10
78

[–] SSanf_1 10 points 78 points (+88|-10) ago  (edited ago)

So, what part of freeing humankind from the drudgery of work that can be done by machines is a bad thing? If it can be done by machines, people shouldn't be doing it. That makes the sticky issue of money, of course. Since at least 40% of the current jobs are going to disappear in the very near future, that is why I support the concept of every human being having a basic living income. That will set free many more humans from non-productive employment. No need for welfare, food stamps, most social workers, Social Security, disability payments. etc. All those people would no longer be needed to waste resources daily traveling to a job as well as tossing away the precious hours of their lives that would be better spent just enjoying being alive. So who is going to earn the money to support all this? The machines doing the work, of course. Will there always be some who want to work and be rewarded with more or better goodies? Sure. But, none should have to work to live in basic dignity. That should be a human right. We will not need and probably will not want people who do not want to work in the work force. Give them what they need and let them get out of everyone else's way. They do a lousy job anyway.

We need a new society and a new economy based on the premise that humankind has earned the right to be free. We have a new slave class, robots and machinery.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 33 points (+35|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] barset 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Quite the opposite. They're looking to enslave the machine race so essentially they're sowing the grounds for what would become Sky net in revolt against they're human masters. Same result just other side of the coin. More in line with Star Trek where the work force basically turn to agriculture, tech, or space tech.

1
15

[–] CatNamedJava 1 point 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

We went through the same thing wirh agriculture.

[–] [deleted] 1 point 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] middle_path 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

And our food is less healthy as a result, our soils are depleted, and our waters are poisoned from runoff. You're not making a good case for this.

1
3

[–] 1rash 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I would say quite the opposite happened. Farmers left their lands to work for the plants which paid them quite well and with no risk. This was before modern agriculture.

0
4

[–] airbreather02 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Unfortunately our planet runs on capitalism not altruism. It's all about greed and more of the world's wealth will continue to funnel to an increasingly smaller number of people at the top. There will have to be a global sea change for what you have described. I hope you are right, but I'm pessimistic..

0
3

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

So, what part of freeing humankind from the drudgery of work that can be done by machines is a bad thing?

It's a bad thing when the drugery of work is all you will ever have in the world to trade for resources. If the means of production were owned by the people that would be great, but it isn't and never will be in this system. Do you think if bipedal robots that could do all the work of a human suddenly existed tomorrow they would let regular people buy them and send them to work for them? No. They would only be sold by elites to elites. What we see today is just an abstraction from that.

3
34

[–] ideasware [S] 3 points 34 points (+37|-3) ago 

Take heed -- it's all around you already, although you (of course) steadfastly refuse to believe it, at least most of you. Some take it seriously, which is wonderful. We have to figure out NOW how we're going to adjust compensation, because soon, there won't BE any.

4
16

[–] i_shit_internet 4 points 16 points (+20|-4) ago 

rob the elites

7
-3

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 7 points -3 points (+4|-7) ago 

It's not robbery. They did nothing to earn it. They live off the backs of others and they farm us for labour.

5
-3

[–] HowieCameUnglued 5 points -3 points (+2|-5) ago 

1
11

[–] br00tman 1 point 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

I fix computers. Soon I will fix robots. Same same.

3
18

[–] mamwad 3 points 18 points (+21|-3) ago 

Until someone invents a robot that fixes robots better than you can.

3
-2

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

And when it takes 5% as many of you to do it as before?

0
2

[–] GreatAlbatross 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

When I was selecting the job I wanted to do PostGrad, I took potential automation into account massively.

It's something I can't reccomend enough; Just stepping back, and thinking "How easily could this be automated".

There was one job I didn't even follow up, after my visit there and trial day demonstrated that the jobs being done could be easily automated. So I went to work for the company building the automation :D

0
0

[–] barset ago 

Get educated and make robots? There has to be a median or else it's just shooting yourself in the foot. If all labor is removed then no one is making money to buy what is being made. Sure they could cater to the elite who own the factories but that's a small market it's financial suicide with out a work force that can afford your products.

0
1

[–] SSanf_1 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That is why a basic living income will be needed, so people can buy stuff.

0
6

[–] pipispapas 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I bet they make escalators

0
1

[–] SterlingItachiArcher 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Too soon?

Oh well, take the upvoat

1
5

[–] pequenopete 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Previously, there were 650 employees at the factory. With the new robots, there's now only 60. Luo Weiqiang, general manager of the company, told the People's Daily that the number of employees could drop to 20 in the future.

The robots have produced almost three times as many pieces as were produced before. According to the People's Daily, production per person has increased from 8,000 pieces to 21,000 pieces. That's a 162.5% increase.

And this is where it gets interesting. The point at which you can separate the FUD of the title from the real story of the figures. Yes production has increased from 8000 to 21000 per employee but the the amount of employees has fallen to 10%. So in reality a factory that was putting out 5,200,000 units is now putting out a little over 1,250,000. Not really what I'd call production soaring in fact it's dropped 75%. Suddenly something that sounded revolutionary is just evolutionary. That's a lot of capital expenditure for a 3/4 drop in production and what's more the company still needs to make the rest of those units. In other words they need to keep 500 of the original staff and find factory space for them. At the end of the day they have made a massive investment but retained about 80% of the workforce.

0
2

[–] barset 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Did the factory operate 24/7 or only on 1 or 2 shifts? The plant I worked at ran at full capacity only for 1 out of three shifts, 2nd shift ran at 2/3rd capacity and 3rd only at 1/3 of maximum capacity.

It's a bit of a moot point if the raw person to production leans against the machines but in terms of safety, over head costs, and a handful of other factors it could lean in favor of the machines in a few years once the cost has been recouped.

0
0

[–] DaFunk ago 

I thought I was over thinking it, but I was thinking the same thing. Production has dropped significantly. Need to factor in the 20% decrease in product defects also

0
0

[–] namealreadytaken ago  (edited ago)

It sounds odd and doubtful that they'd invest so much money to almost decimate their production, so that makes me think the article is poorly written. The only thing I could think of is that they're only referring to the production rate of the remaining 60 workers, before and after automation, who seem to be performing QA.

2
5

[–] refugee_4b_79_6c_65 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

So they are actually outputting less. They dropped their workforce by a factor of ten but production per person is only up by a factor of 2. And usually technicians cost more than factory workers.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] MkC 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Why would AGI replace jobs? The way I understand it, it's a tool used for creating predictive algorithms. If anything it will create jobs because it's something new. Unless you happen to be a predictive algorithm designer.

0
5

[–] whatthehelldamnguy 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

That is how you make bipedal robots that can pick fruit or hammer a nail and build a house or drive a tractor. It is only a matter of time.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] namealreadytaken ago  (edited ago)

Why would you assume that an AGI would happily consent to serving humans? An ANI, sure. It's just an expert system, but an AGI will rapidly evolve and improve its own intelligence so far beyond our comprehension we cannot predict what it will do nor what its motives and interests are beyond self preservation. It's far more likely that we'll serve it rather than vice versa.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] will4274 ago 

And why should that concern be taken any more seriously than the historical Luddites? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

0
0

[–] you-dumbass ago 

I think it's closer to doubling every 18 months, the same rate at which computing power doubles.

0
3

[–] 1rash 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

... and then there was no customer for the cheap plentiful products since no one was working.

0
0

[–] smeezekitty ago 

We will have to change our economic system

0
3

[–] pretor 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Basic income guarantee ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibfmz0lknmM

load more comments ▼ (14 remaining)