Humans Need Not Aply

[Vallius]

I'm not too worried about machines replacing humans in everything. I'm an engineer, and I've done a fair amount of programming. My experience is that computers are mindless automatons, and are actually pretty stupid outside of their "best" conditions.

The video overlooks the reality of software bugs, and the dependence of AI on programmer intelligence. The more adaptable a computer's logic system is, the more complex (and potentially buggy) it will be. Think of the last time you used a 100% bug-free version of Microsoft Windows. While we can certainly design factories that run themselves, we still need people to watch the machines for when (not if) things go wrong. Computers lack imagination, and are not well equipped to think on their feet.

They can only use inputs and outputs in the way they were designed to be used, and their ability to interpret data is padlocked to numerical methods. I highly doubt it will ever be more economical to place sensors on every inch of wiring, pipeline and gear, than it would be to have someone walk through the facility and look for leaks from time to time.

Consider how a computer might make decisions using physics and simulation. A computer might try to make predictions about the future based on the models programmers put it. If the models are wrong (and they always are at least a little wrong), or the measurements are off (no measurement is 100%, and industrial measuring devices need to be regularly re-calibrated), then the computer will occasionally make mistakes. Every time I've done simulation work or numerical methods, I have to verify that what the computer says happens will happen. Computers are not designed to second-guess their logic, unless I've foreseen the possibility and have explicitly programmed it to watch out for every pitfall.

To make a short story long:

Some people think that the world will be destroyed when the robots take over.

I think it's far more likely that we'll just trust the machines too much, and be wiped out by a blue screen of death.

[NovaSilisko]

Scientist 1: "I have a great idea! Let's make machines to do all our physical labor so we humans are free to do the one thing only humans can do - be creative!"

Scientist 2: "Awesome! Go for it!"

<years later>

Scientist 1: "I've invented a machine that can compose any song, paint any picture, and do so better and faster than a human ever could, and I'm making machines that will be able to do any creative task you put forward to them!"

Scientist 2: "Aweso-- wait, what do we do now?"

Scientist 1: "Sit around and eat food and watch television all day and let our brains turn slowly to useless goo as machines make the world around us function with no input."

Scientist 2: "Didn't you invent a device which renders food as a concept obsolete?"

Scientist 1: "... damn it."

[Ralathon]

I'm not too worried about machines replacing humans in everything. I'm an engineer, and I've done a fair amount of programming. My experience is that computers are mindless automatons, and are actually pretty stupid outside of their "best" conditions.

The video isn't worried about all jobs getting replaced. It is worried about automation creating large scale structural unemployment, something that our current economic system isn't equipped to handle.

As you said, there will still be plenty of jobs in the next few decades that we can't automate. But 2 programmers overlooking 50 bots is a lot less jobs than 50 white collar workers. What are we going to do if there are only 60 jobs for every 100 workers? Especially if those jobs are in fields that require a lot of education and training to do, further locking out some unfortunate people from the job market.

[magnemoe]

I'm not too worried about machines replacing humans in everything. I'm an engineer, and I've done a fair amount of programming. My experience is that computers are mindless automatons, and are actually pretty stupid outside of their "best" conditions.

The video overlooks the reality of software bugs, and the dependence of AI on programmer intelligence. The more adaptable a computer's logic system is, the more complex (and potentially buggy) it will be. Think of the last time you used a 100% bug-free version of Microsoft Windows. While we can certainly design factories that run themselves, we still need people to watch the machines for when (not if) things go wrong. Computers lack imagination, and are not well equipped to think on their feet.

They can only use inputs and outputs in the way they were designed to be used, and their ability to interpret data is padlocked to numerical methods. I highly doubt it will ever be more economical to place sensors on every inch of wiring, pipeline and gear, than it would be to have someone walk through the facility and look for leaks from time to time.

Consider how a computer might make decisions using physics and simulation. A computer might try to make predictions about the future based on the models programmers put it. If the models are wrong (and they always are at least a little wrong), or the measurements are off (no measurement is 100%, and industrial measuring devices need to be regularly re-calibrated), then the computer will occasionally make mistakes. Every time I've done simulation work or numerical methods, I have to verify that what the computer says happens will happen. Computers are not designed to second-guess their logic, unless I've foreseen the possibility and have explicitly programmed it to watch out for every pitfall.

To make a short story long:

Some people think that the world will be destroyed when the robots take over.

I think it's far more likely that we'll just trust the machines too much, and be wiped out by a blue screen of death.

Yes, one example who pop up from time to time is automated ships. It might work, automated trains, planes exist and cars are coming.

It however overlook one important difference. if a car or train fails it will simply stop, you then have to send someone out to fix it.

Planes fall down and ships will run ashore if stops, planes has an rigorous maintenance regime, while on ships the crew is supposed to fix minor issues on the fly, as engines and all systems are accessible this work most of the time.

Yes automated ships will come, they will depend on other robots to do maintenance, robot might be controlled from land if it face issues it cant solve itself, however I think this will be limited to some ship types like bulk freight and probably not oil.

We already have plenty of ghost ships on the sea, its ships who drift around, most was lost during towing, often underway to scraping, however some got away from anchorage or was abandoned because of fire or gas leak.

[Nuke]

Scientist 1: "I have a great idea! Let's make machines to do all our physical labor so we humans are free to do the one thing only humans can do - be creative!"

Scientist 2: "Awesome! Go for it!"

<years later>

Scientist 1: "I've invented a machine that can compose any song, paint any picture, and do so better and faster than a human ever could, and I'm making machines that will be able to do any creative task you put forward to them!"

Scientist 2: "Aweso-- wait, what do we do now?"

Scientist 1: "Sit around and eat food and watch television all day and let our brains turn slowly to useless goo as machines make the world around us function with no input."

Scientist 2: "Didn't you invent a device which renders food as a concept obsolete?"

Scientist 1: "... damn it."

i dont think that everyone would be content with a sedate life style. how often do you hear kids who have plenty of tv and movies to watch and plenty of video games to play utter the words "im bored"? people will always lust after fame, wealth and power, and being part of the idle class will not allow for that. the negative aspects of our own human nature can be harnessed as a driving force for progress. this is why capitalism is so successful. otherwise we turn into an apathetic society that will be toppled by the first power seeker that comes along.

[78stonewobble]

Scientist 1: "I have a great idea! Let's make machines to do all our physical labor so we humans are free to do the one thing only humans can do - be creative!"

Scientist 2: "Awesome! Go for it!"

<years later>

Scientist 1: "I've invented a machine that can compose any song, paint any picture, and do so better and faster than a human ever could, and I'm making machines that will be able to do any creative task you put forward to them!"

Scientist 2: "Aweso-- wait, what do we do now?"

Scientist 1: "Sit around and eat food and watch television all day and let our brains turn slowly to useless goo as machines make the world around us function with no input."

Scientist 2: "Didn't you invent a device which renders food as a concept obsolete?"

Scientist 1: "... damn it."

While I lol'ed, I don't think that a computer / programme will be that successfull in creative media for a long time. I think creative media is a way for people to get to know other people's way of thinking. Sure, you can probably spit out some automatic action movies, reality shows or pop-songs, but I still think people will want something, that meant something to someone else.

A true human level artificial intelligence might be able to pull it off, here and there, but in that case, it would, for all intents and purposes, be like something created by a person.

An AI beyond our intelligence could potentially spit out any number of media, but would we really then understand it as the sort of communication it's meant to be.

[KerbMav]

There will be no point in increasing productivity with robots if there is nobody around to buy the stuff that the robots produce.

If we get to a point where robots do all the work, we'll also have to find a way for people to have enough money to buy stuff without working.

The typical problem:

Company A dismisses a percentage of its workers to increase profits (because share holders demand it and no other easier/faster way exists actually); social services have to pump more tax money into supporting the unemployed and their families, this tax money cannot be used to support other areas of the nation, taxes have to be raised (for the masses, not the big money, because ... you know ... the usual) and now not only the x-thousand dismissed workers have less money in their pockets to buy things, but also everyone else; company A makes less turnover and also less profit; company A dismisses a percentage of its workers to increase profits ...

Or we can just do away with money altogether...

Something which I am a big fan of for several years now.

[magnemoe]

The typical problem:

Company A dismisses a percentage of its workers to increase profits (because share holders demand it and no other easier/faster way exists actually); social services have to pump more tax money into supporting the unemployed and their families, this tax money cannot be used to support other areas of the nation, taxes have to be raised (for the masses, not the big money, because ... you know ... the usual) and now not only the x-thousand dismissed workers have less money in their pockets to buy things, but also everyone else; company A makes less turnover and also less profit; company A dismisses a percentage of its workers to increase profits ...

Yes, however unemployment don't increase because of increased efficiency, it rises because of economic downturns, this has other reasons typically an response to an too rapid growth (faster than efficiency increase)

In short automation has been ongoing since the start of the industrial revolution, even before that. It has increased wealth all over and not caused unemployment.

Or do you want her job

http://youtu.be/Hy8c-YYdB4g

Something which I am a big fan of for several years now.

And how will you arrange that. It would raise some magnitude more problems than an chance of more unemployment.

[KerbMav]

Yes, however unemployment don't increase because of increased efficiency, it rises because of economic downturns,

It rises because of both.

And please also read the part I was answering to, should make it a bit clearer.

And how will you arrange that. It would raise some magnitude more problems than an chance of more unemployment.

Scroll up, there are some comments already on this - the real challenge would be to get humans to work for the good of society anyway - money only as a means to ration and distribute ressources, without work being necessary to receive it, would be a good start.

[Idobox]

Do you people remember the last time you went to a travel agent? What's protecting banks, administrations, real estate agents?

IBM Watson is learning to be a better diagnostician than any human could ever be.

Robots can already make pizzas and coffee, handle your Amazon order and clean your floor, soon they will be able to do 90% of commerce jobs.

A massive part of trading is done by algorithms too.

A lot of jobs are going to be destroyed in the mid future, and we already have no idea what to do with all the factory workers who lose their jobs. What happens when only people with the equivalent of a masters level in STEM, business or law can find a job?

The solution we have used, and will keep using is welfare checks. If we don't, the economy will collapse, and the people owning the machines will have near absolute power, and the situation will either be maintained by brutal police states, or lead to revolutions.

[magnemoe]

Do you people remember the last time you went to a travel agent? What's protecting banks, administrations, real estate agents?

IBM Watson is learning to be a better diagnostician than any human could ever be.

Robots can already make pizzas and coffee, handle your Amazon order and clean your floor, soon they will be able to do 90% of commerce jobs.

A massive part of trading is done by algorithms too.

A lot of jobs are going to be destroyed in the mid future, and we already have no idea what to do with all the factory workers who lose their jobs. What happens when only people with the equivalent of a masters level in STEM, business or law can find a job?

The solution we have used, and will keep using is welfare checks. If we don't, the economy will collapse, and the people owning the machines will have near absolute power, and the situation will either be maintained by brutal police states, or lead to revolutions.

If nobody have money to buy the ones owning all the expensive systems will go broke, as nobody has money to buy the products they make. Note it don't have to be everybody just a lot.

Main reason because businesses went bankrupt after the banking crisis was because people did not spend money, many had no money, more wanted to sit on them for safety instead of spending them. This hit expensive items and luxury hardest.

By the way banks are mostly web services now for everything less than car loans at least.

Lots of the everyday administrative tasks is already web based, benefit is that the customer do the work themselves, benefit for customer is that they save time.

Real estate is sale of one off products who are very expensive so here you will have humans in the loop.

However this automation taking all the jobs is not an problem many are concerned about, more important is how it will shift the marked. I don't think automated coffee makers will replace cafes, it will replace the coffee automates we already have who make terrible coffee. Yes it was probably the most stupid example in the video.

[Nuke]

its when someone creates a bureaucrat bot that the excrement really hits the ventilation apparatus.

[Red Iron Crown]

its when someone creates a bureaucrat bot that the excrement really hits the ventilation apparatus.

I figure bureaucracy is one of the best applications of advanced AI. If any segment of society needs a dose of efficiency...

[Robotengineer]

I figure bureaucracy is one of the best applications of advanced AI. If any segment of society needs a dose of efficiency...

Or inefficiency.

while; notUpForElection == True;
(
doNothing = True;
)

else;
(
doNothing = True;
)

Ignore my terrible syntax.

[Guest]

Remember that even with robots, there is a significant market for human made goods. There's a difference between a table made by a carpenter and a machine-made one you can get from, say, IKEA. Upper-class restaurants will never replace tuxedo-clad waiters with automatons - that'd defeat the whole point. Even handmade cars are a thing, Rolls-Royce ones, for example, are not made using robots, but assembled by engineers bolt-by-bolt. There will always be market for craftsmen, makers of luxury items and providers of upper-class services. No robot can make a felt fedora like a human hatter can, and this will hold for quite a while. No robot can make a bespoke suit like a tailor can. Those services are becoming more and more scarce, but I don't think they'd quite go away anytime soon. Handmade items are of higher quality than ones made by automatons, and even when they're not, the "handmade" label is a symbol of status. Quite a few people will pay just for that.

On the other end of the scale is cheap labor. If robots become cheaper, then they'll replace low-end workers. But that would mean those workers will be willing to work for less and less, until they once again become less expensive than robots. Laws of market rule here, especially in places like China, where the government does nothing to counteract this. Yes, this will result in workers being gradually more and more miserable as their value decreases. Such is free market economy.