What jobs will human have left once we perfect automation technology?

[RainDreamer]

Just some thought I have after watching the video above: What is left for us to do, when we are able to create things that do all the jobs for us, even the job of creating those things themselves? Lets avoid straying into robot apocalypse scenario right now, and think, even in a perfect scenario where we create a workforce that does all our jobs for us without trying to kill us all or do bad things to us, what would that means for human?

[Bill Phil]

That would mean solar system expansion... Robots build the ships in orbit, we board them, go to a destination, and then get off.

Humans would still be studying. Learning. Improving.

Maintenance? If all of the machines in a remote area break down, and there's a guy there, it might be cheaper to just fix them all.

[ComradeWolfe]

If all functions necessary to civilized human life are in the hands of robots, I would imagine that many things would effectively be "free". Robots harvest resources to feed and house us, do the labor of such, and provide the resources and labor to keep themselves going. Humans would pursue more leisure and the like.

On the other hand, the transition to a robotic utopia would likely be pretty rough.

The risk of robots inserting us in to a money-free world of abundance might be threatening to people who currently hold power or assets. Humans naturally want to have more than their neighbors, and as a result you might see people who own things like mineral deposits or farmland actively resisting the potential of a robot utopia in order to maintain a status quo where they are still in a position of advantage. With no real control of labor, they would starve resources for immense personal gain while delaying the greater benefit to humanity.

There's also the matter of too much free time -- people might take up gardening or KSP as a leisure activity... But they might also find that it's easier to find the time to wage religious wars or ethnic conflicts when they don't have to worry about farming and paying for arms.

Edited May 3, 2015 by ComradeWolfe
"gardening OR KSP"... Not "of". :)

[Frozen_Heart]

In theory once robots do all the tasks, humans would be able to dedicate all their time to hobbies and enjoyment.

However transitioning to that model would be difficult, as being halfway to it just doesn't work.

[NFUN]

Disclaimer: I cannot account for the legitimacy of this quote, considering it was on a site called "Radical Unjobbing"

[SciMan]

If all the "manual labor" jobs get automated, we'll still have to fix the machines.

We'll also have to do the R&D to come up with better machines.

Of course that changes if the machines are smarter than humans, and/or if the machines can fix themselves.

Hopefully the machines become smarter than humans before they can fix themselves, that's the best way to avoid "grey goo" type disasters IMO (if it's smart enough it'll know to stop even if we don't tell it to).

[Guest]

First, AGI development and advancement is inevitable.

Governments support and fund AGI R&D, and will do so in future, because analysis and advice given by AGI, based on Big Data, millions of pieces of information, models and theories of economic, political and military processes, is great advantage.

Especially in task of keeping their population controlled, by means of total surveillance, brainwashing and disinformation.

Those governments, which do not have access to such advices, will find themselves in disadvantage, and soon fell victim of their superior neighbors.

As AGI becomes better, governments will rely on AGI advice and analysis more and more, allow AGI to directly control things more and more, and in the end, AGI will become the government. As nothing can escape attention, and need be, alteration by AGI government, any resistance is futile.

Since there is no way to stop AGI technology spreading in government and private sectors, more and more human jobs will be taken by automated systems.

At first, governments will provide pensions for those without jobs, mostly to avoid civil unrest. This will, in time, cause situation, in which having a job becomes counterproductive, as taxes soar, and at some moment, pure income becomes less then pension. Economic will collapse. Socialism never worked as intended.

To avoid this, AGI-backed governments will abolish the pensions of jobless and using AGI controlled police, crush any resistance. AGI will get rid, literally, from any people with no abilities surpassing those of automated systems. It may be more or less violent, for example, if AGI can efficiently promote voluntary suicide for "less capable".

As AGI advances in it's capabilities, less and less humans will stay "useful", until humanity completely vanishes.

"Free life for everyone", and other paradise illusions are just that - illusions. People with power will never allow "free cookies" and "no one suffers" situation, as it greatly undermines their power. Political power is always based on deficit, fear, suffering, and monopoly on violence.

What to do to avoid it? Nothing. Line is already crossed, when majority of population in first world countries decided, that safety is more important then freedom.

They might still have some illusions of freedom remaining, but as global construction of brutal, total control, surveillance society is well under way, our fate is sealed.

[AngelOfDeath642]

First, AGI development and advancement is inevitable.

Governments support and fund AGI R&D, and will do so in future, because analysis and advice given by AGI, based on Big Data, millions of pieces of information, models and theories of economic, political and military processes, is great advantage.

Especially in task of keeping their population controlled, by means of total surveillance, brainwashing and disinformation.

Those governments, which do not have access to such advices, will find themselves in disadvantage, and soon fell victim of their superior neighbors.

As AGI becomes better, governments will rely on AGI advice and analysis more and more, allow AGI to directly control things more and more, and in the end, AGI will become the government. As nothing can escape attention, and need be, alteration by AGI government, any resistance is futile.

Since there is no way to stop AGI technology spreading in government and private sectors, more and more human jobs will be taken by automated systems.

At first, governments will provide pensions for those without jobs, mostly to avoid civil unrest. This will, in time, cause situation, in which having a job becomes counterproductive, as taxes soar, and at some moment, pure income becomes less then pension. Economic will collapse. Socialism never worked as intended.

What has this got to do with socialism? the scenario you describe would fit a capitalist country, a socialist country would benefit from AI as socialism is driven not by the profit motive but by the creation of material conditions necessary for communism. Therefore a socialist AI would prioritise the living conditions of the people as it is programmed to do so while a capitalist AI would act like you described because it is the most efficient way to increase profit.

[vger]

If all functions necessary to civilized human life are in the hands of robots, I would imagine that many things would effectively be "free".

And therein lies the great paradox that is already happening. Super-rich people creating robots that replace jobs in droves, not caring whether or not new human jobs will replace the industries that get wiped out. But even when nobody can afford the services anymore because nobody can be make money, will that matter? Financial success generally favors selfish sociopaths, and they will be the ones who own the machines doing all the jobs. Even though money will become obsolete, they will still want to get paid for what they provided. But even slavery, the robots can do better. So what else will the non-elite workers have to offer the wealthy robot-owners?

[Newt]

If this happens, it is not going to happen for a while, not completley at leastm not even mostly. It remains, and likely will for rather a while, generally far cheaper to employ humans for many jobs. This gets into some of the migrant labour in Southwest USA, which is often sorely underpaid, as well as the common trend of using manufacturing abilities of countries where wages can be lower, working conditions worse, and costs cheaper. If Apple, Nike, and the many, many other companies that engage in these practices wanted to, they might could switch over to having a largley autonomous workforce, they could, but it remains practical, and prefereable for them not to. Humans will still have roles in many places for a long time, if you set the wages low enough.

If there is no other choice, people will take nearly any employment, if it means food and security.

[vger]

If Apple, Nike, and the many, many other companies that engage in these practices wanted to, they might could switch over to having a largley autonomous workforce, they could, but it remains practical, and prefereable for them not to. Humans will still have roles in many places for a long time, if you set the wages low enough.

If there is no other choice, people will take nearly any employment, if it means food and security.

It won't be that way for long. There are fully-automated fast food restaurants now, of all things.

And you can still easily reach a point where slave labor will cost more. No matter how cheap you make it, people still need to eat, drive to work, and sleep. They get sick (especially when you pay them poverty wages), injured, have to take care of kids, and the quality of their work takes a nosedive when they're pushed too hard. Robots aren't affected by any of those things, and since we don't live in a sci-fi movie, you also don't have to worry about labor disputes and PR damage control.

Edited May 4, 2015 by vger

[Xannari Ferrows]

Perfection is impossible. If it was, it would consume us. Luckily by the time we at least have gotten as advanced as much as possible, currency will no longer exist.

Also, narrator, be careful with infinity. Just... no.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Xannari Ferrows

[Aanker]

I find it difficult to see robots replacing humans in certain key jobs, especially those that basically require human to human interaction, the use of charisma, creativity and social skills. Sure, those jobs would see increased automation, but if what you need to replace a human for the task is basically the perfect robotic equivalent of a human... why not just keep the human in the picture?

Nursing (especially in hospices), medicine, psychiatry, business leadership, law & order, politics, entertainment, culture, social services (imagine a robotic domestic violence hotline... ugh...).

The assumption that anything can be automatized eventually may be realistic, but that it would be more efficient than a human in all cases seems overconfident. Suppose that, for nursing (just as an example), you need basically all of the skills of the human brain - so your robot basically needs a mechanical equivalent of the human brain. That might be more expensive, more error prone and less easy to maintain than your average Joe.

Manufacturing, sure.

[K^2]

I find it difficult to see robots replacing humans in certain key jobs, especially those that basically require human to human interaction, the use of charisma, creativity and social skills.

That barrier will resolve itself once robots replace customers.

[tater]

If all the "manual labor" jobs get automated, we'll still have to fix the machines.

We'll also have to do the R&D to come up with better machines.

Of course that changes if the machines are smarter than humans, and/or if the machines can fix themselves.

Hopefully the machines become smarter than humans before they can fix themselves, that's the best way to avoid "grey goo" type disasters IMO (if it's smart enough it'll know to stop even if we don't tell it to).

Manual labor? I'd worry more about people who sell their intellects right now. Learning systems are scary good already. I'd argue the bigger concern might be intellectual jobs, not manual labor.

[Aanker]

That barrier will resolve itself once robots replace customers.

So is this a robots replace humanity thread? Or a workforce automatization thread? I'm confused

[K^2]

So is this a robots replace humanity thread? Or a workforce automatization thread? I'm confused

Potato, potato. ... Wow, that just doesn't work on a forum.

What I mean is, there isn't a difference. One will lead to the other eventually. The only question is whether it will be an evolution or revolution. Our cybernetics are severely lagging our tech, but fortunately, so does our robotic. So there is still a chance for a smooth transition, where we won't really notice how we became the machines replacing the human workforce.

[vger]

So is this a robots replace humanity thread? Or a workforce automatization thread? I'm confused

If the fiat-based greed system doesn't fall in the process, there's no difference between the two.

[Aanker]

I think people will still want to have children, regardless of robots, so cybernetic-biological (sorry, I can't help but get the feeling that this sounds like technobabble) integration would seem more likely if this kind of transition occurs.

The thing is, there might be more than just a few areas in which biological solutions simply beat silicon chips and copper wire. Even nano-computers, if they are possible. Things like practicality and sustainability might just preclude the 'inevitable' robotics takeover.

We have had many amazing inventions before, and none have really completely infiltrated every single corner of our lives. I'm betting on the cynical reality nerf to rear its ugly head in robotics as well.

[Dooz]

Programming, maintenance of those automation machines, 3d modeling circuit boards for the machines to construct. those of some of the jobs that might be vital for a society like this.

[Tw1]

So is this a robots replace humanity thread? Or a workforce automatization thread? I'm confused

If you take robotics to one logical end, that is AI with the ability to learn, and greater mental power far beyond what humans have. In that case, it's not hard to imagine humans as second class citizens in an economic system where we are greatly outclassed.

There are some that think robots could someday become creative, or at least, get very close to it. A big part of creative design is combining old ideas with new, making solutions that solve problems, successfully communicating, etc. A lot of the things behind designs boil down to certain rules. Even in graphic design, there is gestalt principles, colour theory, rule of thirds, and a lot of historic and cultural associations that can be used to inform design.

If an AI is smart enough to consider every possible factor, and learn from experience, then it is entirely possible they may one day work alongside humans.

One point I've heard a few places, is that very intelligent robots should be given wants and goals to make them friendly to humans, to prevent them from overtaking us in ways that will cause us harm.

For example, if an AI's only goal is simply to maximise profit, then every decision it makes will be aimed towards doing so- and it will not seek to avoid causing harm to people unless that gets in the way of achieving its goal.

Although, it would not be far fetched to claim many humans already act like this.

But, if AI is given a more complex set of goals, aimed at enhancing human culture, quality of life, and happiness, and looking after the planet. If these are no less important than making a profit, it will make a very different set of decisions.

It's hard to predict how a learning robot's goals would grow and change. If it was not programed, would a robot even develop goals of its own, apart from those related to goals it's already been given? But, an AI doesn't necessarily need a sense of boredom, or fun, or art appreciation beyond what it needs to understand humans. An AI has no reason to desire things.

Some robots may recognise that they run things more effectively than us, and make it hard for humans to get jobs in those positions.

It's important who is doing the hiring. An AI boss might be programed to be sympathetic towards humans, and hire them alongside humans. AI colleges might be respectful towards humans, considering their ideas and opinions, but helping develop those ideas really fast.

Who spends money, and why is another important factor to consider. An AI ruled system might set itself up to ensure humans still have ways to get money.

If AIs do earn money, but don't have enough needs and wants to motivate them to spend it, that would create economic problems without humans.

Ultimately, it depends on a lot of things. It's quite hard to predict what will happen, but by debating and thinking about these things we'll be able to make smart choises,(or at least, recognise dumb ones,) when it comes to making artificial intelligences.

[Rune]

Between programming and entertainment services, we have a long time for this scenario to play out. But seriously, by then, if we haven't solved the issue with the distribution of wealth and production (a tiny percentage of population controlling the means by which the rest produce all wealth), we really, really deserve the economic implosion that will follow. Not dismissing the possibility, humans being what they are it's probably the likelier scenario.

But after we have piqued up the pieces and survived the trouble times like we always do, we will probably be in post-scarcity territory. I recommend the Culture series of books by Ian M. Banks for a look at those kinds of (hypothetical) societies.

Rune. Hint: socialism works much better when there is no real cost associated to stuff.

[magnemoe]

Manual labor? I'd worry more about people who sell their intellects right now. Learning systems are scary good already. I'd argue the bigger concern might be intellectual jobs, not manual labor.

How good are learning systems really? Yes they manages decent pattern recognizing now. This is major progress and open new wast new opportunists, self driving cars is just one of them.

However this has nothing at all to do with intellect, any mammal or bird can do pattern recognizing.

I suspect that breakthrough has gotten many to draw straight line projections and come up with downright stupid predictions like that google guy who claimed laptops, yes a pc not an suprercomputer will be smarter than humans in 2020, we are very lucky if computers in 2020 is 6 times faster than today at the same cost, 3 times is optimistic.

[ComradeWolfe]

How good are learning systems really? Yes they manages decent pattern recognizing now. This is major progress and open new wast new opportunists, self driving cars is just one of them.

However this has nothing at all to do with intellect, any mammal or bird can do pattern recognizing.

Bear in mind, Google's most well known AI spends its time watching cat videos... Which as far as I can tell is the epitome of first world human existance.

I find it difficult to see robots replacing humans in certain key jobs, especially those that basically require human to human interaction, the use of charisma, creativity and social skills. Sure, those jobs would see increased automation, but if what you need to replace a human for the task is basically the perfect robotic equivalent of a human... why not just keep the human in the picture?

I see this as a valid scenario, but with the caveat that it's a matter of choice and volunteering. In a robot-driven 'free' economy, humans would have no economic incentive to work. Instead they might just do it so they can occupy their time and visit with other humans.

Take a doctor/nurse for example. Your robot is a doctor with an AI which produces a more accurate diagnoses than a human -- no human worker is neccessary to provide healthcare services. However you might express that you are more comfortable with a human, in which case someone will likely be available to assist. This person is likely there because they want to help the injured or sick -- not out of economic incentive, but out of altruism or a desire for human interaction.

But say you're in for something embarrassing. Suddenly you might elect NOT to have a human present.

[Dkmdlb]

Why would humans need jobs if robots can do all the work?