That's a bit of an unknown right now. But the automated food preparation machines etc. would need maintenance, so perhaps fast food places will still need to hire some people to maintain those.
That's a concern, but it still seems like theory right now. I don't think we would have to let AI totally take over and become self-aware and all that.
Nightfox
This new industrial paradigm will see us past capitalism and towards a new resource based economy.
No, the maintenance jobs required will be far less in number than the menial jobs they're replacing, and not all coffee slingers and burger flippers have either the aptitude or desire to move to a maintenance position. There absolutely will be employment displacement.
Likewise, many analyst and admin positions are starting to be threatened in the same way, so we're going to be losing jobs both at the top and the bottom of the aptitude ladder.
Exactly this. The current economic system appears to incentivize efficiency in order to create more profit. Using that line of thinking it is necessary to replace inefficient meat machines with steel machines that never tire, never eat and would probably only need to be maintained every six months or so.
But therein lies the problem, because the current economic system also requires people earning and spending money to function, money that they get by being inefficient meat machines. It's like this endless ouroboros that shouldn't stop eating its tail lest it'll die.
-*- a small site: atroxi.neocities.org -*-
That's why UBI has been discussed in order to maintain the consumer
based economy. It's more profitable for the largest corporations to
pay far higher taxes than it is to employ a human workforce. This will
be a phased process over the next 20-30 years, but it'll happen during
most of our lifetimes.
As machines become more reliable, smarter and cheaper to run/produce,
the human workforce will dwindle -- this is the model for the "New
Future" and there's no stopping it.
That's why UBI has been discussed in order to maintain the consumer based economy. It's more profitable for the largest corporations to pay far higher taxes than it is to employ a human workforce. This will be a phased process over the next 20-30 years, but it'll happen during most of our lifetimes.
But how will the rich corporations sustain their riches? Who is goingIf you have tons of Artificial General Intelligence equipped robots you need no money to be rich anymore. Just put your robots to work. Let them manufacture your stuff for your own consumption. No need to buy anything
to
But how will the rich corporations sustain their riches? Who is going to
buy their products when the majority of people are not working and only receiving UBI? I don't think the rich corporations would stay rich for
very long that way. Besides, corporations find ways to funnel their
riches to avoid paying taxes. So, how is the gov't going to fund UBI for the long-term?
What exactly are the non-working people going to do? Is it supposed to be
a world as depicted in Brave New World by Huxley where everyone just "lives", takes soma and have sex?
Extreme case: in thedark universe of the future, humans become fat lazy useless asses that are capable of no useful work whatsoever, and all the workforce consists of automated droids, which are owned by a single propietor.
At that point, the single owner of the droids gets absolutely no benefit for sustaining a useless mass of humans who is incapable of doing anything for him. He could as well drop the burden, so to speak, since his mechanical slaves are doing anything he needs for him.
Extreme examples are extreme, but the point is, at some point any entity that posseses big ammounts of workforce will decide that it is not worth the effort to dedicate high quantities of that workforce to sustain third parties. Corporations like high taxes because it prevents mom and dad business from stealing from their pie, but if you were to crank it up too much...
Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial Revolution
By: Andeddu to Arelor on Tue Aug 04 2020 07:10 pm
It's up to the humans to protest and lobby goverment into enacting protectiv legislation -- much like the Luddites of the 1700-1800s.
Here is the thing. There are two kinds of REAL power.
1* Being able to give others what they want.
2* Being able to destroy something others want.
A small group of propietors with an enormous army of droids has loads of Power 1 (they can give manufactured goods to the public and the government) and probably Power 2 (killer robots and Terminators).
If the public ever became concerned about the increasing power of Necrocomp Inc and its power over the country and attempted to coerce the government to enact protective legislation, Necrocomp would use Power 1 ("No more cheap medicines for you, Mr. President, if you pass the anti-robots bill").
Giving cheap or free stuff to people and making them dependant on you has been historically much more powerful than beating them to do your bidding. We can see it nowadays when a change of legislation makes some industry relocate from some city. Every politician pisses their pants.
On 08-06-20 20:43, Ogg wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The discussion was what would humans do when they are all jobless and replaced by automation. At least total displacement is the theorical extreme. I don't think that would ever be the reality. Money
ultimately drives progress and/or exploitation. Rich people need other people.
The writers for StarTrek or similar have explored the idea of societies where automation surpasses human efficiency, and eventually androids/ machines "decide" that humans are a hinderance to further efficiency therefore must be destroyed.
The discussion was what would humans do when they are all jobless and replaced by automation. At least total displacement is the theorical extreme. I don't think that would ever be the reality. Money ultimately drives progress and/or exploitation. Rich people need other people.
The writers for StarTrek or similar have explored the idea of societies where automation surpasses human efficiency, and eventually androids/ machines "decide" that humans are a hinderance to further efficiency therefore must be destroyed.
I am glad you posted that.
From a BBC article:
"Stanley Kubrick's film 2001 and its murderous computer HAL encapsulate
many people's fears of how AI could pose a threat to human life"
Even Elon Musk has reservations on AI. I haven't read much on Elon's concerns, but I will now.
My take on AI is that although it is referred to "machine learning" by engineers, it is still a bunch of if/then/else sequences done very fast to appear like the device is smart. The if/then/else stuff and any other considerations still have to be programmed by humans. Humans are not perfect and cannot forsee all scenarios.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 158:35:41 |
| Calls: | 162 |
| Files: | 5,334 |
| Messages: | 221,585 |