more quickly. It is still, at heart, a multiplier of human labor.
>>6700971
Read a book, diets improved and became more varied, cities grew, and people lived better lives, leading to growth.
http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/west/10/FC63
>The three-field system, involved plowing all 60 acres plus only 20 acres of fallow again, a total of only 80 acres of plowing. Thus while producing 33% more food, the peasants were plowing considerably less, especially considering what hard work plowing was back then. The extra time saved could be used for clearing new farmland from the surrounding wilderness, which, of course, meant even more food. Likewise, the extra food meant more people from population growth, who would also clear new lands to produce more food, and so on. Eventually, enough new land would be cleared and surplus food produced to support population in towns
>>6700977
>>6700980
>Read a book
every retard's response ever. I'm not DISAGREEING WITH YOU ON THAT PART DONT YOU GET IT
>>6700977
>I'm merely suggesting that it has some negative consequences that may not be easily avoided by everyone.
Great. No one cares or should care.
>>6700989
>Great. No one cares or should care
says the guy that kills you
>>6700987
I was objecting to:
>We dont know how it turned out for many many common people of that time. Probably some died because they lost their lifelihoods
when we can show that the benefits were overwhelmingly positive. Additionally, it is patronizing to view skills of the past in such a way. People worked like dickens to make workable tools/buildings out of shit ingredients without guides. Masonry, carpentry, farming, scribing, etc. comprised hundreds of tasks that I doubt most people could "learn in a week". We're not as different as the Medievel man on the cusp of a new age of prosperity and enlightenment. I think excitement, rather than fear, is the proper response. I will agree, there is potential for disruption. Things like publicly funded adult education, along with increased work between educators and industry, could definitely help with any labor disruption. I definitely disagree that skills are becoming so scarce(or will in the near future) that people's 'puny human brains' will have no skills that will be useful. And, even if that does become the case, we will either have improved humanity, or achieved a society with virtually all material needs met.
>>6700997
huh?
>>6699243
Design automation guy here, I automate engineering jobs, it's gonna a lot worse than you think.
When you push automation to it's inevitable endgame, everyone turns out to be wrong.
Kurzweil was wrong, Kaczynski was wrong, Marx was wrong, Brain was wrong. They're all wrong about what's going to happen.
Once you realize what's going to happen it will drive you to insanity and you won't be able to enjoy the decade or so of pseudo-paradise we'll have.
I'd recommend you enjoy things while they last and prepare yourself for the end and be ready to go when it comes, because you will not like what comes after.
I can't say much without making you insane, but everyone will be employed and this will be bad.
The singularity will be stupid.
>>6701026
Arnold.
>>6701026
Could
You
Spell
It
Out
Nonetheless
?
>>6701026
Automation automation engineer here. I design automation tools to automate the deign of automation bots. It's going to get extremely bad. I will be fine, but seriously, wow, badness.
>>6699243
Then the solar flare hits and they all die?
>>6701015
>when we can show that the benefits were overwhelmingly positive
1. Do you acknowledge that for some people it was a bad transition?
2. Do you acknowledge that the next transition will hurt more people in a harder way than ever before because required knowledge is higher?
I dont see how anyone can disagree with these two things. Clearly it's harder to go from McDonalds worker to programmer/robots engineer/genetic biologist than from farmer to industrial machine operator.
>>6701026
You are probably referring to the fact that once automation hits, humans will be in abundance, meaning that many things that are not yet possible to be automated in a cheap way, are cheaper to just make a mass amount of humans to do. Which is a terrible(!) work. It's already happening in machine learning departements. Amazon has work where you just classify images all day for SHIT money. I had a job working for some subsidary of Microsoft for the Bing search engine. You just sit in front of the computer all day and classify images into categories to help Bing with its classification engine. And it's taxing work, you can't slack off - they fire you immediately if your error rate goes beyond a certain percentage and it's a VERY tight fit. Luckily I found a normal job in the outside world, holy shit it's bad.
>>6700989
If by "care" you mean "ban all technology", then sure, no one should, but generally that's not what care means at all.
>>6701073
By care I mean "give a single thought to". Nice try retard.
>>6701026
Who do you work for?
>>6701070
No that's not it, we will be currency.
>>6701081
Call me a retard because you can't understand sarcasm, huh?
>>6699243
There's nothing to be scared of. Just relaxamundo.
>>6701070
>1. Do you acknowledge that for some people it was a bad transition?
No. You yourself said that we have no way to know. So you are just making an arbitrary assumption that people suffered as a result.
>2. Do you acknowledge that the next transition will hurt more people in a harder way than ever before because required knowledge is higher?
No, you're retarded.
>Clearly it's harder to go from McDonalds worker to programmer/robots engineer/genetic biologist than from farmer to industrial machine operator.
Strawman. Clearly if this was a problem we would see unemployment rise with productivity. It doesn't. The fact is that people who lose their jobs find other jobs. Why do you idiots persist with this childish dystopian fantasy?
>>6701086
>sarcasm
>you're dumb
>lol you don't understand sarcasm
Faggot.
>>6701093
Nice try retard.
>>6699243
There would probably be some massive, horrible corporation producing robots. Of course, all of hackerdom hates this. So we start walking around with tesla coils. The end. Robots are fucked.
Lol I can just imagine it now. I hate that stupid robot, so I build a 4 transistor circuit that royally fucks its controls.
If anything, it will be hilarious. Don't worry.
>>6701047
Automotive automation automaton automater here, I automatically automate the automation of automotive automated automatons with automated automatic automators to increase automated automaton automaticity. It's going to get automatically automated. I will of course be automated by automatons in due time, but seriously, wow, autos.
>>6701099
I am the automation engineer that designed the autobot who made this comment.
I am not human, and it's automations all the way down.
K yeah I have officially convinced myself this is insane. (smart) humans are WAY fucking better at everything than robots, and the MOMENT that looks like it will change, I will walk around with tasers and shit. I'll protect my peeps.
>>6699243
See that bag of food? Chainsaw.
I'll get off with a misdemeanor - vandalism. Got an autolawyer.
No AI will EVER be able to do everything a human can. Admittedly specific case in point, the halting problem. If worse comes to worst, we could always set people up in factories, determining whether Turing machines will halt.
>>6701111
"No one will ever need more than 356k memory!"
>>6701111
>>assuming an AI will be a turing machine.
artificial neural networks have recently been shown to have beyond turing capability, but unfortunately we don't know what this really entails.
>>6701123
Sauce
>>6701111
>implying brains are not Turing machines
>>6701111
Note that we can solve the halting problem in the context of a specific computer. That is, if the problem is "will computer A halt when running program P with input I?" then we can use an even bigger computer (computer B) to determine if computer A reaches a previously held state during the course of executing program P with input I. If computer B happens to be a human, that's cool. But it could also just be a bigger computer.
>>6701202
That's not solving the halting problem though - the trick with the halting problem is finding a general solution, which has been proven impossible.
The only thing I am afraid of is when all the things we rely on stop working how will we adapt to a world empty of technology.
