If Machines Produce Everything...

Forums › Off topic › If Machines Produce Everything...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1405838 14-Oct-2015 18:07

MikeAqua: If automation really progresses, and most work is undertaken by technology, then only people who have own productive productive assets (food production, technology, real estate) will make money.

That suggests we will have to restructure our economies so that people primarily derive income not from employment but from cash yielding investments.

Or entertainment.
Without work people will get bored and do stupid things.

I also suspect that "partial employment" may be the norm where by the basic needs are met for free (basic housing, food,clothing,education,health), however if you want to do more (travel, bigger house, etc) then some form of employment will be required, these jobs will be either highly skilled, or highly complex (e.g. works of art, music, house painting, farming, medicine, product design, etc, law and order).

Production will shift from "next years model" to sustainable products that can be easily repaired/recycled.

sleemanj

1490 posts

Uber Geek

#1405848 14-Oct-2015 18:22

sir1963:

I will believe it when I see it.

The cost of preparing for what most will see as a major problem and it not happening, pales in comparison to not preparing for it only to find out it does happen.

I think the Americans are as likely to give up driving as they are to give up guns.

It's not the private cars we need to worry about.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405859 14-Oct-2015 18:29

sleemanj:
joker97: The rest are either not machine producable, or not conducive. Eg flying an aircraft, removing an appendix

Pilotless aviation is a matter of time, as we already know somewhat autonomous aircraft are in use daily militarily, pilotless or remotely piloted transport aircraft with 1 pilot overseeing many aircraft, most in cruise, is an economic and potentially safety improvement. It's no different to driver-less land transport.

Removing an appendix, is further out certainly but even if it's a surgeon still doing the work, the anaesthetist, the nurses, and all the various support staff... that's bot work in perhaps 30 years.

I'm not sure if you understand the paradigm of the CAA. They build in layers and layers of redundancy to ensure that if 25 safety features slip through the crack, the 26th layer will pick it up and prevent a disaster. I'm not part of the CAA but yes they could reverse their stance. Of the double electronic controls and readouts, they have a third, analogue one. Of all their electronics, They have at least one paper copy of aircraft manual thicker than a rugby ball.

No 2 humans are made the same. A bot will not be the same as a surgeon. The surgeon is useless without his assistants. When the specimen is dying in front of the surgeon from something as simple as oxygen tubing disconnected he will want a human anaesthetist to come and fix it (granted, the anaesthetist could probably supervise a trained human guarding the patient and be summoned within 30 seconds rather than be in the room).

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1405863 14-Oct-2015 18:44

sleemanj:
sir1963:

I will believe it when I see it.

The cost of preparing for what most will see as a major problem and it not happening, pales in comparison to not preparing for it only to find out it does happen.

I think the Americans are as likely to give up driving as they are to give up guns.

It's not the private cars we need to worry about.

One would have presumed the cost of not going metric would have more than made up for the cost of converting, but there are no signs they will ever change.

As for driverless taxis and the like, again a huge hurdle to get people to trust them.

Next issue is who/how are roads paid for.

sleemanj

1490 posts

Uber Geek

#1405865 14-Oct-2015 18:46

joker97: I'm not sure if you understand the paradigm of the CAA

I spent quite a number of years involved in aviation. So, yup, I do kinda. NZ CAA is actually pretty good to deal with, they are quite open to new ideas, new technologies, relative to other aviation authorities in the world they can almost be seen as flexible and permissive. Of course, rule-making is not a fast process, if they say 1 year, it'll really take 10 before you get an NPRM, but hey they get there in the end.

I have no doubt that when (not if) commercial pilotless transport aircraft become a thing, they will become a thing here too.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405868 14-Oct-2015 18:48

There would be two types of jobs.

1. Human Only
Sport, entertainment, helping elderly and infirmed, law enforcement. Others

2. Automation
Watching dials, listening for warnings.

Say the shift to almost everything automated changed unemployment from 7% to 83%. Te jobs that required talent are a no go. The automation jobs and the basic human only jobs are few and far between, as the available workforce has now increased many times over. Maybe we work 3 hours a day for the same weekly rate we get now? Doctors too, otherwise thats unfair and unlikely to be worthwhile. To me, its about re engineering the economy so that the same wealth is shared the same way, per person. In fact increase the relative wealth as we all now have for more time to spend.

Take NZ. Govt has a required income from taxes. Every worker has an income to spend on the annual purchases. Everything is related as my spending puts income into others pockets.

THEN, increase unemployment to 83%. Those wages are eliminated as automation removed them, aside from the addition of a very small percentage of dial watchers. Deduct the highly skilled and the talented earners, whats left over are the masses. The relationship of income and spending and profits will have to change. The Govts and the workers Profit and Loss Account and its Balance Sheet, has to change. Reworked. How do I buy automation produced goods if I am in a line of 1500 people to get one dial watcher job?

Like Star Trek, "we gave money up in the 2200's" Maybe we need to evolve to being a species that lives, is comfortable and healthy, and not of the work hard to get ahead breed? Essentially we would have actually succeed in breaking that mould and living a new lifestyle with different goals.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405871 14-Oct-2015 18:53

sir1963:
sleemanj:
sir1963:

I will believe it when I see it.

The cost of preparing for what most will see as a major problem and it not happening, pales in comparison to not preparing for it only to find out it does happen.

I think the Americans are as likely to give up driving as they are to give up guns.

It's not the private cars we need to worry about.

One would have presumed the cost of not going metric would have more than made up for the cost of converting, but there are no signs they will ever change.

As for driverless taxis and the like, again a huge hurdle to get people to trust them.

Next issue is who/how are roads paid for.

I trust my GPS. I would have increased trust if my car travelled at the speed limit, obeyed every light, sensed danger, as did every other car. Accidents caused by automated cars would have to infinitely lower than those caused by humans. And there would need to be a big fat red button to kill the vehicle if it played up.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1405873 14-Oct-2015 18:54

This is why economists are starting to talk about a Universal Basic Income funded by the "machine owners".

It's the only thing that makes any sense if life as we know it is to continue. Otherwise a growing population will be competing for a shrinking number of jobs (that we don't need to do anyway because machines can do them 24/7 anyway). There won't be a good end to that if people can't feed and house themselves.

It's a no-brainer unless your head is stuck in some other time and place that required people to actually work for a living. Looks like in the future that just won't be required. We'll be free to do whatever we want....assuming we have the means to live. Can't se why we wouldn't....unless evil psychopaths who can't think properly are still calling the shots at that point.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

sleemanj

1490 posts

Uber Geek

#1405877 14-Oct-2015 18:57

sir1963:
As for driverless taxis and the like, again a huge hurdle to get people to trust them.

Freight will be the first casualty, for reasons already stated.

As for passenger trust... we are not talking about this happening tomorrow, we are talking maybe 30 years.

30 years ago people didn't trust "jap junk" cars.
30 years ago people had only just started to understand and trust desktop computers.
30 years from today do you think that people still won't trust an automated passenger transport vehicle?

We can stick our head in the sand and "cross that bridge if we come to it".

Or we can start thinking about ways in which to prevent this probable (or even just "potential" if you prefer) unsustainable socio-economic situation.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405878 14-Oct-2015 18:58

tdgeek:
sir1963:
sleemanj:
sir1963:

I will believe it when I see it.

The cost of preparing for what most will see as a major problem and it not happening, pales in comparison to not preparing for it only to find out it does happen.

I think the Americans are as likely to give up driving as they are to give up guns.

It's not the private cars we need to worry about.

One would have presumed the cost of not going metric would have more than made up for the cost of converting, but there are no signs they will ever change.

As for driverless taxis and the like, again a huge hurdle to get people to trust them.

Next issue is who/how are roads paid for.

I trust my GPS. I would have increased trust if my car travelled at the speed limit, obeyed every light, sensed danger, as did every other car. Accidents caused by automated cars would have to infinitely lower than those caused by humans. And there would need to be a big fat red button to kill the vehicle if it played up.

Jeremy Clarkson has a question for you.

Your self drive car is going at 70, suddenly a car decides to overtake an oncoming car and is in your lane. There are some kids on the left side of the road somewhere ahead, running erratically. What will your car do?

sleemanj

1490 posts

Uber Geek

#1405899 14-Oct-2015 19:10

joker97:

Your self drive car is going at 70, suddenly a car decides to overtake an oncoming car and is in your lane. There are some kids on the left side of the road somewhere ahead, running erratically. What will your car do?

Your human drive car is going at 70, [...] The human after taking 2-3 seconds to realise what is happening, swerves, loses control due to slow human response to the changing road surface and incorrect inputs due to poor driver training, causing a loss of traction, rolls his car, killing the occupants, and the children which were collected along the way.

A self-driving car, might well avoid the car and the children too, because the self-driving car can fully evaluate the situation far quicker than a human, it can compute trajectories, acceleration, braking ability and hundreds of other variables, it can weigh up various courses of action in an instant, it can decide upon an action, it can carry out that action and correct during any manoeuvre virtually instantaneously for any previously unknowable variables.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1405900 14-Oct-2015 19:11

Jeremy Clarkson has a question for you.

Your self drive car is going at 70, suddenly a car decides to overtake an oncoming car and is in your lane. There are some kids on the left side of the road somewhere ahead, running erratically. What will your car do?

The default would be to begin to slow down. Evasive action of possible. But in the event some sort of collision can't be avoided, who gets top priority? The person in the car? Other drivers? Pedestrians?

I'm picking speed limits would be reduced and enforced automatically...and that roads could well be fenced off from pedestrians except at intersections. Sidewalks would be inside the fenced off, non-road area.

Or we just avoid the whole thing and set up a proper public transport system and that would get most cars off the roads.....even including tradies and people with groceries.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405902 14-Oct-2015 19:14

sleemanj:
sir1963:
As for driverless taxis and the like, again a huge hurdle to get people to trust them.

Freight will be the first casualty, for reasons already stated.

As for passenger trust... we are not talking about this happening tomorrow, we are talking maybe 30 years.

30 years ago people didn't trust "jap junk" cars.
30 years ago people had only just started to understand and trust desktop computers.
30 years from today do you think that people still won't trust an automated passenger transport vehicle?

We can stick our head in the sand and "cross that bridge if we come to it".

Or we can start thinking about ways in which to prevent this probable (or even just "potential" if you prefer) unsustainable socio-economic situation.

30 years ago people were drinking DB. Today they drink craft beer.

People accept improvement to quality of life, so if automation facilitates that, then I am sure it will find a way to happen. If automation decreases quality of life, eg making bars run by robots, people will just stay at home or have their own parties.

I am not well versed with commercial aviation, so it could become pilotless, if the aviation community deems it as an improvement. Same with cutting open someone's body made from 100 trillion cells (wikipedia) arranged just ever so slightly different, if it can be improved, it will succeed. If not, it won't.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405903 14-Oct-2015 19:17

sleemanj:
joker97:

Your self drive car is going at 70, suddenly a car decides to overtake an oncoming car and is in your lane. There are some kids on the left side of the road somewhere ahead, running erratically. What will your car do?

Your human drive car is going at 70, [...] The human after taking 2-3 seconds to realise what is happening, swerves, loses control due to slow human response to the changing road surface and incorrect inputs due to poor driver training, causing a loss of traction, rolls his car, killing the occupants, and the children which were collected along the way.

A self-driving car, might well avoid the car and the children too, because the self-driving car can fully evaluate the situation far quicker than a human, it can compute trajectories, acceleration, braking ability and hundreds of other variables, it can weigh up various courses of action in an instant, it can decide upon an action, it can carry out that action and correct during any manoeuvre virtually instantaneously for any previously unknowable variables.

And if every car was self driving, that would help significantly. However, the erratic children can't be managed so the cars would do the best job they could

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1405907 14-Oct-2015 19:26

Linuxluver: This is why economists are starting to talk about a Universal Basic Income funded by the "machine owners".

It's the only thing that makes any sense if life as we know it is to continue. Otherwise a growing population will be competing for a shrinking number of jobs (that we don't need to do anyway because machines can do them 24/7 anyway). There won't be a good end to that if people can't feed and house themselves.

It's a no-brainer unless your head is stuck in some other time and place that required people to actually work for a living. Looks like in the future that just won't be required. We'll be free to do whatever we want....assuming we have the means to live. Can't se why we wouldn't....unless evil psychopaths who can't think properly are still calling the shots at that point.

Agree fully. If that day of automation could automagically happen at midnight tonight, we will still have the same population, the same demand for goods, the same production of goods. The same number of companies ( that only has one bog as there are only 4 people watching dials there) So, its a numbers game. Todays numbers are wages for all, taxes, company tax. These pay for Govt needs, every persons needs, every investors needs (shareholders of all the companies). We have the same numbers of dollars to play with, so we work out a way to re distribute these dollars. Universal income, yes, thats an option. Put company taxes up through the roof, essentially paying the taxes that its 300 workers generated. Companies would have to rethink their MO. The desire to make money, be a millionaire, be an astute investor are over. Thats been replaced by a desire to enjoy life in the extra hours we now have. Maybe every worker has a 3 hour day, a 2 hour day. a 1 hour day, the idea is to keep effort fair and equitable. The biggest change is a desire to work for a living and lifestyle. And not to work to survive or work to be a millionaire.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7