Slashdot Mirror


Robots Join Final Assembly Line At US Auto Plant

moon_unit2 writes "MIT Technology Review has a story about BMW's new collaborative final-assembly-line robots. The move could be significant in the ongoing automation of work, as robots have previously been incapable of doing such jobs, and too dangerous to work in close proximity to humans. Robots like the ones at BMW's South Carolina plant will also cooperate with human workers, by handing them a wrench when they need it. Perhaps the next big shift in labor could be robot-human collaboration."

223 comments

  1. Coming Soon by evil+crash · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next the robots will want to unionize.

    --
    "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."-THG
    1. Re:Coming Soon by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope, we're approaching 3 classes, Robot Slaves(who don't mind), super wealthy robot owners, and people who are expected to work in a world where work is done by robots.

    2. Re:Coming Soon by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      Next the robots will want to unionize.

      naa.. the current unions will say that the robots need to pay dues.. and since they work all shifts, it's more like 3 or 4 workers.

    3. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or buy new cars, since humans wont have jobs. Where do we get these new captains of industry?

    4. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Robot designers? Robot systems integrators? Robot process engineers? Robot maintenance and field service engineers?

      Increasing productivity has historically been good for us. Less human capital spent on turning bolts frees up more for doing cool stuff. I don't doubt that there will be short-term pain for people who used to perform unskilled repetitive labor - but honestly they were losing their jobs to East Asians anyway. Sadly, retraining programs don't appear to work very well, so we might very well be stuck with a huge population dependent on public assistance throughout the remainder of their lives. But that is the short term view - the long term view is probably just as bright as other massive changes in productivity have been.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Coming Soon by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Well clearly they should have picked their parents better and been born on third base like me.

    6. Re:Coming Soon by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Eventually we will have to have a huge class of people either allowed to starve to death or cared for by the state. Some people are not ever going to be capable of more than manual repetitive labor.

      I think many nations will move towards extremely limited work weeks and high levels of social welfare. I think the USA will more likely go with more salaried employees who work long hours and a huge class of folks barely surviving. The salaried workers will be told by the media that these folks unable to find jobs are why they must pay high taxes and work long hours. The owners will profit even more.

      At some point every non-creative job can be done by a machine. Many folks will be employed making hand made items as those will be a novelty, or cooking amazing new foods and the like. Those will be the only workers left.

    7. Re:Coming Soon by somersault · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds like it would be better to have everyone work one day a week, while everyone benefits from social welfare. Though it also sounds like severe taxes on having too many kids should be in order too.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will simply be two economies: one for the upper class with skills/robots/guns and another one for the lower class.

    9. Re:Coming Soon by fldsofglry · · Score: 1

      I think the USA will more likely go with more salaried employees who work long hours and a huge class of folks barely surviving. The salaried workers will be told by the media that these folks unable to find jobs are why they must pay high taxes and work long hours. The owners will profit even more.

      What do you me will? Some would say we are already there.

    10. Re:Coming Soon by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      There's an unfortunate problem with this historical trend. Human capability. The assumption is that robots will free humans to perform more sophisticated tasks. These tasks however require not only education/training the but mental faculties to perform. The workers being replaced are in those positions usually not because they wanted to be but because of limitations in either the former, the latter or both. If a worker is incapable of performing a tasks of a certain level of sophistication it really doesn't matter if they're "free to do so."

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    11. Re:Coming Soon by invid · · Score: 2

      People who are doing repetitive jobs right now at least have some sort of commercial value to society. I hate to sound draconian, but only with commercial value or military value does a population have any bargaining power within a society. If you have a significant portion of a population without commercial value, the question is whether or not they will be allowed to have any political power.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    12. Re:Coming Soon by mjr167 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't that what they said about the industrialization of agriculture last century? Isn't it a good thing that we no longer need to perform manual labor? I hate picking up heavy things or performing mindless repetitive tasks. Hell, I have a robot to vacuum my floors...

      The economy is changing. Some fields are rapidly expanding and others are rapidly shrinking. As a result the people who are willing to accept the changes and adapt and move into the new positions will be successful and those who sit around go "woe is me! A robot took my job and I can't find another job turning this wrench a half turn every minute!" will be SOL and there will be no place for them.

      You can not stagnate the world just because you are comfortable in it. As an engineer it is my job to eliminate my job. I don't bitch about how if I automate this one step then I will have less to do. I automate it and say "thank god I don't have to do that anymore!" then move on to the next step. There are plenty of things that an industrious person can do to make a living. They simply involve stepping outside of the factory and doing something that actually requires thought and effort.

    13. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a robot, I say they can just deduct the dues from my paycheck.

    14. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that they will still have commercial value - I just don't pretend to be smart enough to know what value that is right now. I'm basing this on the history of productivity improvements. I share your fears, but also recognize that history is reassuring. It is natural for humans to fear the unknown.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Coming Soon by RichMan · · Score: 1

      Can I have my Roomba take my place on the picket line?

    16. Re:Coming Soon by timeOday · · Score: 2

      I hope you are right. What worries me is that, in the US, excess labor seems to have been a consistent (and increasing) trend for the last 40 years now. The value of labor here peaked and then started sliding in the 1970s. It only seems to be accelerating, since the adoption of rudimentary automation in previously-less-developed nations has now unleashed waves of billions of workers from subsistence farming. Luddites and marxists were wrong for centuries, but like peak oil, they must be right eventually. If you look at the number of Americans that are on either school lunch, food stamps, disability, or unemployment, and whose lifetime withdrawals from Social Security and (especially) Medicare will far outstrip what they paid in, the shift is already very enormous. The problem is both the "haves" and "have-nots" wind up resenting the situation, for different reasons.

    17. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doing something that actually requires thought and effort.

      You are assuming that everyone is able of thought.

    18. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Since we are just speculating on the unknowable future, I can get away with a bit of optimistic fun, right? :)

      What if this increased productivity freed us up to have more education? What if we could devote the first 25 years of our life to purely academic pursuits? 30 years?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    19. Re:Coming Soon by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      If you have a significant portion of a population without commercial value, the question is whether or not they will be allowed to have any political power.

      Is that actually still a question? I thought we'd settled it already.

    20. Re:Coming Soon by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well clearly they should have picked their parents better and been born on third base like me.

      I'll have you know that my grandaddy pulled himself up by his bootstraps to give me what I have today, so the fact that you can't do the same makes me sick.

    21. Re:Coming Soon by guru42101 · · Score: 1

      I agree, a shift needs to occur in the expectation of what constitutes a full work week.

    22. Re:Coming Soon by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      Nope, we're approaching 3 classes, Robot Slaves(who don't mind), super wealthy robot owners, and people who are expected to work in a world where work is done by robots.

      You forgot the 4th class. The permanently underemployed.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    23. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some people are not ever going to be capable of more than manual repetitive labor.

      Some people, sure. But not "most people". I'll go so far as to say that 95% of people are probably biologically capable of going to college. We would need to straighten out our K-12 education problems first, and seriously tackle the problems of educating people in poverty, and those who are unwilling or unable to educate their children.

      The owners will profit even more.

      Unless we move to more consolidation and monopoly, I don't see why this would be the case. Robotic equipment doesn't magically remove competition - why should profit margins go up? If COGS go down, so will prices - not profits. Walmart will only be a single-digit percentage point profitable no matter what they do with robots.

      every non-creative job can be done by a machine

      Why not "creative" work?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    24. Re:Coming Soon by DM9290 · · Score: 2

      Sounds like it would be better to have everyone work one day a week, while everyone benefits from social welfare. Though it also sounds like severe taxes on having too many kids should be in order too.

      So tax the kids. makes sense.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    25. Re:Coming Soon by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Robot designers? Robot systems integrators? Robot process engineers? Robot maintenance and field service engineers?

      A cottage industry compared to the Robot Slaves. One new job in robotics would replace at least thousands in manual labor. Maybe hundreds of thousands or even millions. Technology is the only limit.

      Either there needs to be a new economy of unimaginably trivial jobs (virtual pet caretaker, personal shopper, replacement of MMO NPCs with employees, etc) that pay a living wage (good luck) or it will turn out that the luddites were just early and a lot of people will be out of work.

      Interesting story, recently I aggressively overheard a conversation between some Albertan oil zillionaires and one of the interesting things I heard was praise for the UAE's oil profit sharing system as a means to prevent revolt.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    26. Re:Coming Soon by jbmartin6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This old "people won't find work and will starve" horse is trotted out and whipped every time there is one of these 'robots now doing x' stories comes up. History says something else will happen, but this doesn't stop the doomsayers. Meanwhile, bring on the massive prosperity, robots!

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    27. Re:Coming Soon by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      super wealthy robot owners

      Decades ago many people predicted that only the "super wealthy" would be able to own computers, and decades before that the same thing was said about cars.

      “Automobiles are a picture of the arrogance of wealth ... nothing spreads socialistic feeling in this country more than the use of the automobile.” -- Woodrow Wilson

      So far, there is no reason to believe that future robots are going to be particularly expensive. I already have a Roomba and a 3D-printer, both easily affordable by any middle class family. Prices for manufacturing robots are high, but falling quickly.

    28. Re:Coming Soon by fishthegeek · · Score: 1

      I'll go so far as to say that 95% of people are probably biologically capable of going to college.

      With all due respect you're about 70% too high. If you honestly believe that all we need to do is "straighten out" our education problems by fixing only the educators you will be very disappointed by the results.

      --
      load "$",8,1
    29. Re:Coming Soon by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting
      This, from 1955:

      CIO President Walter Reuther was being shown through the Ford Motor plant in Cleveland recently.

      A company official proudly pointed to some new automatically controlled machines and asked Reuther: "How are you going to collect union dues from these guys?"

      Reuther replied: "How are you going to get them to buy Fords?"

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    30. Re:Coming Soon by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I am only speaking about the people who cannot do creative work. For you and me this will be great.

    31. Re:Coming Soon by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      There is no way 95% of people could go to college. Maybe 50%, maybe. Good luck with fixing an entire culture.

      Consolidation will occur, the first movers will have such an advantage they will buy up their competition.

      So far creative work has been something no AI can do. Also a lot of the appeal of these goods will be their handmade nature.

    32. Re:Coming Soon by PPH · · Score: 1

      Applicable advert

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    33. Re:Coming Soon by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Seriously. The town I live in is full of people who could do more with their lives but have chosen to wait for the paper mills to reopen so they can have all the high paying jobs watching the dial so they can push the STOP button should the 3 levels of automation fail. Or they just hang out getting paid to do nothing.

      The main problem is that there is way too much incentive to not better one's self.

    34. Re:Coming Soon by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      History says nothing: These events are unprecedented. The closest occurrence we have is the industrial revolution, but this could take it a lot further.

    35. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be long term pain. Not everyone is fit to be a tech. More and more people will become unhirable. Either the wealthy will use these enormous gains in productivity to feed them, or the wealthy will simply horde wealth and watch the poor suffer. Feeding them would only take a fraction of their wealth, but who wants to give up that fraction?

    36. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If you honestly believe that all we need to do is "straighten out" our education problems by fixing only the educators you will be very disappointed by the results.

      Did you stop reading my comment or something? LOL, I go on with: "...and seriously tackle the problems of educating people in poverty, and those who are unwilling or unable to educate their children." The schools are only half of the problem, and a big reason they are a problem at all is the population they are dealing with. We need to tackle the problem in a number of different ways. Changing the way we educate (and fund!) is one angle - another has to be direct intervention on the family level. We won't break the poverty cycle if we don't... break the poverty cycle!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    37. Re:Coming Soon by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit. 90% used to work in agriculture. Now 1% do. The remaining 89% found something to do.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    38. Re:Coming Soon by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      What worries me is that, in the US, excess labor seems to have been a consistent (and increasing) trend for the last 40 years now.

      Because of economic and political choices, not because of technology. Consider that in the Great Depression, there was something like 25% unemployment. In the 1950's there was far lower unemployment, despite greatly improved technology and far higher productivity. People worried that unemployment would increase because of the technology that was being introduced in the 1950's, like NC machine tools (replacing human machine tool operators, just as robots replace human assemblers), yet unemployment was very low in the 1960's, and wages increased.

    39. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that you are missing is that this issue is occurring on an exponential scale and while the effects of it may have been too slow to change the economy in the past, this rate of change is much faster now. We are already seeing a situation where people with less than a college level education are finding fewer jobs that they can do and still feed a family on. Wages are down for lots of people and the gap between the rich and poor is growing. By the time we can fully automate the construction of a car it will be painfully evident.

      So while you make dead horse analogies, Sea Biscuit is just making his first steps. Just wait until he learns to run...

    40. Re:Coming Soon by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Yes, but we are talking about a world where those jobs are all taken by machines. Imagine no manual labor being done by humans. Much of those 80% moved from manual labor on farms to manual labor in factories.

    41. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Either there needs to be a new economy of unimaginably trivial jobs

      You just aren't using your imagination. More unfounded speculation follows:
      1. The size of the labor pool could be reduced by increasing the number of years we spend in education, which is now necessary because unskilled labor is in low demand.
      2. Automation will keep the cost of goods low. Some goods may drop in price. This frees money up to buy more luxury or more complicated goods. This requires more automation, which in turn employs more high-paying people. Just like photocopiers vastly increased the demand for copies, automation might vastly increase the demand for other kind of goods.

      Am I worried? Sure. I've seen the same dystopian movies and read the same sci-fi that everyone else here has (well, maybe not... you people are into some weird shit...). That said, I'm also into history, and nothing about human history to this point leads me to conclude that the Luddites were on to something. Every technology has had losers, but with our society's belief in social security I think even the losers will be fairly well-off compared to past events.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    42. Re:Coming Soon by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Good luck. You will need it.

      You will also have to figure out how to handle sports and entertainment. Many people end up in poverty after thinking those were there ways out. Not every college player is going to the NBA.

    43. Re:Coming Soon by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      There aren't many of those people you mentioned, and robots will be able to do those jobs. All of them.

    44. Re:Coming Soon by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      Ordinary people won't benefit from the productivity. History says that THAT will happen, as it's happening now.

    45. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      There is no way 95% of people could go to college. Maybe 50%, maybe. Good luck with fixing an entire culture.

      I won't fix it - it will fix itself, but only if it has to.

      Consolidation will occur, the first movers will have such an advantage they will buy up their competition.

      This is not new, though. Industries have moved toward consolidation since the corporation was invented - and maybe before that. Sometimes (ahem-Microsoft-ahem) we let it go on too long, but most of the time a monopoly gets stomped out.

      So far creative work has been something no AI can do.

      I don't expect that to last. People are using computers to figure out how the brain works. They can already model simple brains. Once they figure out how your specific brain works, they can make food that tastes perfect to you, make music that sounds perfect to you, etc. You won't be able to help it, because they will have you reverse engineered.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    46. Re:Coming Soon by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      we could render them down to oil for the robots!

    47. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Why will the wealthy become wealthier? Won't one of the controllers-of-capital use the productivity to undercut based on price? They won't be any wealthier than they are today.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    48. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      "Will be able to do" does not mean "will do". It doesn't make sense to develop a robot to do one-off jobs. You need a certain amount of volume to make a task worth automating.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    49. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      None of these things are easy. Look how resistant people are to funding urban and suburban schools at the same level. Such a simple problem to recognize and solve, and yet here we are.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    50. Re:Coming Soon by Da_Biz · · Score: 1

      You may have forgotten "your basic pleasure model" ;-)

    51. Re:Coming Soon by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Why would you expect anything different? The USA's current motto seems to be "Fuck you, I got mine".

    52. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unpossible. For that we need robot Marx and Engel, who are concerned for the bare naked robot sex slave workforce of the UK.

    53. Re:Coming Soon by saider · · Score: 1

      Their value will be as consumers of the services that must be provided to them.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    54. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      psst...

      Maybe BMW (and many other automakers) have their plant in the US south because southerners *hate* unions, because COMMUNISM!

    55. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I would argue that the problem of urban poverty affects the suburbanites, both by sucking away tax money and by increasing even suburban crime. Nearly every time they catch a burglar in my township, he comes from a bad section of neighboring Philly. We spend a lot on police because of Philadelphia poverty. We have a lot of Philly kids fraudulently attending our schools. We get the occasional dumped body near one of our creekside parks because some idiot thug thinks a wooded roadside 2 miles from his home is "the wilderness". I'd happily pay an increased tax to make those problems go away.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    56. Re:Coming Soon by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I totally agree, but these folks are way too myopic to understand that. They think only of the now, the immediate. This is the same reason they oppose healthcare reform. It is clear that anyone paying for healthcare is paying for the "free" care in the ER and those who skip out on the bill. Yet, they can't see that because it is one step removed from them.
        The suburban town I live in just had every cop outside my place because someone was stabbed in the city and then drove out into suburbia to get assistance. My understanding is this victim knew he would get faster assistance by doing that then by calling the city police and ambulance.

    57. Re:Coming Soon by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's a false premise. Without strong AI there is a _large_ chunk of manual labor that's not repetitive enough for robots to be more efficient then humans. Most basic example: Cooking good food.

      The main point is; that it's not unprecedented for a majority of humans to shift occupations in a relatively short time.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    58. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we are just speculating on the unknowable future, I can get away with a bit of optimistic fun, right? :)

      Nothing wrong with optimism, but not all optimistic outlooks are realistic, between something that might happen in 40 years, or 40000 years (if it's about *fun* and no connection to realism, I'm of the camp that we'll convert into the Imperium of Man. I'll be an Ork. MORE DAKKA is fun)

      What if this increased productivity freed us up to have more education? What if we could devote the first 25 years of our life to purely academic pursuits? 30 years?

      Just because we could, doesn't mean we would

      Technically, people already could devote 25 to 30 or even more years of their life to academic pursuits. Doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc.

      It turns out not everybody would do that. For whatever reason, not everyone wants to do that.

      And this doesn't even go into what people "should" study. For better or worse, education is tied to preparing individuals to become functional and contributing members of society. It's nice to say people can go spend 25 to 30 years learning, but you need to make sure they learn the "right" things so they become useful to society.

      Then again, maybe we won't care if people "waste" their time/efforts away, since hey, robots are doing all the work. Who cares if we waste the fruits of their slave-like labor? Brave New World?

    59. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you also expect Moore's law to continue indefinitely, even when we'd need to put 100 transistors into every atom of the chip? Your argument that history is a good basis for extrapolation has that implication.

    60. Re:Coming Soon by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      This old "people won't find work and will starve" horse is trotted out and whipped every time there is one of these 'robots now doing x' stories comes up. History says something else will happen, but this doesn't stop the doomsayers. Meanwhile, bring on the massive prosperity, robots!

      History also says that computing power will also double every few years (Moore's Law). And so far, that has been true, even past the anticipated limits. But past performance is no predictor of future results.

      In the case of labor, the trend over the last few years for people to move down to non-specialized jobs is not an encouraging sign. In past recessions, displaced people have either managed to stay in their old professions or move up to a more specialized one once the recession ended.

    61. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ordinary people won't benefit from the productivity. History says that THAT will happen, as it's happening now.

      One would also argue that if you see any benefit, it will be short lived. Take, for example, the industrial revolution. Initially, workers were exploited until they banded together to form unions which forced the upper class to share the benefits of the industrial revolution. From the 1930s to the 1950s, things got pretty good for the working class and the upper class has spent just as much time trying to get their money back. They've done a pretty good job when you look at the work week and distribution of wealth lately.

      What people really miss about all this is that the only real wealth will be raw materials and most companies are setting themselves up to be owners of those raw materials. Just read any article that talks about mineral rights (or the lack thereof).

    62. Re:Coming Soon by blackiner · · Score: 1

      Quite a few people really don't care that much about the quality of food, just that it exists and is somewhat tasty. Just look at the popularity of fast food chains for example. Quite a bit of this fast food based cooking is very simple and standardized, and could very well be automated in 5-10 years, especially when fast food workers are going on strike and demanding increased wages.

      So what then? I have no doubt quality restraunts will still exist and that the wealthier people will continue using them, but we are absolutely approaching the point where more and more can be automated. Hell, I remember a slashdot article earlier this year where a guy was opening a restraunt staffed entirely by robots.

      The real issue is that a lot of jobs today are already completely pointless things designed to keep people occupied. Think investors, bankers, accountants, insurance agents, call centers and the like. This field of people doing nothing of any real value will just grow more as automation pushes people out of jobs (and most of these jobs can and are being automated already).

      And quite possibly, it will get to the point where thought itself is automated. But that won't be for decades. Nevertheless, you can see the sparks of this in things like Watson. I have no idea how humanity will possibly cope with that situation though, personally I think it will end in disaster.

    63. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The promise of automation and technology has been more free time. However, corporations and governments together have kept the time commitment constant and instead eliminated jobs. Limited work weeks are the solution to social welfare. There should be no salaried workers.

    64. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what the anchovy-human orphan hybrids are for.

    65. Re:Coming Soon by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Robot designers? Robot systems integrators? Robot process engineers? Robot maintenance and field service engineers?

      These jobs are already done by computers and robots, mostly.

      Consider how many man-hours it takes to design/build/maintain one of these robots.
      Now consider how many man-hours it would take to design/build/maintain one of these robots without the aid of modern computers and robots.
      Even when it comes to making robots, a majority of the work is already automated.

      I agree with your final point though. The long term view is probably just as bright. I don't think, however, that the future will involve people working for a living.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    66. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people are not ever going to be capable of more than manual repetitive labor.

      Some people, sure. But not "most people". I'll go so far as to say that 95% of people are probably biologically capable of going to college....

      And then what? We will just have a lot of college educated people for whom there are no jobs.

      The owners will profit even more.

      Unless we move to more consolidation and monopoly, I don't see why this would be the case. Robotic equipment doesn't magically remove competition - why should profit margins go up? If COGS go down, so will prices - not profits. Walmart will only be a single-digit percentage point profitable no matter what they do with robots.

      Current evidence suggests this is not true. Profits in general are going up but prices in general are not coming down. The benefits are all going to a tiny few, not being spread through society.

    67. Re:Coming Soon by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > Eventually we will have to have a huge class of people either allowed to starve to death or cared for by the state.

      It's already happening -- 180,000 jobs a month are created. We need 230,000 to keep up with population growth (much less bring the numbers down). 260,000 a month are being dumped onto long-term disability, most for suspect reasons (NPR. had a show about it some months back. People with a sore hand who. had no more factory work, which disappeared, and the idea of a desk job was wholly foreign to their worldview.)

      Robots will help us warehouse the less capable, and I don't mean disabled. Don't get mad at the messenger.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    68. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right now the financial sector accounts for 40% of US GDP while research accounts for a few percent. Don't kid yourself about that trend magically reversing. The market alaways has and always will like financial mercenaries far more than it likes scientists whose cardinal sin is the non-excludability of their product.

      Gains in productivity don't trickle down. 2% of our economy is farming. 10% is construction. Physical infrastructure accounts for about 20% of our economy. Do you work 20% as long as the average person 100 years ago when that percentage was much higher? Nope.

      If the 99% wants a share of society's productivity gains, they're going to have to fight for it.

    69. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much does it cost to own a robot?

    70. Re:Coming Soon by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you expect 100% identical circumstances then nothing is precedented. This isn't a reasonable expectation. What history says is that when conditions change, humans adapt to them and find new ways to exist they don't' just sit around and give up because the old ways stopped working.. In a utopian future where physical needs are met by highly efficient automated production, who knows what people will use for exchange. I certainly don't. It may not resemble the "job" structure we are so fixated on today, but it will be something.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    71. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who was more correct? There are still 80 million vehicles produced every year, and increasing, with fewer people than ever.

      http://www.worldometers.info/cars/

    72. Re:Coming Soon by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      I think you are making the assumption that "commercial value to society" is a single measure. In reality, everyone has different ideas of value and this is what makes civilization possible. In this utopian future, for example, some or many may prefer to buy "robot free" goods just like people buy "organic" food now. Now that specific example may or may not work for everyone, it is just an example. My point is, since humans will always vary wildly in their preferences, there will always be opportunities for exchange of value for value, regardless of the structures we implement to support those exchanges.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    73. Re:Coming Soon by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Cooking was just a single example. There are a million more. Robots suck at adapting, they're good at repeating. We still don't have robotic lawn mowers, just for a reality check.

      If you want truly useless eaters, you should look to government workers. Not just no work, negative work.

      If you want to postulate strong AI it changes everything. But it remains very far off. Theories aren't even there, much less practice.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    74. Re:Coming Soon by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. Source, please. This just sounds like some reiteration of Henry Ford's philosophy. You know, Henry Ford? The man who wrote the book The International Jew: The World's Problem. Ooooh, awkward! I'm sorry were you counting on that to bolster your argument?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    75. Re:Coming Soon by mjr167 · · Score: 2

      I welcome a world where we can all be artists while machines do the hard things. A world where people make long, successful careers out of creating elaborate fantasy worlds purely for my amusement... We often measure the success of a culture by its ability to produce art, even though art by itself is completely pointless.

    76. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Current evidence suggests this is not true. Profits in general are going up but prices in general are not coming down.

      I would argue that is a temporary blip, driven by: record low interest rates that reduce the cost of servicing debt, reluctance by corporations to reinvest money, and a reluctance to hire. We've already seen profit growth stall, and the next step is Wall Street insisting that companies resume revenue growth.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    77. Re:Coming Soon by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      The owners will profit even more.

      Unless we move to more consolidation and monopoly, I don't see why this would be the case. Robotic equipment doesn't magically remove competition - why should profit margins go up? If COGS go down, so will prices - not profits. Walmart will only be a single-digit percentage point profitable no matter what they do with robots.

      You are missing the point. With increased automation, the cost of production is moving from a labor cost to a capital cost. So the profits going to the owner said capital are not necessarily increasing, but they are definitely increasing when compared to the falling profit going to labor. Which is pretty cool if you happen to be capital. And kinda sucks if you happen to be labor.

      --
      -
    78. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It turns out not everybody would do that. For whatever reason, not everyone wants to do that.

      But they might, if there was no other way to gain meaningful employment. And just like today, the government would be under pressure to help finance it. And because productivity increased, we as a society could afford it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    79. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      This is the same reason they oppose healthcare reform. It is clear that anyone paying for healthcare is paying for the "free" care in the ER and those who skip out on the bill. Yet, they can't see that because it is one step removed from them.

      Heh, I give everyone that lecture when they call Obama a socialist. I tell them that they just called Reagan a socialist, since he's the one who mandated compulsory ER care. The battle over whether or not we have socialized health care was over in the '80s, it is only a debate as how it should be funded at this point.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    80. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Thing is, most capital these days is in pension and retirement funds. Public employees for the win? :)

      Wealth distribution is definitely a problem, if only because democracy depends on a perception of fairness - and that does not seem to be very strong right now. That said, I think it's a bit of a separate issue. "Capital" and "Labor" costs aren't really so separate... when you spend capital, you are buying equipment and facilities where much of the cost is labor. Your expensive capital equipment use raw materials where much of the cost is labor. At the end of the day, the terms are just for accountants.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    81. Re:Coming Soon by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      the long term view is probably just as bright as other massive changes in productivity have been.

      Yes, as long as we can get world population down to 1 billion or so.

    82. Re:Coming Soon by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Yes: other forms of manual labor. When that is gone, there will be nothing left for 90% of the population, and you will end up supporting them.

    83. Re:Coming Soon by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Certainly this can be done, and will be in "socialist" places like Denmark, Germany and Finland.
      But unless the U.S. takes a huge turn to the left, disaster will result.

    84. Re:Coming Soon by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Cooking was just a single example. There are a million more. Robots suck at adapting, they're good at repeating. We still don't have robotic lawn mowers, just for a reality check.

      Ding-dong, reality calling..

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    85. Re:Coming Soon by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Did you look at the details? Those just follow wires buried in the ground. Granting it's progress, it's hardly smart and adaptive.

      Also starts at $2400 for one designed to mow a 500m^2 yard!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    86. Re:Coming Soon by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      We could have robotic lawn mowers very easily. Just scale the roomba up. The problem there is more liability than know how.

    87. Re:Coming Soon by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Did you look at the details? Those just follow wires buried in the ground. Granting it's progress, it's hardly smart and adaptive.

      Also starts at $2400 for one designed to mow a 500m^2 yard!

      Actually, no, I must admit I just picked the first hit from my google search. Check out the sheer number of hits for the search term though, it's a very busy area of development. From where I sit, robotic mowing is a solved problem and will only get better.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    88. Re:Coming Soon by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      I am sorry as well. A person being wrong about A does not invalidate everything he says about B.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    89. Re:Coming Soon by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That might be on the low side, but developed countries consistently have a lower-than-replacement.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    90. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the future of Suburban living! Low Police force!

    91. Re:Coming Soon by JanneM · · Score: 2

      But unless the U.S. takes a huge turn to the left, disaster will result.

      At which point the survivors|revolutionaries|a guy named Hank can pick up the pieces and build a new state that is better suited to the situation.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    92. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can barely program my VCR. Your missing a class.

      -robot Saboteurs
      -skynet resistance fighters
      -matrix operators
      -robot scrappers

    93. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats not particularly true. We are held back technologically and economically by a fucked up regulatory system and government. As well as corporate monopoly. People who could be productive are stifled because if they are.

      Apple, MS, IBM, BP, DoE, Banks, RIAA, MPAA, ISPs, Google, all have a completely dominant positions in the market. Both legally, and through capital.

      Leaving McDonalds and Law Enforcement which is a failing industry as people wake up and realize they don't need it. And is also toxic and kills their consumers and workers through draconian and old work ideals and regimes. McDonalds employees don't take pride in crafting perfect burgers, Its how fast they can feed their fellow commodities.

      Throw advertising into that situation, and you see why you have a out of control military industrial complex and the need to spy on and monitor everything.

      Union carbide is aloud to expend human commodities. Small incidents are permitted to happen. Dupont is allowed to use cheap Chinese labor. But we are not allowed to produce our own updated chars and technology and share it freely. And WWIII is not allowed to happen because the fallout would shit up peoples playgrounds.

      You all live in the matrix.

    94. Re:Coming Soon by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Why bother running a factory to produce things simply to give away to people who can't give you anything in return?

    95. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doing something that actually requires thought and effort.

      You are assuming that everyone is able of thought.

      or grammar

    96. Re:Coming Soon by PPH · · Score: 1
      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    97. Re:Coming Soon by Talderas · · Score: 1

      You just aren't using your imagination. More unfounded speculation follows:
      1. The size of the labor pool could be reduced by increasing the number of years we spend in education, which is now necessary because unskilled labor is in low demand.

      Meanwhile the size of the labor pool is being increased due to longevity.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    98. Re:Coming Soon by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I've heard this repeated many times over the past several years and it smacks of elitism. "almost everyone is dumber then me.. I guess I'll have to take care of them..."

      Those guys that turn wrenches on the factory floor probably have things they enjoy doing and do well. Maybe they fish and make their own lures. Maybe they enjoy tinkering with small engines. Not every factory drone drinks themselves into a stupor every night and rolls out of bed with a hangover to turn bolts for 8 hours. I would posit that the ones who do, do so because they have been stuck in an unfulfilling and mindless job.

      Robots would be great to take over those mindless jobs and allows us to move forward into a more artisanal and creative society. Not that there isn't a place for a solid social safety net.

    99. Re:Coming Soon by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      I agree, but I think there is room for robotics also. Maybe you key in your recipe and your timeshare robot comes over and peels the potatoes, fillets the fish, and washes your salad. After everything is prepped it places it back into the refrigerator and moves onto the next location.

    100. Re:Coming Soon by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Which would you prefer?

      robot made fast food that is mostly fats and sugars...
      or
      A timeshare robot that pops in and preps your meal; peeling, slicing, dicing, kneading dough, etc... You come home to your freshly prepped ingredients and put them together for a delicious meal.

    101. Re:Coming Soon by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Yeah, worst case we end up with a guy that puts down some IR stakes and sits in the shade. This is not an insurmountable problem, just an engineering issue.

    102. Re:Coming Soon by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      Cooking was just a single example. There are a million more. Robots suck at adapting, they're good at repeating. We still don't have robotic lawn mowers, just for a reality check.

      What? There are a number of robotic lawn mowers, and they work pretty well. The big problem right now is cost, on the order of $2k. The whole point is that they will get better over time and their cost will go down over time. It's the same with many currently manual jobs. Over the next 20 years, larger and larger segments of the job market will get replaced by robots, at least by reducing the number of people required. There are, of course, still farmers, just fewer. There will still be cooks and lawn mowers and dish washers and ditch diggers, just fewer of them.

      The real 'problem', if it is one, is that the speed at which these changes are occuring is less than a human work lifetime, say between 20 and 70, so people that had jobs won't any more.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    103. Re:Coming Soon by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Two things needed - strong AI and good robotic vision. The latter is coming along nicely, all told. As for the former, no. However, for many things an adequate AI would be sufficient. For a slew of simple tasks (what seem simple to us) it's a toss-up. Some things would only require good programming, which is to my mind rare but possible now.

      An example might be a robotic lawn mower; with decent sensors and enough logic to avoid running over children, pets, rocks, etc., it could be done now. Two problems, liability and why the fuck do we need big useless expanses of grass - let it go to native species and plant gardens, food and floral.

      The kicker for mobile robots is sufficiently cheap available power. Energy is key.

      Now then, we never really fully absorbed all the jobs lost to automotive automation going back to the 70's - close, but not fully. What's coming down the pike is several magnitudes larger; by mid-century 'first world' countries will lose between 1/3 and 1/2 of jobs to robots and automation. There is no way that can be absorbed by any means.

      There are limits here. The number of jobs and new jobs in new businesses will be far less than the labor pool. History is no guide here, and we've had few real cases anyway. (I haven't seen good documentation but we don't seem to have a good count of number of people who starved or suicided due to the Industrial Revolution, for example.)

      Some people are at their limits as to what they can learn how to do and do well enough to be considered employable. This percentage will only increase. The number of jobs available for those who are amenable to re-training will be less than needed; for creativity to flourish there must be support - a hunger-weakened homeless person is not going to magically chisel an award-winning sculpture.

      Hmm. Given rising population, costliness of meat production, maybe we will get used to a lot of soy meat with a slight almond flavor; problem solved.

      Given the real problems that will need to be addressed especially in light of an economic model incapable of doing so, it's going to be interesting. Even so, I think what BMW and Baxter are doing is wonderful, nifty stuff. The battle, if that's how some will structure it, is not between robots and humans competing for jobs; it's about how we organize ourselves as a functioning community versus feudal patterns of valuation and recompense.

    104. Re:Coming Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of things that an industrious person can do to make a living. They simply involve stepping outside of the factory and doing something that actually requires thought and effort.

      And the internet has effectively KILLED the value of 'Interllectual Property'! Read an earlier post I made here:

      Physical-media IP sales are dead. Here's the fix..

      All paid work left in a internet-based world filed with labor-saving robots implemented on an industrial scale in factories is 'live performances', the domain of gourmet chefs (like Benihanas and Mongolian Beef), performance artists (movie/TV/radio/theater/), artistic painters/sculturers/architects, musicians, authors (tenouously through public readings of their works) and prostitutes....

      Everyone else is 'hosed' unless there is some sort of 'safety net' for them to survive if they are incapable of 'live performaces'.

      The REAL solution is to move the planet over to a non-monetary, gift-based economy and eliminate money altogether but as long as people love money and/or have to have it where it is used JUST TO SURVIVE FROM ONE DAY TO THE NEXT, nothing will change and it will be 'business as usual' as it is now with the few in socioeconimic power over the many who 'play games' with them to increase their bankrolls--resulting in economic crises, wars, and general unrest among the masses under their ultimate control....

    105. Re:Coming Soon by Dabido · · Score: 1

      Robots in Japan pay Union fees. Always have as far as I know.

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  2. So what IS the plan? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is the plan for when no human need lift a finger? Are we just going to kill off all the unuseful population? Sterilize 'em, slap 'em on the ass, and send them off into the BLM land? Put them in uniforms and send them to war? Hook them up to the Matrix? Hmm, only one or two of these suggestions even sounds remotely plausible.

    We're on the cusp of having robots that pick fruit, for pete's sake. Floor-cleaning robots are becoming ubiquitous. Pretty soon the only jobs left to someone without an advanced degree will be plumber, and grade 1 robot repairman.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:So what IS the plan? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      What, you've never watched Star Trek?

      When humans no longer need to do the work, then they can go bone green chicks across the galaxy.

    2. Re:So what IS the plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are we just going to kill off all the unuseful population?

      We? No. After all, we have robots to do the dirty work for us.

    3. Re:So what IS the plan? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Japanese have a robot that picks strawberries. Apparently it is faster than a human.

      Fortunately it seems that most Americans are unwilling to have sex with a robot, so there will always be some manual labour available.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:So what IS the plan? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When humans no longer need to do the work, then they can go bone green chicks across the galaxy.

      Yeah, I used to believe that when I was a kid. But even Star Trek stopped believing that. It became about freedom fighters and such. And then it became about blowing stuff up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:So what IS the plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We're on the cusp of having robots that pick fruit, for pete's sake"

      Wait, we're doing all of this work for some dude name Pete?

    6. Re:So what IS the plan? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      What is the plan for when no human need lift a finger?

      I don't think you really "plan" for this sort of thing - it just happens. People will do something. It used to be that 90% of the population farmed... what was the plan for them when farming started becoming more efficient? There was no plan - they moved to cities in desperation and I'll be damned if entrepreneurs didn't figure out something to do with all of those new warm bodies. It'll be like that. It will suck for some and be awesome for others, and in the end I think people will find some way to feed themselves.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:So what IS the plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, it started with showing the vision of a great future of mankind, and then changed to the vision of showing a great profit to the stakeholders.

    8. Re:So what IS the plan? by alen · · Score: 1

      new jobs will come up
      100 years ago people mostly read the bible for fun. today we have a trillion dollar leisure industry of theme parks, vacations, video games, etc

      money doesn't vanish, it will simply be invested into something else

    9. Re:So what IS the plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is the plan for when no human need lift a finger?

      Minimum subsistence for those who choose not to work. Better living conditions and wages for those who choose to work.

      Same as it ever was - you don't have to lift a finger now to be guaranteed a minimum subsistence (food, some basic education, housing, clothing provided for by welfare and charity programs). If you want more than that, you work - as a robot janitor, as a robot accident clean-up guy, as a robot builder, robot programmer, robot repair guy, or one of the people who extract the raw materials required for all of that work to feed it into the increasingly mechanized production chain. Or, as an artist or artisan - producing something that CAN be produced by a robot cheaply, but which some people will value the 'handmade' quality and materials of, and thus pay a sizable premium for some of your time and effort. Yes, "Mountain Dew Hydrolyzed Nutro Paste" may be a perfectly good, cheap meal for most people... but that won't stop people from wanting to pay for a good steak that requires the skill, attention, and experience of a chef.

      We need to stop treating the expectation that "working hard to get ahead" is a bad thing, and somehow people who do it are evil and bad. We can certainly work on making the effort vs. reward curves more similar for different genders, different races, etc. - but the expectation that somehow robots will be able to do everything, everywhere, is foolish - there will always need to be humans in the production chain somewhere. If you choose not to work, don't expect others to hand you a gold-plated lifestyle for free.

    10. Re:So what IS the plan? by worf_mo · · Score: 2

      I may be a bit biased because this is related to the sector I've been working in for the past decade. But what's wrong with machines doing menial, repetitive and sometimes dangerous labor? Do you feel the same for all the office workers with their calculators, books and spreadsheets that have been replaced by ERP systems? Occasionally new technology "replaces" a person's job, but at the same time that technology creates new jobs (not necessarily as many, I concede) as it needs people who develop and maintain it.

      There is nothing wrong with wiping floors or being a plumber, both are honest jobs. But that was true for phone operators, too; still, for the better part of the last decades you have been using the telephone system without one.

      As long as it is cheaper to produce goods and deliver services at the other side of the globe because of missing (or not respected) labor and environmental laws, automation is not the main cause of people being without jobs in the "industrialized" world.

    11. Re:So what IS the plan? by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      most Americans are unwilling to have sex with a robot

      You're joking, right?

    12. Re:So what IS the plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bender: What do you mean "we", flesh-tube?

    13. Re:So what IS the plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately it seems that most Americans are unwilling to have sex with a robot

      Unfortunately, this is yet another demographic where Slashdot readers don't reflect the norm.

    14. Re:So what IS the plan? by invid · · Score: 1

      The jobless population will be hired as NPCs in vast, ultra-realistic MMORPGs where they will supply amusement to the paying player characters; to be continuously killed, tortured, and humiliated by the ruling elite.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    15. Re:So what IS the plan? by Aguazul2 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you really "plan" for this sort of thing - it just happens. People will do something.

      What happens with most people when they have nothing to do is that they turn to distractions. What happens to a few is that they turn to their creative interests (I have enough interests to safely keep me busy until I die). But most people will be slipping into drug dependency or gang warfare or watching soaps 24/7 or gaming. Maybe soaps and gaming are the best we can hope for, actually. Keep them anaesthetised and out of trouble. If you want quality of life, you have to make it yourself. If the requirement and opportunity to work isn't there, then it is easy to stagnate.

    16. Re:So what IS the plan? by njnnja · · Score: 1

      I prefer to think that most people will find a balance between distractions, family, friends, religion, and providing for necessities in the ways that humans have historically managed to do so. It won't look like today's balance, but who is to say we are doing it so well now?

    17. Re:So what IS the plan? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I've asked American men and women about this subject. Women have mixed views, but men are nearly universally in favor of the idea.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    18. Re:So what IS the plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even your advanced degree won't save you for long. Only the ruling class will survive. Better start sending donations to the Democratic party; you have limited time left to make friends in high places.

    19. Re:So what IS the plan? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I knew a scumbag who scammed his way onto SSDI. He drank himself into liver failure before he was 50. There is already a LOT of that. Look at then numbers, SSDI is growing by a million scammers a year.

      Forcing them to work a shit job is for their benefit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:So what IS the plan? by Anti-Social+Network · · Score: 1

      Why would you think there's a plan? We dream of things that could come about in the future a la Star Trek,but it doesn't seem realistic to the average person even in the countries at the cutting edge of this trend (EU, USA, certainly not China). Therefore, there is no public consensus - I mean, what's the public consensus on what to do about the Sun going into the red giant stage and swallowing the middle planets of our solar system? We haven't thought that far ahead. Most people are terrible at putting disparate pieces of information together to form a coherent view of the future, much less form a rational plan addressing wide-scale problems like this. There are a few visionaries, but they mostly form advocacy groups or write sci-fi novels, and hardly get the necessary attention. Elon Musk is the rare exception.

      So when the time comes, as is typical in history, there will be major upheaval and social angst, and finally something will be done at the "last minute" which will be imperfect and require iteration for generations. Really, I think the only time we've averted something like this ahead of time was with the Y2K bug, and even then it came down to the wire.

      So many issues remain to be decided: response to global warming, end of ubiquitous make-work, the apparent death of Public Domain in intellectual property law, the consequences of medically-halted aging on cultural rejuvenation (i.e. generations no longer change and push society to improve), the fragility of humans inhabiting only a single biosphere with no alternative in case of apocalyptic disaster... the list goes on. We don't care, collectively. We're focused on whose sports team is going to win the championship this year, and how to dumb down daily life so as to require no brain cells whatsoever, and did you hear what Miley Cyrus just did? So when the .001% have drone armies keeping the peace and some flagrant abuse kicks off the Butlerian Jihad, we're going to be caught mostly flat-footed, wondering where our knight riding a giant sandworm is because They Shouldn't Be Allowed To Do That. It'll be painful, terrifying, and completely preventable.

      --
      Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
    21. Re:So what IS the plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they make drones and other military purpose robots.

      When everyone becomes a zombie type of menace due to the lack of food or what have you and start to riot, the robots owned by the rich will not have any morality to consider when wiping the plague off the earth.

      And people won't be food, they'll be bio-diesel.

    22. Re: So what IS the plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh man, oh man this is great ive always wanted to talk to you. not because of your username, mind, but because of your attitude. ssdi is NOT a scam. its by design that you rage at it and call them liars. that rage you feel is the entire point of the system setting it up this way, because if they didnt do it in a way that makes you think 'theyre scamming th system!' then youd blow up the state house, and if they didnt get the money, theyd blow up the state house. this system is in place to prevent change, and as long as you rage at them your energy is safely redirected against change. you are projecting. it is making life horrible for everyone around you.

      is it worth it?

    23. Re: So what IS the plan? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I'm not in a rage. I'm a little disappointed that someone who used to be a friend was so badly served.

      SSDI is a scam for at least 50%. I asked the dude when he was first going for 'something for nothing' (his words): if he didn't feel bad for stealing from those actually disabled? He laughed; scumbag.

      The universe took over, he wanted to to be disabled. A solid decade of drinking later he was. Karma is a bitch.

      Change is coming. The kited checks are coming home. It's truly going to suck for those that have made themselves 'helpless' to work the system. Many have internalized the helplessness. Sucks to be them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    24. Re:So what IS the plan? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      You mean the Ferengi were just stakeholders who happened to wander onto the set?

    25. Re:So what IS the plan? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      No robots in Star Trek's utopian future.
      maybe one or two...

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    26. Re:So what IS the plan? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      What's so wrong with sterilization? I would've no problems with sterilizing couples that already have more children that they can support, or people who have proven themselves unsuitable for having one. For example, when the parents are so bad that they have to take their kids into care, they should also sterilize them to prevent a similar problem in the future.

      Also, humanity is evolving. Hundred years ago the job those car manufacturers are doing would be considered high-tech skilled labour. Maybe hundred years from now the mechanics of today will be the code monkeys, and anybody who manages to get further will be in research. With more productivity people will spend more on entertainment, which will be a huge job market in the future.

      I think technological advancement alone is beneficial for most of the time. The problems usually arise when the development of technology becomes faster than the development of society. We are pushing our boundaries further and further, but have little idea how to live without them. Humanity is like an autistic kid who is smart enough to open his dad's gun locker, but lacks the wisdom not to play with its contents.
      In short, it's not advancement itself that's the problem, but that our understanding doesn't keep up with the speed of our research.

    27. Re:So what IS the plan? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      and in the end I think people will find some way to feed themselves

      They already have. It's called crime.

    28. Re:So what IS the plan? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that's been going down.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    29. Re:So what IS the plan? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What's so wrong with sterilization?

      Well, I'm not really against eugenics per se. I know that makes me a bad person or something, but I say it with the understanding that I would be sterilized. My genes aren't particularly great, as far as I can tell. Not that bad, not that good. But the standard argument goes like this: you can stack the deck against people you'd like to see fade away, and then they do.

      Also, humanity is evolving. Hundred years ago the job those car manufacturers are doing would be considered high-tech skilled labour. Maybe hundred years from now the mechanics of today will be the code monkeys, and anybody who manages to get further will be in research.

      Sadly, there's no evidence that humanity as a whole is getting any smarter.

      I think technological advancement alone is beneficial for most of the time. The problems usually arise when the development of technology becomes faster than the development of society. We are pushing our boundaries further and further, but have little idea how to live without them.

      Well, there's the rub. We've reached a point of unparalleled technological development. And for several generations now, there's been massive changes within normal human lifespans. This is a new thing!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:So what IS the plan? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Sterilization can be a tool of eugenics, but not necessarily. Notice how I didn't mention any examples of sterilization based on physical attributes. Sterilization can be used for population control without preference for any group.

    31. Re:So what IS the plan? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sterilization can be a tool of eugenics, but not necessarily. Notice how I didn't mention any examples of sterilization based on physical attributes. Sterilization can be used for population control without preference for any group.

      It never works that way, though. If you started doing it on an economic basis today, it would be unfair along racial boundaries because of the prevailing inequity in society.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:So what IS the plan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have a whole army of holograms doing their asteroid mining...

    33. Re: So what IS the plan? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      SSDI functions as an shadow welfare system in the US, and that appears to be how it is designed. Would you prefer to have people starving in the gutter?

    34. Re:So what IS the plan? by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      What's so wrong with sterilization?

      Well, I'm not really against eugenics per se. I know that makes me a bad person or something, but I say it with the understanding that I would be sterilized. My genes aren't particularly great, as far as I can tell. Not that bad, not that good. But the standard argument goes like this: you can stack the deck against people you'd like to see fade away, and then they do.

      You have no idea what the value of your genes is. Nobody does. Any particular scale is wrong both because of bias and because it would be for 'now' rather than for the future. The whole point is that we don't know what's going to happen in 10 years, much less 50, so maybe you are the most valuable person in the world because your genes allow you to be the ideal person 50 years from now.

      Yes, you, personally, are probably not it, but the person that is 'it' would probably be judged poorly now. Honestly, let's just keep the gene pool diverse and let things work themselves out as they do.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    35. Re:So what IS the plan? by Dabido · · Score: 1

      Well, humans are still playing robots on TV (Battlestar Galactica/Futurama etc). So, acting, reality TV shows (I just thought of a new one, 'I lost my job to a robot' - follows how humans cope after they can't find work for not being a robot), magicians, writers (at the moment), sports (most sports), live music, conceptual/performance art, maybe politicians and ambassadors. Hmmm, that's probably it.

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
    36. Re:So what IS the plan? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      But a large amount of that inequality is because of the preference of certain races to big families. As long as people are equal in front ofthe law regardless of color, I don't see a problem with it. Anybody from any race gets a fair chance in the market. I understand though that after a point economic based population control will become unfair towards the poor. One solution to this is to act early, so that tight population control never becomes necessary. Failing this, a fairer approach would be to limit the children a family can have to a constant two. It's not a perfect system, for example if thoroughly enforced then it would make the population decline rather than stay level, but its simplicity leaves room for some balancing without it getting too complicated and thus corruptable.

  3. Open the pod bay doors HAL by tedgyz · · Score: 4, Funny

    That was a good example of human-robot collaboration.

    --
    "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    1. Re:Open the pod bay doors HAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hand me a wrench Repair-HAL 9000. Ahhh, my eye!

    2. Re:Open the pod bay doors HAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHA!!! Hoo-boy that was a knee slapper, I didn't see that one coming!!!!

      LOLOLO!!!!!

  4. 1 by One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to see them replace all of us.

  5. Will it make BMWs cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody benefits except the finance guys.

    Again.

    1. Re:Will it make BMWs cheaper? by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Nobody benefits except the finance guys.

      Again.

      And the people installing the robots, maintaining the robots, building the robots, but no the the price of a BM will still be high, they have to recoup the initial investment cost for the robots and unemployment/severance for the humans.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    2. Re:Will it make BMWs cheaper? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Why would bowel movements be expensive? Do you foresee some robot toilet future with the only options being a high price or taking a crap in the bushes?

    3. Re:Will it make BMWs cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it will.

      BMW is using it to make their cars more cheaply - say it shaves 3% off the production cost, this allows them to lower the price 2% while STILL making fatter profits. And then Infiniti, Audi, Lexus, Acura, and the other "premium" brands will retool their production and shave 2-3% off their production costs, and lower their prices a few % as well, re-establishing thinner margins, then these robots will be adopted into the lower end vehicles, with the same results - resulting in an industry-wide decrease in prices, which benefits the consumer, while allowing the manufacturers to maintain some profit margin.

      Did you sleep through this in Econ 101? It's pretty simple market dynamics. In the short term, the person adopting the automation first gets a slightly better profit margin due to reduced production costs until his competitors catch up and can match his prices again. This aligns the price-cutters' interests with the consumers interests pretty neatly.

    4. Re:Will it make BMWs cheaper? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Why would bowel movements be expensive?

      Labor costs - they're one of the few things robots can't do.

    5. Re:Will it make BMWs cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      Bowel movements will never be expensive. Just think about it:

      1) You get that good feeling of relief when you are evacuated,
      2) You occasionally make funny noises,
      3) You stink up the room for the next guy.

      Face it. It is one of, if not the greatest value of your entertainment dollar.

    6. Re:Will it make BMWs cheaper? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Seriously dude? Have you not figured out that the average slashdotter has never heard of Econ 101 and if they have, they simply blather on about it being yet another method of mind control employed by "the rich" to keep "the little guy" down.

    7. Re:Will it make BMWs cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, when you walked past the classroom door where they were having the econ 101 class, did you happen to overhear the word "demand"? In this case, demand is represented by human beings who are employed with an income that allows them to buy a car. Perhaps some of them are employed by a car manufacturer. When most (all?) manufacturing industries simultaneously go through a structural shift where they require less well-paid human labor, it *will* result in less demand for manufactured goods and ultimately hurt everyone.

    8. Re:Will it make BMWs cheaper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, for several reasons:

      1) The people these robots are replacing are probably not buying BMWs. They MAY be buying the Hondas or Toyotas or Kias that these robots will eventually show up on production lines for, but that's a much longer phased implementation than you seem to be imagining.
      2) Your argument presumes that people will stop wanting to buy cars in general, which is, based on driving statistics vs. gas prices over the past few years, is pretty demonstrably not true. People will perhaps buy cheaper cars (and surprise surprise - these robots will help companies PRODUCE cheaper cars!), or used cars, but it's a pretty big stretch to think that people are going to just say "fuck it, I won't drive anymore." That demand isn't very elastic.
      3) The past hundred years of increasing automation have not eliminated jobs. In fact, the number of jobs has grown, and grown, and grown - with a few exceptions during economic downturns - recessions & depressions. And that's going from a mostly-agrarian/extract-based (minerals, lumber) economy to a modern highly technological, highly automated society.

      By your argument, the introduction of cars was the end of the transportation industry, since buggy whip manufacturers, buggy drivers, and blacksmiths were put out of work by this new automation! Instead, it created millions of new, better paying jobs.

      If you want to argue that the disruption needs to be watched closely to mitigate against pushing the disrupted job categories into poverty, then that's fine, let's talk policy. But if you want to argue that "automation = death of demand = nobody has jobs anymore because magical robots will STEEL ARE JERBS," then you can fuck right off back to the local community college and take that smug little shit-eating grin back to the hallway outside Econ 101.

      Fucktard.

  6. You will become a cog in the machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is happening all the places. In office work, this is there for 5-10 years.

    In old days processes were executed by humans, and some easy to automate repetitive tasks in the process were handled by machines.
    The new hype is that processes are all automated, and some hard to automate repetitive tasks are handled by humans.

    The resulting job for the human is devastating, removes the meaning to being human.

    Take reading the postcode on letters. A machine vision system is capable of reading 9999 of 10000 envelopes. For the remaining 1, you need a human. What happens is, there is a lost soul who sits at a computer screen, a new scan of an envelope comes up every second, and he types in the code. Then the next one... I would hang myself rather than do this job 8 hours a day.

    Vajk

    1. Re:You will become a cog in the machine by Russ1642 · · Score: 2

      I think you nailed it. The 8 hour workday needs to be shortened.

    2. Re:You will become a cog in the machine by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      and he types in the code. Then the next one... I would hang myself rather than do this job 8 hours a day.

      And you wouldn't if you had the old job? You know, where letters come down a conveyor and you sort them into one of a few other conveyors? That's the exact same thing except you get paper cuts.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:You will become a cog in the machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the old scenario, you sort them into bins :-)
      But you go grab a sack, get a bunch, sort them. You decide the speed, if you do quick, then rest for 2 mins or do it slower, etc.
      With automation, you do not even move. Sit like frozen, eyes on screen, righthand on numpad. You are a robot.

      This will be the same in the assembly line. U cannot decide which of the three screws u put in first. And you cannot turn around to reach for the wrench, as it is put into your hand. And you do not have to think which wrench, you do not even have to know which wrench handles that bolt. The right one is handed to you, and that's all you should think of.

      Vajk

    4. Re:You will become a cog in the machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a robot in both of your scenarios, as is anyone who's work doesn't require creative thought.
       
      Why do you think being a robot that puts letters in bins is better than being a robot that looks at photos of letters and enters the address data?

    5. Re:You will become a cog in the machine by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      In old days processes were executed by humans

      In the future, humans will be executed by processors!

  7. We're Doomed! by Spillman · · Score: 2

    Robot human collaboration? I think you meant human cyborg relations.

    --
    sig?
  8. Incapable??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This ain't right. "as robots have previously been incapable of doing such jobs" is simply not true. Cars have been rolling off Fiat assembly lines in Italy for the better part of 20 years untouched by human hands.

    1. Re:Incapable??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know Fiat was an actual car, not built by Matchbox.

    2. Re:Incapable??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      35 years, actually. The jokes were pretty funny at the time:

      http://www.pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic.asp?h=0&t=520307&r=7758708&hm=35012

  9. Used to be apprentices would do that by reubenavery · · Score: 1

    How's anyone going to learn skilled labor like this in the future if they can't even apprenticeship?

    1. Re:Used to be apprentices would do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robot can't into apprenticeship :-(

      How is robot formed?

      I accidentally a robot..

    2. Re:Used to be apprentices would do that by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

      Does it matter? Not so many people learn the skilled art of riding horses anymore.

  10. Get there from here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    robot-human collaboration

    Stepping stones. Tomorrow comes today, one moment closer at a time.

  11. Close Proximity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that closer than close or just close to close?

    1. Re:Close Proximity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're the exact same thing.

  12. "the ongoing automation of work" by guanxi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The move could prove a significant in the ongoing automation of work, as robots have previously been incapable of doing such jobs, and too dangerous to work in close proximity to humans.

    The "ongoing automation of work" has been going on for centuries, and will continue thank goodness. Yes, that means rooms of human calculators were displaced by the device you are looking at right now, laundresses were displaced by automatic clothes washers, human dishwashers displaced by their automatic equivalents ... (and the last two helped half of humanity get out of the house and into far more rewarding, productive things).

    There is always more work to do. If you look at the jobs of 50 years ago, I expect a large portion are gone now, yet people have found new, more productive work. Where would the software developers come from if they were still sewing shirts and digging coal?

    The drawback isn't for society, but for individual workers. The economy as a whole becomes more productive, but the individual whose life-long skills become obsolete may be out of luck. We need to find a way to help and take care of those people; all of society benefits, while the entire cost is born by a very few.

    1. Re:"the ongoing automation of work" by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

      The "ongoing automation of work" has been going on for centuries, and will continue thank goodness.

      The farmer has provided food and shelter for all the days of our life, said the turkeys. We therefore conclude that the purpose of a farmer is to provide our food and shelter, and that this will continue for the foreseeable future.

      "Predictions of our demise have no merit", they concluded. "We have abundant historical evidence to the contrary."

    2. Re:"the ongoing automation of work" by guanxi · · Score: 1

      OK, a reasonable point, but what do you suggest? Stop economic progress, the growth in productivity (if we could)? Should we have stopped in 1950? 1920? How would you and I be communicating?

    3. Re:"the ongoing automation of work" by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

      People always complain that the march of technology will put people out of jobs, historically this has always been proven false.

      The issue here is one of similar contexts. If the current situation is the same as all the historical situations, then we can expect the same results. This is simple expectation learning from historical examples.

      I claim that the context is different this time. Looking at GDP per capita, we see the aggregate purchasing power is higher than the level needed for everyone to survive.

      Standard economic theory builds on the premise of infinite consumption, which comes from the assumptions of infinite population growth and infinite personal consumption.

      Infinite population growth is observed to be false. Population is decreasing in most industrialized nations, and US population would be decreasing if it were not for immigration. Even with immigration, the growth rate is almost negative right now and is expected to be negative very soon.

      Infinite individual consumption is also observed to be false on the average. When people reach a certain level of comfort, their needs are met and they have no need to consume ever more resources. Individuals won't eat an infinite amount of food if given the chance, won't use an infinite amount of electricity, or buy an infinitely large house. Once their needs are met, consumption levels off.

      The upshot is that we have either reached, or are very close to, the level where all production can be satisfied by fewer workers than exist in the population.

      This is the difference, this is how the context has changed from the Luddites in the early 1800's. In all previous examples, there was enough demand for production that people could find work in other areas. This time it's different.

      We have an ever-growing number of people who are no longer needed to work.

      OK, a reasonable point, but what do you suggest? Stop economic progress, the growth in productivity (if we could)? Should we have stopped in 1950? 1920? How would you and I be communicating?

      Here's a well-written example of a possible alternate system.

      Check it out - it's an easy read, and gives a good introduction from which we can have informed discussion.

      To summarize that position, let's take the current economic growth to it's logical conclusion. Imagine a large factory sitting in Arizona which is responsible for producing all consumables needed by the population. It's completely self contained: solar powered, part of its production is diverted to producing replacement solar panels as they wear out. It recycles waste into new products. It's so completely automated that the number of people needed to run the place is negligible.

      Everyone in the US is assigned a fixed portion of the factory output in the form of a monthly allowance - say, $1000 worth of production. Each month people order what they need, the factory makes it and has it delivered to the doorstep. 'Sort of like online grocery shopping.

      There is no physical reason preventing such a plant; furthermore, there is no physical reason why the plant couldn't divert some of it's production to duplicating itself, so that over time production would double, and then double again.

      This is a nice model with no logical inconsistencies that anyone can see, and it's predicted to be the endpoint of our economic development.

      No one knows how we transition from the current system to the global factory model yet.

    4. Re:"the ongoing automation of work" by guanxi · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I only have time to skim that. Regarding a key point, I don't agree that we are near maximum consumption:

        * Over a billion (maybe billions) people live on less than a dollar per day. They can consume much more
        * As they consume more, we'll need new technologies in order to meet demand sustainably; the model the advanced nations used doesn't scale up that far.
        * Even in the wealthiest countries, people cannot afford all the healthcare they need, all the education they need, or, to consider another industry, all the quality, organic food they desire. Heck, they can't get the quality tech support they need.

    5. Re:"the ongoing automation of work" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a question on the automatic clothes washers and dishwashers (etc) that "helped half of humanity get out of the house". Do you think this actually did something good? Do you think it's a coincidence that doubling the work force correlates with real worker pay being halved (i.e. it is now *necessary* for both parents in a middle-class family to work full-time rather than just one of them)? Is it good that we now have to work more to maintain a lifestyle with less freedom than our parents had?

    6. Re:"the ongoing automation of work" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we're nowhere near that system technologically yet. Particularly the part about infinite energy and perfect recycling. And the robot vision. And excellent AI. And neural interfaces.

      You know what? Nearly all the technology is a good ways off.

  13. How many jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pretty soon the only jobs left to someone without an advanced degree will be plumber, and grade 1 robot repairman.

    And everyone who is capable of getting an advanced degree will do so and we'll have a glut and subsequent huge amount of unemployed people with said degrees.

    What needs to change is NOT automation but our economic system - and it's too late anyway to stop it. And the industrialists won't let it happen, either.

    Capitalism cannot make the transition because it is dependent on consumption and you can't have consumption when no one can afford to buy things because of being unemployed.

    We ain't seen nothing yet when comes to economic meltdowns.

    1. Re:How many jobs by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      And everyone who is capable of getting an advanced degree will do so and we'll have a glut and subsequent huge amount of unemployed people with said degrees.

      In fact we already have that, even with the vaunted STEM degrees that useful idiots are always saying we have a shortage of.

      What needs to change is NOT automation but our economic system

      Hear, hear! I don't know what "ism" we'll attach to a changed system, but any system that makes people worse off economically because it increases productivity is obviously and seriously flawed.

  14. Not always a good payoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both GM and Toyota have spent lots of money on heavily automated plants with mixed success. On one hand, robots can be productive money-savers, depending on the task. On the other hand, they cost a lot of money and don't have the kind of flexibility a human with two hands a brain has. The reality is, labor is only a small part of the cost of auto manufacturing. Even in the most expensive jurisdictions, 10-15% is pretty much tops.

  15. The Jetsons comes to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their apartment complex mechanic had a robot whose body looked like a toolbox. He later became infatuated with Rosie, the robot maid.

  16. also taking the lower level stepping stones is bad by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    also taking the lower level stepping stones is bad for people who used to move up to the sophisticated tasks. College does not tech the missing skills. We also need more trades / apprenticeship like learning for some of the more sophisticated tasks.

  17. just don't take a red shirt job then by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    just don't take a red shirt job then

  18. Actually by kilodelta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I believe there's a Kia plant in Kentucky where the vast majority of the car is assembled by robots. I couldn't find it but I once watched a video of it and it's fascinating.

    It essentially starts with roll steel, then stamping, welding, painting, final assembly and so on. It's completely removed the human labor component from automobile manufacturing. And one thing that amuses me - labor used to be the biggest expense of a car. Now it's electricity at a fraction the rate. So why do cars still cost so much?

    1. Re:Actually by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Labor is still the largest expense of the car. Well, previous labor is more accurate.

      GM's biggest problem is that they are actually paying more for retired union employees than for those working on the line. At one point, more than half the MSRP of a car was funding pensions and retiree health care.

      Paying someone $90,000 a year to install windshields also adds up pretty fast.

    2. Re:Actually by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      So why do cars still cost so much?

      They wouldn't "cost so much" if working/middle-class salaries had grown with increase in productivity over the last 3 decades. However, basically all the economic gains from productivity have gone to a tiny wealthy oligarchy. Consider a worker who could build 10 widgets a year and afford to buy 5 widgets back in "the old days." With improvements in technology, now a worker can build 50 widgets a year --- and gets paid enough to buy 4, because they're competing for jobs with all the other workers laid off who now can afford to buy 0. All the gains in productivity are captured by the capitalist management/investment class, who get to pocket the savings in wages per unit produced for themselves.

    3. Re:Actually by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      But with the government bailout of GM, didn't that drastically reduce the retirement liability? It may have preserved it for those already retired but those currently working are going to get the short end of the stick when it comes time for them to retire.

    4. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But yet they still have to retire, where is the money to support them going to come from?

    5. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a straight up lie, please back this crap up.

      As for everyone else delusions of cutting the work day blah blah blah. All of that would be nice, but because of government meddling and high taxes how can anyone afford the cost of living? You don't really own land in America, you pay tax on it, and very high tax. Power isn't cheap, nor is anything else, until the cost of living falls or things change in that regard everything means nothing, that's why some of us work.

    6. Re:Actually by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Consider a worker who could build 10 widgets a year and afford to buy 5 widgets back in "the old days." With improvements in technology, now a worker can build 50 widgets a year --- and gets paid enough to buy 4, because they're competing for jobs with all the other workers laid off who now can afford to buy 0.

      Why didn't some of the laid off workers start 4 more businesses to soak up the additional productivity? Clearly, any worker they could hire would be 5 times more productive than before the change over, so now they can afford to start their won businesses and employ people, right?

    7. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      although aren't forgetting that the increase in supply of cars should also decrease the price?

      IIRC my Marxist economics correctly, the main problem is that machines have fixed costs and so can't be laid off when there's over-supply, thus having no way to rebalance the system. Now if robots can be re-tasked/programmed easily, this might solve the problem?

    8. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because as we all know robots have to buy premium private robotic care, new mansions, yatchs, oil, beer and hookers.

      Perhaps these megacorps one day will have to build robotic consumers to keep their profits up since the ammount of humans with the capital to buy them will be un-employed or living bellow minimum wage wich is stagant for decades now and the powers that rule strive to keep it lower while taxing higher and inflation of key resources slowly rises leading to higher production costs, but who cares right? It's automated and the automatons don't need to be payed a wage!

      So to paraphrase H.Ford, if i don't pay well enough to my employees, who's going to buy what i make?

      Well since robots don't need a wage at all, eventually in the future "no one" will (be able to) buy anything. Untill 2 mega corps remain and their army of A.I. transactions keep increasing prices on each other after each sale to offset the imaginary costs while constantly showing quaterly(or should i say millisecondly?) profits and the circle of monetary slavery is sucessfully looped into an automatised closed sytem.

      Of course all of this is just silly humurous exctrapolations of foresight but if capitalism/finance and politics do not change to adapt the social impact (mostly negative when it comes to a strickly capitalist point of view) unemployment tendency/rate in the long term will not decrease over time.

      Politicians keep ignoring one of the big problems a modern society faces, yet do nothing but being parasites puppeteered by Bank/investment/business group A,B,C...etc to keep the broken system lumping and crashing and rebooting and so forth.

      Whoever isn't born very rich is screwed, technology hasn't change this aspect about humanity, and never will. Its inherited properties exacerbate it (the human greed and need of control through chains of FIAT capital to keep the dream chasers out of the real valuables, be it raw resources and/or knowledge).

    9. Re:Actually by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Maybe because (a) laid off workers don't have a few hundred million dollars lying around to start up a high-tech factory (using automation to get high productivity per labor input), and (b) the market is already saturated with more widgets than a bunch of laid-off laborers can afford to buy. The people with the short end of the stick in capitalism (the working class) can't afford to start businesses when they're struggling to even keep a roof over their own head; only those already awash in money taken from the labor of others can afford to do so.

    10. Re:Actually by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      Straight off the Wikipedia page on labor productivity (not the final definitive source, but a good start for someone starting from zero information like yourself), check this basic summary plot:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg

      Note how labor productivity and wages are rising together in unison from ~1945 to '75, so gains in productivity helped the average citizen over that period. Then, from '75 on, (inflation-adjusted) wages completely flatline while productivity increases. This is also the point where executive salaries and the wealth of the 1% (and the 1% of the 1%) started skyrocketing upwards, taking all the gains that used to be shared over the whole population.

    11. Re:Actually by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      But, there won't be a huge change in the overall supply of cars (widgets), especially with no demand to buy them. Rather than flooding society with more cars than ever by keeping all workers employed at higher productivity, the capitalist class will just keep producing whatever amount maximizes their cut of the profit, laying off workers. Thus, you end up in a situation where there are a huge number of potentially productive, willing-to-work, but unemployed workers, that no one with money will hire because they don't have a profitable market to sell the additional goods (lack of demand from all the unemployed and poorly-paid workers).

      Easily re-programmed robots won't help if the working class has no money to buy new robotic goods with, because they lost their jobs to flexible robots, which are owned by a tiny wealthy elite.

    12. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in the real world barriers to entry are utterly massive (on the scale of existing companies) and productivity isn't fungible.

      If you libertarians want to actually contribute to the discussion, how about coming up with proposals to reduce the barriers or hop over them. You need to make these markets more accessible by a factor of 100 before the little guys are allowed to compete. Blaming the government *might* get you a factor of 2-5. Any ideas for covering the rest?

    13. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and "get VC funding" doesn't count, because in markets with large barriers to entry the VCs know they're needed and take all the equity, keeping us stuck squarely in the "rich people control everything and reap all the rewards" domain.

    14. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just the opposite. The government bailout simply used taxpayer money to shore up and EXPAND retiree benefits at GM.

    15. Re:Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Artificial economy
      Artificial prices
      Artificial inflation

      Basically in order to build and produce cars like that you have to have a large virtual protection of your industry and permission to keep churning that virtual "work" traded for other peoples work. Its fairly arbitrarily set by Big Banks controlling Fiat currencies and large assets, like human commodity pools. Or other resources that are easy to stockpile or trade.

    16. Re:Actually by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Maybe because (a) laid off workers don't have a few hundred million dollars lying around to start up a high-tech factory (using automation to get high productivity per labor input), and (b) the market is already saturated with more widgets than a bunch of laid-off laborers can afford to buy. The people with the short end of the stick in capitalism (the working class) can't afford to start businesses when they're struggling to even keep a roof over their own head; only those already awash in money taken from the labor of others can afford to do so.

      Automation makes productivity fungible. That's kind of the point of automation.

      I don't understand why, if I'm laid of from a job in a hub-cap factory that the only business I could possibly start would have to be another hubcap factory. In other words, your points "a" and "b" assume that the laid off worker goes into competition with their former employer (out of spite for having been laid off?), rather than starting a new business and creating a new market for the product of that business.

    17. Re:Actually by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Because in the real world barriers to entry are utterly massive (on the scale of existing companies) and productivity isn't fungible.

      If you libertarians want to actually contribute to the discussion, how about coming up with proposals to reduce the barriers or hop over them. You need to make these markets more accessible by a factor of 100 before the little guys are allowed to compete. Blaming the government *might* get you a factor of 2-5. Any ideas for covering the rest?

      I'll ignore the labeling in order to address the point.

      The fundamental assumption of the barrier to entry is that the worker would be entering into an existing market. If you are going to start a business, the only reasons to do it in the same market segment and the employer you were laid off from is stupidity or spite.

      I think the proposals to barriers to entry are already out their. If you want to open a shop in Taiwan, the entire process takes you a day. In the US, that process takes you 2-3 weeks. In India, the same process would take you (potentially) over two months, unless you bribed the proper people. So I'd place the government factor at 10x-20x, if you include establishing payroll, POS systems, and so on, as required by tax regulations. Some of it is a business line of credit for cash flow businesses, insurance for employees, union scale wages for employees, and so on.

    18. Re:Actually by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Doesn't help the fact that if you're laid off from a hubcap factory, you probably don't have hundreds of millions of dollars in savings waiting for a new project. No matter what industry you'd want to start up in: you're competing against rich people who can afford to buy robots and set up large factories, starting from a laid-off hubcap worker's savings (if you're lucky to have a positive net worth at all)? How the heck do you think that's gonna work? Unless you're already part of the rich investor class with loads of money to throw around, not some poor working class Joe who just lost his paycheck, you very likely aren't just going to be able to start a business --- and anything local and small scale won't have much of a market, because all your neighbors are also low-wage or unemployed thanks to robots.

    19. Re:Actually by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Doesn't help the fact that if you're laid off from a hubcap factory, you probably don't have hundreds of millions of dollars in savings waiting for a new project. No matter what industry you'd want to start up in: you're competing against rich people who can afford to buy robots and set up large factories, starting from a laid-off hubcap worker's savings (if you're lucky to have a positive net worth at all)? How the heck do you think that's gonna work? Unless you're already part of the rich investor class with loads of money to throw around, not some poor working class Joe who just lost his paycheck, you very likely aren't just going to be able to start a business --- and anything local and small scale won't have much of a market, because all your neighbors are also low-wage or unemployed thanks to robots.

      I'm going to guess the person rich off the hubcap factory is not going to compete in your taco truck business niche, which you then build into a two taco truck business, then four, then a fleet of taco trucks. Maybe at that point, you put together a very small burrito production company to centralize production costs to get a higher margin, then at some point you take the excess and establish a brick and mortar taqueria. Then you establish a couple more. Then you franchise and go national, where the startup costs are paid by the franchisee and you get a cut of their profit for use of your name, trade dress, and recipes. If you are smart, you are also their contracted supplier as part of franchising, and they buy their logo cups, napkins, fry envelopes, and frozen foodstock from you. And you build a bigger factory to supply them, and eventually factories.

      Why the hell do you need hundreds of millions of dollars to start up a hundred million dollar business? Facebook started in a dorm room; Google started in a dorm room. HP started in a garage.

      I think the problem you are complaining about is that the laid off workers in your scenario lack vision and entrepreneurial spirit. The ones in my scenario borrow money from family and friends to get a taco truck up and running.

      And if you think my example is facetious or far fetched:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taco_Bell

      So I would tell them to get their brains off their fat asses and start a business.

    20. Re:Actually by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Because GM isn't a car company. They are a pension company that happens to also manufacture cars.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    21. Re:Actually by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Some people lay this squarely at the feet of the change to a full fiat monetary system with the ensuing inflation and seignurage profits.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    22. Re:Actually by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Your "Taco Bell" example is a great example of why your proposition is totally full of shit. Replace what you said by "go to Vegas and keep doubling up on the roulette wheel" makes about as much sense: for one-in-a-million who hits lucky success, it works out great; everyone else ends up busted. You think your exponential taco truck growth will work for tens of millions of unemployed? What happens is that a tiny few end up on top --- the Taco Bells of the world --- who then have economies of scale and massive advertising propaganda edge to soak up most of the available market (and increase automation to decrease the amount/quality of jobs they provide). A few tiny niche businesses take up the rest. The other 99.99% of people who might try this end up with a load of fail, out-competed by Taco Bell and back on the streets with the workers Taco Bell lays off thanks to automation. Pretty soon, you have massively depressed areas where even all your friends and family together can't scrape together enough cash for a taco truck (yes, this is a reality for millions of able and willing unemployed workers).

  19. does it look like Tricia Helfer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    b/c the day a genocidal android/cylon/whatever that looks like her offers me favors in return for help wiping out humanity will be a very bad day to be the rest of you...

    just keepin' it real...

  20. This might be workable... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    I think you nailed it. The 8 hour workday needs to be shortened.

    This might be workable... ...if you were able to make it so that it cost a company exactly the same to hire 2 workers @ 20 hours/week as it costs them to hire 1 worker @ 40 hours/week. Which means the government eats the individual per employee costs for the extra employees, as taxes which they do not collect.

    1. Re:This might be workable... by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      With health care costs and benefits, doesn't it cost MORE to hire a full time worker than two part time workers?

    2. Re:This might be workable... by tlambert · · Score: 1

      With health care costs and benefits, doesn't it cost MORE to hire a full time worker than two part time workers?

      We are talking about making 20 the new "full time", which would mean that your point doesn't apply.

      But yes, this is one of the problems with the current Affordable Care Act unfunded mandates, as opposed to going to a single payer system, like the national health services in most of the rest of the world. The consequence of which, of course, is that AIG would have missed out on their TARP-style bailout for having everyone forced to purchase insurance from one of their member companies. Might have damaged someone's campaign contributions.

  21. First they came... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    First they came for the weavers, but I was not a weaver, and so I said nothing.

    Then they came for the factory line workers, but I was in charge of programming the robots that took over that job so I said a whole lot of things about how to do it better. As I was paid a middle-class rate to automate a mind-numbingly boring job and remove the rote monotony of life freeing up a human soul to go do important things, I didn't feel particularly bad about doing it either. We're making the world a better place.

    And then they came for the programmers, and I laughed in their face as they tried to make yet another super-high level languages that didn't suck or need dedicated programmers. And I laughed at their graphical programming interfaces made for the unskilled masses. And I laughed at all those companies that offshored development to poorly trained foreigners. And I laughed as they came back complaining that the highly skilled foreigners were demanding to be paid.

    And then there was no one to speak out for me except the scientists, technophiles, engineers, and mathematicians who had decent jobs. Plus the artists, politicians, and managers that we apparently can have an unlimited number of without perfecting the industry. It's as if people found new things to do after farming was industrialized.

    So for all you neo-Luddites out there, piss off and go find a loom to smash.

    1. Re:First they came... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then there was no one to speak out for me except the scientists, technophiles, engineers, and mathematicians who had decent jobs. Plus the artists, politicians, and managers that we apparently can have an unlimited number of without perfecting the industry. It's as if people found new things to do after farming was industrialized.

      Not quite. Those scientists and technophiles are not speaking out for you. They're speaking against you. They want your job to be taxed, not theirs. They want funding to go to their jobs, not yours.

      Of course in the end all of you get taxed anyway, and only the government pet projects get funding. The siphoned money ends up going to the welfare queens, including those neo-Luddites

      But hey, you want neo-Luddites to smash looms that was paid for by your money in the first place? Be my guest.

    2. Re:First they came... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      And then they came for short-sighted assholes like HeckRuler.
      And nobody gave a shit.

    3. Re:First they came... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, wanting to replace humans. Its this none-nurturing attitude that leaves to the shit we see every day about careless people. Who don't appreciate their lives and means. And leads to the need for genocidal behavior.

      Tons of creative art has been made about this.

      No matter how "great a wine" you can get from a "machine". Human love and care makes that wine have meaning. Otherwise you might as well just be a machine.

      If you cannot understand this. You might as well submit yourself for processing into fuel.

    4. Re:First they came... by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      To put this simply. Sure you can automate bread making, and produce billions of dollars in bread each day.

      But that bread is nothing like the bread your mother made for you as a kid. If you can't allow people to continue to put forth this creative work and SHARE. Your life will be meaningless.

    5. Re:First they came... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I think you meant to reply to me instead of that guy with the southpark joke of a name. It's ok, technology can be hard, it's why I get paid.

      And leads to the need for genocidal behavior.

      Whoa dude. Just because we have a number of people out of work that are too old or too stupid to retrain doesn't mean we have to kill them.

      To put this simply. Sure you can automate bread making, and produce billions of dollars in bread each day.
      But that bread is nothing like the bread your mother made for you as a kid.

      Uh.... that argument falls apart because the FACTORY machines that we're making are LITERALLY following the same process that the FACTORY WORKERS use to make billions of loaves of bread per whatnot. It's still wonder bread. It's not a creative art. For that you have to pay more to get something like an artisan loaf from a local baker. And OMG does it taste so much better. Especially fresh. But you pay for that. When the starving child wants some bread, but mum can only afford wonder bread, I'll be the first to punch you in the face for trying to guilt me into not making robots which output a cheaper loaf.

      Also, fuck you, I grew up on wonder bread. Mum was too busy to spend all that time kneading dough. Until we got a bread machine. And fresh out of the bot, it was DELICIOUS. (Also, at the end of highschool we went on a home-made pretzel kick. Freshness is key. If you could rig up some artillery to deliver loaves straight from the factory, we'd be in heaven.)

      Human love and care makes that wine have meaning.

      No... no I don't think it does. It's the alcohol which makes up the bulk of the meaning. Plus a little for flavor (which is what you pay for). And better processes (which largely remove human interaction) have made wine extremely more regular and consistent. Back in the day you worried about "a good year". Now every year is a good year.

      In the bread example, what GIVES bread it's meaning is the carbohydrates. Plus or minus a few other things, but it's mostly about fueling people. I mean, nutritionally most people really just need to eat less, so all the filler and whatnot they put into wonderbread is arguably a net positive impact... but that's kinda stretching it.

      SHARE

      Yeah dude. I'm actually a big fan of social services, even things like wealth redistribution have their place. When the autobots improve efficiency, who reaps that reward? The industrialist will say that he owns the robot, and invested in it, so he owns the profit. And that's legit when it's risky and new. The (new)workers lay claim to it as they're producing SO MUCH more bread with so little people. And that's also legit, while there's extra profits. (And those groups are expected to struggle back and forth). When it becomes typical, obvious, and simply a part of the technological changes, then those profits need to go to society on the whole. And... arguably... the free market, in whatever capacity it exists, appears to be the best way to balance all those interlocking scales.

      And for the displaced workers? Because we're all in this together and we obviously got by just fine with the old system for so long, we can all afford to retrain those who can. For those too old to justify that cost? Well, early retirement and the social safety net. We can most certainly afford it. We are (collectively) ludicrously wealthy. It might not be glamorous, but it'll sustain them. So sorry if shit sucks, but you gambled on an industry that no longer needs you.

  22. Mexican robots? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

    They better be undocumented Mexican robots, who'll do the work American robots refuse to do.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  23. Robot Overlordz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robot-human collaboration? At some point it will be the robot telling the human what to do, and the human handing the wrench to the robot. I highly recommend that you agree upon a safe word with your robot overlord, just in case things get out of hand.

  24. Possible employment fix: subsidies for robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming that the jobs lost will not be replaced by other jobs (hard to tell at this point), we do need a solution to unemployment.

    Solution: tax the rich and give it away as a basic income.
    Problem: inflation, resentment by the employed

    Solution: total revolution (RBE, others).
    Problem: not fully developed (might not even work)

    What if people own and operate their own versatile manufacturing equipment (robots) so that they can produce and trade locally? It only makes sense then to subsidize the purchase of these robots. Eventually the production cost of making robots themselves will fall as well and people will be able to buy them on their own (some people are already).

    What do you guys think?

  25. Robots are Tools by balbus000 · · Score: 1

    Robots are tools used by humans. Calling this "robot-human collaboration" is like hammering in a nail and calling it "hammer-human collaboration".