The Future and Software, interesting read

Forums › Off topic › The Future and Software, interesting read

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1778921 10-May-2017 09:22

Its an interesting concept, mass automation. Some may feel that change is constant, there will always be other jobs. Some believe that jobs are permanently lost, and if so, how does the effect of mass unemployment be arranged as the new norm, and quite ok. More leisure time being the reward for technology advances. Its probably more realistic to see 50% of jobs automated and permanently removed. It would be interesting to see an employment breakdown by industry type

Lizard1977

2061 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1778929 10-May-2017 09:27

I attended a talk by futurist Thomas Frey late last year who shared many of the same thoughts as the OP. One thing in particular that caught my attention, though, was the suggestion of how we will respond to the shift in jobs and training. When automation makes so many jobs redundant, but new jobs are created, how will people learn to do those new jobs? Even there, technology will play a huge part in re-training. Consider how technological advances, particularly AI, could disrupt the traditional learning model. If it doesn't take years and years to train and learn completely new skill sets, but if that could be achieved in months, weeks or even days, then the way our workforce responds to changes in the workplace will be completely different. In my mind, this means that the most crucial skill we should be investing in our kids is being able to respond and adapt (positively) to change, as that will be the most prominent thing in their future.

This video touches on some of that - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsmzFLc8AfY

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1778935 10-May-2017 09:37

Lizard1977:

I attended a talk by futurist Thomas Frey late last year who shared many of the same thoughts as the OP. One thing in particular that caught my attention, though, was the suggestion of how we will respond to the shift in jobs and training. When automation makes so many jobs redundant, but new jobs are created, how will people learn to do those new jobs? Even there, technology will play a huge part in re-training. Consider how technological advances, particularly AI, could disrupt the traditional learning model. If it doesn't take years and years to train and learn completely new skill sets, but if that could be achieved in months, weeks or even days, then the way our workforce responds to changes in the workplace will be completely different. In my mind, this means that the most crucial skill we should be investing in our kids is being able to respond and adapt (positively) to change, as that will be the most prominent thing in their future.

This video touches on some of that - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsmzFLc8AfY

I agree, training needs to be top notch, and pro active. But the issue is how many jobs will be lost to automation then added by automation, such as machine management, repairs. And how much of this leaves a net loss? Some unrelated industries would grow, such as leisure. Then, how does the increasing unemployed get paid? Or the 4 day week, then becomes 3 day week. 2 day week. Others will be in 40 hour weeks as their industry is unaffected, or has grown due to many spare people using their services. The key issue though is the distribution of wealth to the ever decreasing workforce. A fully paid workforce or unemployed workforce is crucial to the economy, as they are the chief end consumers

Lizard1977

2061 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1779134 10-May-2017 16:03

Agree totally - you lay out an interesting proposition for how to manage the transition. I remember having a similar discussion with some of my colleagues after a conference which included talks about the exponential growth and advancement of technology, and how these impacts should be managed. Sadly, my colleagues were very blinkered about these changes, and scoffed at the idea of a growing "leisure" sector given over to loftier or more creative/intellectual pursuits, which admittedly does sound quite Star Trek-ky. But that was kind of my point to them, which they seemed not to get - the type of change that is heading our way is unprecedented, and the outcomes will be huge. Status quo or tinkering at the edges won't be enough. While I don't for one second believe the future will be quite as polished, shiny or vanilla as many promotional videos might suggest, change will happen. I find it disturbing how many of my colleagues, charged with planning for the future, fail to appreciate the many different ways that things will change over the next few years and decades. Things that currently seem unthinkable to so many (UBI, a "leisure" sector, massive upheaval in the employment market, etc) will happen, whether we want it or not. Laughably, one colleague in particular, commented how she didn't like her smartphone and railed against things like social media, online interactions, etc. While she may hanker for days gone by, sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the future won't happen isn't the answer. Thinking creatively about what may be coming, based on what we can see happening now, makes perfect sense to me. It may not happen exactly as we imagine, but it's far better to start thinking about it now.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1779144 10-May-2017 16:37

Interestingly, that blinkered mentality is also expressed by some (not too many) people here. They simply cannot bear the thought of not gorging on meat every night or having roads and parking spaces at their disposal everywhere they want to point their petrol-powered V8s. Some really do fear change, others are probably just selfish and insist on putting their perceived convenience ahead of everything else. I think those most resistant to change will likely suffer the most from it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1779147 10-May-2017 16:43

Rikkitic:

Interestingly, that blinkered mentality is also expressed by some (not too many) people here. They simply cannot bear the thought of not gorging on meat every night or having roads and parking spaces at their disposal everywhere they want to point their petrol-powered V8s. Some really do fear change, others are probably just selfish and insist on putting their perceived convenience ahead of everything else. I think those most resistant to change will likely suffer the most from it.

There are views and there are views, opposing views are not necessarily blinkered views.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1779162 10-May-2017 16:51

MikeB4:

There are views and there are views, opposing views are not necessarily blinkered views.

Did you think I was referring to you? Whatever put that idea into your head?

Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that opposing views are blinkered. I just said some views are.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Lizard1977

2061 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1779163 10-May-2017 16:52

Yep, I think it's a mixture of fear of change/the unknown, and giving too much weight to the perceived negatives. The opposite - overstating the benefits - can be just as foolish. While it's a big generalisation, I think age is often a determining factor in how people respond to this issue. It seems that if your personal "future" is likely only a couple of decades long then the impact of change is something you might not particularly embrace or even comprehend. Conversely, if you likely have the better part of a half-century ahead of you then preparing for change and embracing it is perhaps more important. Within my workplace, the average age tends to mid to late 50s (though it has recently started to fall), and the clash between "young" and "old" viewpoints is interesting to watch.

From my own experience, I think of the massive leaps in technology over the past few decades and marvel at what is now possible. It doesn't take too much imagination to contemplate how things might change over the next few decades. In one example, last year I replaced my car which I'd owned for 10 years. It was 7 years old when I bought. The car I replaced it with was only 5 years old, meaning I'd owned my previous car for 5 years before my current car was even made. I'm likely to own this current car for another 10 years (fingers crossed). If I buy a similarly aged car to replace it in 2026, then it's a car that will be manufactured in 2021. It occurred to me that there is a good chance it will be electric, and a fair chance it will be self-driving (to some extent at least). Conceivably, I may have bought the last car I will ever drive. I then look to my 2 year old girl, and realise that I may never get the opportunity to teach her to drive (because she may not need to). That kind of thinking makes me wonder about the future, and how we will change and adapt.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1779165 10-May-2017 16:55

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

There are views and there are views, opposing views are not necessarily blinkered views.

Did you think I was referring to you? Whatever put that idea into your head?

Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that opposing views are blinkered. I just said some views are.

WTF, I just posted in response to your post.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1779207 10-May-2017 18:21

tdgeek:

Fred99:

The supposed main fear from the "AI revolution" won't be realised because the owners of the machines need a market for the products and services they make. You can't sell anything to impoverished masses - so one way or another, the spoils will have to be shared.

That's not going to be between the owners of the machines.

I agree. If the human factor is removed, that's a hole.

It would IMO be better if there was a lot of this, as that will show that there needs to be a restructure of the financial ecosystem, given that many humans are permanently unemployed. If it was a gradual change, which it would be, then what you get is slowly increasing unemployment, the Govt paying for it (not the taxpayer as the Govt will be reluctant to increase taxes), and the economy slides downwards. No one will want to act. Businesses that automate are happy, Govt wont want to upset them, or tax the workers more. There wont be a statement that the worker-machine-business relationship is changing and needs adapting. Wages for the remaining human jobs will decrease as too much supply of labour.

The Industrial Revolution and since has created jobs by increasing productivity and business activity. Population has grown, demand is there. Automation is different. It adds productivity and efficiency, but it retires humans. Factor in that it becomes more worthwhile to operate 24/7 as machines dont get wages and penal rates, that adds to the change.

The Industrial Revolution wasn't IMO so great for people living in countries with entrenched class systems - like Britain. My ancestors - who weren't "landed gentry" left that sh*t-hole in the mid 19th century, braving a daunting sea-voyage and unknown future in NZ, to escape the shipyards, poorhouses, stinking pollution, and coal mines.

The peak of the revolution was (IMO) in America, where unions demands for wages were met, and instead of making cheaper stuff for the wealthy few, they had factories churning out Model T Fords at a price where people working in the factories were then earning enough to buy the products they were producing. The spoils were being shared.

That's a problem with AI and our current reward system for labour, there will be no demand for human labour - so no "deserved" reward.

Yes - a complete restructure of the economic ecosystem is needed.

It does IMO need to be considered now - 'cause if it isn't, then the "revolution" could be very ugly.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1779236 10-May-2017 18:52

Fred99:

That's a problem with AI and our current reward system for labour, there will be no demand for human labour - so no "deserved" reward.

Yes - a complete restructure of the economic ecosystem is needed.

It does IMO need to be considered now - 'cause if it isn't, then the "revolution" could be very ugly.

Ideally, but unless someone can really quantify the effect, it will be hard. Over time, budgets are met or not met, global effects help or hinder our Govt. When unemployment falls, its great, when it rises its diluted by every other factor. It needs to be quantified somehow and raised to the people. Re reduced employment due to the regular factors and cycles, and permanent reductions. If this future issue becomes well known, its easier to look at innovative ideas to smooth the slow changes. NZ with its low population could be more exposed, as all we need is s few larger workforces to be on the automation trail to get a spike.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1779271 10-May-2017 19:32

IMO "unemployment" figures have become a ridiculously imprecise measure of economic performance, meaningless when many people not meeting the definition are for various reasons falling into a poverty trap - multi-generational, under-employed, indebted, health problems (incl mental health and substance abuse), housing unaffordability etc.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1779279 10-May-2017 19:40

Fred99:

IMO "unemployment" figures have become a ridiculously imprecise measure of economic performance, meaningless when many people not meeting the definition are for various reasons falling into a poverty trap - multi-generational, under-employed, indebted, health problems (incl mental health and substance abuse), housing unaffordability etc.

Agree. I didn't mean to imply they were a key measure of economic performance.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1779283 10-May-2017 19:49

One thing which *if full employment isn't possible - and/as the means of production use mainly robot labour* is the destigmatisation of "welfare".

With preconditions (ie "get "clean", go work picking up litter etc) - welfare and "workfare" isn't "charity" - it's "slavery". Life needs to have meaning / hope for the (a better) future.

Litter might need to be picked up, trees planted, community gardens, de-industrialising elder-care etc,. There should be time freed up by reducing the need to work to improve the planet

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek

#1779398 10-May-2017 23:56

The OP says some interesting stuff but does anyone really believe that it is an interview with the MD of Daimler Benz?

Is any traditional car industry boss going to come out and say: "You don't want to own a car anymore"?

Of course not, their shareholders would be out with blazing pitchforks.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6