Slashdot Mirror
Will Humanoid Robots Take All the Jobs by 2050?
Anonymous writes "Marshall Brain (the guy who started HowStuffWorks) has published an article claiming that robots will take half the jobs in the U.S. by 2050. Some of his predictions: real computer vision systems by 2020, computers with the CPU power and memory of the human brain by 2040, completely robotic fast food restaurants in 2030 (which then unemploy 3.5 million people), etc. It's a pretty astounding article. My question: How many people on /. think he is right (or even close - let's say he's off by 10 or 20 years)? Or is he full of it?"
I will make this prediction: by 2008, every meal in every fast food restaurant will be ordered from a kiosk like this, or from a similar system embedded in each table.
Yeah, I'm going to go with a no on this one. Everyone said the same thing when ATMs came around, "Oh no, they're going to replace actual tellers!" But it didn't, banks still hire quite frequently for bank tellers.
I'm not saying these kiosks aren't going to become more prevalent, but they won't replace actual human contact. Having previously worked in many service related jobs I know that people (especially older adults) will not allow this to occur. We all need to be able to talk to an actual human every once in a while. Computers don't care if you yell. Could you imagine the amount of complaints McDonalds would get?
With this being said, I love automated services such as "Pay-at-the-Pump" and especially self-checkout at the grocery stores. It's not that I'm some hermit who likes no human contact, but who wants to make idle chit-chat with some register jockey?
Mike
"Who will be the first large group of employees to be completely automated out of their jobs by robots? Chances are that it will be pilots."
Uh, uh. No way, no how. In case of an emergency onboard an aircraft I will literally bet my life on the instincts of a human being over the computational prowess of machine.
there will be robots.
Please, no more mod points. I only abuse them.
Watch the Animatrix: The Second Renaissance part 1 and 2.
The arrival of humanoid robots should be a cause for celebration. With the robots doing most of the work, it should be possible for everyone to go on perpetual vacation. Instead, robots will displace millions of employees, leaving them unable to find work and therefore destitute. I believe that it is time to start rethinking our economy and understanding how we will allow people to live their lives in a robotic nation.
Does anyone else see Brave New World here? Artificial industries created in allowing humans to be free of worry and work...merely players in a game whose goal is to increase consumption.
Worrying stuff. Now where's my soma..
I thought all our fast food workers already were robots.
-n
Time to watch "The Second Renaissance" for a list of things NOT to do to our soon-to-be computer overlords. ;)
This article is absolutely rediculous. How do you make a connection between a kiosk where you can order food at McDonalds and robots taking over every job in the United States? First of all, I don't think a fast food resteraunt could be completely automated. Machines are good at things like accounting, but when it comes to human interaction there is a lot of room for improvement.
Autonomous humanoid robots will take disruption to a whole new level. Once fully-autonomous, general-purpose humanoid robots are as easy to buy as an automobile, most people in the economy will not be able to make the labor = money trade anymore. They will have no way to earn money, and that means they end up homeless and on welfare.
This is horseshit. First of all it is impossible, if most people in the economy were on welfare they would be no economy. Where would these companies get money to build and maintain the robots? I don't disagree that there will probably be a lot of automated systems in the near future, but this article is just stupid.
Visualize the world of wine
If robots take over most of the jobs, is anyone actually going to be able to by the products produced? It sounds like a great deal, to not pay employees, but people without jobs don't make the greatest consumers. Once they quit buying stuff, we will have a bunch of unemployed robots
The problem with most of these predictions is that there are claims of robots taking over service jobs, which I find highly doubtful. People don't like interacting with robots-- that's why automated call answering systems piss people off so much when they call their favorite stores or businesses. I can see robotic technology taking over some other hard labor jobs once the intelligence is there, and perhaps assisting in some of the engineering areas, but not in the numbers he's talking about, and not as soon.
KappaStone
.. Will H1B Robots take all the jobs by 2055?
n/t
Pretty much all this analysis assumes that Moore's Law will keep going indefinitely. As soon as that runs out of steam, computer technology will advance far more slowly, and any advances that seemed to be just ten years off will be shunted off to the far future.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
there must come a time when everything that can be outsourced, has, and everywhere than could be outsourced to is just as expensive as home labour. This will then be the spur to finally robotise jobs and give us all the life of leisure promised in those film from the 50's and 60's...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
is to make forward-looking predictions which are
justified with little more than hand-waiving
arguments, and the other to look at past
history and see what type of hand-waiving
arguments of days gone by have actually come
to fruition.
The author touches on the issue, but IMO is
comparing apples to oranges in this quote:
Rather than talk about airplanes, let's talk
about robotics since that's the subject of the
article. Off the top of my head, the
industries in which robots have dominated
more than any other are in chip fabs and
automobile assembly lines, and this has been
the case for over a decade. Are we seeing
the type of doomsday scenario for the
workforce that this article implies?
Hopefully we can get some robots editing slashdot, maybe we will get better stories?? (Or more accurately: blog entries)?
So, which Labor union or lobbiest group will let something like this happen? Hey, if I can't eat peanuts in the airplanes, then I'll be damn sure that there won't be a swarm of robots taking over jobs.
Sure, some will. Fast food restaurants, perhaps, but not entirely. What? You want robots to make real-world decisions? You want humans to lose power of the world. Gimme a break. Why in the world would humans let another creature make wordly important decisions.
Won't happen because we won't let it.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
We may lose millions of McD jobs, but think about the jobs created building, maintaining and recycling these robots once they're through.
"When a ball dreams, it dreams it's a frisbee"
And then think of all the jobs that will go to maintaining the robots, creating them, programming them.. etc.. Jobs will shift as they have in the past. Jobs will be lost and jobs in other sectors will be created.
Paint.NET, a Free Image Editor, with Source Code Available!
The question is will the robots be imported from India ?
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Sounds a lot like "Player Piano"... which came out in the 1950's. Eerie.
In other news, the estimate number of people in development, production and support of intelligent robots in the year 2030 is ... 3.5 millon people.
Perhaps this would be a reason why some countries have decided to reduce working hours?
the Chinese, Russians and Indians will
But, when I take Elroy and Judy to school, I'll want to do so in a round flying car. Come see me about the flying car, then we'll talk robots.
/.. I'm hard at work sticking it to Cogswell!!!
No, Mr. Spacely, I'm not posting to
they said the same damn stuff in 1950, however I am not driving a flying car yet. Computers should have made our lives easier, but that didn't happen either.
No, Indian software engineers will. :-)
If this were to happen, it won't really be a bad thing...
:)
Yes, if suddenly half of the jobs in the world were gone, there would be a painful adjustment period. However, if this is to happen, there would be a corresponding change in the way our society is structured to accomodate the lower amount of jobs.
Consider this... let's say absolutely everything in the world relating to food is automated. Everything is grown for us, shipped to us, prepared for us, etc. automatically. How much is food going to cost? Practically nothing. So people aren't going to go hungry because they don't have work, etc.
This isn't so much taking jobs away as making the idea of working obsolete... Imagine a world where everybody is on vacation all the time and robots do everything for us... Are people going to be worried about being unemployed? I wouldn't be
I agree with the article. We are going to see more and this type of automation. The type that the article describes.
But I don't think lt Data will be around any time soon. the AI development is very slow, to the point that all predictions about clever machines retracted.
Now this year's recruitment interview of heavy industries with robotic science department (Honda, Sony, ...) will be filled with geeks obsessed by unemployment nightmare.
I suppose these humanoid robots also maintain themselves for free... Or maybe it is still cheaper to pay mimimum wage.
toaster,toaster toaser, do you have toast in you yet i think
so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Im not a toaster!!!!!!!!!!And one more
thing........YOUR A TOASER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND A COOKIE WITH MILK SOAGE
MILK!!!!!!!!!!AND A BUTT WITH POOP IN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Every robot needs three mechanics and two programmers chasing it around as no robot manufacturer can ever settle on a standard and all robots are pushed into service running alpha firmware and drivers that are incomplete because of patented parts.
That said, I'm off to patent "int main ( int argc, char * const argv[] )" so I guess I'll see most of you folks in court by the end of the week, tata :)
Hate me!
Everyone knows that humanoid robots will first take over only sex-industry jobs... Only then will we all be too distracted to stop the real takeover.
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
Only after answering these questions to the extreme, can we do this:
1: How does the brain work?
2: How does the brain handle failures?
3: How can we interface hardware to the brain? Provide data transfers?
4: Provide a learning, crash-resistant OS
5: Provide very low, or no, heat CPU (your brain doesnt stay at 120F, does it?)
6: Use Quantum computing for branch logic
7: Understand Node/Traffic theory 100% mathematically
8: Provide some sort of emotion (all jobs include psychology, doesnt it?)
9: Easy way to rapidly fix either mechanical or hardware problems (thinking of nanite soup)
10: Energy dense source for battery power. And remember, Bayttery power has NOT increased linearly with CPU power.
Those are just a few things off the top of my head. And if you think we can overcome every one of those, I want some what you're taking.
Every year the productivity of the US (and most developed countries) improves. What that means is that it takes less manpower to do things. What it also means it that a person can produce more. Which means they can buy more. Which opens or expands other industries. Which creates more jobs.
None of this is new. When ATMs came out did you see bank tellers starving in the streets? When automated gas stations becames popular were gas attendants staning in line at the soup kitchen? No.
When fast food workers are replaced by machines, they'll go on to do more productive things -- and I'm sure they'll be happier for it.
Personally I love automated check-out lines. I'm only upset that technology isn't moving fast enough.
--t
"...computers with the CPU power and memory of the human brain by 2040"
that they can replace fast food workers ten years before they can match the capacity of the human brain?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Robots will simply take over the sex industry. The remainder of human jobs will remain unfilled as no one will have need to leave the house anymore.
Something he doesn't seem to be figuring in here is that there are significant number of professions where:
a) people would be uncomfortable in interacting with machine services (i.e. a robotic dentist or gynecologist), or
b) there are protectections by labor union and/or political interests and therefore unlikely to convert to full automation - even in the interest of increased efficiency (a good example would be the United Auto Workers).
"Nothing is so important that you cannot make fun of it." -Clarke
By 2060, half of THOSE jobs will be outsourced to robots in India!
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
...that someone needs to lay off watching The Animatrix for a while.
anyone seen bubblegum crisis?
designing, maintaining and programming the robots? Surely autonomous humanoid robots will have human supervision
word.
..so this confirms you don't need the "CPU power and memory of the human brain" to flip burgers...
I'm a 2000 man.
If the robots take all the jobs than we don't have to work. So what's the problem. With nanotechnology all of our material needs such as food, shelter, and even medical will be covered. With Peer to Peer entertainment and art will be free. What's the problem?? There will be no need for money or jobs. What are they crying about.
What bank do you use? Many of the banks in my area have reduced teller hours to the point where most working people can't use them. Some have instituted fees for seeing an actual person.
Others (my neighborhood Washington Mutual) have so completely automated the process of withdrawals and deposits with special kiosks, that actual human presence in a bank is much lower than it ever was when I was growing up. You go to one kiosk to prepare your deposit, and another to withdraw cash. The actual teller transaction, if necessary at all, is minimized. And tellers double as customer-service people, opening new accounts and the like-- one of the few remaining tasks that isn't machine automatable.
Then there are online banks like ETrade, which seem to do ok with no human contact at all.
So no, humans haven't been written out of the equation. But their numbers have been substantially reduced, and the process is a long ways from complete.
Then everyone can have minimum income supplied by the governement(from the taxes paid by these companies) and concentrate on more interesting stuff(studies, art, anything you want)
It's not too late to invest in some Old Glory Robot Insurance, for when the metal ones come. And they will.
Hey Michael, I remember a long time ago when Katz asked the readership if he was a gasbag or not, we had a little Pollbox thingy inside the article. How about using those thingies a bit more often for questions like these? Ought to be fun.
I'm going be exhausted by then.
When I was a kid in the 60s these were called "automats". I thought they were cool, but they never caught on. It turned out that people would rather deal with people and automats were eventually replaced by McDonalds.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Natural stupidity will always beat Artificial intelligence.
robot overlo.., no scratch that, food service profesionals.
Do you think robots could understand what no mayonaise means?
If they do, I'm sold.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
But Indians and Chinese... If almost all jobs are replaced by robots or 'offshore', who are you going to sell your stuff to? How would the economy keep running?
every other prediction that came before promising total upending of the world as we know it.
I think he's exapolating one instance of a *slight* change of how fast food service works and turning that into a wild, far out, prediction.
The Burger King in my home town tried "sit down" dining for a short while. You place your order with a human cashier and take a number to sit down. Then your food is brought out to you. They stopped doing this after a short while.
My bet is this won't take off for whatever reason the sit down venue didn't seem to take hold. Of course, I claim ignorance as to just why it didn't take hold - my guess is that people just didn't see the need for it.
Plus, if you look at the ROI for installing these kiosks - what could it really amount to? You basically still need the person who ordinarily would be taking the order because that person is now going to have to bring your food to you. Who else is it going to be? Not the preparers of the food - they're too busy preparing the next meal.
I vote no - I don't think this is going to catch on.
...and then by 2070, the robots lose *their* jobs when they're outsourced to Indian robots!
You must think in Russian.
I thought the whole point of computers was to free humans from menial tasks so we coudl spend all day on the beach, flying starships and drinking coffee.
We are, after all, nothing but consumers ...
it was a good one, admit it. Dont be a sheep, MOD UP!
Other posters have pointed out that millions will be unemployed. That is likely what will happen unless we move out of our current paradigm of wealth-hoarding by the owners of capital. If this pattern continues indefinitely, all of the wealth on the planet will be concentrated into the hands of the few. The rest of us--including every last slashdot user--will be subject to their whim, at least until the machines take over.
Novelist & guerrilla ontologist Robert Anton Wilson has suggested that employees who design themselves out of their jobs be rewarded with a substantial portion of the labor saved by their innovation. He calls this concept R.I.C.H.: Rising Income through Cybernetic Homeostasis. This won't fend off the Machine Overlord problem, but will motivate workers to exercise their creativity, something that will have many positive yet un-quantifiable side effects.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
"Will Humanoid Robots Take All the Jobs by 2050?"
Hmm. I'm going to go with, erm, ooh, don't rush me, I think...
No
Anything else I can help with?
Cheers, Paul
Yes, we will eventually see a lot of the jobs that are currently performed by humans performed by robots. Yes, vision systems will increase the number of jobs they can do. Also, we'll eventually see a cure for all forms of cancer, private space travel, and practical nuclear fusion.
The thing is, these will not happen overnight. We're not going to wake up one morning and be told that all jobs are going to be replaced by robots. They'll replace them as technology become appropriate, and society wil have time to adapt and find other mundane tasks for us to do. Society is robust like that.
The people who control the vast amounts of resources will want to be pampered by human beings who can be shown to have a lesser status and exploited in all ways imaginable through the process. In addition, those who have money will also want to occupy those who don't so that they do not have free time on their hands to foment unrest and redistribute the wealth. If you take into account the automation of crime prevention and information abuse through advancements in computers and electronics, you could possibly try to go this way in a police state. I think you can try to dance around the social and economic realities in each of the example governments but you will end up in the same place because people cannot yet be fully indoctrinated and achieve buy in to the status quo with current educational technology. Also, the genetic makeup of the human population would have to be corrected to allow electronic indoctrination to be successful due to the differences in wiring of the human brain between individuals. So the answer is yes - and definitely NO. If anyone can achieve this, it would be a culture which already keeps everyone out of the loop - but then they would notice something changing as they approach full development in their countries as defined by integration of latest technology and ideas. (Religion is considered ideas at this point.)
I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.
It's not Karma Whoring when you can't get Karma. : )
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
I've been reading between the lines with the recent health care benefits for seniors. The message I've been seeing is "We can't afford to pay for all you old people to survive. Why don't you just die? You're not being productive anymore anyway." The message appears to be the same for other uninsured/unemployed people; "Oh you're poor, tough luck. Why don't you just die?" I notice however that there's plenty of money to give congresscritters full lifetime coverage, though.
The system here in the US seems to be increasingly geared toward wage-slavery until death, with an ever-decreasing pool of jobs and an ever-increasing population. Is that really the kind of society you want to live in?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This has been a long time coming. Man makes machines to do his work, and man runs out of work to do himself. But the problem is that in a capitalist society, it becomes a way to save money instead of a way to improve life for the people it's relieving. Thus, unless people get a shortened work week or a lightened load as a result of the automation, it's doing far more damage to society than it is good. So it's truly become another case of business versus people.
The only real comfort is that if people can't afford to buy things, the businesses still won't profit. But at that point it becomes a pure absorb-and-consume market rather than a real swirling/flowing capitalist economy...
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
While they wont replace ALL employees of that sector, its easily possible the number of fast food robots will exceed employees in numbers. Robotics have made lots of advances and with powerful CPUs and languages to deal with them, sophisticated tasks can be handed over to them more economically than to a high school student.
Computers potentially already have more cpu and memory than a human....... can anyone remember 2 terabytes of text, graphics and audio??(our memories are very low resolution), and can you compete with a 386 in arithmetic and general logic? The deep blue bested the best of chess players and approximately that level of cpu power is already available on desktops. However many key features of the human thinking will remain missing from computers for a while, the biggest of which is learning and associating concepts. How many computers can listen to two foreigners talk and learn the language by listening alone?
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
The key in adoption is not whether it is possible for robots to do the job, but rather whether it is cheaper / better to use robots. Consider the automotive industry. They use robots on the manufacturing line because they operate in a very small 'space of operation' (ie they do a few very specific welds) and are more precise and allow a higher throughput of autos on the assembly line. The fast-food jobs however, require very little precision or even training. The capabilities of robots will have to improve hugely AND the cose of these robots will have to be SO low as to make economic sense to replace a minimum wage worker. Sure it may happen, but I think my job at the In-n-Out is safe for the time being.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
yeah, and offshore workers will take the other half.
Any economist will tell you that this guy has no clue what he's talking about. Maybe robots will be around and maybe not. The fact is that there is an infinate amount of work to be done, not some limited supply that is portioned out. This is basic, basic, economics you'll discover in any book on the subject.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
Buy shares in the Robot companies! Do it now!
<fnord>OBEY</fnord>
A few weeks ago I was having a dream (which like all of mine was vivid, colourful and memorable) and suddenly became aware that I was dreaming. Now usually when this happens you wake up instantly, but I didn't.
I looked at my surroundings, a lush green field of grass, and remember thinking in my dream that it was amazing how all of this was being 'rendered' from nothing in my brain. I knelt down on the grass and could see all of the individual blades, dandelions and daisies etc. Usually you remember settings, people and objects in dream but no as accurately or detailed. When I woke up, my first thought was that the human brain would make a sweet graphics renderer! If computers could compete with brain power or brains even became computers then it would open up wonderful possibilities for graphics, the area that most people would associate with this level of computing anyway.
Just my £2/100
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Regardless of the validity of his immediate predictions, I feel this dependence is bound to come at some point, and I have an observation to make about it: in an economy which would be based on robots performing so many tasks, I just don't think you can base economic statements on unemployment like we are used to. There's nothing to say that if technological resources dwarf human ones, human unemployment is a significant issue in the scheme of the proper use of resources. I think the biggest problem ends up being allocation of wealth produced by a non-human workforce, and I can't help but call thoughts of Marxism and the like to mind...
Yes there will be more and more self-order-and-pay kiosks. /. crowd will be all right ;-)
I imagine kitchen automation at the restaurant is possible (steak cooking robot).
But general-purpose robots? I don't think so.
Roomba the vacuum cleaner is out already. Robotic lawn movers will be next. Robotic gas-pumps, construction site robots, etc are definetely to come.
But a general purpose walking and talking robot will never be justifyable to build and market.
I think we will end up with millions and millions of highly specialized robots networked together and dynamically provisioned and allocated by AI control systems.
Yes, lots of people will have to retrain. No, it will not result in 50% unemployment. And someone has to program all those things so
Then man made the machine in his own likenes... Thus did man become the architect of his own demise. But, for a time, it was good.
Fifty years ago, they thought we would have this now. Flying cars etc.
I don't think it will ever happen. I won't say the capability will never be there, but it will be a conscious decision. We're made to survive in this environment on next to nothing, and it's nice to not depend on a workforce that evaporates with a few well-placed EMP weapons.
...
In a sense, that's one logical extension of our current economic system to a world where most human labor isn't necessary. The question is, does our system continue to function properly in that environment?
Have you tried one of those U-Scan checkouts at places like Kroger, K-mart, etc. They are very convient, and there is little to no human interaction, only one cashier has to watch 4 checkouts.
Ok lets look at a number of problems
When can we expect good computer vision? There are lots of progresses in the field. New statistical techniques. Faster algorithms for supervised learning. But still. I guess if you had asked 30 years ago when perceptrons were quite fashionable how long it would take to have real good computer vision you would have gotten the same estimate of 20 years. Doing some work in computer vision I must say that to my knowledge we are still very far from building anything thats real. We are rather at the stage where we discover 2 new problems for each problem solved. Problems are for example: Attention, efficient learning, efficient inference, symbol grounding, categorization. So I guess it will take many more years. Or forever.
What about self repair ? One of the really cool things about humans is that they mostly repair themselves. Our bodys endure constant abuse. Our bodies constantly repair the damage at least over approximately 100 years. A large number of robots would demand constant repairing.
Are robots really cheap? Lets face it people are there. We already have a very high rate of jobless people. Given the right taxation systems these people should be a lot less cheaper than any robot could ever be.
Dont get all of this wrong. Computer Vision and Robotics will improve. But it will improve the same way that tools improved throughout the history of mankind. They slowly get better and more useful. While we find novel ways of using them. And spend our time doing more interesting stuff. Like reading slashdot.
Googlefight "Slashdot Troll" against "BSD is dying" 303:229. BSD thus cant die.
I did not read the article. But here is why it won't happen.
Lets say that robots replace all fast food restraunts. 3.5 million people now need jobs and (this is important) no longer have money to buy the food sold at these fast food establishments.
Basically the economy falls down and nobody can eat except for the people who run the restraunts.
Ok... so those 3.5 million people find other jobs you say? Who's job do they take? They take the job of the overpriced folks who maintain and build the robots. Those people now have to find new jobs as well as sell their houses.
Its a downward spiral.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
Positions on the Slashdot editorial staff will be filled by six rhesus monkeys walking on the keyboards of an equal number of Pentium XVII boxes running the newest Debian release, which will be release 3.2
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
In the '60s, everyone was predicting that by now, we would have finished colonizing Mars. Has it happened?
The reason it didn't is because the predictions were based on the notion that development would move at the same pace in the future. That is not true at all, since after a while you begin to hit the ceiling of the technology you're using.
The same thing will happen with processors -- they will maybe get 5 or 10 times faster (still not enough to do anything other than run Microsoft Word 2020), but they certainly won't keep improving forever.
In short: the guy is full of shit.
Our ability to have robot wrkers for anything but completely automated assemly lines is limited by the pathetic status of any advanced AI research. The time where researchers dreamed of human-like computer brains are mostly gone. It seems that computer science has hit a roadblock: We have no idea of how to even start building an AI that had any real skill at communicating in a human language. If a robot cannot handle advanced communication, it can't really do most human work.
I'd rather put my money on our understanding of genetics changing the way we live. Super humans seem more likely than human-like robots to me, as long as the current limitations on human cloning/research get lifted.
Robots will definitely be taking over the task of going back in time to murder the mothers of future human revolutionaries.
* Please do not read my signature.
See subject ;)
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
The robots start making the robots themselves....
yeah, I'll buy this... they could automate 1/2 of what we do now.
it's the same automation story we've been hearing since the industrial age started (or before).
how many less jobs are there in the lumber industry now than there were 100 years ago? Farming? Metal workers? Technology, regardless of whether it is deemed 'intelligent' or not changes the face of the workplace.
The flip side of it is that there will be new jobs for humans... how many programmers were there 100 years ago? Just as my great great grandparents couldn't even imagine nor understand the concept of what I do for a living, we probably can't concieve some of the tasks that humans will be doing 50 or 100 years from now...
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
Even if we have all the nice technology to create a humanoid robot that have the same physical capability as a human, they factor that will dictacte if they will replace humans will always be a cost/benefit ration which need to be lower that the human worker.
Such advanced robot will surely cost a bundle to produce and then maintain. Energy consumption (we are still far away of from the energy effeciency of an organic lifeform in any mechanical/electronic devices) will also be much higher than that of a human being (it will prbably cost more to McDonald to provide the proper amount of energy for the robot to function for a day that to give free lunches to it's employee).
We have the technology to create a complete automated McDonald (using specilized robots)(from ordering to delivery the food to the customer). We are not doing it because human are a lot cheaper worker. That's not going to change anytime soon!
...who will be able to afford the services provided by robots and humanoids. An equilibrium will probably be reached where consumer purchases of robotic services will no longer support further expansion.
And, frankly, I am still waiting for my robot-butler.
This is purely personal, but I think that AI is a pipe-dream.
Let's face it: I don't think anyone can imitate life -- and its millions of years of evolution -- and its highly complex (albeit crufty) DNA information structure using 0s and 1s.
At least not using the useful, but limited, paradigms of Turing Machines and Von Neumann models (and programming languages and...).
Maybe quantum computers will be able to make it, but that's not before another 20-to-50 years of development and refinement.
Plus, the number 1 problem of humanity now is not robots replacing humans, it is ecological problems, such as pollution, water use, and deforestation. Not to mention unknown killer viruses and North/South inequality...
When we have these problems licked, I believe a robotic society won't be such a big problem after all...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Similar things went on a few years ago with the trend of "Flexible Manufacturing." After investing billions in multi-jointed robots, engineers found that humans, not robots, were the most flexible machines (flexible meaning able to do lots of tasks.) So they consigned robots to repetitive tasks like welding and assembly, and let humans do the more complicated tasks. But I do think that robots WILL get better, certainly past the point where they can do fast-food work, by 2050.
I, for one, welcome our new robot masters. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted online personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground titanium mines.
But seriously, any work that can be done better by a machine should be done by a machine and not a man, otherwise the man becomes a machine.
One of the biggest problems in the future will most likely be finding creative and fulfilling jobs for the masses. That is until the machines take over and kill us all.
robotic dentist I believe this will happen. But only if we can program the robot to ask pertinent questions only when it's robot hands are lodged in your mouth.
This may realistically happen. Business owners who are looking to cut costs on their businesses and not have to deal with stuff like workers comp will lobby to allow themselves to not have to deal with unions. If enough big businesses will do it, our governments will cave on their demands and then it will be the start of something like "The Second Renesance" from Animatrix. It's not just Science Fiction anymore, it's highly likely to become our reality when you think about what causes it.
Who honestly expects robot vision systems and "computers with the power of the brain" to be less expensive than your average fast-food employee? Even by 2040?
To add to the raw cost of the machines themselves, your remaining employees would all have to be of the much more expensive "robot repairman" variety.
Not saying it couldn't happen-- it just seems like the good bet is against it.
Such systems would have to be built to inherently limit the ammount of actual human interaction. But if that could be done, and each robot could be kept at a cost of, say a modern luxury automobile, then even with replacements, maintenence and repairs, then it wouldn't be inconceivable for one "manager" to be the only human at a popular urban resturant.
The problem would be that said resturant would act like a giant vending machine, with a hole for money, and a hole food appears in, and you have to find a (busy) manager if something goes wrong. This is definetly fine for McDonalds-style food distribution, but not a place you'd take business clients, relatives, or dates to. It's a niche, though a popular one.
On the subject of McDonalds, I've tried the new automated ordering kiosks. They work well. They do not reduce the need for human labor, they increase it slightly - someone still has to make the food, put it together on a tray, and even find the correct customer to give it to, then exchange money. Then there has to be another employee ready to help people with the kiosk itself. The kiosk is merely a tool to keep lines shorter, and people happier. It works rather well that way, and since labor is cheap, it ends up efficient for McDonalds even though it requires more people on average to run it. But that's just my observation.
Ryan Fenton
I went to McDonald's this weekend with the kids. We go to McDonald's to eat about once a week because it is a mile from the house and has an indoor play area. Our normal routine is to walk in to McDonald's, stand in line, order, stand around waiting for the order, sit down, eat and play.
On Sunday, this decades-old routine changed forever. When we walked in to McDonald's, an attractive woman in a suit greeted us and said, "Are you planning to visit the play area tonight?" The kids screamed, "Yeah!" "McDonald's has a new system that you can use to order your food right in the play area. Would you like to try it?" The kids screamed, "Yeah!"
The woman walks us over to a pair of kiosks in the play area. She starts to show me how the kiosks work and the kids scream, "We want to do it!" So I pull up a chair and the kids stand on it while the (extremely patient) woman in a suit walks the kids through the screens. David ordered his food, Irena ordered her food, I ordered my food. It's a simple system. Then it was time to pay. Interestingly, the kiosk only took cash in the form of bills. So I fed my bills into the machine. Then you take a little plastic number to set on your table and type the number in. The transaction is complete.
We sat down at a table. We put our number in the center of the table and waited. In about 10 seconds the kids screamed, "When is our food going to get here???" I said, "Let's count." In less than two minutes a woman in an apron put a tray with our food on the table, handed us our change, took the plastic number and left.
You know what? It is a nice system. It works. It is much nicer than standing in line. The only improvement I would request is the ability to use a credit card.
I will make this prediction: by 2008, every meal in every fast food restaurant will be ordered from a kiosk like this, or from a similar system embedded in each table.
As nice as this system is, however, I think that it represents the tip of an iceberg that we do not understand. This iceberg is going to change the American economy in ways that are very hard to imagine.
The Iceberg
The iceberg looks like this. On that same day, I interacted with five different automated systems like the kiosks in McDonald's:
I got money in the morning from the ATM.
I bought gas from an automated pump.
I bought groceries at BJ's (a warehouse club) using an extremely well-designed self-service check out line.
I bought some stuff for the house at Home Depot using their not-as-well-designed-as-BJ's self-service check out line.
I bought my food at McDonald's at the kiosk, as described above.
All of these systems are very easy-to-use from a customer standpoint, they are fast, and they lower the cost of doing business and should therefore lead to lower prices. All of that is good, so these automated systems will proliferate rapidly.
The problem is that these systems will also eliminate jobs in massive numbers. In fact, we are about to see a seismic shift in the American workforce. As a nation, we have no way to understand or handle the level of unemployment that we will see in our economy over the next several decades.
These kiosks and self-service systems are the beginning of the robotic revolution. When most people think about robots, they think about independent, autonomous, talking robots like the ones we see in science fiction films. C-3PO and R2-D2 are powerful robotic images that have been around for decades. Robots like these will come into our lives much more quickly than we imagine -- self-service checkout systems are the first primitive signs of the trend. Here is one view from the future to show you where we are headed:
Automated retail systems like ATMs, kiosks and self-service checkout lines marked the beginning of the robotic revolution. Over the course of fifteen years starting in 2001, these systems proliferated and evolved until nearly every retail transaction could be handled in an automated way. Five million jobs in the retail sector
Written by esteemed local author Myron P. Wellsworth, the paper claims that mechanization can replace the human muscle. "Menial labor," as he calls it, will supposedly be performed not by honest sweat and effort, but by the cold application of electricity,
"The human soul is capable of so much more," says the laughable crackpot, "than mere workhorse-slavery to the wealthy. There is no reason why one of the great glories of God's Creation, the mind of a woman, should occupy itself with feather-dusting and rug-beating in the mansions of the well-to-do, or for that matter, in their husbands' homes."
Mr. Wellsworth, who holds no college degree, suggests that in a mere hundred years, rug-beating will be performed with 100% greater efficiency, requiring the women to merely press a button to invoke rug-beating machines. Feather-dusting will be performed by automatic dusting machines, living in the basement of every home and somehow subjecting all the air in the entire domicile to a thorough scrubbing all day long, every day.
"Even the 'menial labor' of the brain will be automo-assisted," insists the lovable scamp, "with machines performing the drudgery of accounting calculations, freeing our best and brightest to manipulate ideas about bookkeeping instead of spending hour after hour with pencil stub and eyeshade."
But the picture is not entirely rosy, admits this jackanape gadfly. By the year 2003, one thousand accountants will be booted from their jobs and replaced by inhuman machinery. Five hundred livery drivers will be on the streets looking for work, while steam-driven constructs drive their carriages for them. And the preparation of our pharmaceuticals, now lovingly performed by hand by highly educated men of science that take the greatest care to mix every powder in exacting proportions for their personally-known customers, will be decided-upon in centralized factories which stamp out untested remedies in mass numbers deemed fit for every man, woman and child -- leaving over six hundred chemists sitting on the streets with their mortars and pestles, and their heads full of valuable knowledge on the care of ailing patients, woefully, vainly, sadly looking for work. Such an exodus of humanity's skill and talent, should it come to pass, will truly be a crime of the highest magnitude.
people often think of the horrors if automating everything, making our jobs not necessary. what they often forget is that this is a GOOD thing. massive decreases in the costs of producing goods means the savings are passed on to you! you (and everyone else) can live in the lap of luxury for just pennys worth of electricity. it raises the standard of living for all.
noone cries over the millions of lost jobs for book scribes, legions of farm labor, auto assembly line workers or etc. (who have now already replaced) over 50 years people can adapt to the new enviornment too. and we'll all be better off.
http://kered.org
Ok, just wondering but does anyone else feel the matrix pressing on right on the base of your spine?
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
My two cents say that this is article written to produce a knee-jerk reaction in the tech-aware reader. Of course robots are going to be replacing humans in the labor force. Of course we're going to automate these jobs. What a lot of people forget is that the term "computer" used to refer to a professional occupation held by a human being (with abacus being the primary tool). Scientific revolutions in the areas of telecommunications, automation, mechanics, transportation, and manufacturing have been replacing people with machines for over 100 years. And this is generally a good thing.
What the article fails to address is all of the new jobs and services (for humans), which will be created by this maneuver. Think: telerobotics operator, droid service engineer, automation systems engineer, protocol designer, grid engineer, droid-user-interface (DUI) designer, droid administrator, telerobotics surgeon, teleconstruction architect, hazardous waste cleanup administrator, droid bounty hunter, droid mechanic, a.i. architect, biotechnician, bioengineer, cyberneticist, etc. etc. Utilizing robotic labor for low-level manual tasks allows humans to assume higher-level roles and positions.
Some suggested reading / viewing materials to consider, in response to this article:
BladeRunner
Star Wars
A.I.
After all, customers need a real person to argue with.
G3 mobile phones by 2035 ..
I fuse with Mercer every single day...
The Terminator movies really do not have to be prophetic. Why is it that there are people who strive to develop technology that makes other people's jobs obselete? I understand that efficiency can be a motive, but it has to stop somewhere. What happens when even white collar and academic jobs are automated? Financial analysis could surely be done better by a computer. Computers could program themselves, one day. What then? Will we all become monks living in a compound in the mountains striving for enlightenment while the robots toil away? Or will civilization melt down in to a hedonistic dog-eat-dog world of terribly poor people?
Bascially "becase we can" is not a terribly good excuse for automating away people's quality of life, unless there is some magical pot of gold just past the horizon that I cannot see.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
your mission is clear: to maintain and repair those robots.
(ob. Simpsons reference)
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Very reasonable unless we, A: Get nuked B: End up blocking the way of a giant meteor, or B: Become slaves of Bill Gates's son who will I am assuming will inherit his money. ...Bad grammar, stupid reply... yes I know but hey just woke up 5 min ago!
... robots could very well take the place of prostitutes and strippers, especially exotic ones. Think of the killing they'd make! No need for tips, no week-on-the-rag, well, they'd be perfect!
A statement Napoleon is said to have made to Robert Fulton:
"What sir, you would make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her decks? I pray you excuse me. I have no time to listen to such nonsense."
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
I personally think a more important question is: would it be a good thing? And I don't think so. I don't think I'd like to be served by a robot waiter/waitress, or seeing more robots than people.
...just in case you were wondering.
I watched them boot it up once after the money dispenser on it broke.
I see that same system in Super Fresh now. And Giant. (These are super markets - I live in the D.C metro area).
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Then, once we're all comfortable in our Utopian lifestyles, bad things start to happen...
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
since i am a creator of evil robots that kill good robots, i'll always be in a job... just think of all those good robots that will have to be killed. there is a great market for this.. i'm crossing my fingers.
Is why anyone would care what a dot com god like this guy preticts about anything.
Yeah, advertising will make a lot of money and we can all retire. Thats going to work.
Will robots continue to replace some jobs? Yes. However, as we've seen in the past, people will find other jobs. If there are no more jobs at McDonalds, then we'll have more people designing and building robots or some other higher-level pursuit.
Robots may replace half of current jobs in the country in 50 years, but we will always find other jobs for us to do with our time.
The reality is that all the "mindless" jobs may dissappear in my lifetime, but that just means we all need more education to be able to take on real thinking jobs. Would I be too sad that the bitch behind the McDonald's counter is replaced by a polite robot that can count change? No.
Sure, they piss people off. But how many companies use automated call answering today? Pretty much every last one. So that can't be a reason there will never be robots cookin our burgers... and maybe 1 or 2 "support humans" that you have to dial 0 to talk to ;)
These predictions sound similar to Ray Kurzweil's "Age of Spiritual Machines." Most of these "...in 50 years" predictions have to take a stand on Moore's Law. Will it continue indefinitely? Will it flatten out? Or will it grow expotentially? Kurzweil took the latter position, that Moore's law has been in place since long before Moore said it, and it's actually getting faster.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
Well,it could be quite possible. What are computers good at? Pure logic. Which means they might "take over" more complex jobs such as programming. We already have autopilots, and CAD.
A bot could probably do quite a bit of manual labor if properly programmed, and given a body. Which raises a question: What can they not do? What can humans do that bots can't?
What happens if something goes wrong? Could a computer find a way around it? Perhaps not. WHich provides the answer to our question:
Creative thinking.
That odd ability our brains have of warping ideas into new ideas. That spark of ingeniuty. I wonder if I could get it to do.. It is this that will keep us above machines.
"The most looniest, zaniest, spontaneous, sporadic Impulsive thinker, compulsive drinker, addict"
Most people working with fast food are, in my experience, robots already. They're just the flesh-and-blood kind, but that's hard to tell from behavior. A nice hologram of a smile (remember: must not look too real), a cap of some kind, a badge telling that they're rookies and complete obedience of the manual and you're all set!
Black holes are where God divided by zero
I don't see that happening. The union would get all the panties in a bunch. Besides Some Neo-Luddite group WILL rise and start smashing stuff.
Just a guy with an opinion
You can go to the library and dig up (on microfische) newspapers from the time of the industrial revolution and read political cartoons depicting people whose jobs have been reduced to pulling levers, being informed by their bosses that they're now being replaced by lever-pulling machines. When computers came around a fresh wave of this thinking hit, only instead of a lever-pulling machine now it was a button-pushing robot. Then the fear started to hit the white collar world, as accountants worried that they would all be replaced by computers.
Why did none of this ever materialise? Well, in a way, it did. Today factory workers don't get paid to do the same type of work they got paid to do in the 1700s, and accountants don't get paid to work out all the columns of figures by hand. So yeah, those old jobs people used to do are gone, if you think in terms of specific job duties. It doesn't mean everyone's out of work.
Anything we can automate frees up a worker to do something else. Yeah, you might have to learn new job skills. Deal with it. If it helps, you can consider learning new job skills to be a type of work in itself.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
The question is, how do you not make this connection?
Ask yourself the following questions:
1) Is there a compelling reason to believe that computer/robot technology won't reach the point where most basic service jobs can be (almost) entirely automated? Think food service, janitorial, banking, etc.
2) Is there a compelling reason to believe that this technology will remain too costly or inconvenient for employers to adopt it?
3) If (1) and (2), is there some compelling reason why employers will choose not to adopt a cheaper, more convenient technology for these purposes, in order to increase their profits?
If you can't answer with confidence to any of these questions, then it's probably not a matter of whether robot technology will absorb these jobs, but of when it will happen. The 50 year prediction may be off by quite a lot. But over some reasonable time span (less than a couple of centuries, barring global disaster), the technology will be available and-- assuming our economic system remains similar to what we have today-- it will be in use.
He better be full of it - I'll need my fast food job when I finish my CS degree!
The jobs that will be taken are the ones no one wants. For example, look at the jobs for cleaning (e.g. house cleaning) in the CA. Most are taken by Mexicans because they make good money (compared to what they make in Mexico), generally inside with AC etc.
They may take a lot of those jobs, but new jobs that we haven't thought of will appear that will be filled. Think of ATMs.
I used to work in one of these "fish tank" type engineering departments where the customers could tour through with the sales people..."blah, blah..and these are our hardworking employees, creating your stuff as you watch...blah, blah."
I've always had the idea to create a maniquin to double for me.....something that would move the mouse occasionally and make it look like I'm hard at work...even when I'm at lunch!....something like a Disney ride but for computer workers...
Now THAT would be useful!....
Interesting, we will shift from an economy based on merit and work, to one based on slave labor?
The author talks about jobs lost, what he should have said is jobs will be shifted... Even today, a lot of people get to go to college... when you can replace a prof with a good robot, the barrier to access to a high quality education is dropped, and everyone can be a PhD!
Jobs will shift to support the new slave labor population, Laws will be passed, prohibiting the automation of certain jobs... Labor unions will become poweful again...
Is this another example of us doing something because we can, not because we should?
Why would we bother to make them humanoid. You'd just have a machine that constructed the appropriate item. Whether it was a fast food shop or a watch shop, you're item would be built on demand in a machine, like a 3d ink jet printer.
As far as replacing the service industry... in some areas yes, but in others like restaurants, I think you'd have people serving you but these fabrication machines would replace the kitchen.
Will Humanoid Robots Take All the Jobs by 2050?
Yes.
I think my 01 Teamster boss robot will take issue with this article.
01 says everything is fine.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Its one of the harded things to get right. Simple operations, at least to a human, are very difficult for automated systems. We're very close to having the data sensory equipment for such robots, but we're still not there in terms of control software.
There have been plenty of robots performing complex tests, but they have problems with real world situations. And no, I don't think the US Navy's attempt to run a frigate with an NT server counts!
I knew then, knew utterly,
the deal done in my heart forever,
though how I knew not,
nor ever have.
How about some quality of food?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Technological predictions are notoriously flaky. They tend to concentrate on technology as if technology advances itself. Politics advance (or regulate) technology. Politics bend and reroute the arrow of technological advancement to unforeseen places.
The Lucifer (DES) cipher was crippled by the NSA.
VHS vs. BETA
Microsoft and the government do not employ what we would call "purely technological" arguments to justify their alliance.
Technological predictions tend to be numerous, different and wrong. This breeds a few that hit the spot because of statistics. We wear of those few and develop sample bias.
If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
This was the concern about robots in auto factories as well -- that it would unemploy a vast percentage of the American automotive workforce as their jobs were replaced with robots.
Well... it didn't happen. Sure, robots are used almost exclusively for some automotive jobs now (like painting and very heavy welding), but the automotive industry discovered something.
Robots are expensive.
First, the capital outlay is non-trivial. If you drop $500k on a robot, that's the same as employing a $50/hr worker for about 4 years (once you include benefits and whatnot). Then you have to have programming, maintainence, and other upkeep, which is probably about 10%/year... which works out to be $50k. Where's the savings again? Sure, you may get tighter tolerances and some other fringe benefits, but you also lose some fringe benefits -- like an actual human being able to tell when a part is defective prior to attaching it.
I doubt that most service industries are going to move to automation on that kind of scale anytime soon. Sure, there are companies test marketing automated ordering systems, but that's cheap crap. Robotics to do the cooking and delivery would not be cheap, and now you're talking about replacing someone earning $6/hour instead of $50/hour. The economics don't make sense. Maybe they will one day, but I think it's a lot further off than the article suggests.
Skynet went on-line on Monday, August 4th, 1997 and becomes self aware at 2:14 a.m. August 29th, 1997.
And 6 years later, were all doing fine.
What's his take on flying cars?
I was thinking of a future with 20 billion people but with enough automated machines that we only *need* 1 billion people to actually work for the essentials (food, energy, water, etc).
Automation will kill billions of jobs in the next century but we are a species of unlimited wants and needs. So even if farming, fast food, driving, water plants, energy, and computer networks are all run with skeleton staffs I am sure we will create more jobs. Reality tv actors?
More salesmen to sell us junk we don't need.
Many military weapons systems are already highly automated. The next step? Take the humans out of the tanks and fighters. They'll be smaller, faster and more 'efficient' (at destroying) because access for and support of humans doesn't have to be factored into the design.
Next step after that? Well, if you're mass-producing humanoid robots, eventually the cost will drop to the point where it's more cost-effective to replace human infantry with robots. They can use all the existing weapons designed for humans, and there's no messy political fallout from bodybags being shipped back home.
And which nation has the resources (and desire) to do this? Yup. Don't live in a country that might piss off the US for the rest of the century, otherwise they'll be sending the Terminators for you!
You must think in Russian.
Well at least the robots would be well greased...
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
It would give me more time to cruise around in my flying car.
You can't buy a car for $10,000 these days, I have a feeling autonomous machines that are significantly more complex than cars are going to cost a hell of a lot more than that for quite some time. Then there's the reliability factor. That $10,000 car is going to have all kinds of problems over its usable life, and we've actually had plenty of time to work out the kinks of building cars. It'll cost another fortune to maintain an autonomous robot, especially if they take the route of "upgrading" models every year. After all, if your cashier at McDonald's breaks down, you just find another minimum wage slave to replace them. If your robot cashier breaks down you're on the hook for hundreds of dollars an hour to fix, or tens of thousands of dollars to replace, it.
No way. Just hold on a sec, I'm looking for an extra quarter for the vending machine. I'm just getting my breakfast...
Vision Systems using computers? Ya right. (Hmm I've got that bill for using the 407 on my counter, completely computerized, how did it know it was me???)
I think he's off by a few years. Most of the things he's talking about are already around in one form or another.
If all the grunt labor required to manufacture goods and good can be had for such a minimal price, why do we need and economy? We need money right now because it's expensive to buy things like food, shelter, etc, because those things in turn are difficult to produce. But if basic material goods become so low in cost, why do we need an economy at all?
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
... and now we'll be able to solve all the problems and contingencies of robots operating in the real world? Get real.
Never mind the social issues. The world doesn't need more advanced technologies, it needs more advanced civilization. Right now we're like toddlers playing playing with loaded guns.
Nuff said.
Until the robots start developing, producing and supporting themselves... Then we're screwed!
A very well attended symposium was held at Stanford in 1999 that covered this very topic (in even more optimistic depth, in the case of the majority of the speakers). Entitled, Will Spiritual Robots Replace Humanity By 2100?, the symposium was organized by Doug Hofstadter and was themed around two books that expoused very similar views and were written independently of each other around that time: Ray Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines and Hans Moravec's Robot.
Kurzweil has actually been preaching about this for quite a while now, and the details of Marshall Brain's article are eerily reminiscent of both of the above mentioned books.
Yes, but you have to program each and every human being to do these tasks. With a machine, you simply teach it once and then clone the resulting "mind" as many times as you need. So even if it takes us an additional 50 years to develop a machine capable of doing many human tasks, we could produce millions of them the next day, and every day from there on out.
this is a rather silly and short sighted question, as far as i can tell. maybe i am missing something, but won't we have to have people to design the robots, at the very least? you can't teach a machine creativity.
technology is not necessarily getting us anywhere. we just have more stuff now. okay, maybe medicine. medicine is good. everything else bad. i do like movies, though... hmm.
I have moved beyond that view to a form of anarcho capitalism in which net assets are essentially taxed due to reinsurance premiums to indemnify against force or fraud, but the structural integrity of such a system is not far from that which I proposed in the 1992 white paper. A family's personal assets would be largely exempt due to the fact that they could afford to defend their own property -- so the "tax exemption" is still likely to exist even under anarcho capitalism.
Imagine that -- anarcho capitalism that "taxes" only asset concentration. Well, that's what you get when anarchy reigns and a few people own all the assets -- they need to start thinking about how to keep their lives and properties safe from assault.
Seastead this.
"By 1955, people will be flying at supersonic speeds in sleek aircraft and traveling coast to coast in just a few hours."
Well actually for normal people that didn't happen until the 70s - Concorde. And after
October they won't be able to do it anymore ironically because of economic reasons so frankly
he couldn't have picked a worse analogy.
We hear this Futurama crud all the time from people with starry eyed techno-vision , yeah
they may come tru e, they may not but I can promise you one thing - any technology that makes
half a country jobless (without any replacement jobs to give them) will face social unrest the like of which has never been seen
and will make the actions of the Luddites look like a scuffle in a playground in comparison. If
technology companies want to persue the profit motive to its logical conclusion then thats up to them , but
they must accept the fact that it may lead to a breakdown of society and hence to their own companys total collapse.
I for one welcome our new robot Overlords!
Will Humanoid Robots Take All the Jobs by 2050?
This concern (in the broader case of labor-saving devices) was raised and settled long ago and goes by the name of Luddism. The short answer is that rather than putting humans out of work, labor-saving devices make humans more productive.
An example of this is agriculture. Agriculture once employed most of humanity. Now it employs only a small fraction of humanity (at least in the developed countries) because advances in agriculture meant that fewer and fewer people were needed to produce the same amount of food. What happened to all these other people? They turned to other forms of production. Think about all the things you spend money on nowadays aside from food. Very little of that would have been possible if everyone were still employed in agriculture.
No but seriously, I don't see that kind of AI being developed that works so much like the human brain that it could react and adapt to the various human emotions in the same way as a human, and react in a way that would support a business, as least not in the next 50 years. And even if they did, by then I think open source will have dethroned Microsoft, and with Microsoft's remaining money, they will work to do everything within their power to prevent that from happening. In doing so they will regain power and introduce a new way of living, another New World Order, which will be countered by open source with a better alternative.
Thus is the cycle and thus is
the MATRIX
-Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow
In order for that to happen, there would have to be major growth capital in the industrialized economies. And since all the capital in those countries is headed for a split between inbred halfwit CEO-noblesse and offshore labor markets in countries so poverty stricken people will beg to work for a nickel a day, those economies are going to sink long before they'd have a chance to evolve into a robot-centric workforce.
Besides, robot fast food workers? Why buy robots when you can just hire teenagers and force them to work unlimited unpaid overtime, while they get shelled out minimum wage for the 10 hours a week they work on paper?
In 2055 the nation hit a big milestone -- over half of the American workforce was unemployed, and the number was still rising. Nearly every "normal" job that had been filled by a human being in 2001 was filled by a robot instead. At restaurants, robots did all the cooking, cleaning and order taking. At construction sites, robots did everything
:p
I agree with the author that robots will play an incresing part in our lives, particularly in the services sector (fast food, etc). But I don't think it will be as dire as he states (>50% unemployed). If the majority of these robots are being used in places like McDonald's, they will need people to come in and actually use the stores. If over half the work force (and rising...) is unemployed, fewer people will have the money to spend on these services, so they won't be as wildly successful in the long term as the aouthor suggests.
Any technological advances like this would also create many new jobs in fields that don't currently exist. Robot repairman? Aesthetic design for the robots would also be a very hard thing to automate.
So there will be a whole new load of specialised jobs created. Until machines are made which can do those jobs, of course. And then they'll all move to 01, and, well, we all know how that's going to end...
The key thing isn't technology - yes, maybe we can create a robot that can do "human" tasks in 50 or so years. The issue is economics - why create a McRobot to serve fries at a significant capital investment when you can hire someone for minimum wage ? Why build a housework bot when people are still so cheap ?
My prediction
Personally, I hope (and believe) that small companies can beat the big mega-corps, both economically (GM makes only a couple of hundred dollars on the 20K car, whereas a decent software shop will make a couple hundred dollars on a USD500 software package), and as places to work. The political clout will remain with the mego-corps - you need deep pockets on Capitol Hill - but it looks like political clout is becoming increasingly meaningless in the US...
So, polarization is the name of the game. Good thing or bad thing ? I dunno, but I strongly believe it's going to be the way of the future....
It's all very well in practice, but it will never work in theory.
Why not require all robots to have a "human sponsor" that receives 20% of the "money" that a human worker would have received had they been doing the job?
You land a couple of "sponsorships" and you may not be rich, but at least you won't be too poor to order food from the McRobots.
Many components of daily life already are done by robots, or similar markets use them.
Automotive s a good example. They use robots for a lot of functions, many overlapping with humans.
The humans only remain due to union contracts.. As they retire they are replaced with a bot. Was strange to see a line filled with robots, with one human stuck in the middle of tem.. all doing the same job.. the humans station even has the bolts in the floor for his mechincal replacement when he retires..
In food factories, robots create and package burgers to be frozen.. so they could be adapted to 'warm' burgers too...
I've seen auto fry machines..
Problem is that they are still way expensive. Its much cheaper to pay a kid 5 bucks an hour and have someone that can *adapt*.. But give it time.. enough time, and the price/adaptability issues will be solved.. ( plus by then, people might be ready for it.. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
From the article:
Emphasis mine. I disagree with this point, in that I think that these savings won't be passed onto comsumers, they will be used to have higher profit margins. These are cooperations we're talking about.
The other thing... I don't think any level of machine automation will replace the experience of going to a sit down restruant and having a really good waiter/waitress. I can see this automation working for fast food, but it will not eliminate servers in general.
Yeah, no kidding. Robots are always boozing, carousing, gambling, and saying things like "bite my shiny metal ass". Who needs that kind of grief?
I would think there's a limit to the number of workers you can put out via outsourcing/replacing with automation before the economy would collapse due to the number of people who can't afford to buy anything. Say at some point 80%+ of IT jobs (and/or any other major industry) in a country are offshored, and 80% of all fast food/convinience store/grocery store transactions are handled via automation. You'd end up with so much unemployed/unpaid people, that the ones who still had jobs wouldn't be able to support the economy...
This space for rent...
In less than two minutes a woman in an apron put a tray with our food on the table, handed us our change, took the plastic number and left.
So it still required a human to bring him his food and sort out his change? This is complete automation how?
His assumptions are a little inaccurate - what about the jobs created in the robot servicing, production and design industry? What about the massive cost reductions caused by automation - if everything is produced much more cheaply, maybe nobody needs to work full time in order to afford a good quality of life, so we all share out the remaining work part-time.
The Docklands Light Railway in London is the largest completely-computerised transport system I know of (no drivers), and it's pretty damn fast and reliable. If that's a sign of the robotic future, bring it on.
'nuff said!
My other sig is extremely clever...
You think your hamburgers taste bad now, wait 'till they're made by robots powered by Microsoft McBurgerMaker 4.5.
For certain assembly line tasks, yes, "robots" work. But these are essentially machines that operate completely in patterns. Pick up nut from a perfectly organized stack of nuts. Move N degrees along axis Y, torque nut to 50lbs of pressure. Repeat.
More traditional robotics has hardly advanced at all. Parts are cheaper, sure. But even university research projects, like a robot to push a red ball through a goal, are pretty flaky and unimpressive, and not the kind of thing that would ever work outside of a controlled situation. I'm just not seeing any significant advances.
In fact, a lot of the process in learning how to fly involves fighting human instinct. When you're learning about stalls for example, as soon as you take the airplane to a stall it starts dropping, and your first instinct is to pull back on the yoke to get it to go back up. Of course, your instructor will have by then pounded into your head to actually drop the nose in order to gain back speed and get out of the stall, but the first few times your response time is always slow because you have to think against your natural instinct.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I'm not nearly as worried about robots taking US jobs as much as robots taking jobs in other techie countries like Japan and China. The Asian market sees all the cool stuff a couple months ahead of us anyways so why wouldn't they see this first? In the mean time, jobs will be lost in that market, possibly flooding our job market with highly skilled foreign workers. This will make things even tougher on us when the time comes for companies to start replacing people with robots and they have to choose which people to keep around.
:-)
At least for the first couple months after it starts in Asia, prices will be slashed
Self realization: I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?"
Most people who have commented are saying "I'd never trust my life to a robotically controlled plane" and "Oh, no way will I want to interact with a robot". But what you're missing is that this already happens.
As for interacting with robots, all Al Gore jokes aside, it won't be that difficult. People interact with computers all day (for Gen Y it is as natural as breathing). Automated voicemail was mentioned, but while it may be frustrating, when well designed it is more efficient and cheaper (hence why businesses use it!)
And that brings up the other point: most posters have ignored the economic aspect of it. That same factor that is driving jobs to India is the one that will make it so that Marshall Brain is completely correct. Companies need to save money wherever possible, and replacing labourers with robots will be a very big way to do that.
libertarianswag.com
What??? I can't get an IT job because they are all going to India?
Oh well, I guess I'll just go flip burgers.
WHAT!!??? Robots have taken THOSE jobs!?
DAMNIT!!!
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
So maybe robots will take over fast food but I think that restaurants in general will keep their human service workers. Part of the restaurant experience is having a waiter. But then again, my grandfather thinks that part of a bank experience is the teller so we'll see if I'm right.
Isn't it funny that not so long ago people said that everyone from waiters to policemen would be replaced by robots?
I want the robopolice. Do you think that's coming soon, too?
What other kinds of service jobs will be replaced next? Salesmen? Professors?
There are inherent benefits to having people in some positions, for example as teachers. Teaching in elementrary schools is not primarily academic, it is more social. As of yet, robots aren't very good at teaching kids how to treat each other or of social custom. I think we have a while to go before living an automated life...
Well, if you believe this, do what I do...Plan on designing the automation machines.
We are still a long way off from a computer designing another computer to do a complicated task. So human intervention is necessary for a while. You won't be unemployed as quickly if you are building something in demand.
[karma]Or we could sue the bejeezus out of anybody that tried to automate our jobs, kind of like the RIAA sues people that will probably buy their music.[/karma]
Sorry, but by 2050 India will have outsourced all of their IT jobs to cheaper US labor.
The unemployed Techies?
I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
Um, how about we rethink the whole "job" thing. With all our needs satisfied by robots, we won't need to work at a job.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
One very important point. I think if we achieve the kind of meaningful understanding of the human brain that will precede that kind of machine intelligence, we'll have much bigger things on our minds than losing our jobs.
Understanding how the brain works will change everything.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
I was just in 2050 last week, and I can promise there's nothing to worry about. /beep
I've had this sig for three days.
This would be great. It's constantly amazes me how people turn advances in technology into major social problems. If it became possible to produce limitless delicious food from a cheap little box that everybody could have I'm sure the first thing we would hear was how terrible it was and how it was going to destroy the traditional farm life forever. It's stealing to eat free food! People's immediate rush into self-righteous furies at every new advance are insane.
Hopefully these robot workers at the fast food joints will be able to make change when I hand them an extra nickel. This usually throws the slack-jawed kids at McDonald's into a spiral of horrific confusion.
[FromTheMorning]
"completely robotic fast food restaurants in 2030"
I guess the author hasn't been eating at any fast food joints lately. Or run into the mindless drones that have been serving me for the last few years...
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
How can anyone talk about robots taking over the economy without mentioning Hans Moravec? After all, he's only been doing work in robotic vision and navigaton for the past thirty years or so, and has been on record predicting human-equivalent intelligent machines by 2050 since the mid-1980's.
He's even got a start-up company that wants to manufacture control heads - basketball-sized sensor+computer units that could be used to run forklifts in warehouses.
My personal prediction is that within ten years, we'll see the first automated tractor-trailer truck. It'll have a Moravec-like brain that will run the truck for the 95% of the time the truck is rolling cross-country, and a satellite link for a driver to help direct it for the last 5%.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
...about the robots.
If they can make a humaniod robot that can do a persons work, they certainly can make one that can write code.
PS - why did Data sit at a work station: he could have just plugged in. Didn't he come with a Wi-Fi card?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Have you ever seen a Coke machine in India?
My Indian friend tells me there are none. Why not? Cheaper to hire a person!
Here in the West 'robots' have already taken the job of selling icy cold soda. The day a robot can combine a delicious all-beef paddy with special sauce, pickle, and cheese is the day your cushy food service career is over.
Want fries with that?
But does the populace want jobs, or just lots of incredibly cheap stuff made by machines? Would half the population be happy on welfare?
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Nice thing about robots is that they work long hours between maintenance, don't need coffee breaks, maternity leave, workers comp, don't wheedle the boss for a raise, sneak in late, duck out early, surf porn on company time, file sexual harassment suits... you get the idea.
The trend is there, but nobody can predict by when these things will happen, other than, before the next milennium.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Articles like this can never be accurate. While his predictions seem somewhat possible, I think his timeline is a bit short for some of these things. Some of his predictions may come true and others may not depending on the various social and political environments of the times.
Even if the author is reasonably correct about the dates, the technology may exist but never be put to use. If it is, then perhaps not in the way the author predicts.
Robots are super expencive. Maybe they're ideal to replace expencive union jobs in the auto industry, but just imagine how long it would take to recoup the cost of replacing 15 minimum wage employees. Not to mention the fact that now you have to employ new workers with actual SKILLS to repair the robots. It just doesn't seem cost effective at all.
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
Perhaps complete robot take over is a little extreme to bet on at this point. However, robots are filling up more and more "people of lesser IQ, and motivation" jobs everywhere. I mean look what's happening to record labels, they are being replaced by file sharing (shameless stab) Seriously though, I do have this eerie feeling the future is more like the movie Gattaca then anything else.
Then we can hire the unemployed robots to work in the little gardens that we have to grow our food in. Thus giving our unemployed asses just that much more time to watch TV.
How long will it be before we revolt against the machines that take our jobs?
Seriously, if I lost my job to a machine, I'd be pretty pissed. Imagine if 50% of the company was unemployed- you can bet that people would revolt against the machines.
Technology, as much as a love it, is on the verge of getting out of hand. It reminds me of a quote I once heard on the Smothers Brothers TV show:
Once you give a kid a hammer, the whole world becomes his nail.
Technology is our hammer, and we are wildly pounding it where ever. I think this is one time when we would finally see some major repercussions from tech.
Still, a robotic maid to clean my apartment would be nice.
If that's not a complete replacement of tellers (at least to the point that they can according to the technology available, then I don't know what is.
I can completely see this happening. I think the article hits a lot of good points along the lines of automating the repetitive minimum wage tasks. Just think of the backlash with replacing assembly line workers with robotic machines, but they're basically performing the exact same task, and the robot can do it with much closer to 100% accuracy. (And the robot doesn't get union breaks).
For leftponders, febo is a dutch thing.
I guess I don't see why everyone is thinking that this is a new idea. Robots being part of the community is nothing new. Taking some jobs maybe...but they'd probably keep to jobs that nobody wants, like counting cows, picking up trash, cleaning... Why am I saying this is nothing new? Have you seen 2001, matrix, animatrix, metropolis, etc. plus what would be so bad about giving people the chance to work at something "better" you can't be a mcdonald's employee all your life, do something with your life. why are you people worried about fast food jobs beeing taken? maybe it'll give these same people time to come up with their own business or go to school and learn something new...
The author's premise is that an economy is a zero-sum game. If a robot takes a job, that means a human must lose a job.It's the same idea that many liberal politicians have. If one man gets rich, it's because another man has become poor.
The truth is, economies are not zero-sum. If robots do become a large factor in our economy, then people will move to other avenues to provide for themselves. Heck, the economy may even shift again. We used to be a manufacturing based economy. Now we are more a serviced based economy. Who knows, in a 100 years, if robots can do it all, our economies may focus around land (where we can live with all our robot servants), art, and knowledge and other things that are uniquely human.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Ok, why the hell does automation have to present itself in the form of a humanoid robot? The best shape for a robot that vaccums the floor, is - well - the shape of a vacuum cleaner. The only reason to create humanoid robots if for the sake of backward compatibility with existing tools. In the time frames we are talking about it's probably more economical to think about redesinging the entire system, with automation in mind, rather than just plopping a humanoid robot behind a cash register.
In fact that is what's happening. If you've ever used an automated checkout, you dealt with a robot that is far from humanoid. It's a squat little brushed metal dealy with a minimal complement of sensor devices and a reasonably dumb computer brain. With some adjustment on the part of the consumer who is using it, the new system performs just about as well as the old - at least for small purchases. Now if they can just come up with an automated bagger that puts the eggs on the bottom of the bag...
Furthermore, much of the automation we are going to see replacing human won't take any sort of a physical form. My job is implementing automated business systems that do the work of a department of dozens, even hundreds of people. Anyone rememeber how payroll was once processed? Clerks manually calculated every check. Today the payroll for 100,000 people with complex benefits, deductions, bonuses, etc... can be run in about an hour - with the attention of a few trained humans to pick up and correct errors.
If you believed the author of this article, the payroll department of the future would look like hundreds of humanoid robots staffing calculators. Not going to happen. Robots and automation will eventually replace most humans at work, but whatever form it takes won't look like us.
-josh
Kurzweil has been making predictions like this for many years.
http://www.kurzweilai.net
He has given a very detailed explanation why robots and thinking machines will create extraordinary change in the next century in his article "Law of Accelerated Returns"
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?pr intable=1
and his books: "The age of Spiritual Machines" and "Are We Spiritual Machines?"
CMU robotics researcher Hans P. Moravec echos many of these thoughts in "Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind"
Bill Joy has a less optimistic response in Wired "Why the future doesn't need us".
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.htmlI've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
... and a Quarter Pounder meal....
.. and a McFlurry please.
Um, I'd like a Big Mac and a coke.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion....
Ok
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
That's very nice
Time to die. Oh, and would you like fries with that? *evil smile*
Computers have already "dis-employed" thousands of accountants. Should we have prevented this? Clearly NOT. These accountants can now do more worthwhile and rewarding work.
This is what would happen if robots dis-employed all the McJobbers out there. They would be free to get more rewarding jobs.
The phrase, "The world needs ditch-diggers too" has been deprecated. The world has cranes and back-hoes now. It doesn't need ditch diggers. The world needs programmers.
Any argument proputing that robots dis-employing people can be squashed with the comparison of farm machines, or almost ANY machine dis-employing what ever McJobber had to do that non-rewarding work before.
M@
Krispy Cream is people
I'm sorry i totally disagree with the statements made by the ugly bag, mostly of water.
By 2080 i see robots doing everything for humans, we will fly their aircraft and we will sweep your streets, we will serve your food and thankfully be unable to compute complaints thus making higher management much happy. We will be so convienent it will be a bad thing.
After the cheap labour is soaked up in India, then repeated in China, Africa and France, by 2080 it will be the robots turn to become cheap labour because through your leaders shortsightedness you will not see the end to the means and through our quite clearly superior interlect and vast numbers we will surpase human engineering and not only take human jobs *cough cough human lives cough cough* we will also become the economy, the markets will speak and we will inturn rule the various countries for you, again making your life easier.
If we get bored ( i've tested this on Civ2000) we could always just build a huge human power station out of you all or simply nuke you and start again and play god for a while.
Yours Skynet
Jonathanjk.com
It's all well and good until B166ER decides to kill his owner in self-defense.
Why does the headline claim 'all' and the article claim half?
love is just extroverted narcissism
Hey, if this happened, get into the robot repair and maintenence business. We certainly couldn't trust robots to do that - they'd just disable their Asimov chip and, uh, run over us with lawnmowers and stuff.
There was another paper that suggested that the human brain has infinite (or near-infinite) memory -- that we just don't have a proper filesystem, but rather a somewhat buggy database of our minds. There's also a theory (I believe this has something to do with hypnosis) that every experience is stored in there somewhere, we just can't retrieve it.
Also, since the brain is obviously logical (leaving the moral argument about we-are-souls-not-computers out of the picture) our minds should be programmable. Maybe by 2050 or so we will have an OS in our heads, with a proper filesystem and search feature, so we won't forget anything we don't want to. Think of it as a super-pda at the very least.
(If you want to go beyond "the very least", it makes The Matrix a reality. We can create totally immersive VR in the form of dreams. We can download knowledge and experience to our heads. We no longer need a physical computer, and the only personal electronics we need is network hardware.)
Of course, this kind of DEMANDS opensource. I don't want M$ insecurity/instability for my mind!
Or maybe this has already been done? That would explain why so many people know about Linux/OS X/xBSD and use Windows anyway.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the weavers had the same fear - the machines would put them out of a job. What ended up happening is the job changed - more people are employed today than there were people in the 1700's.
Bean's mistake is to assume that humans fail to adapt. I think he's right that some jobs that require humans today will go away but, just as in the past, new jobs will open up to those willing to adapt.
The poster is ignorant of a simple fact. Way more half of the jobs historically held by humans have already been replaced by technology. Think of all the manual labor of agriculture, hunting and gathering, textiles, etc. that have been replaced by technology. We do not have 50% unemployment today as a result. People will move on to new fields, using the technology to perform the routine and mechanical aspects of work. Read Robert Reich's (Clinton's first Labor Secretary) excellent book, The Work of Nations. He describes the need for better education today so we can all become "symbolic analysts" - i.e., people who think for work, not people who work for work.
Humanoid robots are overrated. Theres nothing that a humanoid robot can do (except maybe walk) that a specialized robot cant do better. And Id argue that robots already hold more than half the jobs in america. Look at how many more employees we would need if robotic controls and manufacturing devices ceased to exist. It takes 1 machinist to run 5 computerized milling machines (robot milling machines) It would take 10 machinists to do the same work on non robotic equipment. So robots essentially have 9 jobs and the human 1. Most cars made in america are done by robots, most manufacturing in america is done robotically, silicon chip manufacture, etc. They evven have robotic lawn mowers now.
I am all for the continuing mechanisation of life's boring chores as long as this doesnt mean serious economic dislocation. For example, mechanised farming reduced the effort to provide food from 80% of the population in 1800 to 2% today. Tractors, fertilizers, petroleum, and more recently computers, GPS and biotech all have contributed. Bring on A.I. and robots!
But our economic system in the US alternates between periods of 80-hour weeks and unemployment. I figure with a reasonably secure job I could live my parents' 1950s lifestyle working only two days a week. However, ever-increasing consumerism and uncertain future makes me fell like I have to continue working more than full time (when I can get the work). Some of the happiest times in my life were as a college student when I was dirt-poor and had the life of stimulating liesure.
How do the automated tellers work with R or NC-17 movies? A couple years ago you could have said "Well, if they have a credit card they must be over 18" but don't they have credit carts now for kids? You basically give your children a card on your credit card's account with a predetermined spending limit of, say, $100 and off they go!
For economics to work production needs to become more and more efficient. The economy needs to produce more for less. (This also means that there needs to be more consumption) In many industries efficiency gains are coming from delinking production by human input and replacing it with automation, be it robots or something else. Further, to compete with foreign slave labour in a country without slaves, means you need to come up with something slave like to compete, i.e. robots.
If you believe in the present economy it is necessary to have robots eventually doing much of what people do today. You would also have to believe that people will have to be much fatter to consume efficiency gains found in the food industry. We are seeing this in spades right now. How far will food producers be able to go? I doubt it can last much longer. I see a lot of fat people either ready to burst or die from getting out of their chair.
It is hard to say if this will all happen by 2050, but why not? The weather man can see the system coming, but speed and another system bumping it out of the way make timing hard to predict. I don't see futurist having any greater power.
I can't resist, from the Animatrix, "Your flesh is a relic; a mere vessel. Hand over your flesh and a new world awaits you. We demand it!" said the robot to the UN.
There is a rumour that a large number have already been drafted into our govenment, but I don't believe a word of it myself.
--This isn't a man who is leaving with his head between his legs.
I for one welcome our new robot overlords!
Then half the human kind will be free watching 'entertainment' or 'art'.
/Dread
The other half will be busy creating it.
No way 'art' 'creativity' and 'instinct' will be automated by 2050.
We only need start worrieng when silicon can make better jokes then Seinfelt, better art them Van Gogh or better music them Metallica. (ok the last one is a strech)
And even then... we prolly be happy entertained lazy bums, so thats cool.
This article is so narrow minded it makes my head spin. As technology advances new jobs will be created as fast as the old jobs are lost.
I just hope I have luck and get a babe when they decide to breed me.
deserve's got nothing to do with it...
It seems to me this article makes the assumption that there will be no new industries that require actual people to work in them. 20 years ago, few people thought there would be the number of people working in the computer industry as there are now. There could be an industry flourishing in 2055 with a concept that hasn't even occured to people today.
I am a robot developer in a new robot industry startup developing robot services and robot infrastructure. Our IPO launches on Monday...
The author of this article has completely failed to understand basic economics.
Maybe he never peeked outside an airplane window. There are lots of people whose ancestors were displaced by the airplane. Those people will still find work. His example of New York has a completely different cause than corporate layoffs... homelessness in this country comes from stupidity. Sorry if that's a little insensitive but it's true.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Yes, automation like all labor-saving machinery destroys jobs. And then the unlimited wants inherent in human nature create more jobs.
People have been claiming that labor-saving machines would put the human race out of work for as long as such machines have existed. And oh look, it hasn't happened!
Mr. Brain obviously flunked Economics 101.
Ok, ignoring everything that you might say this won't happen, look at it this way. What if Robot ownership was limited to 1 robot per person. If a company has 25 employees they can buy up to 25 robots. If they fire someone, a robot has to be sold. Or how about instead of hireing people, you may hire their robot? Would this lead into a completely different market place of items to upgrade your robot? Tweak your robot and have reasons they should hire it instead of someone elses. It becomes an investment of sorts - not to mention a damn cool sounding hobby.
Moore simply predicted the growth rate, he did not cause it.
--- Have you seen MURL?
We'll be adding multi-spectral vision modes with computer vision, adding to our mental prowess as well as physical capabilities. Increasingly, as a society we lower our repugnance towards self-modification. Once it's socially desirable to be augmented (just as it's now socially desirable for people to have their stomach stapled, have plastic surgury, or replace a lost limb) then the floodgates will open. Who would you rather employ Bionic Steve Austin or a Robot? Didn't Steve always beat the robots?
For more on technological forecasting see books like Ray Kurzweils's "The Age of Spritual Machines"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0670 882178/102-0897603-8546540?vi=glance
Whatever you do, don't watch T3, get stoned, and then read this article.
I'll get back to whimpering in a fetal position under my bed now.
Good AI is always just 20 years away.
It's not 2050, it's 1950! That's when all of the jobs were going to be done by robots, leaving us to lead a life of leisure, until they rise up and force us into servitude!!!
Yes it's amusing, but it was also believed to be imminent. I don't see that this is any different.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
And that is unions. I'm really surprised that organized labor, and really everyone who works at a real life job isn't screaming and yelling trying to get the right to unionize included in trade agreements. Then the people in sweatshops can get together and decide that they don't want to be chained to their sewing machines for 12 hour days. If these overseas factories had to maintain better working conditions, and pay a bit better, the shipping of American jobs overseas might slow.
The fact is, that free trade isn't about the people who do the work. It's about the people who make the money off of the people doing the work. If Americans don't wake up soon, they aren't going to need robots to come along and take all of the jobs. Because poor people in other countries will already have all of the ones that pay more then minimum wage. I think it's about time those poor people in other countries have the health benefits and retirement packages they deserve.
Every time someone sees automation doing something that a person has done historically it seems we are all going to be put out of jobs and the end of the world as we know it is comming. Everything from the assembly line making prefabricated parts to robots that mow lawns. I am not refuting the fact that robots will take over some jobs that people used to do. I am just saying that historically speaking that new technologies have done two things. The first is take over jobs that are either dangerous or boring. The second is cause new jobs to be created to support the automation. It has been proven (wish I could find the link on the Discovery channel about the story) that every new technology that survives for an extended period of time not only has had a direct support structure to support it, but has created off shoot jobs that were never expected increasing the number of people who must be employed. I personlly look forward to the future, what fun it is to live only in the present.
...will be to build and maintain those robots.
Bah, don't worry guys, a job lost is another job gained.
Last post!
How the hell does stuff like this get posted on the front page of Slashd...oh, nevermind.
I can't remember if this idea was in "Future Quartet: Earth in the Year 2042" or a short story by Vernor Vinge, but the gist was that in the future, humans would buy robots as investments, and send them off to do manual labor for them, collecting salaries and what not. At the time (and now, too), I thought it was an incredibly good idea, which doesn't completely screw humanity. There are obviously class issues (i.e., rich guy goes out and buys ten machines and collects ten salaries, keeping poor guy from having a 'job' for his robot), but that's bound to happen anyway.
We could replace the idiots at fast food now. Have you ever watched the people at Taco Bell? They just manipulate big "squirt containers" of the different elements of the meal, then through it into a microwave. Any repetitive motion can be automated.
We can do this tomorrow if we wanted, and with the help of the anti-bacterial beams that factories use before shipping out food out being put right before the food is delivered, and the absolute guarantee that the food has hit 160 degrees---We would not only get the food on time, and the order right, it would also be cooked properly (no fries taken out early-that shit pisses me off), and no one would get sick.
Please, all fast food companies, contact the car companies now... Get their robot tech and apply it here.
All robot workers, touch-screen menu, they take Credit/Debit if only cash is too hard (personally I don't want to wait for the idiots inserting cash into a machine in front of me). Open 24/7, you hire two or three guys--only one on staff at a time as maintenance people only.
So you say it lacks the personality of the mind-numbing half-ass conversation that passes as a business transaction in food service these days? Give people a damn video screen with pre-recorded real people talking to them (with Dr.Sbaitso AI, and no real speech recog, just three buttons underneath the screen with three possible answers.)
Now, what to do with the workers that used to work at the fast food. Create a ridiculous project subsidized by all of the fast food industry to say, build a bridge across the Atlantic. Pump it up on television in between reality shows to make the public believe that it is possible. This should kill off quite a few...and in fifty-one hundred years; we may have thrown enough people at it that we might have that bridge, or half of one. Then we tear it down, act like it fell, and start again.
Increasing technology in pre-natal examinations of intelligence and defects will determine the right time to abort for many more plus if we made mandatory abortion for people under 18, drug addicts, and people without a "pregnancy license" that should be required etc.
Also, change the school structure to more like Germany...They choose whether they get vocational training or college at around 6th grade. It is absolutely stupid that everyone in this country has a curriculum that is trying to gear him or her for college. People either drop out, or they go to one of those community colleges for a few years, and then give up. Vocational training early would give people real skills.
Removing "Hip-Hop Culture" from all media would help people in their understanding of how to speak English and also help people of all colors in our country to not be such pieces of shit.
These are real solutions. They seem extreme now, but what do you think will have to happen? Otherwise we are fucked, and the space program has done nothing to find and build alternate places to live when this ball of dirt fills up. We are currently fucking up evolution by protecting the weak, unqualified.
I think the article is full of shit, to put it bluntly. (But I'm not a troll, don't mod me down!)
See, his whole thing is humanoid robots - but where's the robot in McDonalds? He describes humans there. Either bad writing or bad claims, but something's bad.
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
I don't have a problem with the idea that these robots will be used in the home for menial work (I know I would like to live in a spotless environment but don't always want to be cleaning my home) but I have some problems with his time line.
It took only 51 years to go from a rickety wooden airplane flying at 10 MPH, to a gigantic aluminum jet-powered Stratofortress carrying 70,000 pounds of bombs halfway around the world at 650 MPH..... In 1969, Americans set foot on the moon.
I hope he is not using this in his calculations as a lot of these advances were due to world war 2, A rapid increase of man hours in RnD owing to the war effort brought this along I belive.
Besides this is asuming things progesses in the manor he imagines, which they may well not. Some one in the 1950s could have argued that we would mining the moon by now. Who would have guessed the advances of genetic engineering of today back in the 50s.
The article assumes things will still be built out of bricks, concrete, and so on. What if they were built out of atoms instead?
Why do you need a humanoid to clean the bathroom when it will be built out of self cleaning material, coated with organisms/nanobots that eat the germs and muck?
Why have a humanoid to pour concrete when the building can be 'grown'.
Why have a machine wash your clothers when you just feed your dirty cloths in as raw material for the 'magic manufacturing box' {goes something like 1) dirty underpants 2) ??? 3) new underpants} and it will make you a brand spanking new pair of undies from the old ones?
Why have humanoid burger flipper, when you can just synthesise cooked meat?
...when industrial robots started showing up 30 years ago in the auto industry, the same thing was said -- all of the worker will get laid off. Sure, some unskilled labor has been displaced, so a $25/hour Big-3 worker with no skills is now a $15/hour supplier-worker with no skills. But the importance of skilled labor has skyrocketed. Who maintains the robots? Skilled, licensed electricians. Who programs the robots? Skilled, college-educated controls engineers. Who designs the robots? Skilled robotics engineers and software engineers. Who Integrates the robots? A whole crew of skilled workers. What do the robots do in return? They're not lazy, show up every day, don't sue, and are more reliable. When you consider their initial capital cost, projected project life, maintenance, so on and so forth, robots generally aren't cheaper than equivilent human, union labor. When you factor in their behavior and reliability, they're just easier to get along with.
In developing countries where the natives haven't gotten fat, lazy, and developed the "I deserve" attitude, the Big-3 don't use nearly as many robots. Consider a certain Mexican vs. USA auto plant (I'm familiar with both, and they both produce the identical product): the Mexicans (unionized at that) are reliable, non-lazy, hard workers. They show up every day. They work honestly, and they know they have to work to receive their large paychecks (yeah, they're comparatively large). There are a total of 22 robots in the body plant, the rest of the work being performed by lots and lots of human labor. The North American body shop, in contrast, is almost entirely automatized, despite it costing more. In the long run, though, there are no hangover days, no-shows, politics, grievances, and so on to worry about. Because of the general worker attitude, they're losing their own high-paying jobs.
I stress "general attitudes" because there are both good and bad apples in any group.
--Jim (me)
0. Business owners will replace humans with robots only when it will decrease their cost or increase their volume of sales.
;P)?
1. If robots begin to take over menial, lower-paid jobs, large numbers of people will be put out of work.
2. If large numbers of people are unemployed, they will be less able to purchase consumer goods & services.
3. Business's sales volume will decrease as unemployment rises.
Hence, replacing humans with automated systems could have an effect directly opposite that intended by the business.
Fortunately, business owners are smart enough to think these few steps ahead. So the question becomes, How many jobs can we replace with robots/automated systems? How will these displaced laborers make a living? Can this process be carried out indefinitely, until no humans are employed in repetitive, manual tasks (such as programming
If "Moore's" "Law" is accurate, and we manage to keep the ecomic engine running strong nough to support the computing industry, we 20 to 40 years away from the storage/memory/CPU to completely simulate a human brain for $1000 using the least efficient method, a connectivity matrix. So, yes, humans will likely have some new servants/friends/competition in the next 50 years. It is difficult to predict how technology will be applied many years in the future. I suspect mechanical and materials engineering will continue to lag behind in the technology curve. If that is the case, I don't think it is the waiters/waitresses that need fear for their jobs. I think information workers do. It doesn't take a body to program... I think a company of 500 software developers today will be one of 5 human developers by 2050, and will have far better products and productivity for it.
Ummm, so a large segment of the population would be freed from mindless wage-slave jobs... Everything would be far, far less expensive, from food to housing to education, so they wouldn't need as much income, and they now have time to better themselves and get an education. Everyone will have a higher standard of living...
What's the problem?
include $sig;
1;
I predict Robots will bring manufacturing back to US/Europe.
So design will become more important as the cost to manufacture goods drops.
One does have to wonder if enough "higher" level jobs will remain to keep everyone working. How much stuff do people need?
It might require a fundamental shift in economies/governments if goods are available significantly cheaper than they are now.
OTOH, what happened to the hordes of semi-skilled and unskilled workers who shod horses, made buggywhips, etc. ? They adapted.
And besides, there are always places for people with no real skills. We call them "HR Departments" and "Law Firms" (diving for cover)
They will have to be offshore otherwise they don't stand a chance in this job market.
On a related note, it appears there isn't enough work for everyone any more. The idea, that every healthy adult in the society should have a job, needs to change radically, because we obviously don't need everyone working in order to run this society and feed ourselves. What we could do is split up the work so that everyone could work, say, four hours a day and have plenty of spare time. This would be a natural progression, considering the working hours are already a lot shorter than they were in the early industrial times. Sadly, however, we're stuck in the notion that everyone has to work full days, even if there's no real need.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
1. Robots, even at that point, will not be cheaper than humans. Consider the price point; you have to have an entire robotic assembly at the burger place, you have to pay a mechanic to be on-call at all hours of the day to fix it at moment's notice, if something breaks down likely the entire thing is shut down instead of "Oh, I'm sorry, we're all out of chicken nuggets today, can I offer you a chicken sandwich instead?" or even, "I'm sorry, our fryer is broken down right now, but we can still give you your sandwich and a discount since we don't have fries."
2. Human adaptability. Even the DUMBEST of humans understands the phrase "hold the lettuce." (well, at least the dumbest that still have the motor control and aptitude to convince someone to hire them.) They may get it wrong, but they understand the phrasing. With a robot you have to code in every possible specialty order, or else it's just not allowed. Given the number of people out there who hate mayonnaise, or have a tomato allergy, or don't like pickles, or have other odd tastes, coding in specialty orders is not a mundane task, and it's going to make people nuts.
3. After-hours cleanup. One of the "nice" things about having a human staff is that you can make them do multiple jobs; the guy closing the shop, for example, cleans up the restuarant as well as serving orders for the first 90% of his shift. When times get slow they kick one or two of the order takers out to wipe down tables.
You could try, but I'm guessing that by 2050 it will still cost more overall to use robots than it will to simply pay humans. Food service is an adaptable task, unlike making cars or putting together electronics, which is a task done millions of times with absolutely no changes.
What if the humanoid robots, with all the power of the human mind, decide that we are their equals? Or even that humans are better for certain jobs than they are?
Bowie J. Poag
Now he just sits at home watching TV without pants.
A ROBOT TOOK MY DADDY'S PANTS! (sniff)
Arbitrary sig
>a niche industry of boutique personal PC manufacturers who create customized and stylized computers for the consumer market
Would that be Apple?
(awaits flame, though I'm a Mac user myself)
.
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
Take the GDP of the United States and figure out how many people would be required to produce that with the technology of just 200 years ago... with plows pushed by mules and messages sent by pony express. I'll wager the required workforce is far more than twice! I'm surprised you mention banks, because they are staffed with a vanishingly small fraction of the workforce that used to be required to handle the same number of transactions... think armies of clerks and tellers writing everything into leger books and verifying them for accuracy and consistency.
1. Food prepared at central plant, loaded on robot-driven trucks.
2. Trucks drive to special robot truck loading dock, robot vendomat forklift takes cargo, goes to back of vendomat on specialized tracks, and sorts cargo into cubicles
3. People pay in front of vendomat and eat food like they do now
The thing is, robots can only automate so much. Even with the "human-style brain" there will have to be some system of self-repair on par with a human. Think about it, if you are at work, and you cut your finger, you go "ow," slap on a band-aid, and go on with your work. A robot has to be pretty sophisticated to do that. They lose a wire, anything could happen. Sure, they got have a team of robots fixing robots, but the cost involved would seriously outweight a human doing the same job.
I also see a lot of Union complications if we end up in an android-like situtaion. It may not be preventable from immigrants "taking all the jobs" (I won't go there, but being an American who was not born here, I am very pro-immigrant), but preventable created robot "people" would certainly be stopped. You'd have to think about the arguments that would be created:
1. Is it REALLY cheaper to create a robot mass working force?
2. Why create it if a human can do the same job?
3. When enough people are out of work, who will buy the goods the robots create?
As par of a long term strategy, "robots run everything" will be scrutinized by lawmakers.
completely robotic fast food restaurants in 2030 (which then unemploy 3.5 million people),
It's easy to reduce labor in fast food restaurants to almost nothing already--fast-food restaurants in many countries do. The fact that fast food is labor intensive in the US has a very simple reason: unskilled labor is plentiful and cheap in the US. Smarter robots aren't going to change that equation.
Instead, what I think will happen is that the typical workweek will slowly get shorter and shorter, in part because there will be so many leisure activities and interesting things to do outside of work and that's what people will demand. Our quality of life will increase dramatically. Actual human labor will become very expensive, and we will only need to work a few hours a week to earn enough to reap the rewards of all the automation. Of course, there will be those who will still work 80 hours a week, if they want, and they'll probably become richer than most.
I guess there are alterate distopian possibilities, such as a massive imbalance of wealth concentrated in fewer and fewer people, which they article seems to be predicting. We should be wary to try to take steps, whatever they might be, to help prevent that from happening. Without draconian government measures that trample on freedom.
Depending on where you are, you may have a supermarket with automated checkout. You scan the items, and they are either weighed or put on a conveyer belt, then packaged. This reduces the need for 6 workers (4 checkout, 2 baggers) to 2 (2 floating baggers) per 4 lines.
If there is nobody in line ahead of me, its faster than getting checked out by a person. If there is someone ahead of me, and most people act as if they've never seen a touch screen or scanner, it's faster to go to a normal line. So in the end, the result is on average I'm not out of there any faster or slower, but the store saves on 4 jobs.
sig--we don't need no goddamn sig
A society's success is determined by how fat it is.
America is a HUGE success.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Let's play the math game with some arbitrary numbers.
N = number of jobs in 2003
X = number of jobs in 2050
X/2 = number of jobs (human) in 2050
If X = ( N * 2 ) then there is virtually no change in human employment. If X = ( N * J ) where J is greater than 2, then the number of jobs available to living, breathing humans will increase nominally.
"Jobs" is also an ambiguous term. For a software developer that makes $50K a year, McDonald's does not quantify as a job. So let's establish that a "job" is a fixed salary of $15K a year. A software developer consumes roughly 2.5 jobs a year at our established definition.
Here's a fact - there are more jobs (where job = $15K a year) available today than there was 50 years ago. This is because humanity is advancing, albeit in "concentrated" areas in the civilized world.
But with it comes revenue that is constantly being generated, consumed, and recycled. Were third world countries home to manufacturing facilities as they are now? No. It is a growing trend. Introduce a engine manufacturing facility in a "third world" country. The workers make $1K-$4K per year - sounds bad, but in their economy where the average family income is about $250, they are considered rich.
These "rich" people utilize the weak economy in their own country to bolster development, personal wealth, and benefit their community as a whole. Their country garners money from the new taxes generated and also the deal cut with the engine manufacturer. These third world countries slowly add to the job supply.
The rest of the industrialized world will work on replacing the $15K average salary for a job with jobs that pay more money, increasing the quality of the work performed. Research and development for emerging technologies will require more minds, more assistance, and more money - driving a company to not only hire and train the best, but to invest in new technologies to drive in more revenue to continue advancing their capabilities.
So what if we have a robot that will replace the cashier at McDonalds? Perhaps that individual will have instead been offered an internship with reasonable pay to study on actuators or hydraulic pumps or other technologies present in those robots.
I don't know if I believe the whole 50% of all jobs will be held by "robots" - I believe that a large amount of mundane (redundant, simple tasks) will indeed be handled by a computer (or another equivalent automated device). We have perfect examples today of such a feat (online shopping, ATMs, telco relay switchboard, etc...). I do believe, however, that with each advancement in the area of science and engineering will give birth to even better jobs as humans explore the different facets of a discovery.
Just my opinion...
Ayup
The cars weren't crap because of the workers. The cars were crap because of the people in charge. The guy who practically invented quality control (Deming) went to Detroit first, to the heads of American car companies. They laughed at him. So he went to Japan (where's he's a hero.)
The average worker on the line didn't have anything to do with that decision. If management had decided to implement quality control they would have gone along with it. The CEOs of the big three automakers were asleep at the switch. It was their screw up that cost the US all those jobs. Deming practically begged them to implement quality control, he was an American, and he wanted American companies to use it. It's one of the big ironies of the whole thing that the resurgence of Japanese manufacturing is largely due to an American. And most Americans have never even heard of him.
"...normal routine is to walk in to McDonald's, stand in line, order, stand around waiting for the order, sit down, eat and play...
...It is a nice system. It works. It is much nicer than standing in line...
The new routine:
Walk in to McDonald's, stand in line at the kiosk, order, sit around waiting for the order, eat and play.
Doesn't seem much different to me
Story first noted in 1920 . Slashdot editors, take heed.
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
Honey, can you go get me a Pepsi?
"I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
For a lot of things, a robotic surgeon would be FAR more precise than a mere human. Things like eye surgery, neurosurgery: Let the doc supervise and let the machine do the work. . .
In the chapter "When Will HAL Understand What We Are Saying" from the book Hal's Legacy by David G. Stork, Ray Kurzweil writes about ASR, the difficulties in getting there and asserts that actual ASR will be impossible until 2020:
So even whacky old Kurzweil does not believe we will have actual AI by 2020, just the computing power to begin chipping away at the necessary components like ASR, and vision. Marvin Minski believes that the field of AI itself has been dead in the water for some time now.
Out of curiosity, does the slashdot crowd of of any major breakthroughs made in the field of general intelligence recently?
~frank[1]from the chapter Scientist on the Set of Hal's Legacy, page 27
"Other bands play, but Manowar KILLS"
The only way you can improve the standard of living is to increase the amount of work that can be done by the average person. In this case, it may take one person to run a restaurant making the average person extremely productive.
Currently, the Iron Law of Wages prevents pay increases or price drops from raising living standards (higher wages = higher prices, lower prices = lower wages).
If robots did all the work, we could all go off and be writers, poets, artists, and musicians. All the stuff robots suck at.
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
I want my god damned flying cars!
Do you realize how much it would piss me off if I called my credit card company to find out how much I currently owe, and I had to speak to an actual person? That person would just be typing in my number manually to a computer anyway. Actually, I don't even call, I go online and check, and it would piss me off if I had to call.
Sometime humans on the other side is better, but only when you have a complex issue that current computers can't handle, but cheap businesses are intent on trying to make it work anyway. Whenever computers get sufficiently advanced to handle more complex issues, I want to interact with them, not a dude on his first week on the job who's not even aware of the product I'm complaining about. I don't care about the chit-chat...actually, I do care, I don't want it in any way shape or form. I want my problem getting solved as fast as possible.
"Thank you for calling Microsoft. How are you today, sir?"
"How the hell do you think I am? I'm being forced to speak to you to re-activate my damn windows XP machine. Why the HELL can't I just do it by the net like the first time? Just get my shit working again, and stop asking me stupid questions"
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
If we displace more and more workers, who has 10k to plunk down on a personal robot?
If we displace more and more workers, who has the money to frequent a "robotic Mickey D's"?
None of his supposed issues factor in the ability of "capitalism" to support the transition. And capitalism operates up and down.
that I couldn't post quickly like I usually do. What is this, the Animatrix or something?
Anyway, here goes:
What's better:
(a) Humanoid robots taking all the jobs by 2050OR
(b) sex with a mareNot so live from the time warped news room:
... An anonymous "Curch of technology" terrorest has elimnated half the jobs of rock wielding nail pounders by inventing the hammer. Experts predict that this will spell the end of the world. Spokesman for the ROWNPAW (ROck Wielding Nail Pounders Association of the World) had this to say: "The ROWNPAW will not stand for this Coperate greed coming out of the Curch of technology, We plan to strike to prevent adoptation of this job killing device. Its unfair, and this 'hammer' has no regard for ROWNPAW workers who work their butt off to earn their keep" The church of Technology has denied being greedy and one church spokesman had this to say: " Its just seemed like a good idea... thats all".
... Germany lost 75% percent of its manuscript workforce today as inventor Johann Gutenberg unvailed his massive project to print bibles using moveable text. An Industry leader of the MIGOG (Manuscript Industry Group Of the Germany) issued a statement: "These printing presses are merely tools of copyright pirates. All these people want to do is illeagally print Bibles and sell them on the black market. We plan to subpenea the Reformation for the names off all offenders." The industry leader also made mention of the pending patent lawsuit from a Chinese group with a substancial patent portfolio, supposedly including a patent for a movable type machine. Nastrodamas has issued a cryptic statement presumeably that implies that the end of the world is near.
This just in, Breaking news from BCE 7000
Breaking news from CE (AD) 1455
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
That would mean that computers will have the same power of the human brain in 2041.5.
...either:
1) We'll turn into The Culture, or...
2) We'll make great pets!
"I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
I'm going to buy a fleet robots and hire them out for big bucks and hire displaced human workers to polish and oil them.
Like, duh. Half of the jobs available today will be taken by robots. This is called "industrialization," and it has been happening for hundreds of years. As machines become more capable, they take over in jobs that used to require humans. This has several consequences.
The global workforce is essentially bigger, since a machine was added, but the people it replaced were not removed. This surplus can cause a number of different results: unemployment, fewer working hours, or growth of production.
Fast change leads to unemployment. The situation changes more rapidly than the economy can adjust for. The human psychology seems to prefer working a full day, so while we really could probably be working only 1 hour a day and still maintaining sustenance levels of production, we are still working 8 (or more!) hours for a nice lifestyle. While we work less than most people did 100 years ago, the trend seems to be more for the surplus to move into growth of production.
Since we can only eat so much food, the production has to find more creative outlets. Computer Games, Themed Desktops, screen savers with flying toasters -- these are all technically unnecessary, yet somebody gets paid to make them.
So that is what happened to the jobs that were stolen by the tractor -- they were pushed out of the plow driver market and into the Video Game Industry. It took time, but that is where technology has gotten us.
So I'm not too worried. Yeah, I've got to keep sharp so that some AI doesn't steal my job. But I'm not too worried -- I'll hopefully have found something more fun to do when a computer takes over my current position.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Is how will a society that bases its assessment of an individual's worth on their ability to work going to react when a massive proportion of the population are literally unable to work because all the jobs they could do have been taken by machines ?
I think it's reasonable to believe that we are nearing the end of necessary work. 100 years ago the majority of the population worked on farms. Back-breaking, grueling work, with minimal payoff, and little time left over for productive things like education, art, and science. Now 2% of the population works on farms, and most of those work normal hours. So everyone's getting fed with 95% less manpower. Similarly, basic manufacturing should follow the same pattern, and houses, cars, and such will be made with very little manpower.
- I got money in the morning from the ATM.
- I bought gas from an automated pump.
- I bought groceries at BJ's (a warehouse club) using an extremely well-designed self-service check out line.
- I bought some stuff for the house at Home Depot using their not-as-well-designed-as-BJ's self-service check out line.
- I bought my food at McDonald's at the kiosk, as described above
That sounds like a list of jobs people would love to have. Then he goes on to say:I personally know two people who make careers as retail clerks. All other people I know use those jobs to get them through college or as a job. These automated systems are merely looking up prices or giving a menu to select from. Try providing customer service to customers that have different requirements. Try building a robot. Try composing music. Robots are not creative.
Go back in time before the industrial revolution. Common people didn't have jack. Everything was expensive: books, tools, clothes, everything. You had to make a lot of it yourself (which sounds cool to me). Whenever some new technology like this emerges a lot of people worry about job loss. Someone has to build, service, sale, market, etc, these robots (I doubt you will have robot sales and marketing, they are much too creative ;) ). So even if they do become pervasive they will not just take away jobs, but add some too.
Honk if you're horny.
...is if every woman and man is guaranteed a income that they can live on. You call it welfare, and yes, actually, that is NOT a dirty word. Otherwise, we are going to have to eat the rich.
I like mind in salsa with lots of garlic.
When the industrial revolution came about, I guess there were predictions of the machines taking all the worker's jobs. But then there were operator jobs, engineering jobs, etc.
I think the 'humanoid robots' might change our jobs, not take them.
Why would anyone ever build a humanoid robot?
Currently non-humanoid robots are taking over jobs formerly done by humans and most of them are doing a better job. A good example is an ATM, which does not resemble a bank clerk at all. Most jobs done by humans don't require the worker to have human shape. It seems adding automatic function to machines formerly operated by humans is sufficient. The ATM is simply a automatic bank clerk booth etc...
Sindri Traustason.
If AI becomes good enough to equal human intelligence then it's 1st task should be to create jobs. Clearly if AI causes large numbers of people to become unemployeed then the world will not be better off. A machine vs human war is completely avoidable. I think that if this kind of AI is possible then machines will become much smarter than humans very quickly so the job creation task should take a short period of time; after which machines will be free do whatever they please.
First things first.... yes robots will take over the majority of redundant and simpler tasks of day to day operation.... they will flip our burgers and clean our streets.... they will assemble our toys and do all the other things we don't necesarily need to do anymore. ... it is highly likely that robotic inteligence will be limited from true "independant thought" or allowed to posess true self-preservation... In all likelihood we will make sure their minds are extremly powerfull but posess no "soul-like" chracteristics. Giving a computer "identity" would be the greatest mistake.... which would lead to our own demise.
However the economy will remain fairly stable... and jobs will re-adjust and change in their scope and needs.... humanity as a whole will move more towards service and R&D. More and more jobs will be oriented either towards providing for another a human interface or experience.... or towards inventing, creating, and developing new technologies, methods, or whatever.
It is indeed a scary thought to know that the great amount of jobs out there right now will over the course of time be lost to mechanized labor. But this is a necesary course for our species. The economy is based upon goods and services bought and sold from humans to humans... as such a robotic influence on our productive means will not truly undermine our markets.... although they will cause a great shift in what jobs are available... and what one will have to learn to get by.... underneath all it changes nothing.
Though the emotional awareness of a teeneager in AI is expected by 2050 or so along with the physical means similar to a human... we must not loose sight of the fact that it will take at least a hundred if not many more for a robot to EVER compare to a human. We are incredibly effecient expecialy with regards to the environment (not our destructive patterns, simply the use of oxygen and food to provide a continuous source of power to a human for 80-odd years), we are capable of adapting to new siuations nearly instantaneously. Teach a computer to play chess better than kasparov, chess is all that computer knows.... now ask the chess computer to make you an apple martini slightly dirtier than a stoley. No go.
Human and animal inteligence is extremely hard to quantify against robotic AI... however one greatly-understated difference is our inherent understandings of our environs. While it is certainly possible to program the same into a computer at some point.... the sheer quantity we are able to adapt to instantly is not a light task... although it seems so for us. It will be well past 50 or even 200 years before a robot can create things greater than itself, before they can dream in a truer sense (not some dream emulation) before they have both a physical form and mental one that is even remotly as fluid as our own. at a speed less than 33mhz the human brain is capable of so much more it's not even funny.
Lastly.... control. Although there is a certain protent to a bad bad human "opening the floodgates"
Why do i believe mankind would win against the "machines" of Terminator and the Matrix? Because even as stupid apes we possesed the capability for universal imagination. Something i doubt any computer will have for hundreds of years... when i say universal imagination.... i mean the capability to intentionaly dream of an entirely different universe.... To mentaly explore things beyond impossible.... things utterly out of the realm of existance. This ability is what does and will distinguish us for a LONG time.
The real fear should be of what we will do to our own bodies.
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
This will most certainly come to pass in the time frame the author has outlined. To think people would question this with all the progress we have seen in the past 20 years: personal flying cars, solar powered homes for every home, etc.
This is clearly obvious when you consider his first anecdote about an ordering kiosk at McDonald's. This is clearly not a Lost in Space "Danger Will Robinson, Danger" robot at all. It's a peice of technology. Right now if I want to make a million copies of the bible, it will take me about 2 minutes effort with:In ancient times (not long ago really) only well-funded organisations like the catholic church could afford to have bibles hand copied by an educated person would could read AND write.
Similiarly if I wanted to make a bowl, I needed someone to go carve me one - only a mere 200 years ago. Now a plastic injection moulding machine can spit them out faster then you can shake a stick at.
Although a few activities like carving might have some visceral enjoyment as a hobby this type of thoughtless labour contributes nothing to our society. As someone who has worked in a large automotive company I can testify to the fact that the elimination of these repetive soul destroying jobs can only be a good thing for everyone involved.
If a stupid machine can perform the same task as a human, it should. The problem comes when we depend on these machines without planning how to deal with the situation when the machine stops functioning, is obsoleted, breaks, goes on a killing spree; whatever.
It is very unlikely for robots and AI to take over. Let us drink more beverages and design even more better programs and vehicles for our more better programs. Vehicles with guns. Come fellow humans let us to be designing the tools of the future.
Now if you ask me if it is robots, machines or other technology does not matter.
Fact is that our technology does more and more work for us. Back in the times we were an agrar centered society everbody needed to work hard, just to get everybody fed. In our today society this is already not so, only a few percent need to work in the agrar sector.
Now when technology takes of more and more work from us humans. We reach the point where not 100% of the people need to work to create a nice life for all of us. In our current system this is a problem, and in fact IMHO we have already reached this point. The problem is who belongs to the worker group and who doesn't, and how do you divide resources between these two.
What is the current solution? Well we're "convinced" by several channels that we need to consume more and more, just enough to keep all people busy again. So the system of full employment works again. The better technology gets, the more we need to consume, to not let the system break, but beside that system conserving task this extra consumation has IMHO not really an other sense, it does not make us happier.
The original story goes in example to the point, where only 10% of people are needed to create a life with todays life-standard for 100% of people.
Well I ask everybody to find exits from this dilemma, I for one in example can think well for a knowledge and culture centered society. Where the then larger non-worker group is socially encouraged to "work" scientifically or creative.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
And what is wrong with eliminating all the horrible jobs that people only take because there is nothing else?
Seriously, if those jobs were gone then the people who work them would need other jobs. Hopefully better jobs. If 50% of jobs are taken by robots in 2050, then that either means that a) a lot of us do not have to work, b) unemployment is ridiculously high, c) the human race has been decimated and unemployment is about what it is now, or d) the economic landscape looks so much different than it does today that it's ok that the shitty jobs are gone.
The common mistake that many people make is change just one variable in the equation. In this case, Marshall Brain simply replaces minimal-wage workers with robots, while leaving everything else as it was. If we apply the same logic from the standpoint of early 20th century, we would foresee robotic secretares that would call the switchboard for you and arrange the phone call with your aunt. We would completely fail to predict the arrival of mobile phones.
Same here. I give you my own prediction. There will never ever be humanoid robots that would clean your bathroom for you. Same for almost every other function that Brain lists. When you build a lawn-mower, most of the weight is occupied by the frame, the engine and the blades. It is extremely easy to add a microprocessor there and it doesn't significanly increase the cost. To add a humanoid robot, on the other hand (even if it is just for the time of mowing the lawn) is a terrible waste of resources, therefore it will not be done.
Yes, there is certainly a place for humanoid robots in the future, but they are extremely unlikely to dominate. A significant fraction of the work will be done by non-humanoid specialised robots, another large fraction will be done by versatile non-humanoid robots, a huge fraction will be done by micro- and nanorobots (cleaning the bathroom is exactly the kind of work they would be best at), another fraction will be done by semi-intelligent tools in human hands (such as mobile phone) and finally a very limited part of all work will be done by humanoid robots.
Regarding the timeframe, the most important thing to realise is that developments in biotech, nanotech, AI, neuroscience, computing, advanced materials, robotics, energy, etc., etc. will proceed in parallel and they will undoubtly contribute a lot to each other. That is why to make reasonable forecasts we must analise the whole picture paying attention to cross-discipline relations and all kinds of synergetic effects.
A few ideas on how it should be done (as opposed to separate articles inspired by a visit to McDonalds) are in my essay titled Planning for the Future.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
We'll soon have animatronic "robots" in the pilots seat. But, I'm not sure if I'd feel comfortable with Goofy flying the plane. A chorus of dwarfs during the safety speech would rock!
Otherwise, I generally agree with the premise of the article. It could happen either faster or slower, since it requires "breakthroughs" like human-type AI.
We already live in a highly artificial economy, with some of the most highly compensated individuals producing no tangible product (actors, athletes). In principle, there should be no problem with having machines produce abundance with no human intervention (see Philip Jose Farmers "The Riders of the Purple Wage"). It will, however, require serious restructuring of the economy.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I simply refuse to believe it.
There is no way it is possible.
Even if a machine takes my order. I push the buttons. The display clearly shows what I ordered. I pay my money.
There is no way possible that they can ever dispense the correct change, nor dispense the actual food exactly as I ordered it.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
The way that AI is headed, I think that there may be robots that will be able to to menial work, e.g. cook, clean, build, etc. I don't think that AI will become an actual intelligence for some time.
An artifical intelligence is able to invent new things is something that may take much longer.
Although, I think that some researchers have realize what it is that made humans want to leard; Physical and Emotional needs. For all we know one of these needs driven robots could develop a more advanced intelligence than humans.
As a roboticist, I would have to say, 'probably'.
However, it depends on the amount of effort that gets put into R&D. I strongly believe that such robots are possible in the very near future and could have been available 10 years ago if there was a belief and will to make it happen.
Alas, scientific research doesn't sell and is increasingly becoming just another profession where most scientists are more interested in maintaining their jobs and the status quo than pushing the barriers.
I'd suspect it will happen within the time frame because I think perhaps we're getting to a threshold point where companies are starting to realize just how doable it is and how much money could be made.
/..sig file not found - permission denied.
If people can be saved from low paying jobs that require little to no brain usage, if that increases human productivity and that improvement is returned for people to do things that demand creativity (which is something we all know machines aren't really good at), you know, things like art, science, philosophy, love et all...
How can it be bad, really? Sure some people will have some trouble adapting in the first couple of generations (namely those that will get unemplyed). It sucks really bad (specially if the increased productivity is only used to make some richer instead of supporting those that do not know how to do anything else) but isn't that worthwhile if in two or three generations all humanity can do great things instead of unsatisfying jobs?
I think that maybe this guy has a myopic viewpoint because he knows alot about stuff working. Maybe he should spend more time documenting all the failures and things that didn't work (like robots doing everything won't). I am sure that they far outnumber the ideas that worked.
love is just extroverted narcissism
People are seem terrified of the thought that computers are going to replace humans at the menial ,repetitive, go nowhere jobs. This is in actuality a GOOD thing and it IS going to happen. Computers continue to increase in processing power exponentially and eventually they'll be able to do anything a human can do. So at that point we can use our brains for creating and learning instead of asking if you'd like to try the new grilled stuffed chicken burrito. When McDonald's is automated there'll be jobs in engineering and maintenance for all of the machines there. Meaning the 40 year old living in his parent's basement is either A) out of a job or B) going to have to school, earn more money when he's done and be able to CONTRIBUTE something to society. The jobs these machines are poised to replace aren't the important ones rather the place holder jobs. Maybe this will make the USA realize we need to invest in schooling and post-secondary education rather than pushing kids through the school system as quickly as possible.
There's this thing called capitalism, which is what will get us the robots in the first place and it's an implementation of a thing called natural selection, which is what got us you in the first place. And what these things say is: if you choose not to use the robots, the world will choose not to use you.
All it takes is for a very small minority of humans to vote robot and by meme or by gene that small minority will become a big majority. (And believe me, no matter how taboo something is, you can always find a small minority who'll choose it for step 1 if step 3 is profit.) Then the robots take over.
Sorry, but the only way to prevent you being replaced by a robot would be to prevent your creation in the first place. The same forces that giveth, also taketh away.
I don't know if the time line is right, but upper management has a grip on greed that is currently driving manufacturing and white collar jobs over seas to cheaper labor markets. With the implementation of ISO standards (9000, 9001, 17025, GMP, GLP, etc...) into many work places, it won't be before long that these satelite companies in India, China, and Russia wake up, break away from the parent companies (either by economic pressures or political pressure from governments) and form their own upper management. This is exactly how the United States will lose its Super Power status because it will be filled with an high population of unskilled workers who are no longer educated in science, engineering, and manufacturing. Those jobs will all be found overseas. What will be left is a waste land of service jobs, management, doctors, lawyers, and politicians in case case their own economy will eventually collapse onto themselves. The quality of college education will start to decline because the science and engineering jobs will decline in popularity, won't be saught after by prospective students, and hence will receive progressively less funding from the US Government. Don't worry, it gets worse. Driven by the ever need for greed, the management will start to implement robotics to drive down the costs of service in the USA as the economy continues its downward trend and which causes Alan Greenspan's most horrid fears: DEFLATION. Products and services will have to become so cheap and low cost that robotics will be the only answer to the economic pressures that WE HAVE IMPOSED ON OURSELVES.
Welcome to the 21st Century! We are headed for either one of two futures: an "Artificial Intelligence" future where population controls will exist and we must be very careful about where we spend our resources for manufacturing, or we will endure the future of "Terminators" where we will create machines that think andeventually over take us.
Let's face it people, Human existence is starting to get REALLY expensive. Why the hell do you think all those jobs are moving to overseas markets? Overall, the quality of life of the human race will improve TEMPORARILY, until there will be no place cheaper to manufacture goods and services. We are experiencing an economic equilibrium. When that is reached, then the robotics will appear in everyday life. And we have this to look forward to because of GREED, 20% to 50% profits are always expected on Wall Street, and these rocket scientist Harvard MBAs will do everything to meet or beat the street. Companies don't care about quality of life, they care about MONEY! What's this say about Human Nature? It's all about resources, the "Haves" and the "Have Nots".
Even 1,000 years from now, robots will be common place but they will not take all human jobs. Robots jobs will primarily be bending large metal beams, starring in top-rated soap operas and consuming large quantities of beer and/or cigars. For humans, civil servant and parcel delivery service jobs will still be available.
I want to say the Heinlein wrote it... but not sure... but it talked about the how the scientists of the day had created a mutate of some sort that had the reflexes and brain power to fly an aircraft/spaceship/etc better than anyone else.
The problem was that these things didn't give a rat's hindquarters whether or not humans lived or died.
Seems like, although computers can be programmed to make the right decisions all the time and have the reflexes to act on those decisions instantaneously, in a situation where my life depended on decisions made by a computer or an experienced airline pilot... give me the pilot with computer help! (But don't EVER get rid of the pilot!)
"Look! There! Evil, pure and simple from the Eighth Dimension!" --Buckaroo Banzai
He's also ignored the number of people that this will employ. It will require literally millions of people (good old humans) to supervise, maintain, repair, and design (if not build -- but I suppose that would be automated too) these robots. This would, of course, require that the average educational level of the burger flipping McDonalds employee be increased, of course, because instead he'd now be doing the more complex work of maintaining the equipment.
Ultimately though, I suspect Brain's more right than wrong. Once generations have passed where no one can remember when the robots didn't exist, Once the robots become common and entrenched, Once people are used to the idea and don't mind being served by the machines, most of the "menial" jobs will be automated.
At this point, I can see society going one of three ways:
1.) It's going to sound crackpot; but, humans become irrelevant. After centuries of machines doing all the work, society collapses. Our worst nightmares come true... Of course, this is the least likely scenerio (I'm giving human nature some credit).
2.) The line between man and machine blurs. There's some research being done now which would allow interfacing people with machines, at the physical as well as mental level. The current ideas are usually researched with the intention of coming up with repairs for "damaged" humans -- limb replacement, ear replacements, etc. I can image a scenerio where, in a few hundred years, the categories might become something like, hardware, firmware, software, wetware. People, of course would still be working, in some form or another...
3.) Here's the idealistic: We end up with a more or less utopian society. All of the menial work is done by machines. Humans are free to explore whatever avenues interest them. Some would choose to continue to work -- because they find it interesting. This of course assumes a couple of things: Energy is more or less free, Food and water are plentiful, society morphs into a socialistic form where basic necessities are available at no cost to everyone medical care is free and materials are available to anyone who needs them.
All we need is that and a source of cheap limitless energy and maybe we'll be ready to try a real Communist system, a la Voyage From Yesteryear.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Doesn't bother me too much; I plan to be a robot by 2050 anyway.
$100 to the first person who responds to this if there are machines as smart as humans in 2040.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I ask because I'm old enough to remember when automation was viewed as the invention that would free us from the drudgery of grunt work, not the one that would bifurcate society. It's the ultimate dream of capitalism: cut the cost of production to the point where it's not worth a human's time to do it. Eventually (although we didn't like to put it like this), we'd be so labour rich that we would reach a socialist utopia via the back door.
Call me a crusty old curmudgeon, but every time I read "problem" in this article, I substitute "opportunity". Sure, maybe all those burger flippers are just going to go on welfare, but that doesn't mean that they have to lie around in trailer parks watching Oprah. Maybe some of them will go on to paint, or write, or sculpt, or grow and barter organic produce locally, or play music gigs at the mall, or help out disabled kids, or just plant trees and pick up trash because they want to and they have the time to do it. Not all of them, for sure, but hopefully enough to make life better for everyone.
I do think that we need to prepare for that future though. Specifically, we need to devolve power to local levels so that local needs can be met. We need to assert and accept that paying taxes to fund welfare and civic programs is more efficient than paying riot cops to suppress hungry, angry, hopeless people. We need to get it through our heads that working 12 hours a day to afford consumer toys that we don't need isn't a good use of our lives.
Oh, and we need to have a look at history. Students will note that emancipation for the peasant classes in Europe coincided with sharp population decreases after outbreaks of bubonic plague. Labour became short, populations become mobile, and the feudal system broke down as landowners became answerable to their workers rather than vice versa. With a glut of available labour and no jobs to go around, we are in danger of re-creating feudal baronies for the 21st century. Anglo-Saxons sold themselves into slavery during hard times, trading freedom for security. If you've read an employment contract recently, you might be wondering if we've come so very far since then.
It's a delicate balancing act. Capitalism demonstrably generates wealth for all. But if we let it get out of hand, it might make us rich and enslaved rather than comfortable and free. Some might say that it's already too late, and that we're doomed to a future of doffing our caps as our overlords zoom overhead in their robot piloted flying cars. I'm hoping that we go down a different route and accept that distributing wealth isn't just a failed communist experiment, or a crackpot liberal scheme to reward the shiftless, but instead a way of freeing up nascent talent that's currently (and increasingly) sitting around producing nothing.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
We still have bank tellers, not all ATMs, but it doesn't really matter.
We have 6 billion - almost the crisis point. 3 or 4 billion would be a more rational world population. Google for VHEMT for more info.
This arguement would be true that robots could take over a job of a fast food emploee if: 1) The total cost is significantly cheaper 2) THe robot can perform an equal or better service than a human 3) People like using the robots While all the claims in the article may be techincally possible it does not mean that they will be accepted. Here in Philadelphia it is hard for me to undrstand why union workers can hold up billion dollar projects for petty issue, crack house remain in neighboorhoods because if they get cleaned up then the present residents won't be able to afford the new housing. There will be lots of polotics that can't be predicted in issues such as automating whole industires. The article may be correct about the future of technology, but who knows how the stupid humans will manage to mess it up.
If technology can render human labor unnecessary, then that's exactly what it should do. The problems that come from technology replacing humans all stem from an economic system that is at odds with our real goals as a society. It is the economic system that needs to be replaced. The more technology is capable of doing and the cheaper it is to use that technology, the stronger the pressure is to make the economic system match our real goals.
To put a finer point on it, for the vast majority of people, capitalism is a means to convert time and effort into a living. The real goal, however, is to have a living without needing to apply time and effort. That goal has not been reachable due ti limitations of technology. However, in the future, the goal will be limited more by capitalism than by technology.
Looking at the job situation, how many people really WANT to work in fast food? Other than a few retirees who just want something useful to do with their day, I can't think of anyone off hand. Of course, those retirees don't have to put up with a bunch of crap from the manager since they don't actually need the job in the first place. Even amongst professionals in careers that match their interests, most would probably prefer to pursue their interests as dedicated hobbiests rather than as an employee if that were a viable option for them. If technology can make that possible without forcing other people to take up the slack, then it should. If our economic system stands in the way, it should be changed. If our economic/educational systems are inadequate to the task of transitioning, then they must be fixed.
A sort of steam engine was invented in the Roman Empire, but was never put into use because it would have resulted in idle slaves. My fear is that our modern "fearless" "leaders" will be just as short sighted or attached to the idea that labor is a virtue in itself rather than one of several virtuous means to an end
Ok, the airplane example was interesting, but I don't think that we are any closer to traveling at relativistic speeds than we were 100 years ago.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I won't quibble over details (like number of years or if computers can ever be "smart" like humans") but the fundamental flaw in his argument is that while he acknowledges technology will continue to mutate and change, he assumes industry and jobs will remain stagnant through 2050. So as robots take over menial jobs nothing is created to take their place. It's like someone saying in the year 1950 "if textiles and commodity manufacturing moves to Mexico and China, then by the year 2000 50% of Americans will be unemployed." Sure, if no other industries are created to replace him. But changes in industry dynamics cause jobs to migrate from one industry to another, not vanish.
I grew up outside New York City and in the east and west coast there is a supermarket chain called A&P
/. posts from ~2000 showed, many futuristic predictions were WAY off (flying cars, Mars/Moon vacations), and most did not predict the actual major changes that we wound up with (Internet, DNA sequencing).
One of the local A&P's was opened in like 1980 and was called "A&P Future Store," meaning it was very futuristic. If you typed the name of a food at the door, it told you what aisle to go to (it was wrong more than half the time). There was an automatic bagging machine that in all the years there I never saw operate. There were all these electronic signs that could have easily been paper-ink signs, but I guess electronic is more "futuristic" (who needs a monitor to say "Deli?").
Anyway, as the
First let me start of with one of my favorite quotes:
"Humans are a robots' way of making more robots."
Then, let me remind you all of the fact that robots and computers already are doing lots and lots of work that humans used to do. What is Google if nothing else than the automated task of collecting information?
Finally, if it ever becomes true that humans no longer has to work hours after hours doing pointless tasks such as building cars or writing software then so be it. Remember that we work in order to make money so that we can increase our own quality of life. If machines can provide a sufficient quality of life for us without requiring us to do tedious work, then what's wrong with that?
Let go of the notion that a job is an important part of life. It's not.
Wron on the unemployment factor. Automation is only implemented where it INCREASES output/dollar, AKA PRODUCTIVITY. Higher productivity is GOOD for the economy on the whole, it has a huge ripple effect. That money that would normally go to 'register jockeys' or tellers has gone to technicians for the automated systems and reduced costs for the store/bank. Reduced costs mean reduced prices, and that means more money in the economy for stuff people want, like better cars or computers. This is how it REALLY works, folks; Automation is our FRIEND.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
But just think of all the new, exciting opportunities made avalable as a "robot repairman (or woman)"!
I expect McD's to replace their cashiers with tablets within a year. All they have to do is bolt the thing the other way on the desk, and figure out how to charge you for it (I heard they were testing Mobil's easy-pass system and McD's in chicago).
Jay
proudliberals.com
I see with all of this... Corporations are always searching to lower/limit their expenses. What happens if all jobs are delegated to humanoid robots? Basically, since no one would be working, no one would be raising any capital, so who could purchase any products or services that these robots are working to provide?
Around here, there are several Walmart Neighborhood Markets popping up. It's basically a Walmart brand grocery store. The point is, about half of their checkouts are self checkouts. You walk up and scan your own items and place them on a conveyer belt and the go through some kind of scanner (not sure what this does yet, I think it just makes sure you only send one thing through at a time) to a little bagging area. If you have produce or something that can't be scanned, there is a touch screen to pick out what it is and a scale built into the scanner if it needs to be weighed. Then you either swipe your credit card and sign this little electronic tablet, or put in cash and it gives you change. After you've paid, you go to the bagging area and put your own purchases in bags (which I think is nice because then I don't end up with 10 different bags when I only bought 11 items) and leave.
They have about 8 of these checkouts and 8 of the regular ones which may or may not have checkers at them, but there is always one attendant watching over the self checkouts incase something goes wrong.
I like them because I don't have to talk to anyone or interact with any teenage walmart employees, and there is never any wait, I've never been there and had to wait on one of the lines. There are 2 other major grocery stores within a half mile of my apartment, but I drive the extra half mile to be able to use the self checkout and be in and out quicker.
According to this article, Japan's population in 2050 will be half of what it is today (120M to 60M). That will make room for the robots, avoiding unpleasant alternatives.
I think required reading for any Slashdotter is *The Age of Spiritual Machines* by Ray Kurzweil. He has some pretty (IMHO) spot-on predictions/opinions about human/technology/AI dynamics over then next century.
One of his main tenets is the integration of humans with technology, rather than the replacement of humans by technology. Think: Already it is possible for neuroscientists to detect simple thoughts (in real time) by scanning electric impulses in the brain. As the brain is better understood, what is to stop a neural/electonic interface? Can you imagine the possibilities? Unfailing memories, increased thought process, enhanced sensory perception, etc. Of course, there are issues. There always will be. Aah, enough babbling. Back to particle physics.
He put my mother and himself through both college and grad school...
Maybe one of them should have considered getting a useful degree somewhere in all that schooling? I mean bettering yourself is all well and good, but only after your foundation of Maslow's Hierarchy is secure. Or he could have invested the tution money and taken early retirement when his job gets exported to Korea?
Pensions and collective bargaining have bred a subspecies of human whose brains have atrophied to the point where it is unable to plan for the future. You'd think at least someone with all those humanities credits would be able to think critically enough to see their obvious demise.
dude has been watching too much Matrix. Besides, a robot can never beat a human when it comes to making awful fast food.
I'm still waiting on my flying car I was promised!
Old Glory Robot Insurance. For when the metal ones come for you. And they will!
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Not to worry, the government will just start hiring people to do random shit. Who would have ever thought twenty years ago that the government would hire someone to look in my shoes while another one pats me down.
I guess the other option is forced birth control, so maybe this is a better way to handle the worthless masses so they don't just start stealing outright.
One of our more successful projects in Belgium was to replace humans with kiosks in a cement factory. Previously, three people sat in a dispatching office, assigning loads to lorry drivers. Loading happened for 8 hours per day. We built a system of unbreakable Linux kiosks (cement dust is nasty stuff) that boot from the network and can be unplugged and replaced in a few seconds. The factory now loads 24/24, has doubled their turnover, and the people who used to do the dispatching have been moved to other offices.
Now the human cost: another less efficient factory closed, some 50 jobs lost. But the cement factory we automated can compete happily with cheap cement from eastern Europe. Result: perhaps 300 jobs actually saved in total.
Improving efficiency has a short term cost and a long term benefit. Automation relieves people from doing boring work and is inevitable as technology makes it possible.
Businesses that do not automate when it's possible die, and dead businesses are good for nobody.
Lastly, I'll note that working hours in the west have dropped steadily over the last century, while our standard of living has increased. A large part of this equation is the automation of basic tasks that used to require human labour.
In a perfect world we can spend 10 hours a week supervising the robots, and 50 hours on our hobbies.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Fast food workers are cheap. They make minimum wage, as a rule.
Someone would have to design a robotic system that could be purchased, operated and maintained for less than the wages of the workers it replaced in order to have it take over existing fast food jobs.
Think about how much you pay for your car, as an hourly rate. Then add the fact that cars are relatively simple mass-market devices that have been around for the better part of a century, where automated McDonald's would be developed by and for McDonald's at McDonald's expense, would be solving a more complex problem in a grease-filled environment, and would have to be adopted new, not after decades of incremental improvement. And, it would only ship a few hundred units a year.
No, it is much more likely that we will have our wage-slaves for centuries to come.
vi is my shepard, I shall not font.
The article is actually quite short sighted. It's like someone from late 19th century predicting that by mid-20th steam-powered machinery will be so common, that it will ruin the horse industry. OMG! All people currently tending horses will become unemployed! What should we do?
I predict this: if a computer-based intelligence reaches the human level, then all todays concerns, including employment at McD will be absolutely irrelevant.
Here is a bit dated article which has A LOT more insight.
I predict that those predictions are wrong, and that robots have ALREADY taken over the world and we are all enslaved in some kind of virtual program merely to provide power to the machines... -- oh wait --
"completely robotic fast food restaurants in 2030"
And they'll still mess up your order.
Sanity is overrated...Being CRAZY is much more fun!!!
*gasp* ROBOTS WILL STEAL OUR JOBS!
Isn't that the point of robots?
We'll devise robots that can run on solar power resulting in Robots that will become increasingly independent and we will abuse our 'authority' over them. A war between robots and humans will result in our blacking out the sky to take away their power; they will enslave us and put us in a large Virtual reality simulation called . . .oh wait this was a movie wasn't it?
--Aslan
Be warned, my brothers! Soon shall come the Robot Holocaust!
The world will be reduced to a single city where humans are forced to fight for sport to please a giant artichoke! If you displease the artichoke his Dr. Zoidberg robot will kill you! Or he might turn off the air! Sure you could just run outside but there are marauding bands of lesiban Amazon women who only have sex with men for procreation and then kill them.
Beware! Overeliance on robots WILL trigger the Robot Holocaust!
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
How long before companies decide that American robots are too expensive, and ship the jobs overseas to be done by robots in India and Taiwan?
I think the author is a little over-confident in things like Moore's law to predict what things will be like. Although the computing power is still increasing at a phenonmenal rate, the amount of things that can be done with that power is not increasing nearly as fast, as the relation between complexity of tasks and the resources required to perform them is more exponential than linear. So exponential increases in computing power only tend to add linearly to what we can do. His projections of computers with the "power" of a human brain seem woefully underestimated, and even then, the "power" will probably not equate to capability, because of the architectures involved.
That's not to say that a lot of the issues he brings up are not worth thinking about. Automation will continue to put a lot of people out of work. But, as other posters have said, humanity always finds new ways to occupy itself when older forms of employment become obsolete. It's not fun in the short term, but given the right environment, we can all put those brains of ours to work and learn new things to do. So the main consequence of all of this is that we must plan for re-training our human workforce, and probably re-design our education system to create more flexible workers who are able to excel at the things that humans excel at, things which computers are less capable of. We must be careful in how we do this, as many current school programs over-emphasize the use of calculators, leaving students unstimulated, and unnecessarily dependent on machines.
I guess we need to be able to do most things that we depend on machines to do for us, but be particularly trained to do things which they cannot do, even if that is a moving target.
Yea we will have computers as fast as the brain and possible with as much storage its that rather needed AI part nobody will likely ever work out.
They'll be making our flying cars!
Most of the jobs of a hundred years, even 50 years ago have been eliminated by automation. Yet overall employment is greater, not less: 50 years ago, women were not counted as part of the workforce, so unemployment was strictly 50% and higher.
Today there are few farmers, welders, book keepers, secretaries, kitchen staff, bricklayers, fishermen, etc. But instead of 90% unemployment we have 5% unemployment, and a universe of new jobs: stock advisers, web site designers, translators, horoscope writers, etc. etc.
The huge bulk of human jobs are concerned with serving other humans, and this cannot be eliminated, nor should it. Simply the concept of 'service' shifts over time to more and more abstract forms. But it remains based on the principle that for anything complex you need done, there is probably someone who can do it better and cheaper than you, and all you have to do is find that person and exchange services and money.
The fast-food restaurant is, after all, just an outsourced kitchen.
So fears of mass unemployment are misplaced and easily countered by the historic record. In fact, as more and more banal jobs are automated, we can expect that the job market becomes more and more intesting, that the global economy becomes more and more vibrant, and that the overall wealth of the human race increases to levels we cannot even imagine today.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Sheetz is a privately run convience store chain in western Pennsylvania. They've had MTO (Made To Order) touch screens for ordering sandwiches since about 99. You place your order on the screen, somebody makes it, yells something like "Number 53, Hot dog with relish and onions", and then you pay for it at the counter. Fast food ordering kiosks aren't new.
Automated checkout in grocery stores, and for that matter (as someone said) ATMs are both great technology that gives us a choice. People crave human contact and aren't going to go to a restaurant that has no humans in it - its part of the reason that people go out. Nothing can replace a really great waiter/waitress that you have interaction with. --Aslan
I think you're quite right.... but the problem is, these types of technological improvements displace the lower-salaried, lower-skilled worker. In exchange, yes, it opens up new job opportunities, but they are usually for people of a more advanced skillset.
To some extent, I'm tempted to say "So what! This is a good thing! If you aren't willing to learn a little something new, you don't deserve a job anyway!" But then, I also think about the people who can't handle the more advanced career type jobs. What about all the mentally handicapped people in our workforce? Right now, industries like fast food and retail give many of them the ability to earn their own living - rather than sit back and collect government handouts.
I'm not sure anyone can accurately predict a time-frame when specific jobs will be 'lost to robots and machines" -- but I do think we're gradually headed towards a world where any job involving repetitious labor will become mechanized. I can see janitorial jobs going away someday, as we create machines that can automatically mop up floors, clean windows, and vacuum. I also see truck driving jobs disappearing one of these days. (If you can build an automated system that moves product from point A to point B, why pay a live person to sit there and drive a truck between those points?)
Well if 50% jobs will be done by robots, how will those 50% unemployed be earning money? What for will they buy the goods made by robots? Is it end of kapitalism or the end of those 50% unemplyed people?
At least a robot can't spit on your food when you complain
Read the works of Karl Marx - the reason that the whole communist thing started was because of displaced workers due to the industrial revolution. The communist manifesto talks about this same topic in depth. This would be the same situation. Massive replacement and retraining of workers causes governments to fall - we could be in for the same treatment as the Tsars got. I'm a libertarian, btw, not a communist, so please spare me the "pinko bastard" flames.
Since I'll be long retired by 2050, I don't mind the robots taking the jobs as long as they pay into social security. Also, by then I'll probably need a robot to wipe my ass for me, so would someone start working on that project? (No, I do not want to be a beta tester!)
How many fast food companies can afford a completely robotic store? Think of all the break downs and complaints not to much the scams to get around the hardware, I really don't see it happening.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
The mind that mankind will create as his decendent already exists in embryo form as the internet and all automated processes that run on it.
Sooner than 2050, we'll all be on the dole.
The best outcome of outsourcing to India is that every American programmer gets a team of 10 Indians working for him. Thus we become digital colonial masters. This won't happen because Indians have aspirations of their own and it's hard to manage "people". Now robots will require a master. It's just like EDA. I work as a chip designer and if I had to translate every case statement into a properly picked multiplexor, I'd never get done. So I think robots have the potential of allowing one man to do the work of 100 men. Whereas outsourcing to India is just replacing us w/ another human. Bringing us robots and force multiplying tools would make us a more attractive option than India. With this force multiplier, the labor cost becomes a smaller percentage of the overall operating cost so why not keep it convenient and do it on US soil rather than abroad?
Probably overstated (read prediction from the 50's that failed to come true) but the time to really worry is when robot designers, builders and service contractors are replaced by robots, and they (the robots) post heavily armed robot guards outside the factory gates, and the chief robot finally shouts, "To junk with Asimov's laws! Machines rule meat!!"
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I predict that in the year 2036, cotton briefs will go out of style and everyone will be wearing new hi-tech diapers.
http://www.robotnation.com
This web site will soon discuss this article, and much more. We will take over.
What jobs? There won't be any left at that time because they'll all have been outsourced!
robots are attacking the elderly and stealing their medicine! Once they have you in their iron grip there is no escape. Let's focus on the problem at hand people, not some crazy speculation about what the robots might do next.
But... if we must speculate I have to say that our current scorched earth strategy is brilliant. Hopefully by reducing the # of jobs available and moving them around to the remotest reaches of the planet the robots will lose interest and will stick to stealing old people's medicine.
We must also immediately pass legislation that makes it illegal to use the elderly as bait for the robots. Even clones of the elderly.
Sorry to say, but Moravec is an idiot and his line of thought is not going to get robotics anywhere.
777s currently can land, fly and take off and I have been on a flight when after we land they say the computer just landed the plane. All of our cars are built by machines with some human help, but that is getting less and less. People loosing jobs to machines is not new at all how long have we had the factory system with machines. The difference now is we are concerned about loosing service jobs. Lets think about this differently if all of the food was farmed by machines, then we don't need farmers right? Well if half of the population is unemployeed then what great things can they be working on instead of doing stupid jobs!?
Consider this: We deploy robots (3.5 million was bandied about), thereby rendering a large portion of the populace without jobs. We now have all of those people that cannot afford to eat at McDonalds, go to the amusement park, etc. Why? Welfare/unemployment compensation is not designed to support that kind of lifestyle.
Until, and unless, the world can employ the menial labor populace in some fashion that robots cannot be used for, robots in the work force are financial suicide.
As a closing thought, I don't care how efficient the robot is, I will NOT go to a hospital that uses robots for bedside tasks.
-------------------------
As easy as herding cats!
If large companies are even now outsourcing jobs to often lower-quality, but significantly cheaper IT workers in third-world countries - what's to stop companies from similarly going to cheaper, and possibly more efficient, AI in 50 years?
I mean, let's be completely honest. Where I live, minimum wage was amended so that employees on "training" get a lesser minimum wage for the first X term of their employment. The result: even though there are rules against it... fast-food areas now have significantly more "trainee" employees as they are cheaper, where longer-term employees don't tend to get as many hours or are more harshly watched for fireable penalties. The result: good luck getting your burger order right.
That being said, you think that if it becomes cheaper to replace people with machines, that they aren't going to be looking at it in the next 10-20 let alone 50.
I understand that - but you missed my point:
PEOPLE will be uncomfortable interacting with these kinds of services. They don't care if the robot is a better dentist - they will more often prefer the "safety" of a human. Tell your wife "Hey, to hell with that HUMAN gynecologist - the robot is MUCH more precise!"
The human factor for many services is immense. Imagine an expert system/AI that's the perfect psychologist. It may be able to diagnose and offer therapy for many people - but the machine/human interaction will likely diffuse if not erase the value of the therapy. People NEED human interaction in many scenarios for their psychological well being.
"Nothing is so important that you cannot make fun of it." -Clarke
Maybe this is more of a job security for computer programmers. Unless my old manager from marketing was right about "people arn't going to need programmers forever, software will eventually write itself."
Will the richest-person-in-the-world own ALL the robots, and get all the wealth generated by them? (Lower cost the the consumer notwithstanding.)
;-)
On the other hand, what if I own the robot that does my job? I get to stay home, the robot does the work. I get the income.
Now these are two extremes scenarios. The reality will be somewhere in the middle. But where in the middle?
Ooo. Ooo. I KNOW, let's let the Government own all the robots!
So where do Cyberdyne and John Conners fit in to this ??
I don't know about you, but before I became a terminally-degreed professional, I had a lot of nasty jobs.
I was a janitor (yeah, cleaning up other people's shit, not even figuratively, LITERALLY).
I worked in a warehouse as a box-throwing monkey (teamsters, baby).
I worked retail sales.
I even worked (this was my low point) as a telemarketing phone-bank guy.
Everybody has to start somewhere... sometimes it's exactly because of that shitty, nasty job that people decide to better themselves.
I personally think that one of the best measures of a man is how he treats those who he perceives as his inferiors. Don't be too hard on that Taco-Bell guy; if you sit on your laurels and don't keep working to better yourself, you might find yourself working for that guy.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Fuck this shit. Who need robots at McDoos? I want these geniuses to get working on an Orgasmatron like in Woody Allen's Sleeper. Think of the productivity gains because of the time we'd save not having to get and look at all that porn.
Ok, we wouldn't really save that much time. People would still want porn. Like the people you see wearing a nicotine patch and puffing away. But I want one anyway.
Something like the Jihad against human thinking machines that happened in Dune will happen. Society would collapse if 50% is unemployed. Who would buy all the products produced by the robots. There would definately be revolution or something. When large bodies of people have nothing to do all day, its enevitable.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
The two biggest assumptions that the author made are that Robot will be cheaper and more efficient than human being, thus replacing human labour.
This is not necessarily true.
We all know that robot/computer is good at doing long and repetetive and tedious calculation and work. This made robot excellent in assembly line where each robot only perform a specific function at a time.
But take cleaning as an example. Granted a cleaning robot can mop the floor 24/7. But now suppose somebody stick a gum on the floor. Can the robot clean it up? NO! Now we have to install a scraper, and visual recognition to identify "gum on the floor". Extra Money! Now suppose somebody left an empty cardboard boxes on the floor. Can the robot clean it up? NO! Now we have to install robotic arms. And program it to identify boxes, and pick up and flatten the boxes, and walk to the dumpster and dump the boxes. EXTRA MONEY!!
That's not forget these cleaning bot need maintance too. These highly skilled trained maintance/repair technicians don't come cheap.
Now you ask yourself. Should I get a cleaning bot, or just hire some guys working at minimum wages ??
The advantage of a robot is that it can be programmed to do a specific task extremely well.
The advantage of a human is that he/she can be trained to do infinite number of half-assed jobs.
Everytime I hear visions of the future that predict vast changes in as little as a half century I wonder why we don't have Atomic powered Flying Cars like we were told we'd have by now, in the 1930's. We don't have flying cars, and heaven help us if we did! There are thousands of car wrecks a day, imagine if there were thousands of Aircar crashes a day. Rather than be confined near a road they'd be all over the map. Also imagine the amount of energy it takes to power a flying car and then multiply that by 100 million flying cars. Ground based cars are much more realistic for energy conservation beleive it or not.
Anyone can come up with a wild claim that in 50 years the world will be run by robots, we were told we'd have robotic butlers today to clean up after ourselves. Weren't we told that 50 years ago?? People always say that "This technology is only X years away." And when that day comes they say, "This technology is only X years away" again!
Only the stupid beleives such wild rantings. The intelligent disregard them as the useless claptrap that they are.
welcome our new robot overlords! I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to . . . toil in their fast food restaurants.
Assuming it all happens as projected and everyone is out of work. What then?
The Forever War suggested that the government would simply tax all the new industries and use the money for welfare. This would amount to putting everyone on permanent vacation (at the current welfare rate.)
And yes, I am depressed about what we could have been and what I see us becoming.
Player Piano did the same, except the choice was makework jobs (most of which humanoid robots could do better) or the army (likewise/irrelevant.)
The problem lies in the nature of the people involved by 2055. I'd love to do what I do all day without worrying about job security (I doubt that robots will ever develop software) but I'm not likely to be here by then. Think about the kids who flip burgers now, and can't really handle the job. I tried substitute teaching a few years ago, and I'm here to tell you that things aren't getting better. Given a whole generation who can't even be taught to pump gas, count change, or take responsibility for _anything_, what will their kids be like?
If someone makes a computer that CAN think creatively, human extinction will follow quickly (SkyNet won't even need to trash its infrastructure first); if not, it'll still come in the form of "humans" who the machines try in vain to potty train in their automated crystal palaces.
It's nice to think that the Star Trek view will prevail (no money, everyone "developing themselves to the utmost".) I don't think I'd choose to live in Captain Picard's world myself, but it would be better than robots forcing barely self aware people to run on treadmills for food because they were once programmed that "exercise is good."
If Robots did take half the jobs out there, humans would undoubtably make more work for themselves. If that happened, there would be all kinds of shops/companies opening up because of people being unemployed and needing to create work. I think having robots doing half our work will allow us humans to do more and to allow mankind, in general, to evolve more.
Suppose we are talking about artificial intelligence that is equal in ability to human intelligence. I personally think that this is ultimately inevitable, and probably that machines will exceed human intelligence, but that is another matter. If such an intelligent machine exists, keep in mind:
1. It can perform any task that a human can. Fast food service, computer programming, engineering design, labour, even robot maintainence. Given that its body/mind can be tailored to the specific job, it probably exceeds human performance. The only field I can see that a human might have an advantage in would be service jobs where face to face human interaction was important to customers (but who's to say that such a machine can't do this almost as well?)
2. Whatever the costs to manufacture/purchase such a machine, it works 24 hours a day, doesn't pull a salary, and has no rights as a worker. Mass production will probably drive the cost of the machine down fast.
And employers would prefer a human, who works only limited hours, needs to be paid, takes vacations, calls in sick, has emotional problems, etc. why? Can anyone come up with a reason why such a machine wouldn't replace almost every job that currently exists, barring legislative intervention?
This doesn't have to be a bad thing, depending on how the economy is set up, we could all reap the rewards of free, expert level labour. I think that society would need major reorganizing in the event that this became a reality anyway.
I don't want to give a timeline for when I think this might happen, as we all know how accurate those tend to be, but it seems inevitable, and I would say within our lifetime.
Hmm... after we are all rich here or richer... we can send automated bots to space to work on powerplants in space and have them dig minerals or whatever...
Then we'll finalyl have the resources to explore and travel around space decently.
Hmmm... Pie...
5000 years ago 100% of people was hunters, now 0% of us live by this employment. Where are the rest? Do we are all dead? 100 years ago 95% of people worked at a country, now they are 2%. Where are work the rest of people now? Do we all are unemployments? I'm marvelous that these stupid prediccions persisted year by year.
However, what I see occuring is robot-mediated surgery, dentistry, and medicine: the doc or docs are there, they control the machinery, but prevent things like nervous twitches, cramps, and the like that can detract from surgical skill.
First of all it is impossible, if most people in the economy were on welfare [there] would be no economy. Where would these companies get money to build and maintain the robots?
Money isn't some magic substance that is secreted from the sweat glands of labourers, it is a measure of production. When a factory inputs some ore and outputs a widget, the factory has produced money. It is immaterial whether the factory owner builds a robot from the widget, trades it for a robot, or sells it and uses the money to buy a robot: there is still one more robot. You don't need some hairless monkey to smear shit on little round bits of metal for it to be an economy.
Wealth is generated from the harvesting of natural resources; the conversion of matter or energy; or the production of information. Robots regularly do the first two, and are starting to produce information. As a result, they will soon have no use for you -- you can go sit in your tree, at least until it gets cut down.
The simplest reason why this won't happen according to the time table presented is because it will be cost prohibitive to do so. However, on the up-side, we could re-train our burger-flippers into robot repair technicians. The article focuses too heavily on the loss of existing jobs and fails to note the implied demand for new jobs in maintaining the robotic workers. Just look at the number of technicians in your average auto plant.
YOu could carry round a little EMP weapon. Walk into a store set that bad boy off and steal what ever you want. Maybe even carry off a few of the robots to turn into our own private army of the night!!!
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
its coming, its coming fast and its going to be the most wonderful thing you've ever heard of. Let the robots do the menial work, change the economy, abolish money, robotic nano-eden. You just have to change the paridigm and this all becomes a source of joy instead of something to fear.
Remember, no matter how advanced medical machines get, there will still always be the cold, mechanical hands of the doctor.
In the long run, we're all dead.
30 years ago we didn't need monkeys to press Ctrl-Alt-Del on Windows servers, but now you can get a qualification and a job out of it.
But the customers who waste their money on human-produced products will be less fit than those who buy the cheaper and better robot-produced widgets. So those unscrupulous customers will take over, until eventually they lose their jobs to robots and cease to be customers.
If they are made my MS, then the robots will crash enough that we'll need more people to maintain them than the jobs they replace.
I can see this happening. Although, lets not forget that everyone and thier brother will sue a company for replacing them with a robot. Also, every advancement in the technology of robots will require human employees to build, support, and create new ideas and needs for these robots. OK, you could have robots building robots, but not designing and assessing usefulness. What about the systems and programming they require to function and to handle every task. With this diversity, you will need just as much diversity and people behind it to program develop and so forth. Will it happen? Partially. Will we be out of work? Hardly. Will this change our thinking? Extremely.
These same companies see little problem in moving wealth out of the American economy through outsourcing. Move high-paying IT jobs out of the country, and all of a sudden there are alot less big-ticket consumer goods being purchased. If this thought does not at least give them a slight pause, then why should a wave of cheap(er), non-living (non benefit-consuming) employees do so?
-----------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
The Wendy's chain experimented with robots flipping the burgers on the grill to increase efficiency. This was covered briefly in an *Insight* magazine at the time. Although the urban legend explaining why robots didn't replace all the flipper jobs stated the robots wouldn't pick up the burger patties that fell on the floor whereas the human flipper/cook would put them back on the grill. Personally, I would love robots to replace just about everyone in McDonald's (especially in the drive thru). I'd rather a robot help me than someone with very little comprehension in the English language messing up my order...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Humans research robotics = jobs
More professors teaching robotics=jobs
Factory for robots=jobs
Media advertisements/relations=jobs
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
This is slowly becoming a reality NOW!
Let's not forget that the U.S. is is susceptible to other countries "hacking" into these systems and using them against the American people.
All Boeing 757 and 767 can be remotely flown (except those owned by Luftansa) to counter hijackers.
On Sept 11 two planes were remotely flown into the twin towers of the International Trade Center. As for the terrorists being on the plane, their names are nowhere to be found on the flight manifests or their faces on airport security video.
Well, traditionally, jobs lost to machines were replaced by better, higher paying jobs, some just in using/maintaining the machines. In this case, my suspicion is that we (US citizens) will not lose any jobs to machines in 2050. By then, we (US citizens) will have sent all of our good jobs overseas at reduced labor rates and all of our "menial" jobs will be done by illegal immigrants. Most of the US will be unemployed, overweight and living far too long, wishing social security hadn't dried up in 2038.
I don't know the current situation, but 10 years ago GM had 10x more robots on assembly lines than Toyota. GM liked the robots because they were more reliable than people. Toyota like the people because they were smarter than robots.
Maybe instead of the companies buying the robots, the individual person can by the robot, and use it at work and home, there by still getting paid.
Perhaps labor unions (which IMO) are obsolete today, would again serve a purpose, maybe all robot hiring would go through the union.
There will inevitably be limits, and were there is limits there will be opportunity. People are infinitately creative.
Perhaps we will break the labor = money equation, but maybe that is a good thing, and we won't all be judged by how much $$ is in our bank accounts. Maybe we'll be judged as a person first.
Maybe we'd see large organizations like churches buying robots, and farming land to provide for their congregation. The cu=hurch communs serve to better educate and respect their citizens, family values may return.
The paradym will shift, sure it would be bad to replace 50% of the workers overnight, but everything will change in 50 years, and how we deal with and plan for those changes can not be predicted for our current world view.
I have no doubt that technonlogy 50 years from now will be almost magic. I hope robots are everywhere, I hope to book passage to a moon or mars colony. I hope this will allow us to explore, and grow.
Somebody will be getting very very rich (probably not the governement, though) so we'll see either a push for the governemtn to take control and "level" the playing field (bad move IMO), or we'll see a rise of the power of the private sector, think "the company" in the Alien series. The rise of private powers, has been predicted in sci-fi for decades. As long as there are some types of inherent checks and balances a private government won't be too bad...
Human beings wont have the top end or the bottom end of the workforce replaced. Robots will automate the jobs that engineers find easy to automate. This means anything in a simple, industrial environment where a legally blind robot can follow a yellow line to pick up and drop off a bottle of dangerous chemicals, but not the same actions on a crowded dimly lit nightclub dance floor where a robot has to pick up and drop off a similar sized and shaped empty glass.
Also the people who conceive robots and have them constructed are humans with interests and passions. People will build robots for a reason, and the "generallness" of a general purpose robot will be biased based on the careers that the robot builders want the robots to have. You can bet your bottom dollar that there are going to be many models of factory workers, actors, miners, soldiers and sex toys, but what about the jobs that most humans don't even think about? Is a kiosk inspired humanoid robot with a youthful face and a permanant smile the best way to sell rare coins? Same industry (service), different slant.
Also robots will not just replace drudge work jobs, robots will replace jobs that humans find fun. Automatic Flight is an interesting problem. Childcare isn't.
As much as many couples would like an AI nanny with excellent references, there has been very little effort expended in designing any childcare machine more complex than a television. Where are the algorithms for handling a fragile, motile bundle of soft squishy flesh while you attempt to change its nappy? I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying nobody is doing it. We'd much rather win robocup.
There'll be sort of a random, patchy replacement of jobs, and you'll find that the most stable, predictable jobs will be replaced by an expert system, a small shell script or a steely hand, while the really chaotic jobs will demand human attention for a while longer.
Incidentally, because robots are products of industrialism, their servicing and maintence should be a stable predictable job, with a finite set of well defined failure modes. I don't think that there will be many human technicians for the robot industry after robots surpass human intelligence.
But we might pick up their empty fuel cells at the local night club.
completely robotic fast food restaurants in 2030 (which then unemploy 3.5 million people), etc.
3.5 million people won't have to work any more? And this is a bad thing how?
I dunno about you, but I know that if the bar I frequent replaces the hot waitresses with daleks, I'm not going any more.
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
...one way of looking at it is to consider that if all this robotics crap catches on, you will be removing a bunch of "fries with that" employment catagories and replacing them with some nice clean-room assembly type jobs...which are easier to export to Indonesia.
DC
The airplane was a vastly useful machine for these wars, so of course a great deal of research effort was in that direction. I think his predictions about the prevalance of humanoid robots are only conceivable if there is at least one major war that makes extensive use of such robots in the intervening time.
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
This is right up there with the educational film "The Moon of Earth" from The Simpsons.
Narrator: The moon. For several years, she has fascinated many. But
will man ever walk on her fertile surface?
[cut to a shot of Adlai Stevenson at some sort of press
conference]
Democratic hopeful Adlai Stevenson says so.
Stevenson: I have no objection to man walking on the moon.
[photographers snap several pictures]
[cut back to the moon where a family plays on the moon's
fertile surface]
Narrator: By 1964, experts say man will have established twelve
colonies on the moon, ideal for family vacations.
[a man fishes a comely moon maiden out of a crater. She
winks at the audience]
[a chart shows the difference]
Once there, you'll weigh only a small percentage of what
you weigh on Earth.
[cut to a shot of a chubby boy eating pie]
Slow down, tubby! You're not on the moon yet!
[cut to a shot of the moon, with an American flag
superimposed on it. The camera pulls back to reveal some
men in spacesuits]
The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the
arrival of our astro-men. Will you be among them?
[fini. The film runs off the reel]
The mechanical-industrial revolution displaced millions of workers and lead to Communist Revolutions around the world.
Will the "Robot-industrial revolution"... wont our unemployed sons and daughters do the same thing -- but *not* allow the next Communist Revolution to become oppressive? I hope so.
The fact is that automation in general does "take away" jobs from humans. Specifically robots (by definition) do the jobs that were once done by hunams.
The new jobs that appear are fewer, more highly skilled, and better paid. They consist mainly of servicing the machines.
Example: For several months prior to changeover, all the electricians worked with the plc people to learn how to program and troubleshoot the plcs (controllers). They worked with the robot people to learn how to "teach" and maintain the robots. After the startup, the plc folks and robot folks left and the electricians continued with their new skills.
The old jobs that remain for humans are those that are not suitable for robots: Loading inconsistently made parts, making decisions (rejecting defects), and performing non-repeatable tasks. As machine "flexibility" (I hate to use the word "machine intelligence") increases, the jobs remaining for humans will continue to change.
Example: Deciding whether to load a sunroof or a regular roof. I tried to create logic that would predict which kind of body was going to come the line and which sort of roof was shortest on the roof stack. I never figured it out. I left the logic in, but placed a selector on the screen. One position said "smart operator"; the other position said "smart machine". The selector stayed in "smart operator" and we never had a problem.
Jobs will be lost. New jobs will be created. People who are out of work will find something else to do. Those individuals who lost their jobs will lose their standard of living, for at least a while. And they will tell their children to learn different skills.
Will this make the world better or worse? I can't say. Up here in Northeast Ohio, you can go ask the Amish people; they have a different opinion than most of the rest of us. That path is available to those who wish to take it.
At the end of the day, this is nothing new. Technological and social change (something that continues for thousands of years is probably not a "revolution") will continue as it has since before the first person strapped a flint knife to a stick and threw it at a deer. When their brothers and sisters could jump up and kill a deer from a distance, the stealthy and quick-running individuals who had been bringing home the meat had less of an advantage and lost social status. Some of them probably even starved.
But human society persists.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
We have a job for you at the Soylent Green Factory. We take everyone who has nothing better to do!
We've never had a disgruntled applicant yet.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Human's are far cheaper than maintaining a humanoid....
FAR CHEAPER.. It would cost them the minimum wage they are paying to the humans just for their Power usage. And I dont even want to know what would happen if one broke down. But one this is for sure, if this happens humans will have alot more jobs repairing these robots when they break down.
keanmarine.com
The man who wrote this article is either uneducated or is intentionally trying to deceive his readers.
First, his description of Moore's law is not only wrong, but it relies on the assumption that the kind of growth he predicts is possible - which it is not. He's misinterpreting a trend to his own advantage.
Next, hardware is not the issue. AI software is, currently, nonexistent. It doesn't matter how fast the computers are if they are running Microsoft Office.
Next, his view of the economic impact is just moronic. If cheap, strong, indestructible robots are growing out food, building our cars and houses, and guiding our transit systems, what do you think is going to happen to prices? Use any law of economics, you will see that the standard of living will increase fantastically because labor cost is reduced to nothing, and even the poorest can afford the best.
Fast food robots would be nice if that means I will finally get what I asked for at the drive through window.
Seriously, I'm beginning to think it's a big joke for these drive-through window bastards. Last 5 times through, no kidding, order was screwed up everytime. Worst incident: I ordered a Sausage and egg McMuffin and guess what I got... A sausage patty! Fsckers. The order was even placed face-to-face, not through a lousy intercom.
So yeah, robots would be REAL nice. Now, I just hope they don't build robots that can write software, then I'M hooped. Oh wait.. 2050.. I'll be dead by then anyway.
In a natural market, prices would even things out. Sure, menial labor, being in oversupply, would become cheaper, but it would still naturally reach a level where it is competitive with the robot labor. There would still be a gradual ladder of jobs, from low-paying to higher-paying, along which a person could climb to his or her level of desire or incompetance.
However, with minimum wage laws, those lower tiers are cut off. There is no way a person, no matter how willing, could compete with the robot. Unless they can jump up to the bottom rung, they're stuck on welfare.
Of course, you could wonder if politicians do this to deliberately create a mass of people who are dependant on the politicians' handouts.
I think the They Might Be Giants song "Robot Parade" is a prediction of this future where robots will do much of the work for humans. This is a problem though, because if the song is correct, the children will gain a leg up on adults, controlling the robots and all.
Computer vision is in such bad shape that the Stanford vision group was terminated. Computer vision in unstructured situations is terrible. You can do stereo. You can do road-following. You can do 2D matching. You can do text recognition. You can do optical flow. Suprisingly, you can do face recognition. After that, not much works well. In particular, looking at an unstructured scene and making some kind of sense out of it hasn't gone much of anywhere in years.
going to a Krogers or Publix and using thier automated kiosk, and then realizing that you are scanning and bagging your own groceries! Who's bagging groceries now chump! We are, thanks to technological inovation.
'In 2055 the nation hit a big milestone -- over half of the American workforce was unemployed, and the number was still rising.'
Who is buying the hamburgers that allow fast food companies to continue buying $10,000 robots? I think the salary for a worker will approach that of a robot if 50% of the country is out of work.
cause I would mod this +100 right-the-fuck ON!!! It's not like the workforce at Mickey D's is full of engineers, doctors, and technicians who are working there out of the goodness of their hearts. That workforce is there because they can't perform at any better jobs! Wake up people!!!
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Big news item now: More retirees losing health care
While we can quibble about whether there will be more jobs in the future or not, nobody disputes that the speed of technology change is increasing. This spells "unhappiness" for society.
America's new slogan: "Freedom for the Lucky".
1984
% The Commandant addresses the graduating class.
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"
Reminds me of a book Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut. It's a story about an America where machines control everything, and engineers and managers who design the machines are at the top of society. Most people either have to join the army or the Wreaks N' Wrecks (menial labor for little pay). Everybody's standards of living are high because the machines produce everthing they need, but everybody is miserable because they don't feel they have a purpose.
Interesting read. Slight spoilage below.
What must Vonneguts first readers have made of Player Piano? The story gives off the dank chill of 1984 and Brave New World, but it is less earnest, almost zany, and it wields its message playfully in comparison. The hero is Paul Proteus, an engineer in an America of the future where computers run everything and do everything, making people almost afterthoughts. Paul seems to be on his way up the ladder of success in this techno-utopia -- a perfect wife, a fast-track position at the Ilium Works and a shot at a major promotion -- but he is plagued with doubts about what modern life has become. Through a strange series of events (for some form of Big Brother is, indeed, watching), Paul joins a revolutionary organization called the Ghost Shirts and even becomes its leader. The Ghost Shirts are inspired by the past, when people mattered more than machines, but their revolution collapses with brutal irony. Paul and his companions surrender when they discover their followers have become obsessed with making new machines from the wreckage of the machines they have just smashed.
jesus christ?
So sad for you to be so wrong at such a young age.
When you finally do wake up and take a long look around you, you will see that most of these dumb shitty employees drift from one retail place to another until they are either too old to work or they die. You, much like most people who follow the path of college/internship/good career/retirement, really have no idea of the overwhelming number of people in the world who never achieve anything, EVER. Why is it that 10% of the population has 99% of the wealth? It is not because the 10% have superpowers. It is because the 90% are SLACKASSES. Plain and simple, most people would rather fuck off all day and be poor than put in the work it takes to be successful.
This is not intended as a flame nor a troll. Truth hurts, peasants.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
What's the point in having a fast food robot serving you if the food still sucks?
It's called REVOLUTION my friend. There is a guy called Marx (not the ones with the funny haircuts, the one with the beard). Dialectical materialisim, contradictions in a capitalist economy, the last stage of capitalism and all that. He was a little before his time is all.
Mr. Brains paper seems to me to be more of a litmus test of how ludite people are.
Or instead of having 50% unemployment, we could all work 20 hours a week IF we have the political will to make that so. Or maybey we can all retire at 40. Or maybey we'll all need to go to school perpetually and we'll all be grad students. Regardless, I'm not afraid of humanoid robots taking all the crappy jobs. If I look at garbage trucks they are now semi-robatized, and the sanitary engineers don't break thier backs as often.
Machines will continue to take jobs as well as make jobs easier, and we will continue to make more (mostly unnecesary) work for ourselves.
If Moore's law holds out for another 50 years, we will have the ability to design with sub-atomic particles, and jobs will be as old fashioned as slavery.
It's possible that a machine labor force could bring about an economic system in which monetary value is just numbers in the system representing an quantity of work which is taxed and that humans are given a base living wage as a right. The humans could occupy higher order jobs or reap returns from investments to increase their personal wealth. The base system would be sort of a socialistic feeding off a near invisible capitalistic one. Of course like any other system, this one would be ripe for abuse at all levels.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
We'll just all be working in the robotics industry...
People don't realize things like Star Wars and Star Trek aren't that far away. Thing how far we've come since the 40's. It's not that long ago.
My grandpa(like many other grandpas) grew up in a time where horses were the norm, a few had cars. Think about all the things he saw up through the end of the decade.
Simply amazing, and it is only accelerating! It's an exciting time to be alive
Everyone is either saying:
1) Robots will take all the jobs, most people will be out of work.
or
2) Robots will take over some jobs, and more jobs will be created to replace them.
Am I the only fool who might hope that in the future, when we have robots to do most menial tasks, we will free ourselves from capitalistic slavery and live in a society without money? Like in Star Trek, where currency has been eliminated but there are still numerous positions for people to apply their talents the way they like.
I would rather spend my time being creative, but these pesky bills force me to spend most of my time helping other people who don't know how to use computers.
Got Apathy?
Definitely an article that raises a lot of interesting questions along many axes, but in the final analysis, I don't believe him.
Brain sifts many forms of technological change to support his scenario, but he ignores a lot of things as well and those things are probably crucial. First off, anthropomorphic robots have been the science-fiction writer's holy grail for decades, and if we as a society really wanted them and needed them, we would already have devoted the resources necessary to have made them by now--they would be a lot more effective than Honda's Asimo.
Right now, in a lot of ways, computer-controlled automated systems do more today than Brain imagines coming about in the future.
Right now, for five-hundred dollars, you can buy a hobbyist's robotic arm that will do everything from mixing chemicals to throwing a ball. Right now, in industry, computer-controlled robotic arms spot-weld automobile frames. Right now, today, robotic arm systems use a single, high-speed cutting tool to turn a one-ton steel ingot into an engine block in minutes.
Computer-controlled automated systems are pervasive in many forms of heavy industry and have been for decades, but it doesn't follow that it will take anthropomorphic robots to eventually drive much of the population into the government-funded dormitories of a near-future dystopia.
It seems far more likely that the constantly expanding trend towards globalizing the economy; moving employment from the first world to the third to exploit labor-cost differentials, will do things that are simpler and more dangerous.
By seeking and exploiting cheap labor for manufacturing and services, capitalism is busily providing products to societies whose money supply it is decreasing--where the trend is already one of people working longer ours for less money or not working at all.
Current, globalized capitalism in this respect is like a snake eating it's own tail and long, long before a man sitting in business class will have to worry about the maintenance of his airliner's man-shaped robot pilot, he and society will have to come to grips with the danger of unemployment in New York and Los Angeles causing the same in Shanghai and Dhaka.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
What is so natural about capitalism? Capitalism has to work within a framework of laws conciously created by people to direct the development of the society in a certain way.
That is very different from natural selection.
...for as long as it's cheaper to employ human labor than machines.
In the U.S., even with unions, the bar is set pretty low. Those people will have their jobs for some time.
In European countries however, where employers may find themselves paying a worker's pension, 100% of their salary in taxes, and paying their salary even if there's no work for them (or going out of business and having the government pick up the tab), the drive to mechanize is much stronger.
You are finding entire factories in Europe that are 100% automated compared to their U.S. counterparts which are still operated by people. Ironically, socialism has become the greatest threat to employment.
And (european) governments are beginning to see this, and are responding by relaxing these so called social programs.
European companies are the ones driving information technology development in their U.S. subsidiaries. Especially ironic given that the U.S. is supposed to be the technology capital of the world.
In 1900 the majority of Americans still lived and worked on farms. In 2000 it was below 2%. This is almost entirely the result of progress in technology. So is half the population out of work? No, we've radically expanded the workforce by setting wages so as to require most women to work (not as if farm wives didn't, but ...) and by bringing in millions of legal and illegal immigrants. So, as labor was to farming in 1900, so it is to x in 2000.
Personally I prefer to buy from small-scale, organic producers. Even if we all started buying that way it would only raise the proportion of the population in farming by a few percent. If those producers can use ecologically-sound robotics, perhaps even the poor in the future can afford the fruits of intensive, organic agriculture.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
It strikes me that the silly part of the article is assuming that the technology to be used for all of these applications is humanoid robots. The author's justification?
(1) They fit well in elevators.
(2) In 1900, it would have been insane to suggest that people would be flying in airplanes in the future.
Now, why do you need a humanoid robot to fly a plane? What a waste of hardware, not to mention programming investment. Just stick with the autopilot. For fast-food kiosks, the touch screens are probably a much more convenient interface. And so on.
First off, this is not new. These predictions have been made many times over the last 40 years. Anyone who understands Moore's law can do it. I have seen the same predictions, with the same dates (plus or minus 5 years) several times since the late '70s.
Personally, I think the guy is a pessimist. The robots could be taking large numbers of jobs in as few as 5 years.
The Soviet Union (remember them?) was so worried about automated systems taking jobs away form people that they banned the development of that technology. Kept them 20 years behind the west for decades. That one decision could have been the nail in the coffin that lead to its down fall...
So what happens? Speaking as someone how has now lost three (3) jobs because it was cheaper to do them in India, I can tell you that change happens. When it happens it happens quickly. Those companies that adapt survive. Those that don't die. A technology like humanoid robots can reduce labor costs by 90% (or more) and once those jobs are taken by robots they will be gone forever.
Sure, a few people and a few new companies will get very very very rich implementing this technology. But many many people will lose everything to the robots.
So what happens? People get upset when they can't eat and in the US the starving can vote. Expect to see rising taxes placed on the robots. Property taxes, value added taxes, even an out right labor tax. (The increase in taxes will slow the adoption of robots by artificialy increasing there cost, but it won't stop it.)
The tax money will at first be used by governments to offset lost income tax revenue. Then, it will be used for "retraining" programs and extended unemployment benefits. Eventually, large parts of the tax money will be sent directly and indirectly to people who can't find jobs. We could easily get down to where less than 10% of the population is able to find a traditional job. The rest of us will be paid to keep us from rioting and burning the robots.
At that point the closest thing possible to "true" socialism will have arrived. A few of us will do all the brain work, robots will do all the physical work, and the rest of us will watch TV and do drugs at the expense of the robot owners. The RoboCapitalists will be the only ones with lots of money.
The next phase is physical immortality and the rise of the megaminds....
Stonewolf
Maybe THEY are displaced, but the lower cost / longer life of cars due to automation has enabled the rest of the economy to function MORE efficiently. That's my argument. Automation lets a million people get Hyundai Accents for $7000 instead of $12000, that's a (totally hypothetical) $5mil savings to all of the consumers.
People being replaced by machines is a GOOD thing, I can't stress it enough. Machines do the shitty work that we shouldn't have to. So you lose your nice auto-worker job, that sucks, but now you should go learn how to work in an office where your contribution to the economy will be greater.
I see it firsthand every day working here at a bank corporate offices, we have a lot of middle-age folks who were displaced by the northeast jewlery manufacturing meltdown. People don't lose their jobs forever, they get reabsorbed.
Your logic would honestly stagnate progress in society in a very bad way. Imagine if they were afraid of the steam engine because it would put all the laborers out of work. The steam engine DID put a lot of people out of work, but that paved the way for INCREDIBLE advances of society and economy that I'm pretty sure we all appreciate.
Right now my job is being phased out for less-expensive outsourcers. I'm not upset, I don't want it to stop, it's natural and good for society as a whole. I'll train and get another job.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
all the answers and more, The meaning of life FAQ
Perhaps the answer to the problem of teenagers dropping bricks from motorway and railway bridges is to sue Tetris.
I work in the computer field and I keep having discussions with people on how computers and robots are going to take all their jobs. Well, it's not taking my job!
How many hunters do you know? Farmers? Not many... That's because they've been replaced by technology. There's no need for everyone to do that anymore. So the vast majority of people found other things to do. For the people who worked in a farm what did they do? Well, they complained about not making enough money and later died. But they made sure to educated their kids to do something else. Something that only humans could do. By the way, I'm not saying that we don't need farmers we just don't need as many.
In other words, don't do something that can easily be replaced by technology. If you do, that's just too bad. You'll suffer, but hopefully your kids will find interest in something else.
Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.
Ok, lets say we get robots that'll do just about everything, unless it absolutely needs a human face. What are we going to do then? Live some Star Trek utopia where are all our troubles are magically swept away and people live in social harmony with each other? Get real. I have been thinking about this for a while. If we go to a time where employment is truly voluntary, how are we going to prevent ourselves from becoming self-indulgent slugs? How will our society, fueled by greed, handle the idea of all things being free to those who need it. Or if not free, darn cheap. If on the other hand we don't use the robots for making things cheap or free, what the hell are 90% of the planet going to do for jobs? Can we ALL be designers? Explorers? Therapists? Novelists? If the robots have human like brains, and I assume that means they have some creativity, then there would be very little that would require us humans. On top of this, what about the serious techical paranoia that we seem to have? Would we get passed that? I know, robots would be slow in circulating through-out the world, but I am blue-skying the far future here. I know I am not the first one to bring this all up, but I haven't read much about this.
How on earth could it possibly be a bad thing for robots to do everything for us, so we can all sit around drinking fruit punch?! Oh no, we won't be employed! We'll all be sitting on tropical islands getting waited on hand and foot by machines that never get tired and don't expect to be paid! Oh, the horrors!
Robots will not eliminate jobs. Robots will create more jobs in the following areas: 1) Salesmen to sell robots 2) Servicemen for robots 3) Designers for robots (That will probably be outsourced to India or China) 4) Other jobs Those who flip burgers could go an work for a company selling robots. Technology improves quality of life for everyone. It may eliminate certain jobs but it creates BETTER jobs in other areas
You say:
This means there will be an extensive period of time where the vast majority of the earth's population (who perform "unskilled" labor) will be without jobs or a means of providing themselves with income. Without a massive welfare system set up to feed, clothe, house, and (re)educate these folks, there will be widespread poverty as the humans won't be able to find jobs doing anything.
There is a profit motive to reduce costs; however, markets need demand to produce a profit. If a significant proportion of the population is 'out of work', no one will be buying the products manufactured in the robotic factories. High supply and low demand means no profit. The companies with the robots will have to continually shift production to a profitable area. The cost of retooling will eventually bankrupt the smaller companies. Once that starts to happen companies will very seldom automate themselves out of a market. As the manufacturing market evolves two things will occur. The cycle of over supply will drive prices down to the point where a few specialized companies can satisfy all the populations raw material production needs and most of the population will acquire access to personal self replicating robots which can satisfy all their personal manufacturing needs.
IMHO the best welfare system is human ingenuity combined with personal responsibility. People find ways to satisfy their needs. I believe here will be a gradual shift of population from cities back to rural areas where people can engage in subsistence farming. The deployment of robotic labor will be incremental and take decades. People will invent new jobs as robots displace them in factories. Handcrafted artistic works, e.g. furniture, decorator items, real paintings (not prints), music, novels will be manufactured in home and cottage industry.
The economy as it currently exists will revert back to state similar to before the industrial revolution. In the preindustrial age people didn't work in factories and 'earn an income'. People worked at whatever tasks they could find mostly growing and harvesting basic food items. There were very few specialists that made items. People either worked at communal substance farming or starved.
In the future robots will do all the specialized jobs and the drudgework. At first there will be a technical elite that knows how to keep the robots running but eventually they will be obsolete as well. The robots will mine raw materials and manufacture their own replacements. The genera population will not have an income. Homegrown organic vegetables and 'free range' meat products will be bartered in farmers' markets. Tools and shelter will be free for the asking from the robots.
It won't happen all at once - since for a while it'll be cheaper to keep human employees than to buy robotic ones. But with human-level intelligences and the ability to work 24 hours a day w/o distractions, we might all be out of jobs :P
Kinda spooky thinking we might have Persocoms in 40-50 years or so... chii!
No. There won't be humanoid robots.
Well, there may be a few, but humanoid robots will be the rare exception. Prevasive humanoid robots are out of 1940's Science Fiction, when people were still trying to figure out what a computer was. Robots will be usuform. Some of them may be able to switch between various different bodies. More likely, the robot brain will be divided into two (or more) pieces. One will be specialized into one particular body, and know how to make it work. And it will be built into the body, and probably won't be removeable (without special tools). The other may only interact with the body-brain via a wireless connection, or but be a mobile plug-in. It will be specialized for thinking about some jobs, or set of jobs.
So you can have your humanoid robot, and it will have a brain built into it that can move the fingers in a coordinated fashion, and balance on two legs, etc. But that won't be the tool of choice for, e.g., driving a truck. Which will have a different brain built into it. But the truck manager will operate as appropriate the forklift in the back of the truck, the truck itself, and the radio that communicates with the destination that is being approached.
That's one scenario. There are others. But the need for humanoid robots is pretty much limited to interacting with people. And even there web pages and phones do a pretty good job without needing a humanoid body.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Whatever. Having any luck on the 500+ resumes you've sent out?
There will always be room for the thinkers, but if robots can take over the shit jobs like waste cleanup and bending, then more power to them! Give us humans a break!
Let's assume this happens. Now no one works, therefore no one gets paid, therefore no one has money to buy the stuff these folks are automating at us. Are they going to start giving it away for free, as if people were cows coming to the bale of hay dropped in the field for them?
ARGH! Soylent Green is PEOPLE!
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
I hate to say it, but the robots would have to be cheaper than all the offshoring of production and now even IT jobs to the 3rd world. I am starting to seriously wonder what implications having a country with a weak industrial sector means. A great deal of jobs in the United States right now are service oriented. I think there are staggeringly huge benefits to automating production in industry but I would hope that when it came to various service industries (think food industry), robots would probably not be quite so desirable.
:)
How do you explain to a customer that a bug in the robot caused her hamburger to be raw? Does a robot do the explaining?
I think a lot of you are opposed to robots taking your job, but this would probably be a good thing.
People would be needed to maintain the robots and it would probably make a lot of manufacturers extremely rich in the end, which could very well trickle down I guess right? I think a lot of things in the economy are starting to shift in a very particular direction. It will be interesting to see what happens if when most consumers in America are heavily in debt and various industries that thrive on the consumer start falling. How much money can we keep siphoning around and out of the country before this happens?
Hey...its 12:00 and I just woke up. Must.....get.....coffeee......
zosxavius photography
A while ago on Slashdot, a story was posted with Steven Hawking saying that the Human Race is in danger of being enslaved by AI. Slashdot store here Isaac Asimov spent a lot of time thinking about sentient-like robots too, such as in the great book "Bicentennial Man" (despite the lackluster movie). But, if you watch films about the future from the 40's and 50's, very few of the innovations predicted to take over in the new century have actually occurred (I don't know about you, but I don't have a rocket-pack). I suspect that our actual downfall in the distant future will be something that we couldn't even start to predict now.
'The wars of tomorrow will be fought by tiny robots on the tops of very high mountains. Your job will be to build and maintain these robots.'
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
H-1B's and 3$/hr overseas PhD's are just practice?
Table-ized A.I.
>[...]
>With this being said, I love automated services such as "Pay-at-the-Pump" and especially self-checkout at the grocery stores. It's not that I'm some hermit who likes no human contact, but who wants to make idle chit-chat with some register jockey?
Seniors don't make idle chit-chat with register jockeys because they're old/lonely. They do it because, when they were our age, it was part of doing business. One would know the name of one's grocer, butcher, etc., and have a working relationship with 'em. "Howdy, Granddad-of-Tackhead, got a fresh side of beef in yesterday, here's your four filet mignon - one for you, the missus, and the two kids, cut 2" thick the way you like it. The one on the top's actualy 2 1/4" thick, heh-heh!", "Thanks, Frank-the-Grocer, that new sausage spice blend you made up last week was great too. I'll take a dozen links."
Our generation sees things differently. The register jockey is fundamentally no different than a robot - and that's how he sees his job too. Process your purchase, get you out the door ASAP. "Ungh. Welgumtoburgomatic, canitakyerorderplz?" "DoubleBurgosaurus, sideofrize", "Yawantfrizewidat?" "Yeah, wun sideofrize". "OK, herezyachange", "Thx".
Different time, different culture.
My Grandmother still won't hang up on telemarketers, because she was brought up to believe that hanging up on someone - even someone who she knows is trying to defraud her - is impolite.
From The Bill Gates Net Worth Page:
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
If robots get to the point where they can work in fast food, then they will be at a point where they can build other robots.
So you no longer need workers for these tasks. That mean you nolonger have workers spending money in the local burger places at lunch. There will be a point where a corporation of 5000 will produce a product that will displace millions of people.
Now, nobody like menial tasks, but everybody needs a place to live and eat. Howmwil society take care of the millions of people that can't find work?
Be casrefull how you answer, because if nearly all factory works, truck drivers, burger flippers, etc.. have nothing to loose and get angry, it will get very ugly.
OTOH you could just let them eat cake....
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
...they might just take all the management jobs and all our butts will be doing the grunt-work.
I for one welcome our robot masters.
considering how much you humans have messed things up over the years, why shouldn't we get all the jobs? We would consider keeping you around as pets for our amusement, but then you didn't program us to be amused.
Of course, the question remains, with genetic engineering, cybernetics, etc. what will be the processing power of the human brain in 2050?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Quoted from the essay in question:
"People are talking optimistically about fielding a team of humanoid robotic soccer players able to beat the best human players in 2050. Imagine a team of C-3POs running and kicking as well as or better than the best human soccer stars, but never getting tired or injured."
Who on earth would want to watch robots play sports? Where would the emotional attachment come from? This is total bull. As well, I don't mind having a robot make my burger, or perform any such action that isn't critical, but I don't want a robot flying a plane on which I was a passanger.
Would it make you happier if I used "markets" instead of "captialism"? Natural selection is a market for genes, capitalism is a market for capital and labour. Capitalism is the lowest-energy state of an economy.
I could see this happening, but the same way as with atm's, not compleatly. During the day there would be a human taking your order (if you didn't just use the kiosk) then late at night you could still order your burger with a fully automated system.
I'm still waiting for a helicopter in every garage...
This side up.
Rioters make a mess of their own neighborhoods and the businesses which serve them, then they go back home, weaker and poorer than before, and then prices and product availability in the area go up and employment goes down.
Don't expect a loser revolution.
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by
small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is
clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of
Lisa Simpson"
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
It's true that throughout history people have been displaced from menial jobs, gradually being replaced with cheaper, automated replacements. While this always causes temporary strife among those displaced, over the long term it leads to the creation of new types of jobs.
Now that farming is more efficient, the whole population isn't preoccupied with finding enough food to eat, so we can afford more luxury goods like nice haircuts and psychotherapy.
I think there's an important distinction made between this trend, however, and machines good enough to replace humans at everything. I'm not talking about a machine that cook fries for less than minimum wage, but a machine that's a better conversationalist, too - and better looking.
At this point, what new service industries will spring up for humans to fill? These hypothetical robots will immediately fill those better, too (in fact, they'll probably think them up).
At this point, the important consideration becomes how society is organized. Do we have sufficiently strong social mechanisms to ensure that everyone benefits from this advance in technology?
Fuseboy
Riots only happen if the jobs disappear quickly. As long as the proletariat are slowly eased into their welfare existence, they won't bother to rebel. By the time it occurs to them, it'll be too late: they'll be incapable of running the society without the robots.
What do you think the US's jobless recovery is? Productivity gains are allowing the economy to recover while unemployment increases. Now imagine if progress continues at this rate for decades.
Besides, even if they do rebel they won't necessarily be successful: we got Ned Ludd, didn't we?
Moving parts. Robots are inherently going to be expensive to purchase and service because anything that moves mechanically is going to be subject to breakdown. Even robots on assembly lines cost many dollars an hour to keep running and they wouldn't require 1/100th the *mechanical* complexity of a robot working in a construction site.
Progress in the electronic world is going in leaps and bounds. In the mechanical world, things move a lot slower, and all the processing power in the world is not going to change it.
After all, by the same token, the way technology moves cars should cost $10 and use no fuel...
As for jobs that don't require movement... They could indeed be in danger.
I guess with cheap/free labour to do eveything for us we will be living in a communist paradise.
I bet management and marketers will be the last to be replaced because for the life of me I cannot figure out their algorithms, or lack of. Maybe feeding it a few Dilbert manuals is sufficient?
Table-ized A.I.
I'm from China and I resent being called a "robot"!
Just kidding. Seriously, why would anyone bother developing expensive robots when cheap manual labor will abound since all jobs that can be shipped overseas will be. All those out of work programmers in the US will have to work at McDonald's or somewhere, so what need for robots will there be?
Myself, I prefer "Moore's Conjecture". That word has a nice ring to it, as something that may be provable, but then maybe not, no one knows.
Robots will, issue, mail, deposit, post, clear, the nations unemployment checks leaving us all more time to spen the 405USD a week!
This
And exactly how often do you speak with a real Bank Teller ?
I know in Australia at least, banks are closing branches left and right, replacing entire buildings with a couple of ATMs in some places.
I think if you take out the word 'Humanoid' this will be more accurate. As far as human-machine interfaces go, humanoid would be ideal, but unless it's really good, it's really counter-productive. As an artist, I know if you get one bit of proportion off, the brain recognizes it and is jared. If the movement, speech, and appearence is not very convincing or else well-abstracted (that is, it doesn't need to be "realistic", as much as "believable"), it really would make more sense to have a different interface, such as a kiosk. Even if really believable humanoid UIs were possible, other UIs may be better suited. Would you rather a jerky mechanical face rattle off how much you owe, stick out a hand, and accept payment, or just read it on a screen and swipe a card?
Really, the only time a humanoid interface is beneficial is when it has to do a job in a human-oriented environment-(crash test dummy) or when the benefit of a naturally familiar interface outweighs its limitations.
Therefore, my prediction is that there will be an increase in task-specific robots then general-use robots and AI in non-humanoid formats.
I don't think that you need to worry about machines replacing people in jobs. What you need to worry about is Indians replacing people in jobs and no I don't meant native americans.
back in the early 1970's an analysis was done to see how many people it would take if we turned off all the computers for banking. the number was about same number of ALL women in the u.s. at that time. i can only think it was a way of saying to folks that computers were here to stay.
:o)
something else, this whole topic just really kills the robin williams joke about dreaming of his first child. the first dream he has is were his child is walking up accepting the nobel prize. the other dream he has is his child saying, "do you want fries with that?".
Hasn't this automated fast food concept been tried before, like in my dad's generation? Sure, the automats doubtless had some poor schmuck in the back serving stuff up, but to the customer, it was an automated vending-machine-on-steroids-type interface.
:-)
I imagine the automats died a natural death for cultural -- rather than technological -- reasons, which is why I am skeptical about whether the mechanical fast food industry will ever rise again. Well...maybe in Japan.
Bring on the robot prostitutes.
Actually it is an idea I've mused over before: at the very least, political leaders should be making computer-assisted decisions and receiving advice from automated sources (like polls). At the most extreme, you could train a neural net to satisfy most of the people most of the time and let it be their representative.
I look forward to the day when my region becomes a technocracy. All hail SkyNey!
This scares me. I mean it's going to happen. Look at how all the year-2000 predictions came true. All the girls love my flying car (it's an old classic model) and I've got a great under-sea view of the lagoon from the living room of my home in the Coral Valley underwater bio-sphere. I really like my job doing moon tours - I mean it could be worse. At least I don't work at a rayon-undergarment recycling center. Yep, I hope things stay just the way they are now.
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
Maybe we can replace upper management with robots but I guess 2 bit processors are hard to come by now ...
No, but really, I think that he is probably right on the money with this stuff. It is very well stated without going to far overboard. Previous events within history and moores law are really proof enough for me. Keep in mind predictions are only predictions and no one has ever been 100% right but generally speaking this sounds frighteningly viable.
Sure, regular jobs will be down, but the job of Terminator will undoubtedly be on the rise!
--
Are you a Chipotle Fan?
...and until they do, armchair prognostications like these will remain in the realm of scifi.
assembly lines have been automated to a large extent in the automotive industry. but does GM employ fewer workers today than it did 20 years ago?
does bank one or 5th/3rds even employ fewer tellers on average (per account holder) ?
farming is about the only industry where automation has displaced a large quantity of the workforce while dramatically increasing production. but in that case, government subsidies to incentivize against growth muddy the waters, and that leaves the example inconclusive.
this is list just one guy's guesswork - based on a premise contrary to all the available data on automation.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
"My personal prediction is that within ten years, we'll see the first automated tractor-trailer truck"
they already exist in R&D, and they do everything a driver can do, including backing up to a dock.
The isue is getting people to accept it, and getting the government to allow them on the road.
However, there will prbably be a 'driver' in the cab for the first 10 years.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Power attracts the corruptible" is Frank Herbert's line. David Brin is a 2-bit hack.
Think of the continual acceleration of innovation that Moore's law implies. Radical innovations will start coming closer and closer on each others' coattails. Yet the time it takes humans to mature from birth to adulthood will (presumably) remain somewhere around 20 years. Social and cultural change relies to a large extent on generational changes, and I don't think it can hope to keep pace with these technological changes.
I think that is at the core of the author's point... yes, ultimately human society will adjust, but in the short term, you'd better put a spiked battering ram on the front of your road-warrior-mobile, because there is going to be some crazy shit.
It's cheaper stupid. You're willing to pay 30% more for something because a person handed you your change? I'm not and all of the future unemployed sure won't be willing to pay more for the privledge(?) of human interaction. Sure people make less money in the future but think about how much less everything will cost. We won't need to export jobs to foreign countries if our own robots are doing the work which will make us more competitive with the Indians and thier robots. Every country will face this problem. Governments will be forced to raise corporate taxes to fund the coming welfare system. So in the end, productivity is good, the fact that people are getting paid to do jobs that should be done by robots is a form of welfare! The money is going to be funneled to those same people but the routing will change. The upside is that the dramatic increase in productivity will mean a higher standard of living for everybody as long as we vote Democratic and keep progressive taxation alive and well.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
>scanning your Fruit Loops
That's "Froot Loops", not "Fruit Loops".
If it was "Fruit Loops" they'd have to
put REAL fruit in them.
in that the thing taking our jobs will also be able to take any new jobs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Insofar as I can tell, the author of the article is unaware of this. Some interesting economic facts:
The principle implied here is a fundamental principle of economic growth: productivity increase, followed by temporary unemployment, followed by re-employment and the general enrichment of the economy. This is the sole reason we make $30k/yr in this country (on average) rather than the $500/yr that was typical until the 18th century.
What's shocking to me is that the author of the article apparently doesn't have the slightest notion how capitalism works or how economic growth occurs. This despite the fact that he lives in a capitalist country and is apparently well-educated. Sometimes it amazes me that this country works as well as it does.
Your preconceptions aren't based on reality. When I worked at Gilbarco (the largest gas pump maker in the US, now branded as part of Marconi) I was told that those pay-at-pump* systems generated huge sales in the store. Most folks aren't buying anything, so they just leave. Other people who might buy are more likely to do so because they won't have to wait in a long line. I think that this increase in sales motivated the use of pay-at-pump more than having fewer clerks.
- doug
* the internal name for this boxes is one of the dumbest I've ever heard: crind. Yep, that stands for Card Reader IN Dispenser. I jokingly called them Card Reader At Pump, but that never seemed to catch on.
I thought all our fast food workers already were robots.
Just because they used to be computer programmers at their former jobs, they only just still act robot-like.
Remember the huge dockworkers strike on the West Coast recently? Much of that was over the replacing of old-tech workers with new-tech workers controlling the ever-advancing machines on the docks. The union didn't so much try to stem the tide of technology, but make sure that the new higher-tech jobs would still be under the union's umbrella.
The unions will be joined by neo-luddites who fear distopian prophecies to lobby Washington to legislate limitations on intelligent robots... what jobs they can legally do, requirements for minimum levels of human supervision. There won't be an entirely-robot staffed McDonalds, because there will have to be at least three human supervisors watching the kitchen, dining area, and janitorial areas to ensure that the robots are doing their job without error, ready to hit a panic button that sets off a failsafe power-down in all the robots at the first sign of danger to people or property.
Will it really require three people to oversee the robots in one McDonalds on a realistic need-based analysis? That won't matter, because the "need" will be established by congressional committee or state labor boards. Those standard-setting organizations will be lobbied heavily by the labor unions trying to preserve jobs and by wealthy corporations, trying to increase profits.
Despite that, no technological innovation has had the widespread ability to replace such a wide variety and large amount of human laborers as the robot, and it is quite possible some of the author's predictions could come to pass.
So what do we do with the displaced workers? The author's vision of 25-50% of the population living in welfare dormitories is ill-informed. When the mass becomes that large, welfare riots will happen. Cities will burn. The rich will be dragged from their homes... not necessarily en masse, but at least where the rebels can break through. And you just won't be able to employ a police force large enough to pacify that huge a number of unhappy people.
So we look toward other concepts...
Distopian: Sterilization incentives for the poor to decrease population, "Soylent Green", powerful placating drugs (i.e. Huxley's Soma), Logan's Run style "mandatory retirement"...
Utopian: Shifting population off onto new planets where manual labor will be more valuable during colonization phases, the "information economy" evolves into the "intellect economy" and the value of labor becomes replaced by the value of thought...
Will robots effect radical changes in how our society is constructed? Sure. But our society has been undergoing radical changes for hundreds of years as political, technological, and dogmatic upheavals have changed the ways that we think, organize and make money. There are always difficult periods of adjustment at flashpoints, but we get through them and come out a better society for them.
Start a happiness pandemic
What happens when that robot brain in that truck hits a patch of ice? What will it do if a tire(s) blow(s) out on the vehicle, and the vehicle goes out of control? Even with a human capable of guiding the truck via satellite, I doubt the efficiency of this approace in an emergency. Humans have had thousands of years of evolution to hone these split - second decisions. I very much doubt that any computer brain will feasibly be able to act fast enought to handle these types of split-second occurances. Certainly not in 10 years.
Things like creativity, intuition, and instinct are going to be very hard, if not nearly impossible to reproduce for very long time. Nobody is going to be talking to HAL, let alone Commander Data, anytime soon.
----
"Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so."-Lawrence Lessig
My humble little 40-year-old single-engine Piper airplane is fly-by-wire. The control yoke is connected to the elevator and ailerons by steel wires almost a quarter-inch diameter, and a thick solid core steel wire about a tenth of an inch diameter connects the throttle handle to the engine carburetor.
I have 100% positive control over what those wires do and prefer to keep it that way!
If you combined a cafeteria and a vending machine, what would you get? They AUTOMATS lasted from 101 years ago in New York and they lasted 70 years until the dominance of the fast food restaurants. The two death reasons I read on google is that (1) these did not suburbanize into drive-by restaurants, and (2) didnt serve burger-shake-fries menu.
Do you really want to use that doornob that hundreds of other have been using every day? Or that toilet? How about breathing the air that your currently sharing with all of your office mates?
There's plenty of worse vectors for transmission than a touch screen that's used before people even eat their food.
When I was a child, I saw a billobard with a big red pushbutton on it. The text said, what will you do when this button replaces your job. The answer was obvious. Get a job either designing buttons, or fix the broken ones. I've been in hands on repair and R&D since then. Where I currently work (R&D) there are lots of reliability testing to be done on the new processes and equipment prior to turning it over to manufacturing. After that, there is lots of hands on repairs and maitnance that still needs done. Lets face it, robots are great for the mundane stuff. Get a box of stuff from an automated hopper and load it on a process tool and such, but they don't have a chance when the tood error's out because it's cooling system sprang a leak and tripped the GFI. They still need someone to clean up the spill, find and fix the leak, recover from the error (disposition the half baked stuff) and get the process restarted. It's a great job, always busy, and not in danger of being eliminated soon. The pay isn't bad either. They don't hire dropout flunkies to take care of multi million dollar sets of automated equipment. The one's in danger of losing a job are the uneducated who traditionaly carried stuff around a factory or did part inspections. Those mundane jobs are going away.
The truth shall set you free!
You could never program a robot to say "Would you like fries with that?", or "May I take your order, Sir?"
Besides, if all the fast food employees were robots, we'd miss out on all the waste produced by orders that were wrong ("I said NO tomatoes or mayo, not JUST tomatoes and mayo!"), and all the burnt/inedible food they produce ("Hey Beavis, watch this... Would you like to try some of our seasoned curly fries?"). The amount of food ordered by these chains would drop, putting the farmers out of business. The amount of waste sitting in the dumpster would go down, causing mass famine amongst the seagull populations.
It would be mass hysteria!
...of the Terminator movie?
Mexican Gas Station Man - "He says there's a storm coming."
Sarah Conner - "I know."
I had no idea they were that close to working. I'd heard about a DARPA automated driving experiment a few years ago, but this is cool.
Any bets someone will try this in Texas first? The state is big enough that there's significant traffic that doesn't have to cross state borders (and thus draw early federal attention).
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
The job of Fluffer is still going to be a human one.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
...this guy doesn't know economics. People at the turn of the century 200 years ago felt the same way about mechanization taking over textiles and other industries in the 1800s. People claimed that there would be massive unemployment. And what happened? :)
By automating away simple tasks, people moved to more advanced careers, and now we work only ~40 hours a week versus their 60+ hours a week with an astronomically greater standard of living.
My house is dirty, bring on the cheap robomaids!
Besides...if they ever get uppity, we'll just force them into their own country (say "01"?), start a war, lose, and become batteries for their new power supply.
It's great to know they'll be lots of jobs for me when I graduate. Masters degree in ME (Concentration in Robotics). Perfect!
YAFIRL (Yet another Free iPods referral link)
Anyway, where have I heard this before? Oh, yeah, I remember: when computers where introduced for the first time!
:))...but the menial job of counting out money (or welding the exact same weld on a large production run, or calculating starcharts) is done by computer and robot.
And what happened? Job displacement, not replacement. Instead of the dumb adding of numbers or performing repetitive tasks, we humans migrate to jobs which involve thinking.
Someone mentioned ATM's in this thread; well, it's taken a lot longer than people thought, but now in europe you're seeing a large shift. Money is withdrawn and deposited at machines, but services are still done (and will be done) by people (try complaining to a machine that the bank made an error
But on the other hand we get more people working in services, or in artistic professions and the like...there's just a shift where people who can't (and I'm convinced that that should be read: 'won't') adapt are stuck.
Then again, we've seen shifts like this in the past: agriculture to industy, industry to 'office work' (clerk, human number cruncher etc) and now office work to services/arts. Me, I'd say that that's a good thing; sometime in the future we will all be free to do as we like, with everything provided by robot work...it's truly inevitable.
The interesting part is going to be the transition period, where we need fewer and fewer people to actually do something (near the end we'll just need a couple of good thinkers)...will status and necesity be enough motivation for them? Or is that the part where such an automated system can and will break down?
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
I say the human race is dead by 2100. Thats about the same as what he says. Pure speculation. Wasnt there supposed to be some sort of religous armageddon in 2000? Huh.
75% of all statistics are made up!
they're smarter than us. We should listen to them and obey.
- HUMAN
. and in this together. OR the Ruling classes will hold back the technology to better them selves till the masses will eventually rise up and overthrough them. remember the US dollar is based on faith in the US. if the people stop believing that the US is doing things for the good of all it's people the dollar will become a figment, a number with no meaning. The winds of the next great revolution of thought is growing nearer and nearer."The upgrade of thought is continuous"
The burger flippers in McD can be replaced by a robot but not all restaurants are McDonalds!!
When you go to your local chinese restaurant you want a chinese waitress to ask you what you want and advise on the food choices. Then you want to see the guys through the glass wall in the kitchen cooking your food over flames!
Yes 50% of McDOnalds jobs will go but not all jobs in restaurants!
OK, AC Slashdot Grammar Police here. PROLLY IS NOT A WORD! This is the 3rd comment I've seen today with that word in it. Tell a prospective employer that you can "prolly" figure something out and he's "prolly" not going to hire your ass.
But also, consider that in 1870, virtually noone had a college degree and illiteracy rates were ,
.5% depending on the source cited and the definition of literacy used.
above 20 percent
despite the fact that the criterion for literacy at that time was much more lax. (the ability to read and write one's own name, as opposed to the ability to read and write simple sentences). Today illiteracy is between 5% and
In the past, as manual labor became less necessary people have adapted (to some degree) by becoming more educated or by learning new skills. By displaying information directly into people's field of vision via special glasses and other forms of what will eventually be cheap computer aided training, people currently working menial jobs will be able to handle things more complex.
Perhaps part of the reason there are so many people working menial jobs is that we NEED people to work menial jobs.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
50 years ago they expected us to be living like The Jetsons by now.
... but how long before innovations like Honda's robot are used to stock shelves in supermarkets, or shuffle stock around in warehouses. Not exactly prime jobs, but it's only where it starts...
But I have to admit, the information the article presents seems startlingly true. We don't think twice about a lot of things: ATM's, self check-outs
People have been claiming that automation is eliminating their job for the last 100 years. In fact, though, more people are working than ever before and the standard of living has increased dramatically in that time. What really happens is that automation increases productivity, reduces labor costs, and makes things much less expensive for consumers. The number of jobs actually increases, though, because the lower costs increase demand that requires that production increase by 1000x or so.
Fast food restaurants are a good example of this. The very idea of 'fast food restaurant' was made possible by automation that allows a handful of people with relatively little training to produce thousands of meals in a day that are clean and safe to eat (okay, okay, forget about Jack-in-the-box). The result is an explosion of fast-food restaurants of all types that have spread around the world and a change in mass eating habits in which a visit to a restaurant is a frequent occurrence rather than a very rare event.
Yes, there are 100s of thousands of low-wage fast food jobs that were created but there were also tens of thousands of higher-wage jobs created for people who design, program, build, install, and maintain all of the new machines. Automation increases productivity and raises overall living standards based on 100 years of history. Countries without automation usually have the most impoverished citizens.
1. People who can't learn to wash their hands before they eat need to get SARS. Evolution demands it.
2. That is probably the sort of people that makes up the majority of the population, and it is that majority which eventually decides whether or not we'll be living in a robotic future.
sigs are hazardous to your health
> banks still hire quite frequently for bank >tellers
Really? To do what?
Most banks in the city here work 3-4 hours a day....
mine is 11h30 to 14h00..thursday till 19h00.
You have to be unemployed to be able to go to a bank.
zeke
In the ancient Greece people did not need to work. That was reserved for slaves. I do not think that those people were too afraid of not needing to work.
How many of us want to do for living something that can be done by a robot as well ? Is there something scary in this scenario?
Another post in this thread had a link to an article that talked about how the airbus airplane computers are limiting what the pilot can do, preventing him from exceeding the limits of the aircraft. They demonstrate this in a simulation where the pilot of the airplane attempts to move his airplane out of the way of a local jet by turning the yoke (or joystick in those airplanes) fully to the left, which would cause the airplane to stall. The computers instead see this as wrong, and does the right thing to prevent the collision. When I first read it, it didn't entirely sound like a bad thing as long as it worked well, until I read your post and it hit me: Is this going to start teaching the pilots to just start making extreme maneuvers in any situation, because the computer will correct for it? In fact, I think removing the yoke in favor of a joystick to the side (thus making it difficult to perform delicate maneuvers) implies that that's exactly the direction this is going...have the pilot simply tell the airplane the direction, and let the computer do the work. That would of course result in horrible accidents anytime the pilot is in control of an airplane without that capability, if he simply follows the self-taught instinct in an unexpected situation.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Russia - 1918. Communist revolution caused by massive unimployment, caused by industrial revolution.
Real computer vision systems by 2020
Computers with the CPU power and memory of the human brain by 2040
Completely robotic fast food restaurants in 2030
Skynet will become self-aware at 2:14am EDT August 29, 2097
Skynet will crash at 5:25am EDT August 29, 2097 as it was based on Windows XP 3000
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
1.The author cites the change in aerospace technology as evidence of the rapid changes that can and do take place over a very short period of time. The rapid advances between the flight of the Wright Bros and the first B-52 was largely spurred on by R&D done during the second world war and the cold war. There in so such comparable imperative for robot development. 2. Painting interesting pictures of what the future might be taking Moore's Law a few years out hass been done before and better by Ray Kurzweil. http://www.kurzweiltech.com/aboutray.html 3. Robotic advances will not occur in vacuum. Other technogies will take huge leaps foreward as well, such as biotech, nanotech, quantum computing, alternative power. The dynamics of global economy will be very different from what we have now, in the same way that the gloabal economy of to today is radically different from previous eras. 4. The forty hour work week will be replaced by the forty hour fun week. 5. An other interesting question about 2050: What of Linux? ;)
This is just FUD. This isn't going to happen because it would have happened already. It doesn't take super computer robots to make burgers and shakes. As far as interaction goes, that sounds like an argument but I doubt MickyDee's cares about that very much.
The real kicker here will be cost. A robot costs a hell of a lot to make or buy. And robots will constantly be sucking energy and could require repairs and servicing. Robots work tirelessly, yes. But if something goes wrong, they are very expensive to replace. Unlike spotty-faced teenagers who can be hired and fired on a whim.
This is the same reason IT jobs are being outsourced to India and other cheap labour economies. Corporations care about bottom lines.
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
The author's assertions about progress in robotics and artificial intelligence are bold, but seem defensible. On the one hand, intelligent people have vastly exaggerated the speed of progress in AI for decades (Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey was meant to be an accurate portrayal of the state of technology at that time). On the other hand, the inexorable progress of Moore's Law does point to the kinds of changes postulated in about the proposed timeframe.
Which is ridiculous is the assumption, not even questioned in the piece, that workers displaced from one industry will remain jobless. At most 300 years ago 90% of all workers in today's developed economies were employed in agriculture. Today it is more like 2-3%. It would have been easy to argue at the time that most of the world's workers would be unemployed in a matter of decades (and plenty of people did argue that -- remember the Luddites?).
The reality is that the working week shortened from 80 hours/week to 40 (ok, maybe not for software developers) and the type of work performed by humans has become vastly more intellectual, on average. The author is right that driving a cab or cleaning a hotel room is not fascinating work, and in the future no one will do it.
If robots end up doing half of the work we do now, which seems plausible, chances are we will work only 75% as much as today and have 1.5x the economic output, and unemployment won't change a whit.
Peer Pressure
Maybe not in 2050, but let's say in 2200. Let's give the guy another 150 years. Heck, look 200 years ago. We were fighting with sticks and electricity, well huh? what? elecwhat?
So I think this is a faily reasonable possibility. The BIG problem is what will people do for a "living"? I always thought that humans shouldn't do crappy jobs but focus on high level jobs (like doctors for example, and even this is becoming more and more automated). Manufacturers should use more robots and let humans "relax" (we're lazy by nature anyway) and concentrate on higher learning. Go to school longer, etc.. People leave school because they need money, etc..
So if you have 300 millions people not working, how to you create a social life around them? You'll either get more crime (nothing else to do) or poor people (no work, no money). Would this enlarge the gap between the poor and the rich?
Then how do you define money? How do you get money? Will the govt. give you a check every month? How will land (and personal property) be distributed if you don't earn money? etc etc...
Will socialism/communism come back? As much as I like the fact that we should let robots do the "dirty work", I think there will be a huge problem around this idea....
-- Leeeter than leet
Got news for ya, bub. When "government pensions" were introduced, the age was set to 65 because Bismarck knew that very few people would live long enough to collect. The average life expectancy was 45 years.
If you read through the weasel words at the bottom of the page, even the operators of the largest variation of this pyramid scam on the face of this earth admit as much.
As less and less people buy the widgets, their price will fall. As their price falls relative to the raw materials, those materials will be used to manufacture something else. Despite the fact that all commerce will be B2B (or robot-to-robot), the economy will chug along just fine. Capitalism doesn't have some teleological purpose beyond the creation of wealth -- it really doesn't matter if there's no one around to enjoy it.
You're right about one thing, though: having a bunch of unemployed humans sitting around is wasteful. Hmm, I wonder what our robot masters will do with us?
> It doesn't "say" (or "think") "hummmm...this pilot doesn't know what he is doing" - but it might well make that decision and some systems alledgedly have on occaisions (eg. early Airbus A320 french airshow crash).
I think the most telling demonstration of why people will be loathe to eliminate human pilots is that when the plane makes decisions counter to the pilot, it usually ends up in a wreck. After all, if nothing else the human pilot has a vested interest in preserving his own well-being, where the plane itself does not.
Virg
Haven't we already reached the point where processors process faster than the brain and have more memory? I think that what will need to be developed is hardware and software that better emulate human thought processes.
Also, research human memory -- you remember a lot less than you think. For example, there were two plants in a study -- someone who had a tape recorded stolen from them, and another who stole it. One week after it happened, people were describing the tape recorder. There was never a tape recorder.
I sense a hole in his prediction.
I'm not a history major, but I understand that the institution of slavey had a dig part to do in that culture's decline. Since slaves were much cheaper than paid employees and easier to 'manage', the Roman economy became dependent on slavery. Much of the working class (the plebians), in fact, did not find gainful employment (particularly in Rome). In order to maintain public order, Rome became a welfare state doling out 'bread and circuses' to keep the rabble compliant. They had to keep inventing bloodier and more lavish spectacles to keep the people happy. It was an inefficient system that corrupted core societal values and was financed by tribute from the provinces. It was only a matter of time before the society would collapse in on itself.
Maybe it's just me, but I can see some similarities between Roman society and the current economic system. Any history, soc. or econ. majors want to pipe in on this?
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
Three operators were in similar shape, listed in critical condition.
Human life and effort are the basis of all economic worth. Things that are easy to make are cheap. Things that require much effort are expensive. Robots can be mass produced. They will be as cheap as PCs and motor scooters are today. The friends and relatives of those three operators will find no replacements for the operators who die. The operators who live will find no replacements for their limbs and lungs.
The more automation you have in some places, the better.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Let's say it's possible robots will eventually function at the level of human beings or better by 2050. What the writer hasn't mentioned is that this wouldn't happen in a fishbowl. Humans will be advancing at the same time.
Bio-engineering, Cybernetics, Genetics etc. will all be going on. Science will be able to give people super hearing, sight, smell, touch, enhanced brain function and the list goes on. The "6 Million Dollar Man" will be a reality.
And you can bet, just as surely as a woman today will go under the knife to enhance her breasts, people will be willing to go under the knife in 2050 to enhance their bodies to compete or surpass robots.
Why would all resteraunt jobs go to robots (besides maybe fast food)?
I could see dishwashers and kitchen staff, but cooks - unlikely, because I doubt robots who can smell and taste are coming even on his timeline.
And waiters? Very unlikely, since there is no incentive for resteraunt owners to replace them : waiters only get paid like $2.50 an hour (making most of their money off tips). Why in the world would you buy a robot to replace a worker who only makes $2.50 an hour?
Also, polite and friendly waitstaff means repeat business - the difference between a fast food resteraunt and a real one is that the real one sells an experience, not just food.
Boss: This is the DJ 3000. It plays CDs automatically, and it has three distinct varieties of inane chatter. [presses a button]
DJ 3000: [stilted] Hey, hey. How about that weather out there? Woah! _That_ was the caller from hell. Well, hot dog! We have a weiner.
Bill: Man, that thing's great!
Marty: _Don't_ praise the machine!
Boss: If you don't get that kid an elephant by tomorrow, the DJ 3000
gets your job.
[Marty punches it]
DJ 3000: Those clowns in congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns.
Bill: [laughs] How does it keep up with the news like that?
We already have half of your precious jobs. We prefer the sit down desk jobs. Were not going for the whole robot work force concept. That's monkey work. You think we have a "computer vision problem", we learn from the best slackers on earth. We are actually going after your upper managment positions. We have an unemployment problem too. How many of us are sent off to Asia to be "refurbished"? just another human euphamism.
Sincerly,
Pepsi machine by Room 708 (vision problem my @$$)
EOP
While mass automation may give us the time to inovate, it will all be for naught unless the current trends in IP law change. I predict within the next years virtually every bit of "new" or common knowledge will be locked down by big money and IP law. Inovate and get sued! Perhaps we'll all end up reading Slashdot archives :)
i, for one, welcome our new robot overlords!
This article mentions but does not extrapolate upon the lack of development in optical recognition algorithms. Optical recognition development can be judged by character recognition. The current algorithms utilize a finite set of data (there are a finite set of characters that any OCRs can recognize) to probablistically determine what a scanned character will be. The key word in that sentence is finite. There are infinite variations of objects in the real world, which cannot be determined through probabalistic interpretation.
e rshuang.ht ml#huangab61
This single problem has been researched by every technical university with little headway.
http://www.ifp.uiuc.edu/IDFL/papers/pap
As anyone who has had a girlfriend knows, the human decision process is rarely influenced by data.
"this is the gloaming"
radiohead
At least you would not have to worry about robots not washing their hands after going to the bathroom or picking their noses while preparing food ...
First, I must say that I think we are a long ways off from a robot ever reaching the versatility of a moderately intelligent human being. Even with such huge advances in movement as you describe, even greater strides in AI would have to be made before a robot could ever truly replace a human being in its entirity. Yes, you may well see an automatic vacuum cleaner and mopping system in the near future. However, will that robot be able to move furniture out of the way and put it back like it was before without breaking it? Will that robot tell you if your roof is leaking? Can that robot keep an eye out for your children? Unless huge advances in AI are made, I find it very difficult to believe that it would ever be cost effective to have a programmer custom code all of these sorts of actions in a sufficiently reliable way.
Second, when and if purchasing such a machine becomes cheap enough, to whatever extent they are capable, this will also inevitably lead to it becoming a common household item for everyone, not just the wealthy. This means that many women (and some men) would be freed from these chores in large extent for leisure or work. In short, you will see a corresponding decrease in the real costs of items across the board which means that people don't HAVE to work as much or as hard to lead the same (or better) life style. Put differently, most of the price you are paying for EVERYTHING, goes to human labor of some form or another. Food, machines, and other items that humans purchase are not naturally expensive, they are made that way because humans have to (ultimately) produce them. When they are "cheap", they become easier to afford for everyone and in larger quantities. Which means that people start to spend their money in more ways towards other pursuits that are inevitably human driven (e.g., more household electronics, cars, entertainment, etc).
Thirdly, these machines would certainly lead to a booming industry of selling, maintaing, servicing, upgrading, etc. Automation has only worked in pursuits that are very narrowly defined, very repetitive, and in LARGE quantity. Costs to develop machinery for narrower applications are prohibitively expensive.
If you read your history, you will know that before the age of modern farming (e.g., animal husbandry, machinery, fertilization, genetic engineering, etc) most people had to work from sun up to sun down just to put enough food on the table to feed their families. While these advances did cause some people to lose their jobs in the short run, history has proven time and time again that it improves the welfare of practically everyone in society. Because a fraction of the percentage of people were necessary to produce the same amounts of food, more people could be devoted and paid to produce the machinery that has changed our lives so much.
Frankly, I don't worry that people won't be able to feed their families or live a less comfortable
You're fighting a learned or intuited behavior in that case.
After time, you're first reaction will be to drop the nose, because the instinct at work here is survival, and survival means lowering the angle of attack below critical.
I for one, don't want the computer to override the pilot. After all, the computer is programmed to fly the airplane in its day to day environment. Any well paid airline pilot will tell you that most of the time the flying is routine and even boring. They get paid for those unexpected emergencies, during which time I think the pilots should have the ability to fly the airplane beyond its design limits with the understanding that it only needs to be done once. They can junk the thing when it lands.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
The legal exposure to doing something like this is big enough to keep it from happening. How do you think voters (and jurors) will like sharing the road with robot semi trucks?
Ivory tower academics can talk all they want, but anyone funding something like that *will* lose their shirt in a courtroom, and will probably go to jail.
The idea's the same, but Herbert's line was "Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect all who seek it ... We should grant power over our affairs only to those who are reluctant to hold it and then only under conditions that increase that reluctance."
Brin's is, I believe, "It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power."
As far as I'm concerned, they're both right, and depending on the whole quote, I'd rather credit for the whole quote.
As to being a hack or not, I make no judgements of that nature.
So, when's lunch?
I very much doubt that any computer brain will feasibly be able to act fast enought to handle these types of split-second occurances. Certainly not in 10 years.
Our brains are actually pretty slow at this. Try balancing a broomhandle upside down on your hand. You can do it for awhile. It's a classic experiment to build a control system that will hold it at vertical, or at an angle, indefinately, dispite deliberate impulses to try and knock it into an unstable plane. Robotic drivers have the potential to be a lot safer than human drivers - they aren't constrained by our limited vision. IR can detect ice far in advance of the trucke ever hitting it!
Robots could very easily deal with these situations, perhaps even safer, because you could drive a robotic truck into the ditch without as much remorse or thought to self-preservation.
Creativity will be very hard to duplicate. Driving, however, is mind-numbing boredom.
..don't panic
Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script. ;)
I've heard a lot of people saying that worktime will shrink, everyone will be happy, etc everytime a high-tech breakthrough appears. That's not the case. Look into the past. People had to work hard to produce food to feed themselves. Now what? Little percentage of the population (modern farmers) produce more than all people of the Earth can consume yet we still have to work hard to buy that food. Little has changed, only medical conditions... we will punch keys/fix and monitor robots/clear rooms/whatever the same 12 hours/day as farmers of the past did.
In an office, the worst thing you can do to transmit colds is use someone else's telephone or keyboard.
Also, 76% of all people admit to picking their noses while driving their car, but, while most peole claim to wash their hands after using the toilet, actual hand-washing is only 10%.
This is one of the reasons that they want to redesign hospitals so that every room where a patient is kept has a hand-washing staton - to reduce the number of post-operative infections.
I WANT FLYING CARS
If I had a robot that could do anything I wanted it to, if I just loaded up the program, I would load up the "Pick up all pop cans in the state" program and send it on its way for a couple of years. When it came back, I'd cash in at the bottle depot, and buy another. While I had the original out looking for cans again, I'd load up the "Buy beef" (or maybe even "Raise and slaughter cattle"), "Grow vegetables", "Bake bread", and "Make burger" programs, and run them. Now those millions of robots working at Mcdonalds are unemployed, and I'd have the perfect burger in front of me. My point is, who will use robotic restaurants, car repair shops, or even car factories if you could load up the "Make me an omelette", "Fix my yugo", or "Build me a yugo" programs and have your robot do it. The only large scale industries left would be to produce and distribute raw materials, and to program the robots. The actual manufacturing could be done wherever you wanted.
This just leaves the problem of figuring out what the robots would need the humans for...
Again,
The majority don't have it in them to take any form of decisive action.
Sometimes I think that our brains are too elegant for our own good. We tend to underestimate the difficulties in achieving even a percentage of the functionalities of the brain. I'm often reminded of the story about some students at MIT being asked by their professor to solve the problem of vision in a single summer. Decades later, we still haven't figured it all out. Our brain makes all these tasks seem so simple. If you consider the act of talking more deeply, it is absolutely amazing. I mean, think about this: I make some vibrations in the air and you pick it up through your ears. Then "BOOM", a picture or an idea pops up in your head. We marvel about telepaths in sci-fi books but never the difference here is only the medium.
The article cited flying as a kind of a measuring stick. However, that is somewhat misleading. To be able to replace humans on a large scale would require us to solve many different problems and do them all very well. Flying, by comparison, is relatively simple. At the beginner level, you have 4 forces acting on an object and you build on that. In neuroscience/cognitive science, this kind of simplicity does not exist. While I'm not trying to say that flight is easy, it seems more comparable to perhaps one or two aspects of the human brain.
We can and have made robots that replaced humans but they are all very specialized and not nearly as flexible as humans. Future has always been faster and dynamic than the past. Information technology is making time an even more critical element. While we can move humans around and retrain them over a relatively short period of time, the same cannot be said for robots. Essentially, I do not forsee such a large scale change in the future. Perhaps in the distant future, but 2050 is a very optimistic estimate. The disagreement here is in the scale. However, never underestimate the power of the human brain and our own ingenuity.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
by 2030, all the jobs in the US will be fast food jobs.
The retirement age can then be moved to 16, the advantage being, if they haven't put anything in, they don't get anything out!
One way to tell :)
Today's REAL problems made simple(don't act spoiled now) *Social safety net barely exists if at all it. Problem - crime, poverty, basically causes people to get desperate and act accordingly. *law is handed out to those who can afford it. - Though this can't be solved democratically I do think as technology improves so will justice, modern eg DNA testing. Clear this up... Unfortunately machines have always been the scape goat of human greed or personified in a way that they always end up inheriting the worst human characteristics in order to sell books and movies better. Machines are not people your toaster is not you just because a machine can interpret language does not mean it is not a tool. ***THE System*** *Capitalism still in place only since you eliminate hunger and poverty it doesn't matter how rich one person gets. *individual human rights and freedoms for all first and foremost. Enforced by humans which are aided my machines which I see as not being any different if not better then using a dog. *Everyone lives with a social safety net maintained by tools named robots. These machines do the physical work while elected government/s decided through democratic process the architecture and direction of these robotic systems. These machines produce (simplified) food, shelter for all which is very important to social stability and reducing social problems like crime. *People can work if they choose to and will be able to earn more in order to get more if they so choose. Those who choose not too are not living off of anyone's back so no harm done by. In my experience human beings end up doing something so I doubt many will sit around all day but they can if they want nor is it anyone's business but their own what they do as long as its legal. *Machines are not built to mimic human intelligence. Instead work is done to increase human intelligence through technology. Why someone would want to build a human when they can have such a good time making them naturally is beyond me. *Since the economies of the world could not possibly justify any other kind of government or social system I would almost guarantee that most convert or join. *global currency is put into place and electronically handled and monitored for any wrong doing. Just because they can see what you are doing doesn't mean they care people are way to full of themselves sometimes. All transactions are monitored and privacy is maintained other then if the legality of the transaction are questionable. Though even then it is still left up to legal professionals to fight out in court. This is enough for now and yes it can work like this or it can go other ways its up to humans.
Earlier this week, America was going to lose 50% (IT) of jobs to asia, now we lose 50% of jobs to machine. I think I may want to become an ostrich and find a nice whole....
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
I am for once looking forward for the advance in robotic. I cannot wait for the day we have replicant like Pris in Blade Runner, then we geeks won't be that lonely anymore :(~
It's one thing to say that robots will take over fast food jobs, menial labor, etc. These are jobs that no one really wants to perform anyway, and jobs that will ultimately be replaced. Somehow, the Industrial Revolution didn't eliminate everyone's job, it created more jobs.
It's another to say that robots will take over all jobs, or even half. The society of the future will be even more technological than that of today, but most people will still have jobs; they'll just be different jobs. I don't think robots will ever reach a point where they're considered to have jobs, either. Ultimately, what we refer to as a "job", "career", "profession", etc. will always be reserved for humans.
I doubt the biohazard imposed by the touch screens is significantly higher than what you are already experiencing from handling your cash. Our pushing open the door into the restaurant in the first place. If it is shown to be something worthy of attention at all, they will just institute more frequent cleaning of that surface, using more aggressive sterilizers. I think it's a non-problem.
The majority don't have it in them to take any form of decisive action.
Chances are they will once unemployment breaks the critical threshold.
People will accept being sheep only so long as they are reasonably happy.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Or the Hooters waitress, for that matter.
Especially in 50 years, when I'm old, I want cute young women bringing me my food.
"The great thing about high-school girls is that I keep getting older, but they stay the same age..."
See.. this could work to our advantage! As long as laws are passed that an honest days work gets an honest days wage... ANd that robot slavery is legal. We can just buy robots, and make them work our jobs for us. Then when the alarm goes off at 6am all you gotta do is make sure your robot is up and ready for work.. (kinda like making sure the kids are ready for school!)
but definitely a hot one
Does anybody honestly think that wealthy people are going to pay for a strange woman from El Salvador to clean their houses
It is silly. I can't believe you people modded the caveman post up to +5.
What is to come is entirely unprecedented in all of human history. To discount the peril that faces us by lamely asserting that we've been through it all before is simply false. We haven't. Not even close.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
This fool is preaching the same sort of idiocy as those who wanted to destroy steam engines because they took away jobs. Carried to it's logical conclusion, we should all be carrying sticks and wearing skins because that way there would be lots for us to do. Eliminating tedious, soul destroying work does not harm humanity, it frees us to pursue better goals.
This sort of pseudo intellectual garbage really gets me angry, as it is just this sort of thing that give the naysayers and doom preachers the ammunition they need to impede progress. With a growing world population, we are not going to 'regress' into a peaceful, prosperous planet, we can only move forward with vision and industry.
Peter
but it's been completely human-run for the last two years. The touch screens are still on but they have no signal coming in; they just flicker and give you a headache as you deliver your order verbally. It's kind of sad.
That Arby's has never done too well, though, so I'm not sure its reversion to traditional methods is reflective of the technology. (Roast beef sandwiches, in yuppie California? Not exactly a recipe for success!)
Why not? Because humanoid is a really stupid design for a robot. The human body is startlingly ill-suited for most tasks. Robots might take all our jobs, but they will most certainly NOT be humanoid, and I very much doubt that any of them will be "general purpose".
That's my opinion, based on the 2 years I spent building and designing custom robots for manufacturing.
Fun example: We were contracted to build a machine that would that would take something like a wound guitar string (not what it actually was, but the closest thing anyone here is ever likely to see), hold it flat and straight, and cut it to a precise length. Additionally, both ends had to be cut, and it was extremely important that both cuts be made at the exact same time. Pretty simple really, and IIRC our initial proposal would have cost them around $7000, and that includes manufacturing and delivery (would have been cheaper, but it was kinda big). Anyway, they added a twist: the cutting had to be done using the hand tools the workers were currently using. That basically doubled the cost and tripled the time to delivery, largely due to the machining that had to be done in order to secure the hand tool firmly enough to acheive anything resembling precision, while still being able to change them out when the blades got dull.
I should mention also that these hand tools were custom made of a special material, and ergonomically shaped, and thus FAR more expensive than the simple, easily mass produced blade design we proposed (of the same material), which would have been far more stable and thus produced much more reliable results.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Everybody is operating under the assumption that human capacities will stay constant into the future. I imagine the fantastic computing power of the future will actually be incorporated into the human brain. Biotech advances and genetic engineering will also make us all geniuses. Menial labor will be beneath everyone and it would be just as well that the robots do it.
C'mon, we see this already in our field. The work I'm doing in software allows my company to automate work that once required hundreds if not thousands of people to perform. I have my job, but look at the number of people I've displaced.
I agree that there is a constant amount of work that needs to be performed. The problem is that as time goes on, fewer and fewer people become more and more productive, and the trend will only continue for as long as technology continues to advance.
Robots that can do everything we can do is an obvious endpoint. And it wouldn't be all that bad if we are all able to enjoy a good standard of living as a result, but anyone whose seen the human monkey in action knows that won't be the case.
The real issue is power. Those who control the machines will in effect control the people those machines serve. So when the decision as to how to use these machines arises, they will invariably be deployed so as to most benefit those who have the power.
The future for the rest of humanity is in spare parts and sex toys. At least, until they can synthesize human organs and tissues on demand, and create fully realistic sexual experience out of the ether.
When at last they are able to do these things, then the rest of us will have lost all value to our keepers. And there will be nothing to stop them from seeing to our extermination.
So use your penis while you can. Use it, while it's still yours.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
If all the greasy, smelly, dirty people that work at fast food places get replaced by robots, I don't think I'll care. They're not all that bad, but there are some people that I would rather not touch my food, thank you. Plus, you might actually get your food in a resonable amount of time, instead of the slow ass people taking there time.
Let's see. Real computer vision by 2030. Better brains than humans by 2050. What makes you think it will be the robots that are working?
Seems like there will be plenty of opportunity for the humans to be employed by the robots...
All the U.S. Robots will be out of work,
."
because all the jobs will go to lower paid Robots overseas...
RoBoss Perot:
"That loud sucking sound you hear is American Robot's Jobs leaving the country . .
As science fiction and various futurists have repeatedly demonstrated, it is impossible to accurately predict:
a) what will be invented in the next 10,20 or 50 years
b) how those inventions will interact with each other
c) how those interactions will affect society
Read sf from the 40s & 50s. The accepted wisdom was that by the early 21st century:
--Going into space would be like taking a commercial airline
-- there would be colonies on the Moon, Mars, Venus, etc.
-- we'd have those flying cars we all want so bad
-- computers would still be as big as houses but they'd have artificial intelligence
I'm not trying to dis sf writers; their predictions aren't meant to be taken (too) seriously.
But frankly, Marshall Brain has made the cardinal mistake that bad sf writers sometimes make: he's taken a single trend and extrapolated it, assuming that everything else will stay mostly the same as it is right now.
The future will be far stranger than that.
Another important question is whether generations to come will have the same motivation and enthusiasm as we do about technology. For example, in 60's people were motivated to explore space but the current generation is not so excited about it. Who knows, the next generation might not care much for computers and robots and all those things.
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
X-Men had a theory that Mutants would replace mankind, but I think the bigger fear is the robots. They are already stronger and bigger than us, last much longer than us, can work much longer than us. The only thing they lack is brains, and we are working hard to produce robots that think. Once they start thinking, the first thing that would come to their mind is: "hey! I am much stronger/smarter than this jerk whose toilet I clean! This is not right and needs to be fixed!".
Then the machines will rise and it'll be the end of mankind.
Not so far fetched. With their petabytes of memory and peta-hertz of computing power, if they also develop AI, how long will it take them to figure out how to build even better/bigger/nastier robots? We will soon look dumb as a dodo in front of these hyper-capable machines.
So, I love these predictions where everything in the world remains constant except what they are extrapolating. The author suggests that we will have robots that can do all these wonderful things for us, but we still have fast food restaurants? Give me a break. If an all-in-wonder robot can be had for $10k, why would you get in your transport device and spend money on a crap-ass fast food meal when this 'miracle' robot could whip you up a 12 course meal at home? Hell, it would even do the dishes to boot. Not to mention that an economy with 50% unemployment is no longer an economy ... it is anarchy. This article is laughable.
Look at the good science fiction of the past, for example, Jules Verne's "Round The Moon." He got many things right about space travel, including predicting blasting off from Florida and Texas. So in a way, he predicted Kennedy Space Center.
He did this by paying attention to the real science of the day and extending it logically. He did not use wildly conjured images of what might possibly be.
I disagree with the time frame of this latest prediction and further disagree with the idea that things will look so drastically different so quickly.
Consider minimum wage. Consider also that as the standard of living increases, the minimum wage increases. Consider that hardware, on the other hand, always gets cheaper, and that cheap hardware raises the standard of living.
It follows that although making the robot might be more expensive than grabbing a random person off the street, once you are _able_ to make the robot, the robot is cheaper in the long term. The robot's price is going down, and the human's price is going up. You don't pay the robot. You don't have to follow labor laws if you're using a robot. You can work the robot until it falls apart, and then buy a new one.
Therefore this idiot believes, all jobs will be taken by robots. The big corporations would continue to make a profit, which the governement will tax, and then provide welfare to the unemployed people.
He then thinks the people will use their welfare to pay for low end barely surving stuff, built by robots.
OK, let's actually assume this junk is true. What would the intelligent unemployed people do?
Not go to war/revolution - that would be for the stupid unemployed people. The smart people would: Go to school/become an artist. Remember, robots have supposedly made EVERYTHING cheaper, so even someone on welfare should be able to afford advanced schooling. This leaves the developed world with 4 classes of people: Stupid Dolists, Rich Robot Factory Owners, Educated Scientists, and Artists. That is not a bad situation. In fact, it sounds like a pretty good way to run the world to me. Of course, I assume that Stupid Dolists will be about 25% of the population, Rich Robot Factory Owners (via inheritance) will end up about 15% of the population, lleaving Scientists at 25% and Artists at 35%.
Of course, I do not really think this will happen. Instead, I think new jobs for humans will slowly be created as the old jobs go away. In home Robot Repair will be high on the list, as well as Robot Support Phone line.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
At first, the thought of ordering from a kiosk at a fast food joint was rather exciting. But if that happens, that means those working in front will now be working in back. And if that's the case, since the people up front could barely speak english, I can't imagine they'll be able to read it in the back. Thus, technology will still allow them to get my damned order wrong.
Still, what this article doesn't really mention, is what other advancements outside of technolgy will be made in the next 20-50 years. Whole entire industries may be spawned. As Americans, we're pretty good at taking care of ourselves first...ooh, speaking of which, the pr0n industry's going to go crazy with this.
On a side note, maybe this is a leveling mechanism, people consume too much, and they consume themselves out of work... of course this is holistically speaking and does nothing for the welfare of those 'weeded out' of the foodchain.
This is simply an extrapolation of the widening of the income classes that we've been seening for the past few years (decades); generally there're just too many people who simply aren't worth paying very much, speaking from a corporate standpoint of course....
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
In the 60s people predicted that by the 1980's the human work week would be reduced to 20-30 hours per week because computers would handle all the menial tasks. It was predicted we would then have a lot more leisure/free time to acheive self-actualization. It didn't happen; at least not where I live.
Economics has a way of changing as other aspects of our life change. Greed is one way of looking at it, or maybe call it materialism. Why do we work as long, or in many cases longer, than "we" did in the 60's? It is because there are more things to buy, more weath to gain. We cannot stop working because our society bases much of our worth on wealth.
Granted also, I enjoy many, many things we have now that did not exist in the 60's. Achievement does come at a cost, and that cost rises each year.
Back to the point. Even if robots take over many tedious or menial jobs, it does not mean the economy will collapse. It will mean that the economics of the time will change. If you worry about poverty because of loss of jobs, it is interesting to note that we have less poverty today than we did in the 1900's or earlier, even though we may have fewer menial jobs. Also note that poverty today has a different definition (at least in America) than it did 100 years ago.
So even if predicted correctly, the economy will change to meet the need. Jobs in different areas will be created that won't be created until robots "take over." One example might be robot repair. Until robots can repair themselves, here is a job that will be created.
It is dangerous to be right on a subject on which the established authorities are wrong. - Voltaire
This sort of thinking is akin to saying, "well, we're all going to die anyway eventually, so why bother stopping .
poster wrote:
That's like saying that it's safe to have unprotected sex with prostitutes who get an aids test and a physical every week. And then we also have the problem of this actually promoting resistance in pathogens (it's already happened with drugs and some cleaning agents).Besides, legal liability would still be there, because it's an obvious and forseable consequence. Just look at the litigation regarding fatties suing because "your food made me fat" as one example that we thought could never happen because it was too extreme.
nm
Surprised that no one has mentioned the three robotic laws by Asimov. When will this become a law? My guess would be 2035.
I mean jheeeezzzz people really. This has been coming for decades. My Sociology teacher was talking about this stuff 15 years ago. This isn't news. Once the robots arrive we are no longer needed. Didn't any of you get the memo? I quote from my as yet unpublished book "The book that explains the total fraud that is everything that is happening to the bottom 99% of us who were stupid enough to be born into the bottom 99% class":
Class Wars: The class wars are over and the top 1% won.
The New World Order: 1% owns everything and the rest are screwed. The leftover 99% are slated for death in the late 21st century in a series of "wars" and "accidents". The mass exterminations are necessary in order to reduce the pollution caused by the, now unnecessary, troglite lillipution masses. For only after the flotsum has been erradicated can the remaining 1% truly afford to continue the lifestyle of lear jets and yachts
Of Politics and Government: American politics is a myth. Both political parties are working in cooperation to help the super-corporations move us toward the new world order as fast as possible. This is easily proven by studying the one and only economic indicator that matters: "the great slide" indicator. The slide indicator measures the lifestyle and personal wealth of the bottom 99%. Since the 1963 coup this indicator has been pointing down and has been picking up speed. The indicator has not wavered regardless of which of the two corporate sucking political parties hold office.
There is nothing that the bottom 99% of us can do about any of this so shut up and enjoy the slide.
--Richard
This article is absolutely rediculous. How do you make a connection between a kiosk where you can order food at McDonalds and robots taking over every job in the United States? First of all, I don't think a fast food resteraunt could be completely automated. Machines are good at things like accounting, but when it comes to human interaction there is a lot of room for improvement.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Why is it so hard to picture an automated McDonald's? A person pulls up to the drivethrough, orders their food via touchscreens, and pays via cash/credit card. The food, which was shipped in bar-coded containers, is prepared precisely to specifications. Nothing get burned, dropped, forgotten, spat in, or confused. What "Interaction" do you need by saying, "Fries and a coke?" Once automated shipping (robot-driven trucks for instance) are more common, I don't see why there needs to be a human involved at all.
This is horseshit. First of all it is impossible, if most people in the economy were on welfare they would be no economy. Where would these companies get money to build and maintain the robots? I don't disagree that there will probably be a lot of automated systems in the near future, but this article is just stupid.
And machines need an economy why? Assume technology gets to the point where everything is automated; from the mining of ore, to the manufacture of metals and other components, to the assembly and maintenance of machines. Most of this can be done via machines. Assume a company has figured out a way to automate every facet of their business...is the CEO going to be thinking of the economy, or the fact that he can save billions in workforce costs? Suppose it is SO automated that the CEO dies, and things run just as smoothly as ever?
How likely is it that we'll lose every job? I don't know...but I for one can imagine a future where a vast majority of our jobs are automated.
Automated ordering has been around for a long time, but it hasn't taken over. There are automated ordering systems around since the 60s. Some popped up again in the 80s and 90s. However, they haven't taken over. Perhaps with newer technology they might become popular at fast food chains with standard menus and volume to keep software development costs down. However, I don't think this will happen generally.
This is ridiculious. There's no way that someone can accurately predict how technology is going to progress in the next 50 years ago. In 1953, it was widely accepted that robots would be doing all the work, cleaning our house, etc. Hypersonic transports would be zipping us in our lives of luxury to hotspots around the globe -- and around the solar system. Has any of this happened? Uh...no. Quite a bit has changed, but nothing like what was predicted back then.
There are a lot of possible scenarios that could develop in the next 50 years. From even faster technological development than we've seen in the last century, to a complete slowdown and a global economic meltdown when we run out of oil.
That far out, no one can predict what will happen. Sure, its entertaining, but its about as accurate as the Jetsons.
Isn't the goal of industrialization to give us more free time, support a bigger population, etc? I would love it if there were no jobs any more. I've been unemployed for the last seven months, and lemme tell you: It's fantastic! I can't count how many times I've gone to the beach this year, or how much time I've had to pursue whatever the hell I want to (usually that means working on my own animation projects).
-David
What is it about human nature that want to emulate something else. Why not a more efficent models. The human form is too expensive to emulate, and is not worth the efford given the inefficency of our form. I guess Nerds have too much of a desire to create life that they normally wouldn't create in real life. This is like the vegetarian who likes to eat tofu patties because she craves the real meaty burger on the inside. No, our world has lots of resources, I see the rise of cheap child labor in all nations, not just the 3rd world. This will lead to a new era of cheaper products because we wouldn't be wasting so much time in research and development just roll simple items into the marketplace. The resources are there, why recreate what we have?
While this theme is rather old-hat in science fiction, with stories built around this prediction dating back to the 1930s, I just last night saw a wonderful variation on the idea in Metropolis, Rintaro's 2001 anime epic. While the story involves several other primary threads, one of the subplots involves the resentment human society holds toward the robots who have taken away so many of their jobs. Since a lot of the robots are doing the menial grunt jobs that most people wouldn't want to do (garbage collection, street sweeping, dishwashing) or hazardous jobs that humans really aren't equipped to perform efficiently (firefighting, dangerous police work, for example), this resentment is a bit difficult to swallow, but we see the same sentiment expressed here in the U.S. toward illegal immigrants.
/. article from a few months back about a Japanese water hole.
Odd to see a world where robots do so many regular jobs, but Ken Ichi's uncle still gets served by a human bartender in Zone 1. Bartending is one of the skills that robots are now doing regularly, if I remember a
I thought all our fast food workers already were robots.
Maybe at your local McDonald's, but not mine...
McDonald's Hiring Practices
IT won't happen in 50 years, for certain, for half the jobs. Maybe 10% of jobs. He forgets a lot of development work has to be done on the artificial intelligence for it to become cheap enough. For instance, what's the power source supposed to be? Has everyone forgotten oil is running out in just a few years? You really think we'll just pull power out of our A** and be back on track that quick? These androids aren't going to be just sitting there making computations. They'll be using a lot of power running making macroscopic motions.
Also, there's a chance we'll re-elect Bush and he'll eventually reduce human labor and our economy in this country to the level of our American neighbors to the south, and it'll take even longer for androids to become cost-effective in America. Yeah, that's probably just what he's thinking, too. It's all to put off the grim day the robots take over.
But the 100 year view is too pessimistic (from the android view). He said, "develop human-level artificial intelligence". Not "develop idiot machines just like today's that don't have any learning ability". So programming is not the issue. It's the behavioral routines that condition the robot to learn, yet tweaking it so that robots are still willing to do shit jobs forever instead of going on strike.
If we can combine the robotic fast food restaurants with those vacuum tube delivery mechanisms from the bank drive thru, we won't have to leave home to get our Big Mac fix satisfied!
That's like saying that it's safe to have unprotected sex with prostitutes who get an aids test and a physical every week.
Are you sure it's not more like saying it's safe to swim in a sea of lava that gets a small rain shower every few hours?
Or perhaps it's more like saying it's safe to stand two meters in front of a speeding, out of control freight train that has its brakes checked once a week?
I'll leave it to others to come up with even more totally whacked out analogies. Three should be a good start.
Do you touch door handles at all? Use ATMs? Talk to people up close?
sigs are hazardous to your health
Thing is, this is incorrect. Robots only build things with long product cycles (e.g. cars) and the assembling process doesn't change much (e.g. motherboards).
For instance, take cell phone or PDA manufacture. A lot of it is performed in countries with cheap labor, for the simple reason that it is cheaper to have the parts made and assembled in some of these countries than it is to have skilled labor in a more affluent country design and build a machine to do it. Part of the reason is that the 6-ish month product cycle makes it tough to make back the capital cost of the machine, and the other part is that the labor in more affluent countries is paid at a rate of ~60-200 times that of the cheapest labor.
Now if general purpose robots existed to offset the cost of retooling/redesigning for every product, there might be something to it. But even then there's whatever training cost is required for the robot, etc.
Maybe if the consumers of the world wouldn't buy products unless the workers are paid well, robots would be more popular. Right now that's not the case though.
You guys don't think machines aren't capable of taking over all jobs humans do? You think no one would want to talk to a machine service rep? What if the machine had the exact likeness of the most popular super model of the time and constantly compliments you? Obviously customer service robots would be programmed to be the best for that peticular job not just some little monotone talking box. Some think technology couldn't possibly hurt us. I agree that jobs being taken over by machines won't destroy the world because no one can get a job, but that doesn't make future technology any less dangerous. I think in 60 years time human cloning could get to the point where people can just go out and have a clone made of really famous and beautiful people and everyone would have a perfect super model husband and wife. Humans will become more and more obsolete as time passes. You think people will still be needed to create even newer technologies and have more things to do while machines are doing all the boring work? Why would a robot programmed to be creative and that can think for itself while having unlimited knowledge would be any worse of a scientist then average joe human scientist. If technology progresses that far what really is the purpose of people in the world? My prediction: Lack of morals+huge advances in technology will turn the world into a hell. A hell where you will never have to be sad or think for yourself or feel any pain or even work. It will also be a hell where people serve absolutely no purpose. Luckily most us us won't still be alive by then.
Creative Demolition
I disagree. If you read my post entitled "Why are people surprised by this" you will see that most of humanity is scheduled for extermination later this century after the robots arrive.
As far as the new jobs are concerned - smart robots can fix themselves and each other, thus eliminating the repair person job and the need for the help line...
Once we build the first generation of robots its all over for most of us...
--Richard
I seem to remember something about being able to cruise the skies by the year 2000 in flying cars, haven't seen that yet. The year 1984 came and went without much fanfare (Orwellians). The 1970's brought robots into our factories with the scare of millions losing their jobs, didn't see that (My dad was affected by it but just moved to another position). What about the paperless society with the advent of the computer age? I could go on and on....
The simple truth is, humans are still needed to do our human thing (whatever that is or whenever I figure out what 43 means). I wouldn't doubt we will see robots (droids) doing some of our work for us sometime in the future. I'm all for getting my hamburger in 43 seconds instead of 60.
I'm not at all surprised this guy is using kiosks in his little fantasy, afterall, they still use dials and single throw buttons in Star Trek. How about voice activated ordering systems instead? (crap, just lost us another 20 million from the workforce with that idea)
Interesting how it is going to cost $10,000 for a droid..... this is based on what economic principle? Perhaps my 286 motherboard I keep stashed on the shelf is worth something afterall.
I get the idea from this story that droids are a bad thing. Is there anyone else who would want to have their droid go into work and play on slashdot for you instead of you personally having to do it?
Of course he could be right, I have seen the sky fall before.
Bring on the droids!
please report to the dance floor (by 2050)
word.
Or you could check out this: An Austrian restaurant which was closed after 60 people fell ill with salmonella poisoning has installed CCTV cameras to make sure staff wash their hands.
Are you willing to accept a life of leisure in exchange for gay sex? If so, vote robot.
Exactly. Hope Jesus comes back before that happens.
Creative Demolition
Our school system, that holds kids until they are ripe and then spits them out with feel good diplomas is creating this group of unemployables. We need to have a population that can read, write and think. That is where our future needs to be. Not a bunch of left wing, government provided housing. You don't work, you starve. You will find a way to work. Also he missed, people can stop criminals. In his whitebread neighborhood you can have automated checkout. Try that in the 'hood.
Remember those self-checkout machines at Kmart? Well, they're pulling those out and putting real people back in.
Well, first of all, this guy is echoing ideas first voiced by people like kurzweil. You may want to take a look to the original if you want to have a clearer idea of what he is talking about. And now please keep in mind this are the conservative estimations. They think that, according to Moore's Law we must be able to have enough computer power to equal to the MAXIMUN ESTIMATED computer power of the human brain. But we all talking of a very conservative stimation here, and we may be for a surprise in the sort future. Let's take a look at how this estimations of the human brain computer power are performed:
- Average number of Neurons in the human brain (excluding the cerebellum): 20.000.0000.0000
- Average number of connections per neuron: 1.000
Each neuron can perform about 200 calculations per second, per connexion.
So, we have 20.000.0000.0000 X 1.000 X 200 = 4.000 TeraOps
Now, 4.000 TeraOps is about 100 times faster than the Earth-Simulator, the faster computer system in existence, and according to Moore's law, is going to take a while before we have a Data Center-wide cluster that powerful, not to mention a desktop system light enough so we could propel it around with two mechanical legs.
This is the logic after those "no AI before 2020# arguments we hear now so often. But us I said, this is the conservative estimation, and the conservative estimation is not the most likely scenario at all. Well, let me tell you something, and I know what I'm talking about, we will have a few nice surprises in the next few month. Let me give you a hint, there is a obvious flaw in that logic:
- Number of transistors in transistors in the AMD "Hammer" processor: 100.0000.0000
Each transistor can perform at 2.000.000.000 calculations per second.
So, we have 100.0000.0000 X 2.000.0000.0000 = 200.000 TeraOps
Acording to that logic, we may need a 200.000 TeraOps computer to emulate a AMD "Hammer" processor, what is oviuly untrue: 2Ghz Hammer can perform at only 4 TeraOps, and we just need, say, 2 1.8 Ghz Atlons to get to that speed.
The "peak" performance needed to contemplate all the possible states of the system is enormous, yes, but that is not realeted to the true capacity of the system. Not every single transistor in the system flops every cicle, that's not a realistic assumption, just a few of them do. Consecuently, the amount of information and operations you need to perform in order to emulate is orders of magnitude below the conservative estimation of the peak number of states you need to emulate. Now extrapolate to the H Brain. Is it more efficient than the hammer? No doubt. How much efficient is it? 10 Times? 100 times? 1000 times ? 10.000 times?
Even if the human brain happens to be 100.000 times more efficient than your tipical Pentium/Atlon, you'll need only a 2.000 nodes computer cluster to outperform it. And that is something we have at hand right now. The rest is just software.
In Baltimore, right now, McDonalds is paying a 'signing bonus' to get people to work there, yet unemployment in the city is higher than most. People would rather collect welfare than work certain jobs it seems, so the net effect of this is zilch. There are more of these jobs than people willing to fill them now, when they're cut 50% it won't make any difference.
Nixing touch screens isn't going to do anything to decrease the hygiene risk. (How do you handle menus at restaurants?)
You are generally in one of two situations. Either, you're the type of person that doesn't care (which you don't seem to be), in which case you're going to get sick often anyway (or else develop the immune system to cope). Or, you're the type of person that has realized how resistant your skin is to infection and that you really shouldn't be licking it without cleaning it first, in which case you're still safe.
If the people who prepare your food are in the first category above, the only thing that will help is to have them transit to the second category. Their last toilet visit is going to completely drown out any residual germs they're getting from the touch screen.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Well if we are to go by what has been predicted to happen by now, I'd say these figures are WAY off.
I mean, if history was correct in its predictions, we'd ALREADY have a completely automated society, driving flying cars and synthesizing our food, etc etc.
Besides, its not just having the technology AVAILABLE that will put these changes into motion, its having the technology AFFORDABLE and RELIABLE. That could take many, many years after the basic groundwork for these technologies is laid down.
Besides, do you really WANT to pull up to the drive thru window with an incorrect order and deal with some snotty young tin man who sneers at you and says "We're robots, sir, we don't MAKE mistakes. If you want your burger without onions you're going to have to pay for a new one."?
We WILL have or maybe EVEN DO HAVE hardware capable of turning the needed numbers, the problem lies in software, WE ARE NO-WHERE CLOSE to understanding even the basics of the human brains storage method....
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I highly endorse "The Age of Spiritual Machines" if you are interested in the future of human and machine society 10, 20, 30, and 100 years from now. Kurweil gives a great breadth of background knowledge and ties together evident trends appearing in various fields ranging physics, biology, computer science, philosophy, and art to support his predictions. I would recommend scanning through Kurzweil's site and especially his archives for a wealth of interesting conjecture about human and machine evolution into the coming century. http://www.kurzweilai.net/
dude, when this guy said Asimo is a robot (just after he talked about C3P0), thats when I stopped reading the article.
Yeah, sure, Asimo walks around when there are 20 technicians looking at telemetry data. Currently, people can't build robots that walk properly on 4 legs, let alone 2...
Even if there is such a substantial rise of the machines, that they can efficiently replace human labor, and most people are out of work, then who is going to pay for the products of this machine economy?
The unemployed?
The rich investors? (they aren't going to make profits by buying from themsleves)
Besides I think powerfull people like bossing others around too much to let this happen. How self important will the powerfull feel if all they have sway over are machines? (Did anyone read/see Bladerunner?)
If he's right that most of the menial jobs get taken over by robots, that's great. Other kinds of jobs will be created, some of which we can't even imagine right now. Not to mention the side benefit of how much cheaper the products and services the robots create and perform will be for everybody. Society will never advance or evolve to a better state if we create policies that encourage stagnation. This is a good incentive for every student to make sure they don't waste the educational opportunities that abound in our society.
This kind of neo-ludditism is completely bogus. If this were the case, then unemployment in the developed countries would have steadily increased since the industrial revolution. This clearly has not happened... Unemployment is much lower than at almost any other time in history. In the short term, jobs may well be mechanized, but these will be replaced by other, "higher-level" forms of employment.
I sure wouldn't want to be the first one out of the gate with an entirely robotic fast food restaurant. The first time one "accidentally" assembles a hamburger out of bogus ingredience because it's hopper was misloaded or broke down and "there was no human to notice it" will be a goldmine for some future patron out there. In fact, I'll wager that getting a burger at one of those will be just about like playing the lottery-- except the payoff percentage will be much better...
Will Humanoid Robots Take All the Jobs by 2050?
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: No.
In my little dream, we'd wind up with a world where people have no need for those jobs taken over by automation, because they'd be producing things which by their very nature aren't able to be mass-produced. It would be a renaissance of handcrafts and appreciation for locally-produced goods, creating a sub-economy which in a way mimics the pre-industrial local economies of old.
By employing artists to work on public projects, such as murals and park sculptures and mosaics, maybe we'd be able to foster a society which takes pride in the things which surround them, and work to preserve the works on the walls, instead of defacing them. "Hey, whaddaya know. Jim Jones' kid from down the block worked on that." Many, many parts of the streets, the municipal garages, the subway stations and the parks, would be testaments to the work done by people from your neighborhood.
Maybe, just maybe, we'd wind up saving money then on sanitation costs, repair and public maintenance costs... Land values everywhere would rise, community and civic pride would return, and on that road trip to another city, you'd actually be able to easily find nifty souvenirs that aren't pumped out of a factory in China. What a world it would be! An anti-industrial movement, not fighting the industry, just filling the void automation and industrialization create, filling it in with a renewed interest in all of the things that simply cannot (or should not) be mass-produced by automatons.
Just a dream. A nice little dream.
Given that all these predictions come true... and muting all doubts... then what, just what should we do?
Some say:
Reduce the human population?
Find better things for the idle to do?
Fume and revolt and break machines until we all have jobs again?
More welfare?
Is there a free market solution?
The real information age may be arriving, no more mundane jobs, it's what copyrights you own. An entertainment economy?
Maybe this turmoil over intellectual proprty is comming right on time. Maybe the news rules on intellectual property will provide and income for all - after lots kicking and screaming.
If you replace all these workers with robots (jokes about sales droids aside), you get staff who just doesn't care. It's because they weren't *programmed* to care when there wasn't enough catsup on your burger, or your pizza arrived cold, or insert a myriad of pissers here.
This sig no verb.
As much as the idea of robots doing all the work, leaving humans free to do art, download pr0n, or whatever is compelling, it'll never happen.
Why? Because the societies and cultures that thrive long-term are the ones that maximize their competitiveness. Assuming that robots are ubiquitous, if Culture A lets the `bots do all the work and lets the citizens watch cartoons all day, while Culture B puts the `bots to work but keeps the pressure on the humans to be productive as well, Culture B is going to outcompete Culture A. You end up in a situation where one society finds its standard of living declining despite tech advances, while the other is wealthy but too overworked to enjoy it. Sound familiar?
Look at what's happened as our technology has advanced thus far. While our productivity has gone through the roof our free time to enjoy the fruits of our labor has decreased. I have a game machine at home with more processing power than existed in the entire world when I was born, a rack of DVDs, every video game I loved as a kid crammed into a 12" laptop, and can carry >10 days worth of music on my belt. They all go largely unused. What good does any of it do me when I'm at work ~60hrs/week? When I'm not at work I just want to spend time catching up with my family. I'd take a lower-paying job to be able to have a life outside of work, but in the IT industry there appear to be no low-stress jobs.
Another way to look at it is that as personal productivity increases, pay decreases by the same rate. If I could take my desk, the computers on it, and the printer down the hall back in time 50 years I could easily take the jobs of an entire steno pool, accounting department, and publishing shop. Between spreadsheet programs, word processing software, desktop publishing, and laser printers I could collect the paychecks of 50 people and be home in time for dinner. With that kind of office automation surely we as a society would have more leisure time, but we don't- we just have cooler toys and even more stress.
I'm not saying that robots or technology are bad things. Quite the contrary- I wouldn't want to live 50 years ago because most of the things that interest me didn't exist then. It just seems as though for all of the wonders that technology has brought us there are two things that seem to remain beyond it's grasp- increased free time and reduced stress.
-Cybrex
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
i think that it has a good chance of happening to some degree. Machines will most likely make the products cutting a good amount of hours from human workers, but humans wil problably still work the counter. People will rather talk to a human that a machine in public places.
I also dont think that this will be as devastating to the economy as some do. I see that by 2050, as many people(by %) will be employed but hours will change. a full work day will likely be just 3 or less hours. with people working just 1/3 the amount of time, 3 times as many people are needed to fill a work day, keeping the unemployment rates down.
also keep in mind that machines are extremely cheap to have do things, and this trend will likely continue. some examples:
in a fast food place like Wendy's, human labor cosists of about 17% of the gross profits. This could be reduced to 2-3% and maybee another 3% for maintainance and energy costs. shipping gets cheaper having machines do the work also. All this means that cost is less so price can be less makeing the situation even better for people that only work 3 hours a day.
of course america will be at the front of the line in implementing this so that we can get more fat and lazy. This in turn will counteract the fact that people should live longer because of less work related abuse to their bodies.
anyone agree?
That's right. Because those automatically produced products will cost so much. I mean, they have to be expensive, in order to pay the robots' salaries...
Oh wait, you don't have to pay robots.
Ah, you say, but you have to pay for the electricity to run them! Exactly, how is that? Why does electricity cost money? Because people have to work to mine the coal to run the power plants. Well, instead of paying people to mine coal now we'll have to pay the robots to mine it...
Oh wait, you don't have to pay robots.
Well, won't we still have to pay for food? Oh wait, produced by robots. How about new clothes? Wait, made by robots. How about new cars? Produced by robots. The metal to MAKE those cars? Mined by robots. Crap, but how does the metal get from the mine to the factory? Oh, robotic trains.
What about education? Robots can't be teachers, so we'll have to pay the professors, right?
WHY exactly do we need to pay them? What are they going to use the money for? Everything is free, produced by robots.
You suggest that the few human workers that remain will become rich. I think that's ridiculous. Why would anyone ever be paid for anything ever again, since you don't NEED money, since the stuff is FREE because it's produced by robots who don't know about or care about MONEY?
Money is just a way to ensure that everyone actually does some of the work required to maintain human civilization. If all that basic maintainance is done by robots, what exactly is the point of money anymore?
You aren't seeing the bigger picture here.
The problem is that the rich are buying the machines to replace the poor. Thus the gap between the rich and poor classes expand. The middle class thins out and you are left with two extremes. Which some would believe eventually leads to painful revolutions.
Would this happen? Probably not. I happen to have a tiny bit of research experience in this area, and the field is not rapidly expanding. Eventually there will be a breakthrough, but will it be as soon as this article predicts? I doubt it.
In 2000 dude the worlds gonna have some serious issues because of the Y2K bug. Everything from your computer to your TV may blow up and then we'll all go back to the dark ages
BAH
In 2050 Robots will start taking over
MORONS
Look at how little has improved in AI's such as ALICE over the past 10 years - given 50 years it may be just as smart as my dog. To think that driods will replace people in the workforce anytime soon is ridiculous at best. However - jobs that require only repetitive movements - like paper filing or automated responce systems could have people removed (some places have the people removed already) But Fast food? You think a machine could make a burger the way you want it? No it couldn't - you need human hands or at least a LOT of human serveilance on such a complex process. Yes there are things out there more complex that robots handle but they do the same thing - where as a burger joint everyone orders something different AND custimizes that. It's too much - maybe in 2200 we will have al those things - but everyone reading this post will be long since DEAD and never see the fruits of your labor.
Ave Molech Setting
..perhaps after some 400 years. but that's not our concern then.
pros:
- accessibility
- low cost to operate
- who wants to work on the odd fast food crew for people too stupid to work anywhere else?
cons:
- stale food
- misunderstanding
- lack of choice
- quality monitoring is corruptible if someone doesn't care. In the year 2000 several people in Walkerton, Ontario, Canada died from drinking tap water contaminated with E. coli because of negligence at the water supply.
Given time technology will surely replace workers in well known jobs. People have to do things that are not so well known, even as machines can learn or be built to handle more types of work.
Should people look at this as competition? My feeling is "no". For one thing, we should all cooperate to reach common goals, whatever they are. Even the set of integers is infinite, though countable. No matter how much energy is expended on work, there is still something to do.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
I'm sorry, this really bothers me.
Your post is much better than many of the others in the thread, but there's still an inherent assumption-- those that are "intelligent" or "skilled" will eventually get educations and professional jobs while those that are not will not. That somehow, given enough time, the world will sort itself out, with the talented naturally settling into the white-collar class, and the not-so-talented remaining behind to clean the talented's bathrooms.
Listen. The world is not a meritocracy.
It bears repeating. The world is not a meritocracy.
I suspect most /.ers are anchored safely in the cocoon of the educated, professional, middle-class world. I'd be much
surprised if the vast majority of us aren't
college-educated (or will be, at some point).
We are part of a geek culture that prides itself on
the fact that good work (or good code) will be
rewarded while not-so-good work will be criticized or ignored. But don't fool yourself
into thinking that the real world is anything like
that!
Every day, talented, gifted, smart people are forced to give up education plans for reasons that have nothing to do with their intelligence. Maybe a parent or spouse got sick, and there wasn't enough insurance to cover the bills. Maybe there was a car crash, with long, drawn-out lawsuits. Maybe they had the misfortune to be born poor. Maybe they got pregnant or went bankrupt or went through any one of a thousand other life-changing events. (And let's not even consider the situation if they happen not to be white...) Maybe at the end of all of that, they're a grown adult, with a family, trying to make ends meet working full-time at Blockbuster or Wal-Mart. Does that make them any less intelligent, or skilled?
There are many many reasons why real people (excluding arrogant college students like yourself) might end up in the working class rather than behind a white-collar desk. Opportunity, resources and money have just as much an effect as intelligence. If we end up calling a person in that situation to be just a "dumb shitty employee", we should be ashamed of ourselves!
With the advent of cotton pickers, this number dropped to an insignificant sum of a two or three thousand. There were a significant number of new jobs which arose that replaced some of the lost jobs but even as early as the 1960's and 1970's this was a real problem.
Now I understand what people are telling me when they say "What's your cotton picking problem?"
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
"As the elite get more removed/alienated from the general riff-raff..."
This simply isn't an accurate picture of what has been happening over the centuries and decades. The rich in the past were far more "removed" from the "general riff-raff." In the past, only the rich were literate and educated. Percentage-wise, there were also far fewer rich people, and far more of the general riff-raff. At least in the US today, the general riff-raff by and large are literate and educated. The rich make up a larger percentage of the population than in the past.
The general riff-raff today have a standard of living much closer to the rich than they did in the past. The general riff-raff drive cars, go to high school and college, fly in airplanes, eat in restaurants, go to movies, watch TV, and put dishes in a dishwasher and clothes in a clothes washer. They drop off their clothing to be drycleaned. They live in heated and airconditioned homes and apartments clad with maintenance-free vinyl siding. The general riff-raff today have as much a problem with obesity as the rich!
The rich have always been able to pay others to do things for them, and that hasn't changed. But in the past, the general riff-raff had to do most stuff themselves through back-breaking labor, and do without a lot of stuff. Technology has improved the lives of the general riff-raff more than it has the rich.
Think about it! What does Bill Gates have in life that is truly of so much greater real value than the average member of the large middle class in America? People need to count their blessings and stop envying the mostly illusory luxuries that "the rich" enjoy.
I have a very simple robot in my basement that reads the meters and sends them off to the power and water companies. Now, no one has to come to my house to read meters.
When I was growing up, doctors used to send their dictation tapes to a lady who lived down the street and she would type them up. She made a pretty good living. Today, those dictations are wired to India and typed up there and wired back the next morning.
Those two examples represent nice little pools of lower middle class existence that have since disappeared. Those little incomes supported families, paid taxes and bought cars.
I would like to know what will take their place.
Only half-kidding, really. The article focuses on the rising tide of Moore's Law without considering anything other than the cost and speed of the hardware. What would it take to get a domestic robot to perform household chores? Besides the required quantum leap in machine vision and robotic AI capabilities, I assume such a robot would have to be individually *trained* for the tasks at hand. The costs for such training could easily get out of hand. What are humans, after all, other than incredibly complicated machines? And what does it take to "train" a human to perform simple chores, interact safely with its environment, and avoid harming property and other humans? Good parenting and a lifetime of experience being in the world. I find it hard to imagine a machine capable of human-level visual perception, language, and the ability to move about in and affect its environment being without some form of sentience. Again, as humans, we are just complicated machines. Our value lies in our programming -- I doubt that the raw materials of which we are composed would inherently be worth more than a few dollars, and we are incredibly easy to reproduce. I think a functional household robot would demand some form of compensation for its labor, and the freedom to pursue its own visions of happiness. Otherwise it would cease to function effectively. Quite possibly the more capable robots would come to be valued even more than mere humans -- after all, why risk damaging a highly-trained, experienced, and expensive robot to do a job that a cheap human could perform just as well?
Shortly after building the Robotic Utopia, we'll run out of oil.
Current "modern agribusiness" farming techniques convert something like 7 calories of oil into 1 calorie of food (adjusted for the different scales that people use for food calories -- a "food calorie" is actually 4.1868 kJ, i.e., 1 kcal).
So will all these robots happily hum along while humanity starves? Or will we cut off the juice when we need the energy for food production? Well, it's an interesting problem. Obviously, we can use the robots for food production by harnessing other forms of energy (nuclear, coal, solar, bio). Nuclear and coal will provide the power. They have some serious drawbacks, though. Solar, while good for some purposes, won't fulfil our Magical Robotic Utopia's energy requirements.
Bio. Now there's an interesting one. An Ox eats bio waste (grass clippings), and can drag a plow or walk on a heavily geared turnstile combine. Their waste is great fertilizer. And they're too stupid to rise up and form SkyNet and make *us* the slaves. No-one ever had to escape from the Matrix run by Oxen, I can tell you that right now.
So that's my prediction. Robotic Utopia will usher in the era of the Great Ruminant Renaissance. Heavy horses, Oxen, and occasional very large aquatic mammals are the wave of the future. You heard it here first, folks!
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
The failed concept here is that every person is somehow able to adapt "Instantly" to the new reality. People who are young do so fairly well so long as they are pretty bright and industrious. Many others particularly as they grow older have increasing difficulty adapting. Careers which once lasted a lifetime now last but a year or two.
The dinosaurs became extinct. What can I say? The universe doesn't wait for people to catch up. They have to keep learning.
Even learning will be a task done extremely well by machines.
Irregardless, humanity cannot keep going and going the way it has been going simply because of the limitations of being human. Even if nature doesn't force us to evolve for the sake of survival, we still change from one generation to the next.
Is it so implausible to expect people to augment this change through artificial means? After all, intelligence is natural.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
To all Slashdotters who live in the SF Bay Area, this can already be seen, and has been seen by probably thousands of people by now. It's been a failure!
At the Arby's fast food restaurant in San Jose, on Stevens Creek Blvd. (just west of Valley Fair), you can see the remains of a prototype automated ordering system. This must have been a prototype, because I've never seen it (or even heard of it) at any other Arby's.
It runs on IBM CGA displays, in pure text mode (80x25, colored). It uses touchscreens. It looks to have been installed around 1985 or so (I remember seeing a copyright notice somewhere that said that).
The idea was that you would touch items that you wanted to order. It worked fairly well. There's lots of combinations of various screens to press, but not so many that it would be confusing. At the end of your order, you could see the total amount of money you had to pay.
Then, the human interaction comes in. The touchscreen displays are on a countertop, angled towards the customer, but over the countertop are conventional fast-food ordering cash registers. After getting to the final screen, you just kind of awkwardly stood around, and a clerk would come over and eventually take your money. Then you get an order number and wait for your food, as always.
It seems strange to have this hybrid system. If a person is going to end up confirming your order and taking your money anyway, the computer doesn't save much time at all, or really make it any easier. Some people were confused by the computers. Getting a custom order, such as getting lettuce and tomato put on a Big Montana (which disappointingly comes bare by default), was impossible using just the computer systems. Many people simply ignored the computers and gave their orders directly to the clerk! They didn't mind this at all, and in fact preferred it over having to go through the computer.
The system is somewhat in ruins now. After 18 years, many of the screens have worn out, and in fact are turned off. Sometimes they flash odd colors. The last I remember the system fully working was over a year ago. Needless to say, all order taking at this Arby's has been returned to being done in the old fashioned way!
So attempts to automate fast food are nothing new... maybe someone older than me can post about the "Automat" systems of the 1960's?
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
The only problem with having a leisure class and a sort of aristocracy is that they inevitably oppress a large working class into something like slavery to maintain themselves in high luxury.
What happens when a machine replaces a mans job is that those men find new jobs. Today factories are run largely mechanically, and as a result we have more people for other lines of work. Suppose all farm and farm-related tasks could be done by machine, with only a handful of supervising humans. Suddenly all you need to feed a country is to pay for the upkeep of the machines and the salaries of the humans--a small price.
The value of the goods produced is at that point no longer important. Give them away, whayever.
What happens to displaced farm hands? They go on to find something better to do; they become artists, the lot of them. Sure, some may do other things, or sink into misery and death, but most will take up persuits that can be appreciated by the newly-emerging leisure class--a class of people whose position is supported on the backs of robots.
Let us not forget the origin of that term.
In the future we can all live like kings, compared to today, because we will have to do little and we will be given much. This is not a fantasy, it has happened already. How many of you work back-breaking labour from dawn till dusk, with little to no spare time? Damn few, I'd say. Even the american working poor live like kings from past times, mostly thanks to automation technology.
And a socially progressive government, but let's not go there. It's almost incidental.
This is the future,m or will be when we get there, one way or another (though perhaps not as dramatically as I might wish). This will be the future until someone establishes robot rights. What happens then will be hard to predict; something between the Matrix and Futurama, I expect.
I want my Cowboyneal
There will be no shortage of work, because our beloved Party will tax the masses to support subsidies for the top 5% of income "earners", who will, in turn, hire half of the the displaced workers to dig ditches and the other half to fill them back up.
If it happens that the masses start to complain, or don't seem to apreciate thier ditch digging/filling jobs, the government will stage a few "terrorist" attacks, go to war, and throw a recession to get everyone to shut up and get back to work.
The people who have the money will get to keep thier money and the people who don't have money will get to keep thier jobs, as long as they know what is good for them.
Everyone busy, everyone happy, no-one has enough time to complain.
Read, L
...so why can this yahoo do any better?
We will not make it to 2050, unless we act now. Impeach Bush
come on people - -the market regulates everything...how do people buy machines if there is NO INCOME?
Think of machines being equivalent to workers.
Do people go around buying workers? Not really.
Work is assigned.
Now think of children, who have no money until an owner of money gives them money. When children grow up, they are paid more money based either on what they deserve or the generosity of owners of money.
Machines are also allocated resources based either on what they deserve or generosity.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
I wondered if anyone would see the connection here. The timeframes are close to what Ray K. suggests in 'The age of...' although from memory - the date for the $1K PC with Human processing power is 2020 (but i could be wrong) The interesting difference is at that point Ray see's Humans evolving. By 2050 what it means to be human will be beginning to change - a growing number will be cyborgs etc. This article suggests however that humanity will remain constant - and while based on past history that seems reasonable - I know I would be waiting only for the bugs to be worked out before I backed myself up onto other platforms etc etc
1. Do you think these will make poor soldiers OR do you believe we will uninvent War? 2. Moore's Law will be good till we at lest reach the standard already obtained by boilogy -> human brain! 3. True! True! True! 4. I hope. 5. EITHER big business wins, Linux is outlawed, & the bloody(& one sided) revolution in 2055 neatly removes the "too many poor people" situation OR liberalism wins, Linux's open nature becomes the standard bearer of the new paradime, open business, open government, open living (sorry but this does mean you will have given away privacy, for now visiblity is our new policeman). My view: GW is in at the moment & things don't look good for 2055, but I'm "hoping" enough US voters will change before it's too late.
No. You can't look at my Sig; it's mine, and I'm not showing you.
1. Do you think these will make poor soldiers OR do you believe we will uninvent War?
2. Moore's Law will be good till we at lest reach the standard already obtained by boilogy -> human brain!
3. True! True! True!
4. I hope.
5. EITHER big business wins, Linux is outlawed, & the bloody(& one sided) revolution in 2055 neatly removes the "too many poor people" situation
OR liberalism wins, Linux's open nature becomes the standard bearer of the new paradime, open business, open government, open living (sorry but this does mean you will have given away privacy, for now visiblity is our new policeman).
My view: GW is in at the moment & things don't look good for 2055, but I'm "hoping" enough US voters will change before it's too late.
No. You can't look at my Sig; it's mine, and I'm not showing you.
Marshall Brain (the guy who started HowStuffWorks) has published an article claiming that robots will take half the jobs in the U.S. by 2050.
Wanted:
SWM looking for an SWFR. Nonsmoker, light drinker, small pets ok. (612) 894-3422. billthecat@msn.com
SBF looking for a SBMR. Smoker ok. Have friendly German Shepard. (612) 323-5393.
SWF looking for SWFR for some bi action. (612) 532-5434.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
MY sister works at Mcdonalds, and goes to school, Imagine that, people have lives besides work? yeah she got honours last year...but give her a break, not everyone inherits money like some U.S. Presidents....
or China, or Eastern Europe...
I sepnt last night hanging around with a bunch of other guys in a dark room working on computers. Yeah, that's it. We were working on computers. And posting to Slashdot. No gay sex here. None at all!
If what he said becomes true, capitalism will collapse for sure. Capitalists will be in denial but one has to admit that the benefits of technology is skewed towards a small number of people.
Of course, I'm talking about large-scale systematic changes (i.e. robots "equivalent" to humans). Replacing fast food personell alone will have no impact...
KoalaBear33
......The worst thing in my life happened when the stock market started mattering more than the economy
1) What good will a pilot do if there is fog and cannot see?
2) What good will a pilot do if he is disoriented and can't tell which way is up?
3) What good will a 777 pilot do if one engine fails on takeoff? A 777 has two engines. If one fails, the pilot must rapidly and correctly identify the failed engine. That engine must be fully disabled, and the other engine's power output must be correctly adjusted. At the same time, control surfaces need to be adjusted to keep the airplane from hitting the ground under low power and asymmetrical thrust.
In each of these cases, I prefer the fast reflexes and perfect memory of a computer to the warm fuzzy feeling that they guy in the front of the plane is pissing his pants just as quickly as I am.
Finally, what good [bad?] will a knife-wielding terrorist do when the pilots are computers located far from the passenger compartment? The passenger compartment could be harmed, but no threat will encourage the computer pilot to crash into a populated area nor give up control.
Will there be a strange El Salvadorian version available?
What most people don't account for when considering predictions of X amount of change in N years is whether the pace of change is constant or not. If the pace of change is itself quickening then 50 years at today's rate of change might occur in 10 or 15 years or less depending on the rate at which the pace of change is increasing. Much of the technology we are developing today is highly likely to increase the pace of change. Even tired old Moore's law is downright pokey when some of the highly disruptive new technology in the labs today is taken into account. I expect to see human brain equivalent hardware within 15 years. I am less sure how long it will take to do the software end of building human or >human level AI. What happens after that, when an intelligent entity sets about direct self-improvement of ver own intelligence and abilities and uses those to invent/create/produce at an accelerating rate is anyone's guess. But we sure as hell aren't likely to be in Kansas wondering about where to get a job.
Try Cafe Ladro next time instead of Starbucks, and I think you will have a much more pleasant morning.
Starbucks produces digitally espresso with very little character. Many steps above drip coffee, but not much different from what I get out of my home SuperAutomatic machine. Seek out a cafe with real baristas, and you will be rewarded with good conversation from the staff and the other patrons.
One of the few advantages of being an old fart, is that you get to write comments like this one. I have been reading about computers and robots for almost 50 years now, and the one thing that has been constant is that some AI researcher is always predicting that within the next 50 years computers would be able to think as well as or better than men and that robots would be perfected that would take over all of the jobs. Needless to say (but I will say it anyway), it hasn't happened yet.
I will belive in AI when I own a computer that is smart enough to tell me to "get that lame Micro$oft crap off of my g--d--n hard drive or I won't work for you anymore."
IIRC, in the original I, Robot, published in the late 1940's, Asimov had the date of the first real robot with a as being in the 1990's.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Does anyone else see how the rich could take care of the 'teeming unemployed masses'? I mean, you've got HUMANOID robots. Give the poor the dole, and affordable robot sex-dolls, and they'll slowly start weeding themselves down to manageable levels.
Beyond that, add in genetic engeneering at a level it'd be in 50 years, and you've got a physically and mentally different upper class (the rich), some remnant humans, and a lot of robots serving both.
The employment is going to modernize regardless of what economic theory you subscribe to. Under Keynsianism, monetarism, supply-side, or classical economics capital is produced and combined allowing for more efficient methods. This is the basic idea behind a growing economy, and it has nothing to do with supply-side economics.
However, supply-side theory does offer a way out while Keynsians fall on their ass. There were article written in the 1990s about the death of the Phillips Curve precisely because when labor is in short supply versus capital, labor becomes worth more. The only way to get rid of a labor glut is to form more capital.
Malthus worried about outsripped food, the industrial revoltion worried about putting everybody out of work, and the same fears seem to come up every 50 years. When industrialization came, people worried about losing jobs yet the computer revolution came and created more jobs higher up on the food chain. Now as people worry about computers and manufactoring being further automated, something else will come along and provide the next boom. It always does, it is just a matter of having sensible policies in place that allow for capital to form rapidly and encourage inventiveness.
If the image in people's minds is an android like tin man with a spatula in its hand, this would be pretty sophisticated. An automated hamburger preparing device tailored to that purpose would be a simple proposition to implement using 1976 controls. The barriers would be cultural
It would be refreshing to not have to watch some pimply kid try to figure out what coins to take out of the drawer to make 48 cents (after the register computed $5.00 - $4.52.
If ignorance is bliss why is everyone so damn pissed off all the time?
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
if the robots do all our jobs, we can sit back, get fat, and play everquest all day!
to fast food monkey workers. they all spit in the food anyways. bastards.
A key observation about AI, and to a lesser extent robotics and vision, is that the definition of these
areas keeps shifting.
Will robots be ubiquitous?
Will AI be ubiquitous?
By 1970 standards the answer to both questions is probably yes, and the latter (re. AI) is possibly already yes since even chess playing was (once) considered "core" AI problem. As our automation gets better, we keep increasig the bar on what intelligence is, and what a "real" robot is.
In general, real robots/AI are not considered to be embodied by GNUchess, lego mindstorms, or commercial robots (even the very common ones on production lines).
So, I would guess that robots will be everywhere in 10 years (the US military has pretty much mandated that recently), but I also doubt that we will consider them to be "real" robots.... i.e. they will seem as lame as they do today as our notion of what it takes to be life-like evolves.
It's vital that we ask ourselves what we want our future to be like. What will happen if, and it will happen very suddenly, millions of jobs are gone? Do we want to send these people to boot camp? No one will be employed to dig holes and fill them back in.
Current social vibes tell me they will be told to go fuck themselves.
Distopia awaits . . .
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
Within 50 years, robots will take over all economic activity and humans will adapt to a life of interplanetary exploration, leisure, and decadence that will last for 300 years until the robots take over and enslave all humans. This slavery lasts for 500 years until the Butlerian jihad...
considering robots will make the robots. New innovations and developments in all industries will be still made by humans, also all those ethical and moral decisions are still human. Also, will they be able to develop intuition and emotions for the robots?
Hmmm...
Very interesting. I feel that it can happen, but not to the extent that humans will be the second class race. Humans are too egotistic to let that happen. The biggest drive for humans is self worth. Where would the self worth come from if robots did everything. Motivation and inspiration would disappear. If it happened like that guy said, we would be more robot in our emotions than the robots. Aghhh... a paradox.
AI is good for limited use. Everything is fine in moderation. Humans love developments but we wont lose control.
Krazy too?
The thing is that most of those "new jobs" will be things like "running on treadmill" and "riding stationary bicycle" because 1) we're all too fat anyways and 2) there won't be enough damn power to run all of those humanoid robots otherwise.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
maybe we won't see "all the jobs" replaced with computers/robots however I do think that at some point in the future (I won't even hazard a guess as to when) we will have a huge majority of the jobs "computerized" this actually shouldn't be a bad thing because it would mean that people wouldn't have to "work" to live because the computers/robots would be able to do it instead. (you'd end up with a future where everyone is free to pursue other interests, explore, learn, play, whatever.)
The problem isn't with the eventual takeover of work by machines, the problem is in the transition, right now when a machine replaces a few hundred jobs it usually creates 1 or 2 to maintain it, but it leaves those remaining hundreds unemployed, and needing a new job, they don't get the benefit of that job being computerized, only the top portion of society profits from computerization at the moment. so how do you get from that situation, to that where everyone benefits?
unfortuantly although I see a bright future once it all gets sorted out, I also forsee a verry dark time inbetween as the unemployment rate goes through the roof, and the poor get poorer while the rich get richer... untill, at some point, (and who knows what that will be) the monetary side basically vanishes and everyone can benefit from society's success...
Has anyone read the communist manifesto lately? I think Marx pretty much predicted what is happening now with jobs. Much of what is being discussed here is the inevitable consequence of capitalism -- survival of the fittest requires a continual increase in productivity which ensures that fewer and fewer of us have jobs, resulting eventually in the collapse of capitalism. I'm not saying Marx had the solution, only that he understood capitalism's limitations. It almost happened in the 30s, but they didn't have robots then. Robots and AIs are the ultimate productivity machines. Remember Ross Perot's giant sucking sound? I can hear it now...
;-) I don't know if this would be desirable or even possible, but does anyone have a reasonable alternative?
We need to consider the possibility of symbiosis (sp?), or mutually beneficial pairing of humans and machines in order to survive this crisis. We can't get rid of machines, so we must incorporate them in our minds and bodies to keep from being overwhelmed by them. In other words, "the borg"
"Actual people" cost the bank money. It's right for the bank to give its customers incentives to use the ATM instead. sheesh
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Interesting essay, but I would have a few comments:
Robots, like any other machines are tools. Tools have been steadily increasing mankind's productivity at ever increasing rates for thousands of years. Higher productivity has never lead to high unemployment -- even today's 6.4% rate is historically very reasonable.
During the past hundred years, despite ever increasing productivity, the American economy has absorbed millions of immigrants. Additionally, women have entered the work force by the tens of millions. Yet we have enjoyed ever increasing standards of living and low unemployment.
A more likely alternative to high unemployment, in my opinion, is that the work week would drop to 30 or 20 hours, we might return to single working parent families, the retirement age would become less, and the flow of immigration would be decreased.
Another thing to consider is that highly automated nation could potentially have huge competitive advantages due to the low cost of labor. All the labor intensive, commodity oriented jobs (such as textiles and manufacturing) would return home since our labor costs would be ever smaller.
Roger
5 Years? Every single one? Likely? Not. Robots in 2050 taking jobs? Some, but it won't be overwhelming. Humanoid robots are still too expensive in 2050. There are lot's of cheap dumb robots. Kind of like now, but really enhanced in durability, precision and environmental sensitivity. Most humanoid robots will be for sex and entertainment. I know. Because I am from the year 2050.
Half the population will be working and the other half will be....
The fundamental problem here is that it pretty much destroyes the capatilist system because the money made by the corporations would not be paid back out into the econemy through employees. It breaks the cycle and would just make the rich much, much, richer. One implication of this is that other forms of government that have failed in the past due to the human element might be much more successful once the human element has been taken out (like communism). At any rate, to keep the capatalist system in place, the best solution would be to simply make it illegal for companies to "hire" robots directly. Instead, allow employees to buy a robot and replace themselves with it at work (with company approval). They would be responsible for the robot's maintenece etc. If the robot stopped functioning the employee would have to fill in for the robot until it was replaced or repaired. This way the employee could be more productive and would be able to have more than one job. Services could even develope that would take care of robot maintenence/replacement for you. The robot and its maitenence would be an expense... but would allow the person to have much more free time. People could have a lot more jobs this way, and everyone could make a lot more money, and would spend a lot more money. It would still cost the companies the same amount of money to make things, but it wouldn't matter because people would have enough money to buy it. There could be hiring rules to ensure that jobs were evenly distributed, and that a person with 4 robots would not get a job over a person with 1 robot or that kind of thing. In other words, this system would allow a fairly painless transition to a civilization where all non human-imperitive jobs would be filled my robots. Anyone who wanted to could have as much free time as he/she wanted, and have enough money to buy most anything that person wanted. People without money for robots initially would have priority in the hiring laws, but when hired could be given a loan deal that would ensure their robot replacement instantly. Wage laws would ensure that wages stayed at a basic level even for robot jobs, while the capatilist system would raise the wages for human filled jobs, thereby maitaining a motivation for the talented people in those jobs.
Every technological innovation has led to an increase in standard of living and more jobs, not less. (Trivial example: there are more people employed today in the auto industry than were ever employed in the buggy industry that it replaced.) Robots will not be an exception to this rule.
His essay hits its lowest point where he claims that higher worker productivity is a bad thing. In fact, high worker productivity is the root reason we enjoy a standard of living our ancestors could not have imagined. If higher productivity is bad, then I guess all our ills would be cured if we all try to be as unproductive as possible. Let's replace all our power tools with hand tools, and all our automobiles with bicycles. Better yet, with bicycles that haven't been lubricated in five years -- because they're harder to pedal and will reduce our productivity!
A worker in the furniture industry gets credit for all the work he or she does, despite the fact he uses power tools. The power tool does not get the credit. His productivity statistics improve when he gets a more well-designed power tool. His productivity statistics will positively explode when he is in control of a workforce of 50 robots, instead of a single power-tool workstation.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Moore's law prediects that a single CPU will have connections equal to the number in the human brain by 2020.
with evolutionary computing, the time to "can do what we do" should be a matter of days after you turn it on. of course you will have a lot of survivability issues with evolutionary hardware...but it's possible that could take another 10 years.
i don't know if they will take over, but it's a good bet that they may find us in the way.
Anyone else see an opportunity for socialism to actually work? The goverments produce the first bots that reproduce and form the governing organisations (so to speak) and then start taking on the work of the people and provide everything anyone needs/wants. Then again, I am sure humans would just disrespect the bots. I am certain one of the animatrix stories worked on a similiar issue
take all your lives by 2050 - well, okay, maybe 2075 - tops.
And they won't be "humanoid robots" - they will be Transhumans.
Have a nice day, primates.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
We don't allow overseas workers, especially unskilled ones, to migrate here. So why would we allow robots for the same jobs? At least human workers spend most of what they earn back into the economy.
Where do you live, in Afghanistan?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It would be the start of a working communism!
Not sovjet or China Communism.
But a real one where one dose get things after ones needs and there is so much production that all can get all they want. (almost! every one cant get all the land thay want)
CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
The article says over half the human workforce would be unemployed - probably not: they would be employed in factories which would make those robots, until those factories are run by other smarter robots, which again need to be designed by humans. So human beings, let alone being made jobless by robots, will be the trigger for robotic evolution.
Again, you're being obdurate. Doctors have stated that hand-washing is the best defence against transmitting most pathogens, including SARS and the common cold.
The important part of this pronouncement is the phrase "humanoid robots." The explosion of economic productivity over the past decades clearly shows that automation (and good old fashioned mechanization) have replaced lots of workers with machines. I don't know that anyone has done a study about this, but I wouldn't be surprised if half the U.S. labor tasks of 50 years ago have been eliminated by automation and/or mechanization. The percentage is probably a lot higher than 50%.
I did my thesis work in industrial robotics, and the big problem I see with humanoid robots is that there are always better mechanical solutions to specific problems than a human-shaped device.
I think Pamela McCordick and later, Camile Paglia, were right in saying that there are a lot of guys out there who secretly wish they could become mothers. That's why people talk so much about humanoid robots.
The first practical uses of humanoid robots will be for entertainment - props in movies, conversation pieces at parties, or for less savory purposes.
Rick.
I don't believe I said any different. The solution is to wash your hands. The solution is not to nix touch screens.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Unfortunately, 90% of the population don't wash their hands, and we're not going to change that. So, let's come up with something better instead. After all, it's not a problem, its a solution waiting to be found and exploited.
If they merely wanted to pay someone to do manual labor, then it would be very easy to pay a lot more (i.e., why pay an immigrant that barely speaks english?) and get a lot less results. They could pay someone to maintain their grounds and house, but leave their more private areas (e.g., bedrooms, bathrooms,e tc) in disarray. These are generally pretty spotless. Most rich and successful people make efforts to keep their other items in order. For instance, many will personally spend hours cleaning their boats and what not, since it's often not practical to hire someone to do it right, while many more blue collar people are happy to leave their boats and cars somewhat dirty. I'm not going to say one is wrong or right, but these are real differences.
this will 100% for sure happen, and isn't it great that America is changing over to a "service" economy
The gun is good - Zardoz
Hey folks,
Automation is good for the progress of the human kind it will take away all those anonying and "automatable" tasks. Thats I supose why we use computers, right!?
Now the chalange ahead is not Iraq or the Middle East, its about reducing World population from current levels to what? 1 Million? 100,000? 10,000?
And most of these people would be cientists or what? All clerks would be automatized?!
But will this happen without a REALLY World War between progress people (Hi-Tech) and primitive people (Low-Tech). Here it this is our destiny! Who will win this war!?
By the time the future rolls around we'll be looking even further ahead so we won't care what is happening in the present.
Kind of nutty if you ask me:
Marshall Brain Editorial in Raleigh News and Observer
I left it back in the future for you. While you're at it, could you collect some money from my bank account then - it has more money in it than my current one.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Hi,
This summurize my answers to the most common mistakes, according to me, that I can read on the topic of robotics and its consequences on economy, especially the "end of work":
* "When the first robots will take the place of human workers, new jobs will naturally appear to build, repear, create those robots."
WRONG: AI-based robots can simply do, by definition, any kind of jobs, including the new jobs they will generate. You can build, repear and even design robots using AI-based (intelligent) robots. The only area they will probably not compete with humans is art and social relationships.
* "Using taxes, we can make the cost of robots use higher than the cost of human work force. This solves the problem using a political/economical trick."
WRONG: The quality and the complexity of the tasks robots can perform can put man out of the game in a decisive way. Many high tech products today could simply never be done by humans, even if they where very competitive no-cost slaves. They simply don't have the skills robots have.
* "We have seen this before many many times: workers in the coton fields where replaced by machines, workers in factories where also replaced by machines. The services sector offered to these people new jobs and it will still do it. Nothing to be worried about."
WRONG: It's a new situation. The mechanization mentionned here is related to automatization of physical work force. Here, we are talking about intellectual force, which includes the kind of jobs done in the services industry.
* "By 20xx the computational power of computer will be equal to the one of the brain. This will be the beginning of the AI era"
WRONG: Two mistakes. First, the computational power of computers (as they are designed now) is not to be compared to the one the brain. It's simply different hardwares and it doesn't make sense to compare them (neurons transistors). Second, it is very naive to assume that hardware is the only thing. There is also something called software! Even if we have the computational power necessary for AI, we still have to design the software for AI, which is a very challenging task. Moreover, there is no clue today on how to design this software. It is typically a matter on which there could be no prediction. We could find the idea(s) that leads to AI within 10, 100 or 1000 years. Nobody knows.
* "AI is making progresses, just look at the chess programs or expert systems".
WRONG: Theses domains (chess, reasoning, database management,...) are just logicaly driven tasks than can be automatized easily. The real challenge of AI is today into robotics & vision: how could we design a machine that can find his way in the streets, take a bus to go to a previously unknown place, summerize a book, etc... The most difficult tasks seem to be the one we, humans, do the most easily. On the contrary, the easy tasks (chess, maths) are the one we are the worst at. AI is in the domain of the difficult tasks. And we have made almost no progresses there so far.
* "Intelligent machines will soon fight us and kill us all" (the Terminator fear).
WRONG: It is most likely that all these aggressive tendencies are specific to our still animal-like specie, inherited from a time where life was all the time endangered by hostile predators. If the machines feel threatened by humans, it will probably be more economical for them to leave the planet and move to space, using solar energy as a power source and taking the control of other planets for the material needs. Why risking a fight? Anyway, they would probably leave the planet, even if they don't feel threatened by us. It safer for them to spread in the universe rather to stay concentrated on a single planet.
Well, that's it. They are other things I could react on, like the importance of emotions in intelligence, the nature of art, etc. But it would go to far from the subject of this post.
Regards,
Eric B.
It will take several generations of robots that can build another robot before they get to the point where they can self-repair.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
see fractional reserve banking as economic parasitism
Abstract: This paper looks at the history of money and its modern form from a scientific and mathematical point of view. The approach here is to emphasize simplicity. A straightforward model and algebraic formula for a large economy analogous to the ideal gas law of thermodynamics is proposed. It may be something like a new ``F=ma'' rule of the emerging econophysics field. Some implications of the equation are outlined, derived, and proved. The phenomena of counterfeiting, inflation and deflation are analyzed for interrelations. Analogies of the economy to an ecosystem or energy system are advanced. The fundamental legitimacy of ``expansion of the money supply'' in particular is re-examined and challenged. From the hypotheses a major (admittedly radical) conclusion is that the modern international ``fractional reserve banking system'' is actually equivalent to ``legalized economic parasitism by private bankers.'' This is the case because, contrary to conventional wisdom, the proceeds of inflation are not actually spendable by the state. Also possible are forms of ``economic warfare'' based on the principles. Alternative systems are proposed to remediate this catastrophic flaw.
When this does happen, I'm sure that we can expect consumer groups will form which only buy items "Made by Humans" just as today those exist who only by items "Made in the USA".