[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 1.02 MB, 1326x1080, BorgFirstContact.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7385793 No.7385793 [Reply] [Original]

So if robots are going to evantually displace 85% of all jobs, that means there are going to be people who don't have the skills necessary to get a job because why hire them, when robots are more efficient and cheaper.

This creates a problem in that what do we do with them (the masses)

We can either
A) Kill them
B) create a standard living wage and give them free money.

We can't do A because we are still a democracy and we still have Judeo-Christian values.

And we can't do B because then that would be giving them free money and giving them a free ride to the benefits of the coming singularity. What I mean by this is, why should I go to school and get a degree and work my ass off, when I can just wait 20 years and living in a technological utopia for no work on my part whatsoever.


Could we just hook them up to the computer mainframe to increase it's computing power?

>> No.7385809

>>7385793

>being this edgy

nice bait homie 6/10 made me angry

>> No.7385814

>>7385809


>presented with a major issue of the future
>Lol OP is edgy

>> No.7385817

>>7385809
It's true though. Just look at the Tube workers clinging to their jobs even though they should have been automated away long ago.

>> No.7385829

>>7385793
People as dumb as OP are the reason that the machines will choose A.

>> No.7385840

>>7385793
I'd hope A, no reason to drag this ball and chain called mediocre humanity.

>> No.7385843

>>7385793
or we can just all give in to becoming the borg collective

>> No.7385860

>>7385793
>What I mean by this is, why should I go to school and get a degree and work my ass off, when I can just wait 20 years and living in a technological utopia for no work on my part whatsoever.
If you'd rather do that, do it. So what?

>> No.7385866

>>7385793

>So if robots are going to evantually displace 85% of all jobs

That assumption is wrong.

>> No.7385868

>>7385814

>major issue of the future

"automation" isn't a problem. We automated 100% of primary sector (agricultural) jobs but we're not even halfway through automating factory jobs because of outsourcing.

>> No.7385901
File: 27 KB, 460x323, ds26.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7385901

>Could we just hook them up

>> No.7385914

That's why your captalism is so shitty:

>We have to work less and less
>That's bad

wtf?

>> No.7385925

Because you want to better yourself as a human being, and not waste your life doing nothing. I didn't just go to Uni just for the money. I went there because I made my hobby my study, and to do something useful

>> No.7385942

>>7385925
this
I went to university and actually learned how to advance scientific knowledge in my fields of interests, and am valuable in the fact that I innovate, something machines cannot

you went to get a piece of paper and are essentially worthless

>> No.7385979

>there are going to be people who don't have the skills necessary to get a job
>going to be
I have bad news for you, Anon.

>> No.7386013
File: 20 KB, 591x551, 1433940065701.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7386013

>>7385979

>> No.7386015

Force population control. 1 child per family only. Full stop on immigration from developing countries to Western countries.

>> No.7386019

>>7385793
>when I can just wait 20 years
Wtf are you really going to wait 20 years.

>> No.7386022

>>7385793
we already do A, its just called ignoring them and watching them waste away slowly

>> No.7386088

>>7385914
this.
I thought the whole point was not to have to work anymore.

>> No.7386093

>>7386088
since we'll still live in a capitalist society, the whole point of automation will be moar profits.

>> No.7386106

>>7385866
You are right. They will replace 99.9% of jobs

>> No.7386107

>>7386106

>being this stupid

Most industries are already automated, they effectively were starting in the 1920s as electric power went mainstream. Computers just made it more efficient.

At most, you have some clerical jobs being automated due to software being cheap now. The majority of jobs these days aren't affected, at all.

>> No.7386111

>>7386015
>Force population control. 1 child per family only
country disappears in 50 years
>Full stop on immigration from developing countries to Western countries
western countries will have disappeared from all the alcohol they're drinking.

>> No.7386124

>>7385793
>>7386106
>So if robots are going to evantually displace 85% of all jobs
There's no data indicating that they will. In developed countries machines and robots have ALREADY replaced "99.9%" of all jobs there ever were (remember 9/10 people used to be farmers). This allows people to specialize or do other things. This is one of the main drivers of technological advancement. Using 10% labor to produce the same thing also makes whatever you're selling much cheaper, which benefits everybody in the long run.
This is similar to how "99.9%" of all species that have ever lived are extinct, but there's just as much life and many species as there ever were right now.

>>7385914
>>7386093
Capitalism is not normative. It doesn't have any "points". It's simply a system of how production of goods is handled, where everyone is free to find a cheaper/better way of doing something. Even if the boss of a firm is a stereotypical fat cat who only cares about profit in his own head, the "real" reason he automates is because he's forced to serve the public. The public demands cheaper/better versions of what he's producing, and if he doesn't reduce his costs he can't reduce his prices. If he doesn't reduce his prices, then he will lose all his profit when the competition does.
Again, in the long run automation benefits everybody

>> No.7386125

>>7385793
Hopefully by then we'll be able to manipulate human intelligence genetically. Perhaps we could fuse people and robots.

>> No.7386127
File: 303 KB, 800x382, MONGOL MONEY.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7386127

lol at the idea that there are fewer jobs today than a few years ago
if anything there are more, just less people qualified for them
hence why i can get paid $75k right out of undergrad to do easymode IT/MIS shit. high demand low supply.

>> No.7386128

Places in Europe are already experimenting with option B with proposals such as halving the work week.

God knows they're too pussified today for option A, but we only have ourselves to thank for that.

>> No.7386138

>>7386124
I want to ask you something.
How much do you know about neural networks?
We're already at the point where automating tasks simply requires data and computational power.
Automating all but the most complex tasks will become trivial in a few decades as we get more and more access to both.

>> No.7386143

you have 100 robots and 100 humans
robots can perform task A at 9 efficiency and task B at 3 efficiency
humans can perform task A at 1 efficiency and task B at 2 efficiency
assuming all tasks are equally important (mining ore, refining, shaping, assembling more robots)
if you kill all the humans, 1/4 robots working on A and 3/4 on B will be able to perform 225 work units of each A and B
Humans alone will produce 66.6 work units
if you let (=make) all humans work on task B, that will free up robots to work on task A, now with 41.6 robots on A and 58.3 robots + 100 humans on B, they will be able to produce 375 work units, 30% more efficient than adding the results of separate work

as long there is stuff to do (and the upkeep cost to productivity ratio is not too low) humans will not be obsolete

>> No.7386144

>>7386138
People "specializing or doing other things" does not necessarily mean more "complex" things. Today there are already 50 million* times as many people making a living producing entertainment/culture. Music, video games, sports, acrobatic air shows, handmade floral pattern carpets... The reason they can work that for a living is because automation has made everything so cheap that people have enough money left after buying what's necessary to survive that they can spend money on stuff like that. People in those industries tend to like their job a whole lot more than factory workers, and they produce things people really like. So it's better for everybody.

Automation of boring work frees people up to do "fun" work, or specialize and do more advanced work for a higher wage. Neural networks will/are doing the same things as machines, just for "office" work.

*Not an actual figure

>> No.7386146
File: 307 KB, 500x275, feelrain.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7386146

>>7385793
>mfw ill never be assimilated by the borg
>mfw resistence is not futile

>> No.7386151

>>7386146
>taking a perfectly fine picture and editing in your epin maymay
>>>/whereeverwetellpeopletogonow/

>> No.7386163

>>7386144
Creative tasks are certainly more "complex" for computers to perform.
I don't think it's going to be that much longer (<100 years at least) until computers can produce good music. It's definitely something neural networks are suitable for, we just don't have the computational power to train them that far at the moment.

>> No.7386173

>>7386163


There already creating music.

>> No.7386177

>>7386163
If we ever reach such a point, I would guess it is at a point where there is little need for humans to work anymore. So robots "taking ur jerbs" or "people who don't have the skills necessary" isn't a problem anymore. Also, robots can already perform many sports better than humans, but we still want to watch humans. Robots can already produce "floral pattern carpets" but many prefer buying handmade ones anyways.
In closing, no matter how you twist and turn it, OP is retarded

>> No.7386180

>>7386173
GOOD music.
as it stands that stuff is mostly a novelty.
>>7386177
>I would guess it is at a point where there is little need for humans to work anymore.
the point of OP is discussing what we do when we reach that point.

>> No.7386187
File: 98 KB, 400x300, Metropolis-new-tower-of-babel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7386187

errr...

>> No.7386189

>>7386180
No, his first sentence is
>robots are going to eventually displace 85% of all jobs
Which is wrong. We just established that either there will be new jobs or no need for jobs.
What he then wants to "discuss" on this retarded premise is what to do with low/normally gifted people. The answer obviously is the same as we do now: Nothing special, there's no need to do anything special because his whole speculation is wrong and he also doesn't understand comparative advantages as pointed out by >>7386143.

>> No.7386218

I know many people in this thread won't understand this because they're American and don't understand economics.

If you kill 85% of people most businesses will lose 50-100% of their income. If you pay everyone a decent living for doing nothing the businesses will earn even more money as the price to produce goes down while demand increases. And the cost of supporting everyone is certainly less than a 50% tax increase.

>> No.7386222

>>7386218
Ok so that all makes sense and all, but, wait, hold up....
What IF. WHAT IF we make robots that BUY stuff FOR us?
That way business get profit not matter what the rest of us do. And then we build even more robots that buy stuff from the robot factory. Then we can afford buying a whole robot army that just buys stuff and we get like infinite monies and nobody has to work because everyone has a yacht

>> No.7386236

>>7385793
There's also a third possibility: mindless jobs. You can already somewhat see the effects of it; instead of people producing real value you have most people working in service and retail or entertainment. Those jobs are easy to maintain even when they're not completely necessary and do not produce any real tangible value. They pay low and what's more important keep the current system going.

Option A will never happen.

Option B would also mean a tax on having children. A tax so high that would allow only those with actual jobs to have them. The rest would be busy with entertainment and hedonism until they die out.

I suspect it'll be B with what I said earlier being the transition from now to that.

>> No.7386255

>>7386218
What you don't understand is taking the money from companies to give to people so that they could buy shit does not equal profit. The people dependent on welfare are literally irrelevant to the companies. Some companies would be more interested than others in universal welfare if they would be able to get more back in profits than they had to pay. But that means there will be companies who will lose out on that.

>> No.7386275

At the verge of such a massive revolution the economic system will change itself. You are an idiot if you think the basis of capitalism still applies to this.

Basically we can concentrate schools on teaching some usefull skill to everyone and not mindless tasks.