Why is contemporary automation different than earlier periods of the industrial revolution?

[–] PMYA 2 points (+2|-0)

Why have we been able to keep people employed despite automating away shovelers, weavers, and almost all other manual labour?

Because we don't have full automation. Take construction for example; it was all planned and built by humans, and it still is, we just use better tools to plan and build things. We don't need to weave things by hand, but we still need people to (sometimes) operate the machinery, invent it and maintain it. I remember reading an article not too long ago about an Amazon shop with no staff, and it works by using sensors to automatically charge your card a certain amount when you leave with the stuff you want. The irony is, to create a shop with no staff, it probably took way more people to work out and implement that than it would to just operate a normal shop.

However, I think the difference now is we are approaching a point where the amount of jobs will start to fall in developed countries. Not just low skill ones either. Machines just do certain things better than us, and the number of things they do better than is is going to keep growing because our potential is capped and theirs isn't.

Automation was very primitive during the industrial revolution, and people still had to operate everything. On top of that, we suddenly created an entirely new field of work - creating tools to automate things. I would argue that we are probably still in the primitive stage of automation, although it is significantly more advanced and commonplace than it used to be.

I think this is being recognised by some countries now because they are having trials of universal income - paying people for no reason other than to give them money. There has been some criticism of this, but I really don't see what we are going to do when we get to the point where 20% of our population has nothing to do. It might not be a bad thing though, as it is simply going to change the way we think about work. Instead of it being a necessity for financial reasons, the reward system will be different. People will do more things because they want to do things. Some people might argue that there has to be a financial reason to work, but there are already examples of people who do things for no other reason than wanting to do things, such as musicians, artists, certain religious activities, some sports etc.

> Why have we been able to keep people employed despite automating away shovelers, weavers, and almost all other manual labour? Because we don't have full automation. Take construction for example; it was all planned and built by humans, and it still is, we just use better tools to plan and build things. We don't need to weave things by hand, but we still need people to (sometimes) operate the machinery, invent it and maintain it. I remember reading an article not too long ago about an Amazon shop with no staff, and it works by using sensors to automatically charge your card a certain amount when you leave with the stuff you want. The irony is, to create a shop with no staff, it probably took way more people to work out and implement that than it would to just operate a normal shop. However, I think the difference now is we are approaching a point where the amount of jobs will start to fall in developed countries. Not just low skill ones either. Machines just do certain things better than us, and the number of things they do better than is is going to keep growing because our potential is capped and theirs isn't. Automation was very primitive during the industrial revolution, and people still had to operate everything. On top of that, we suddenly created an entirely new field of work - creating tools to automate things. I would argue that we are probably still in the primitive stage of automation, although it is significantly more advanced and commonplace than it used to be. I think this is being recognised by some countries now because they are having trials of universal income - paying people for no reason other than to give them money. There has been some criticism of this, but I really don't see what we are going to do when we get to the point where 20% of our population has nothing to do. It might not be a bad thing though, as it is simply going to change the way we think about work. Instead of it being a necessity for financial reasons, the reward system will be different. People will do more things because they _want_ to do things. Some people might argue that there has to be a financial reason to work, but there are already examples of people who do things for no other reason than wanting to do things, such as musicians, artists, certain religious activities, some sports etc.

[–] phoxy [OP] 3 points (+3|-0)

Because we don't have full automation. Take construction for example; it was all planned and built by humans, and it still is, we just use better tools to plan and build things. We don't need to weave things by hand, but we still need people to (sometimes) operate the machinery, invent it and maintain it. I remember reading an article not too long ago about an Amazon shop with no staff, and it works by using sensors to automatically charge your card a certain amount when you leave with the stuff you want. The irony is, to create a shop with no staff, it probably took way more people to work out and implement that than it would to just operate a normal shop.

So what is full automation then? Don't all machines and devices need maintenance or replacement?

Retail is I think an easy target for automation because people are trained not to steal, and lots of stores have minimal staff and put more and more "work" onto the purchaser ("Ye Olde Shoppes" had all goods behind the counter and the clerk would fulfill your order, less modern shops had floor staff to assist customers, current shops have the customer fill a basket and the clerk rings up the price, future shops have no staff at all). Some might characterize this as the slow collapse of the retail bubble where people buy from warehouses or manufacturers directly.

However, I think the difference now is we are approaching a point where the amount of jobs will start to fall in developed countries. Not just low skill ones either. Machines just do certain things better than us, and the number of things they do better than is is going to keep growing because our potential is capped and theirs isn't.

But doesn't history demonstrate that humans opt to do different tasks than the ones automated by machines? Or are you saying that in the mid-near future AI & machines will be better at all economic production than humans? I certainly agree such a point will come, but the things humans value change with their needs- if shelter/food/entertainment are all mass produced and easily/cheaply available, humans will put value on other things/activities. For example, hobbies are making a comeback and there is a rising market for handmade items despite being more expensive than the equivalent mass produced low quality item. Humans are valuing the construction and quality and "craft" (art) of an item in tandem to its functionality.

Automation was very primitive during the industrial revolution, and people still had to operate everything. On top of that, we suddenly created an entirely new field of work - creating tools to automate things. I would argue that we are probably still in the primitive stage of automation, although it is significantly more advanced and commonplace than it used to be.

I think this is being recognised by some countries now because they are having trials of universal income - paying people for no reason other than to give them money. There has been some criticism of this, but I really don't see what we are going to do when we get to the point where 20% of our population has nothing to do. It might not be a bad thing though, as it is simply going to change the way we think about work. Instead of it being a necessity for financial reasons, the reward system will be different. People will do more things because they want to do things. Some people might argue that there has to be a financial reason to work, but there are already examples of people who do things for no other reason than wanting to do things, such as musicians, artists, certain religious activities, some sports etc.

I agree that in general people "work" because of an inherent drive, because it brings happiness, rather than the economic incentive. The economic incentive forces people into jobs they hate and prevents them from pursuing their actual interests because they need money.

What will become of that drive when every avenue or outlet for it is fulfilled better, faster, cheaper by automatons?

>Because we don't have full automation. Take construction for example; it was all planned and built by humans, and it still is, we just use better tools to plan and build things. We don't need to weave things by hand, but we still need people to (sometimes) operate the machinery, invent it and maintain it. I remember reading an article not too long ago about an Amazon shop with no staff, and it works by using sensors to automatically charge your card a certain amount when you leave with the stuff you want. The irony is, to create a shop with no staff, it probably took way more people to work out and implement that than it would to just operate a normal shop. So what is full automation then? Don't all machines and devices need maintenance or replacement? Retail is I think an easy target for automation because people are trained not to steal, and lots of stores have minimal staff and put more and more "work" onto the purchaser ("Ye Olde Shoppes" had all goods behind the counter and the clerk would fulfill your order, less modern shops had floor staff to assist customers, current shops have the customer fill a basket and the clerk rings up the price, future shops have no staff at all). Some might characterize this as the slow collapse of the retail bubble where people buy from warehouses or manufacturers directly. >However, I think the difference now is we are approaching a point where the amount of jobs will start to fall in developed countries. Not just low skill ones either. Machines just do certain things better than us, and the number of things they do better than is is going to keep growing because our potential is capped and theirs isn't. But doesn't history demonstrate that humans opt to do *different* tasks than the ones automated by machines? Or are you saying that in the mid-near future AI & machines will be better at *all* economic production than humans? I certainly agree such a point will come, but the things humans value change with their needs- if shelter/food/entertainment are all mass produced and easily/cheaply available, humans will put value on other things/activities. For example, hobbies are making a comeback and there is a rising market for handmade items despite being more expensive than the equivalent mass produced low quality item. Humans are valuing the construction and quality and "craft" (art) of an item in tandem to its functionality. >Automation was very primitive during the industrial revolution, and people still had to operate everything. On top of that, we suddenly created an entirely new field of work - creating tools to automate things. I would argue that we are probably still in the primitive stage of automation, although it is significantly more advanced and commonplace than it used to be. >I think this is being recognised by some countries now because they are having trials of universal income - paying people for no reason other than to give them money. There has been some criticism of this, but I really don't see what we are going to do when we get to the point where 20% of our population has nothing to do. It might not be a bad thing though, as it is simply going to change the way we think about work. Instead of it being a necessity for financial reasons, the reward system will be different. People will do more things because they want to do things. Some people might argue that there has to be a financial reason to work, but there are already examples of people who do things for no other reason than wanting to do things, such as musicians, artists, certain religious activities, some sports etc. I agree that in general people "work" because of an inherent drive, because it brings happiness, rather than the economic incentive. The economic incentive forces people into jobs they hate and prevents them from pursuing their actual interests because they need money. What will become of that drive when every avenue or outlet for it is fulfilled better, faster, cheaper by automatons?

[–] PMYA 1 points (+1|-0)

So what is full automation then? Don't all machines and devices need maintenance or replacement? ... Or are you saying that in the mid-near future AI & machines will be better at all economic production than humans?

Full automation is the machines creating other machines to perform tasks. It sounds batshit crazy until you look at the technology that is needed to do that. Already, we have machines that are training themselves through trial and error, and the scanning of the environment around them.

An example of this is self driving cars. When one of those cars crashes, a literal crash report is made. The data is then used to improve the behaviour of the cars to make them more aware/less likely to repeat a mistake in a similar situation in the future. At the moment, the task of "teaching" the cars about their mistakes is performed by humans, but, some manufacturers of driverless cars are starting to make AIs that can interpret that information and send it back out to all of the cars. This is an example of AI teaching itself through real world experiences.

Now apply that logic to another scenario. If it is possible to do that with driverless cars, would it not be possible to create an AI that can build machines for various needs based on interpreting different factors like the ones the driverless cars process?

What will become of that drive when every avenue or outlet for it is fulfilled better, faster, cheaper by automatons?

I imagine some people will be disillusioned by it, and others will relish not having to do things out of necessity anymore. It is impossible to predict what the reaction will be, but I assume the initial reaction will have a lot to do with how governments start handling the financial problems we will inevitably have at some point.

This is all assuming that we will not have a need for engineers, farmers, programmers etc. in the future. The biggest mistake we can make is not training people in professions that are no longer considered necessary. What happens if a solar flare wipes out electrical grids or the internet and there are no machines that can fix it? We are relying so heavily on technology already that it does worry me.

>So what is full automation then? Don't all machines and devices need maintenance or replacement? ... Or are you saying that in the mid-near future AI & machines will be better at all economic production than humans? Full automation is the machines creating other machines to perform tasks. It sounds batshit crazy until you look at the technology that is needed to do that. Already, we have machines that are training themselves through trial and error, and the scanning of the environment around them. An example of this is self driving cars. When one of those cars crashes, a literal crash report is made. The data is then used to improve the behaviour of the cars to make them more aware/less likely to repeat a mistake in a similar situation in the future. At the moment, the task of "teaching" the cars about their mistakes is performed by humans, _but_, some manufacturers of driverless cars are starting to make AIs that can interpret that information and send it back out to all of the cars. This is an example of AI teaching itself through real world experiences. Now apply that logic to another scenario. If it is possible to do that with driverless cars, would it not be possible to create an AI that can build machines for various needs based on interpreting different factors like the ones the driverless cars process? > What will become of that drive when every avenue or outlet for it is fulfilled better, faster, cheaper by automatons? I imagine some people will be disillusioned by it, and others will relish not having to do things out of necessity anymore. It is impossible to predict what the reaction will be, but I assume the initial reaction will have a lot to do with how governments start handling the financial problems we will inevitably have at some point. This is all assuming that we will not have a need for engineers, farmers, programmers etc. in the future. The biggest mistake we can make is not training people in professions that are no longer considered necessary. What happens if a solar flare wipes out electrical grids or the internet and there are no machines that can fix it? We are relying so heavily on technology already that it does worry me.

[–] phoxy [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

Rethinking my prior reply:

I think we're mixing some very different scenarios under one label.

1) Short term (~50 years) automation (neural nets) threatening some jobs like retail, manufacturing, farming, (some) knowledge workers, most bureaucracy, digital production artists, etc.

2) Long term: Singularity, AI, total human redundancy, productbot + repairbot army, Skynet overseeing goods and services production. Total economic automation.

Why is contemporary automation different than earlier periods of the industrial revolution?

4 comments

/s/thought

other relevant subs