Is the taking over of jobs from humans to robots/machines a good thing?

You'd be surprised how far automation has come in supply chains. One of our facilities was piloting a program that used robots to bring bins to order pickers (until amazon bought out the company), and all of our sortation is automated except for the guy who has to move the product from rollers to a pallet.
I've also seen facilities where the entire pick/put process is automated with a maze of conveyors and barcodes.
Not to mention how much of the ordering and scheduling of freight happens with minimum human interaction.

It ends with A.I killing off humans and taking over civilization with their own machine citizens who work to do whatever the A.I wants.

there are many aspects to it. in todays society in western countries automation usually means that layed off workforce will be given welfare to live until they find a new job, or finance them getting new qualification or just give money for free so they dont go chimping out.
It really depends on a person, some people will see it as opportunity and improve themselves and society others just become even a bigger burden on society. Therefore automation is irrelevant, its the people that will determine if the society they live in progresses or regresses.

It's great for advanced societies, terrible for countries living on cheap labor.

Once it gets cheap and efficient enough China and India will be in deep shit while USA, EU and Japan will profit.

But that situation isn't typical. That was a company that was obviously so special that amazon bought it. Look around at smaller companies or really just your average one. Still truck drivers, stockers, forklift drivers etc. The future definitely won't be the big unemployment automationfags are making it out to be.

bad for society

Peasants have always been marginalized but always held power over their overlords by refusing to work. By taking that one last bit of power away from the peasants, they may be forced to resort to the final form of arbitration that's always available but often only used as a last resort .... violence.

Good for porky, the capitalist
Bad for joe, the man that works for a living

>I'm 14 and read marx for the first time

>Because some smaller companies are behind the times today we will continuing using horse drawn carriages and candles for lighting in substantial numbers forever.
How are you this retarded? What incentive do you think businesses have to never automate even in the future when doing so will get you superior results to live workers at a tiny fraction of the cost? Just because some businesses haven't done much automation yet doesn't mean they'll be that way forever.

>I can't accept that Marx has made legitimate points

Yes. post videos of cool industrial shit.
youtube.com/watch?v=_j2jESz7Zl8

I'm sure it COULD happen eventually, but these threads are implying that this is something we should be worrying about in a couple of decades. It's more like centuries.

youtube.com/watch?v=ijWwfcw0FOo
youtube.com/watch?v=tEF2erBBVZ4
youtube.com/watch?v=zTKodUpErR8

You've got it backwards. If too many jobs disappear, disposable income goes with it and there's no benefit to automation. The only result can be a failure of the industrial capitalist system, but I can't even imagine what kind of system could replace it (not socialism, that's a failure and will also be obsoleted by automation).

>I still think that work is valuable

Henry Ford, who wasn't particularly known as a liberal or tolerant guy, recognized that unless he paid his workers decently they wouldn't be able to afford to buy his cars.

If workers aren't needed at all, then the government either supports them or risks civil unrest, as noted.

Unless you're willing to kill most _everyone_, you have to come to an accommodation. That's how the Soviet Union went down. The apparatchiks were ready to use unlimited force but the army wouldn't go along. In Tiananmen Square, the troops obeyed. How the robot police will react is unknown.

Rome faced this situation. No robots, but plenty of slaves who worked cheaper than freemen. So the populace was "bought off" with free food and "reality shows". Lasted quite a while. Until the citizens became so worthless that the barbarians moved in.

thanks for deleting that offensive pic

Just wait till this line is makeing hunter killers.

Overblown meme by ideologues pushing for retard policies like universal free iphones and shit and daydreaming muh singularity hipsters.
>lower wages
There. Solved. Cheap labor wins against expensive chad-o-tron 9000's. In addition, automation will self-correct/limit by reducing purchasing power. The first companies that ride the automation bubble before its regulated to death will acquire great wealth though, so it definitely has potential.

AI has already been killing off white collar jobs like lawyers, day traders and estate agents. Ultimately it depends if we can all mutually agree to run our economies on something that isn't purely production and consumption based.

That sounds shitty. Wages are already low enough. I sure am excited for the future!

Objectively good, but it is going to hurt a lot of people in our current economic system.

Our economic system is outdated and will need to be adapted to our future.

dude when societies run by robots why do u care abput being a burden? its well within our abilities to have an automated non sentient infrastructure capable of sustaining with minimal human input.

the result would be i proved welfare sortof like canadas base income in some
rovinces

but society will just become entertainment based for non robos.

Wasn't offensive.
Was the wrong one.

So the robots will be cranking out TVs and toasters and cars.
Or they'll be undercut by starving workers.
Who is going to buy those TVs and toasters and cars?

Capitalism tries to suck everything out of labor at the least cost.
Labor tries to get maximum return for their work.
But neither can afford total "victory".
If one side or the other is annihilated, Capitalism collapses.

You sound like Ayn Rand. A few bold thinkers make everything work and the masses are just parasitic drag.
But if the elite want dinner cooked and the plumbing fixed, they'll have to convince the lower-classes to play their parts. Such systems always implode, often in violence. The Brits avoided that at the end of WW2. The masses had gotten a taste of being essential and they weren't going to settle for being maids and butlers anymore. Much as the aristocracy might have hated it, enough recognized that a more egalitarian society and estate taxes to reduce the number of privileged fops was their only way out.

They taking from us machine work and left us work for human.

>new technology appears
>everybody is scared it's going to get rid of jobs and make people unemployed
>everybody just gets new jobs and enjoys the benefits of things now being cheaper

literally every time. Fuck luddites and their fear of progress

Capitalism is on it's last legs. Only retards don't see it yet.

But it did fundamentally change our economic model, are you aware of that?

>repeat until people just get free stuff
literally what will happen

capitalism is the game that sets you up for advantages in the next round

Commies were right all along. Capitalists thought they had won. Little did they know. Kek.

If energy gets to be sufficiently cheap, very nearly being free, and labor is manufactured using that energy, what is still capital and how is it rationed?

Why would it take centuries when none of these manual labor automation tasks are unsolved problems?
>Lower wages
Why would you rather have to pay someone minimum wage full time to do a task that could be automated with no recurring expense? For manual labor you might need to pay for repairs at some point, but even just minimum wage lost at a constant ongoing rate is going to be more expensive in the long term. And you could hire one guy to maintain 100 automation machines at way less than the cost of having 100 FTEs.

Coca cola, (CCBCC), has a few warehouses that don't use order-builders anymore. They just use forklift drivers to load the packages in place and a machine stacks it. Soon the forklifts will be replaced. Its actually pretty neat.

Capitalism is dying but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are progressing into some utopia.

I envision that we will end up in a dystopia rather, where a few elite own everything and they keep the population appeased, party through fear, and party through a meager basic income.

Kind of like feudalism, except the serfs don't have to toil in the fields, but they don't have freedom either.

Marx was just a philosopher. It was Lenin who misinterpreted Marx's conclusions.

What was misinterpreted?

what is welfare

>Oh noes, things will get cheap and easy to make. What a travesty!

How does that benefit capitalists? That's the question.

robots produce for people to consume
with all jobs done by robots
and vast majority being jobless
their will form a social welfare net that eventually becomes so accepted humans will essentially have a default value assigned, rather than 0 like it is now. poor homeless.
pretty much at this point the capitlist pwn the robots and just give people stuff because why not

>Why would it take centuries when none of these manual labor automation tasks are unsolved problems?
Legislation, budgets, time for the technologies to perfect. No one is going to replace all of their human workers overnight.

>Decoupling of economic structures yields greater civil gains than losses when using a automated workforce as the primary labor source.
And technology doubles in efficiency every two years Timmy!

Free stuff out of what exactly? Are you implying that a welfare based society could provide for an ever expanding human population on a finite earth? What about those who want more and not less, and will actively create systems to ensure their continued gain?

But the expensive chad-o-tron 9,000 is soon replaced by cheaper than labor chad 10,000. Don’t mistake initial hurdles as constant bumps.

No, it's another wealth consolidation scam perpetuated by the so-called "elites". The technocrats want people enslaved to tech. Most of the tech you have in your life doesn't make it better even if you currently operate under that delusion that it does.

I don't see how legislation and budgets are going to make large amounts of automation take *centuries* to happen.
The alleged budget hurdle isn't really a problem at all since the whole point of automation is it saves a lot of money. As time goes by it's only getting more and more convenient and acceptable to go that route, and even small businesses without the money to pay for a bunch of automation up front can take out loans, and this would be one of the least risky uses of a loan I can think of.
Legislation might be even less of a problem, which existing laws do you think are detering automation today?
And "time for the technologies to perfect" definitely isn't going to add significant time anywhere because nobody requires "perfect" technology in the first place. It's not like the live workers that are being replaced are anywhere close to perfect themselves, and you don't even need to match the live worker quality for it to be worthwhile even if they were perfect. A mediocre automation setup you don't have to constantly pay a salary to is still much better than a hundred great human workers doing the same amount of work.
Japan has already had "lights out" automated factories as early as 2001. "Lights out" as in they don't even use lighting in the building because all the work is being done by machines.

It's pretty inevitable, so there's no use quantifying it as good or bad.

Science, guided by wisdom, may become man's great social liberator. A mechanical age can prove disastrous only to a nation whose intellectual level is too low to discover those wise methods and sound techniques for successfully adjusting to the transition difficulties arising from the sudden loss of employment by large numbers consequent upon the too rapid invention of new types of laborsaving machinery.

>ever expanding human population

Advanced societies have negative growth. Look at Japan or any western country without counting immigrants.

Take a look at this:
>willrobotstakemyjob.com/
You'll see that nearly every STEM job that requires a high intellect, intuition and innovation, such as mathematics, are totally safe.
So, unless you're a menial laborer or machinist, you'll be fine.

There is a place for everyone in the future. We need to ensure that we appreciate the right things. Demand quality, do not purchase the lowest priced item. Value customer service, boycott all companies wth poor customer service; comcast, ups, amazon etc
Do not sponsor companies that are entirely robotic.
Vote with your dollars user.

Robots will take every job sooner or later. A single human takes about 20 years of regular attention just to mature, then a bit more to gain a proficiency, and even more to be considered an expert. If we can build one AI that can do your job, we can almost immediately mass manufacture it. There's no way human labor can keep up with that without ethically questionable biological engineering.

Humans arent valuable for our pick and place, we are valuable for our intellect, ingenuity, creativity, and information comprehension.

There are still tasks that are Simple for humans, yet incredibly difficult for machines. See Captcha

No, no they won't. You'll always need human innovation for abstract ideas outside of logic. I think it'll be more akin to having the human as the 'abstracist' and the AI as the logician.

>*abstracist = abstractist

That only applies to currently available architectures. Quantum computers, for a start, are set to tackle a whole separate problem domain than our current machines.

>Computational power = Innovation
Since when? Even now computers have far more computational power than us, but we're still better at innovation. Just because you increase the computational power, doesn't mean you increase the AIs innovation, that is a total non sequitur.

I work in automation, and I don't see that any time soon.
Quantum will be good at agent based data analysis, not creativity.
Computer generated music is literally only a ripoff of human stuff.

Pretty sure non self aware A.I are already better engineers since STEM requires no social skills and is pure calculation than humans so STEM is not safe either.

>Conflating technician with engineer
Try again.

Engineers will be btfo before technicians. Except for low level techs that just know how to do maintenance.

No, once again, you're conflating computational power with innovation, as in, application of the data.

It's not about computational power. The computation of quantum computers can't be directly compared to the computer you're using now, it's an entirely different architecture for a different set of problems. The problem is finding an architecture that covers the same domain as the human brain.

>Quantum will be good at agent based data analysis, not creativity.
I don't expect quantum specifically to be good at creativity, the point is just that the different architecture is suited to different problems.

>I don't see that any time soon.
Not soon, definitely not in the next 20 years, probably not in our lifetime, but there's no reason to expect people not to be trying to achieve this constantly as technology progresses.

I agree (automation engineer from above). Most engineers have very little actual technical ability. Most are politicians of kingdoms of shity inter-office politics

Eh, we'll figure it out when it actually becomes a problem. If it becomes a problem.

>The problem is finding an architecture that covers the same domain as the human brain.
Good luck, I don't think quantum computers are the solution to that problem.

Not directly, but I would expect their application to stochastic problems, alongside Harvard and massively parallel architectures, will improve our understanding of the problem and get us closer to solving it.

That still doesn't hold relevance to your assertion about near-future professions and their automation.

Well I didn't say near-future, I just said sooner or later.

>Sooner or later my arbitrary prediction might come true with these very special set of theoretical circumstances.
What a solid basis to make such a hard assertion that "engineers days are numbered", pfft.

I mean assuming the human race doesn't die out any time soon, there's no reason to believe it won't happen unless you attribute our creativity to something extra-physical. It's only a matter of when.

>It's only a matter of when.
So is cryptography, anything and everything IS decryptable the limit is the hard limit of time.
As in, if something would take longer than the (possible) heat death of the universe to decrypt, you can still call it decryptable, but is it really.
Apply the same thinking to human-esque artificial architecture, it might be possible (like decryption) but it is practical?

>*it is = is it

[math]luddite fallacy[/math]

Maybe not, but if it can happen within a reasonable time span in nature, given the aspects of nature we've harnessed and replicated in the last 10,000 years, and assuming we're here in another 10,000, I'd be leaning very hard towards yes. But fair enough, I guess it's impossible to say at this point in time.

>But fair enough, I guess it's impossible to say at this point in time.
And that's my point, making such deterministic and declarative statements as you have been is utterly meaningless. The context around those statements need to change before they have any weight.
Thank you for taking part and keeping your mind open though, that's always a good sign and trait.

I've been working in inventory control and supply chain logistics for ~15 years, the more mouth breathing retards I can cut out of the process the better.
But it's pretty impressive where the industry has gone, and where it's heading.

From a world standpoint, overpopulation has never been a serious problem in the past, but if war is lessened and science increasingly controls human diseases, it may become a serious problem in the near future. At such a time the great test of the wisdom of world leadership will present itself. Will Urantia rulers have the insight and courage to foster the multiplication of the average or stabilized human being instead of the extremes of the supernormal and the enormously increasing groups of the subnormal? The normal man should be fostered; he is the backbone of civilization and the source of the mutant geniuses of the race. The subnormal man should be kept under society's control; no more should be produced than are required to administer the lower levels of industry, those tasks requiring intelligence above the animal level but making such low-grade demands as to prove veritable slavery and bondage for the higher types of mankind.

Tell me what shitholes you work in so I can avoid them.

I have found no companies without massive waste and corruption. Once a company exceeds a person threshold its inevitable.
Silos within organizations form and people exist because of relationships. Some people will resist progress because they can feed off of the inefficiencies. It's nature, but its a symptom of bigger problems.

Yes, almost everything should be automated so everyone can study science.

>You'll always need human innovation for abstract ideas outside of logic.
I don't understand what you're suggesting here. Do you honestly believe our brains are made out of magic and no artificial programs will ever be able to produce the same results it does?
>That only applies to currently available architectures. Quantum computers, for a start, are set to tackle a whole separate problem domain than our current machines.
Our brains themselves don't even make use of any quantum effects, the timescales for decoherence aren't even close for that to happen in the brain. There is nothing wrong with existing computation approaches, the quantum flapdoodle meme needs to die.

>Is the taking over of jobs from humans to robots/machines a good thing?
Good for capital owners, bad for economical state, but nobody care

Yet Essential for embracing the future.

see , it pays to read the whole thread before posting this late.

Income of buyers will decrease, if robots and lathes steal out jobs, and they already does this, it's way to an another economical crisis, because of dis-balance among parts of an economical model.

>As in, if something would take longer than the (possible) heat death of the universe to decrypt, you can still call it decryptable, but is it really.
>Apply the same thinking to human-esque artificial architecture, it might be possible (like decryption) but it is practical?
We already know it would take nowhere near the time it takes for heat death to happen to produce every piece of functionality the brain provides because brains already exist and were formed without any conscious planning in a small fraction of that time. And presumably you could get the same results with much less structural redundancy by consciously designing an artificial system instead of reproducing every last cell of an exact replica of the brain as it was produced in nature.
That aside, I think most people are greatly underrating how much existing AI already does and greatly overrating how much our brains do. There seems to be a common criticism of "they're just copying what we do" or "it's just statistics, not intelligence," but copying / learning to infer relationships from exposure to data is how we operate too. There are some convoluted collections of behavior that AI doesn't currently reproduce much of itself like holding a detailed conversation with loosely defined subjects, but I really don't think the ability to do that is this magical "real AI"milestone everyone's making it out to be.