OK /sci/ I know this is more of a /biz/ question, but they've been pretty dead lately.
What are the implications of automating most jobs with robots because that seems to be a serious thing a LOT of big businesses are considering? With all the talk of driverless cars, robots doing everything from cooking, trucking, data admin work, cleaning, accounting and programming, like seriously, WTF will all these MILLIONS of people who formerly used to do all these menial jobs do instead? All the academics are saying we should have a “basic income” where everyone gets paid a living wage and you’re free to do whatever you want (even be a full time NEET). But seriously, you can't expect to have such a nihilistic society where loads of people essentially free load the system! And then, theres the STEM meme... Seriously, if all these people got into menial jobs first place, what makes these academics expect them to “retrain” and get into specialized STEM fields?
>All the academics are saying we should have a “basic income”
I'm an academic and I don't say this. This is a dumb fucking idea to be honest. Where I live such speech comes mainly form parasites already freeloading on the system in one way or another (house squatters, "communist"/anarchist edgelords, government benefitters, etc.).
Why don't you look at history, in particular to the industrial revolution. Loads of people were laid off, but they just retrained to do some other job.
>>7918899
>Academic thinks he isn't a "government benfitter"
top kek, either a /pol/fag making shit up or a completely retarded TA/Grad student
>>7918901
In what way would my private funding be benefiting from the government, you plebtastic sperglord?
>>7918899
I keep hearing this stupid fucking fallacy comparing automation to the industrial revolution. This is NOT the same situation. The industrial revolution mainly made things easier through the use of machines that still required PEOPLE to operate.
But now with automation or use of intelligent robots, these can literally do ANY job WITHOUT the requirement of a human worker.
Thats a HUGE fucking difference compared to the industrial revolution.
Even so called "specialized" scientific research could be done by AI if it were given enough data and equations fed into it to numerically come up with solutions. Infact I know some researchers who do exactly this where they just run a bot, get the data, do analysis, and write software to even write their papers for them!
I seriously don’t know why you retarded libtard hippies and economists cannot comprehend this.
>muh business costs will be saved and efficiency improved by 9000% if we remove humans out of the equation!
No fucking shit Sherlock. And besides, who the fuck is going to buy shit corporations sell to us if people don’t have jobs or the money?
>inb4 basic income
>>7918907
>This is NOT the same situation as the Industrial Revolution
>machines that required PEOPLE to operate.
And why would more advanced machines not require people to operate? Or do they magically never break down or never need new resources, or .., or ... Just look at the car industry. It's already a front runner on automation, yet theres still a lot of people working on the factory floors. I think your view of how this will pan out is pretty warped.
>Even so called "specialized" scientific research could be done by AI if it were given enough data and equations fed into it
Calling bullshit.
>>7918923
>Calling bullshit.
http://aejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1759-4499-2-1
http://www.wired.com/2009/04/robotscientist/
>>7918923
>And why would more advanced machines not require people to operate?
The difference is it would require far FEWER workers. R&D can be entirely automated and only require a few top scientists/engineers to monitor developments.
>Or do they magically never break down or never need new resources, or .., or ... Just look at the car industry.
Its doing pretty great actually. Never mind faltering car revenues in developed countries, developing BRIC countries have utterly failed to produce the unlimited economic growth and revenue economists wished for.
>>7918928
>2009
>still hasn't threatened any jobs
My point exactly
>>7918937
>The difference is it would require far FEWER workers.
So what, they just retrain. They can, because your dream world where
>R&D can be entirely automated
won't actually happen.
>Its doing pretty great actually. Never mind faltering car revenues in developed countries, developing BRIC countries have utterly failed to produce the unlimited economic growth and revenue economists wished for.
None of this is relevant to machines replacing drone workers.
>>7918928
>machine had new idea
>wants to autonomously test it
>oh wait, I don't actually have 2000 kilogram robotic arms bolted to the floor in exactly the right configuration near a setup I also do not have to do any actual experiments
>top kek
>>7918943
>None of this is relevant to machines replacing drone workers.
>falling revenues means business have to cut costs
>easiest way to cut costs?
>lay off upto 25% of the workforce. (greater than that would be too much because share price would go down a lot)
>but anon, we need workers to build our cars!
>no problem, we can invest that 25% we saved by firing poorfags to buy more robots!
>rinse and repeat
>>7918953
The main goal of any business is to maximize profit, so they will always cut costs regardless of market saturation. Therefore, the paragraph was irrelevant.
>>7918870
Isn't it obvious? People lose jobs.
If it gets really bad you have to consider how the unemployed don't buy things. The economy would slow down as consumption decreases. Basic income will probably be introduced out of sheer necessity. The shrinking pool of specialistions that haven't been automated will be the only employed and very rich ones.
If humanity is wise enough we can transition to a society based on robotic labour, like the Solarians from Asimov's world.
>>7918899
>>7918923
It is possible that there would still be jobs for people. But it's highly unlikely that you have jobs for everyone, if you assume that low skilled jobs are the ones that will be replaced.
It depends on what kind of automation we get.
>>7918956
this self perpetuating cycle of constantly laying off workers in economic recessions and the corp getting bad PR rep in the aftermath, gives a STRONG incentive for these large corps to automatize their workforce. Slowly, but eventually.
>>7918959
>If humanity is wise enough we can transition to a society based on robotic labour, like the Solarians from Asimov's world.
>humanity
>wise
Low-skill jobs get replaced completely by robots, low-skill workers either revolt, are placated by a universal income, or live off pittance (die in the streets).
Every single one who thinks these people will retrain themselves to a higher-level profession is a delusional ideologue of the highest order, and has an emotional attachment to capitalism.
>>7919015
jesus finally somebody who makes sense. people say stem is oversaturated now but they expect thousands of people to retrain to do stem jobs which they didnt have the desire, financial means and/or intelligence to do in the first place.
What about shorter work hours, effectively rationing work?
In Europe we're already seeing lots of mandatory vacation time. Employers are required to give every worker weeks or months off.
Here in America, we don't do that, but we do have lots of government-funded "make-work".
We've got the largest military and more incarcerated criminals per capita than anybody.
So all we have to do is imprison all undesirables that don't wind up in the military, and have all the "better" people work 20 hours a week 20-30 weeks a year.
Broblem solved!
>>7918870
>All the academics are saying we should have a “basic income” where everyone gets paid a living wage and you’re free to do whatever you want (even be a full time NEET). But seriously, you can't expect to have such a nihilistic society where loads of people essentially free load the system!
I don't see how this is necessarily a bad thing. Maybe for a capitalist civilization it is.
>>7919015
fucking. this.
Why is common sense like this not apparent to everyone?
>>7919174
>finally somebody who makes sense
You mean, finally somebody who shares your opinion?
>>7919226
Not the guy, but please share how the guy he quoted is wrong in any way. He described the 3 possible outcomes of low-skill job automation of which universal income is the most likely for the society to continue to function. Retraining is pretty much an impossibility not only because people might not be smart enough to do it, but they wouldn't be willing to either. If you see how any of this is wrong, share.
>>7919237
He assumed all low-skill jobs will be done by robots and I doubt that.
It will likely not happen for ages. You need to replace every cleaner, waiter, cashier, other personnel, and many more.
Low-skill jobs, that require little thinking but a lot of manual labor are probably not the ones that will suffer most.
>>7919262
It's already happening in China, you know that right? I'm positive it won't take ages, but even if we assume that it will, the guy simply described the scenarios which will arise from complete automation, which are completely plausible. He didn't claim it would happen soon.
>He assumed all low-skill jobs will be done by robots and I doubt that.
I don't see why not, you might want to elaborate.
what does it feel like knowing literally every point made so far is in ted kaczynskis manifesto
>>7919262
robots don't bitch about their income, or spit in the meal of the customer, or lose count, or misunderstand a simple instruction such as "a plain burger with no sauces or vegetables", if economy of scales means anything, given the many fast food chains and how they all do the same things with different colors, prices and ingredients I don't see why those robots prices would not lower and get adopted in mass.
>>7918870
STEM fields are among that 47 percent. We've already replaced a large number of menial jobs with robots. It is now suddenly a big deal but higher level jobs are now at risk. I am not worried about it. Population decline will start setting in soon.
>>7919415
I don't really understand how "higher level" jobs can be replaced. In order for robotics to be more economical than workers, the job has to be repeatable within a relatively tight tolerance.
Imagine automating car detailing, for instance. You'd have to program a robot to every specific car, worry about car modifications, excessive dirt in places, a whole shit load of things. And that's just to clean a car.
Its all fun to say "everybody will be replaced with c3po" but the reality is that truly autonomous technology to that extent isn't even on the horizon yet, let alone making it more economical than some minimum wage Mexican.
