Kinexity t1_isycxua wrote
At the end of the day automation will prevail and the question isn't if but when. It doesn't matter what people say or think as the economics will settle this. There is a simple proof of that based on two axioms (we assume it's extremely unlikely they are wrong):
- There is no job where there cannot exist a robot which will be able to replace a human.
- AGI can exist
As such we just need a robot and a system intelligent enough to run it. If you can build a supply chain run by only robots which builds robots in a robot factory faster than exisiting robots are thrown out you get a system which without any human input can output robots capable of replacing every human in their job (we assume AGI, and human-like capable robots have been reached).
It's reasonable to belive that transition to full automation is a form of phase transition of human civilization (phase transitions are a wider thing than just change of phase of physical substances). Similar to how when ice melts into water there is this additional amount of energy which doesn't go into heat but into breaking up the solid structure there may be additional amount of effort needed to go switch to full automation.
ArgentStonecutter t1_isykmlw wrote
> 1. There is no job where there cannot exist a robot which will be able to replace a human. > 2. AGI can exist > 3. AGI can be operated for less than hiring and supporting a human.
Snoo63541 t1_isyn11e wrote
Point #3 exactly. In countries where machines are expensive, jobs are still done by humans. In countries where humans are expensive, machines replace them.
IM_INSIDE_YOUR_HOUSE t1_isyqi5f wrote
There’s a critical threshold though, still distantly away, where enough jobs are fully automated that labor itself loses almost all of its value. If an entire supply chain and manufacturing process is fully automated from start to finished product, and those automated systems are maintained/upkept by other fully autonomous systems, then their operation costs become a non-issue. The economy only exists as a function of human trade. Autonomous systems do not trade nor do they require it. They will not have an economy to worry about.
ArgentStonecutter t1_isyuqa8 wrote
If that happens where's the incentive to keep paying for the electricity to power the factories making goods, the feedstocks the goods are made from, and where are you shipping them if there's no market? The owner will just mothball it until there's demand again.
iNstein t1_iszsg4k wrote
The electricity costs nothing to create. It is generated using equipment that is created by automation and run by automation. The 'feedstocks' or raw materials are mined using automation or grown using automation. Basically you have to wrap your mind around the idea that literally everything will be automated. There will be a market, just not one that uses money in any way. If I want/need a new widget, I go online, order ut and it gets delivered to my door. I don't pay anything as it is not required for the system to work. Meanwhile, the rest of the system makes sure to make a replacement of that widget ready for the next person. Ownership will be by the government on behalf of the people. Private ownership will be unnecessary as people will have whatever they want anyway so ownership would just be a burden.
ArgentStonecutter t1_it027zs wrote
I too want to live under fully automated luxury gay space communism, where the energy is generated and feedstocks are mined and goods are manufactured by replicating machines out there beyond the atmosphere where they don't have to deal with the fact that the whole Earth is already owned by somebody and none of those somebodies are ready to hand over their share of the pie to the state.
InvisibleWrestler t1_it0894p wrote
Finally somebody actually talking about ownership of resources. People forget that every mine and every oil well and every piece of uranium and every agricultural field is owned by someone already.
Rakshear t1_it021j5 wrote
You won’t even have to go to markets for most things, a 3d printer at home will (eventually) be able to make anything basic with raw materials, only copy right specific things will still need purchasing. But custom fit clothing, orthopedic shoes, basic jewelry of self designs generated from prompt art, some tools even, can all come from home based 3d printing. Even food one day, you won’t need to go to restaurants if you don’t want to, but a bag of brand name Goo and boop, French fries, chicken nuggets, whatever.
ArgentStonecutter t1_it1i84b wrote
"Why does everything taste like chicken?" - the young doomed sidekick, The Matrix, 1999.
Anenome5 t1_it1atm5 wrote
>AGI can be operated for less than hiring and supporting a human.
Yeah it's not nearly close to that currently. A human can be hired immediately for a monthly wage cost, a few thousand dollars.
A machine that can do what a human can could cost hundreds of dollars right now, with an AI that's far more advanced that even GPT3 and takes up entire datacenters, etc., etc. The human never breaks down or requires calling a maintenance crew either, etc.
Jobs will be here for a long time yet.
happy_guy_2015 t1_it1kn4s wrote
The number of industrial robots installed grew 30% last year, with half a million units installed. At that rate of growth, it will take about 30-40 years before industrial robots outnumber humans. That's a long time, but not that long... many Redditors reading this will not yet be at retirement age by then. And it's certainly possible that the growth rate may increase faster than 30% annually as technology improves.
Anenome5 t1_it5dzoh wrote
Industrial robots are special purpose, they aren't total replacements for what humans are good at. And they're significantly expensive and a general human-replacement robot would be an order of magnitude or two more expensive.
happy_guy_2015 t1_it6j770 wrote
Capabilities are going up dramatically, and costs will go down as volume increases and technology improves.
TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_it1mui8 wrote
Potential addendum: not operated, created. I think that if one is made, many can be made.
Though I question how certain we are about these assertions.
ArgentStonecutter t1_it1nv3r wrote
The capex of creating and training the human to AGI equivalent level does not show up on any budget, it's hidden in the opex of employing other humans, and the opex of employing humans who don't have to pay for the training because they're childless is about the same.
That's not true for AGI, so if you're going to include capex in the equation it makes the AGI more expensive.
Anenome5 t1_it1aoub wrote
IMO, people will purchase robots long before 'all jobs are gone' and use them to make stuff and do work. In the future, the rich will own many robots and the poor fewer, but all will own robots. And the economy will still function because, though robots are doing the work, scarcity is still a factor, prices will not be zero, but your robots may be the ones earning income for you.
People of that era will live far better than we do, with massive price deflation and far better access to goods.
Quealdlor t1_it1jsy6 wrote
Prices of about everything will gradually trend towards zero, but never actually reaching it. So people in the future will have it much better than we do. Just like we have it much better than people a thousand years ago. For example cost of energy is going to decrease substantially.
Anenome5 t1_it5dt0c wrote
Yes, exactly, but most people don't have the economic training to reach that conclusion, much less understand the mechanics of it.
R3StoR t1_it1iinw wrote
Robots will never truly replace the world's oldest profession IMO. Something about the err...human touch.
Maybe we should all start preparing for new careers.
Quealdlor t1_it1jmf3 wrote
You are completely wrong. Sex robots and VR will completely replace human sex. I think you underestimate how much better will it feel.
Down_The_Rabbithole t1_it6lat1 wrote
There is another aspect that you didn't take into account yet:
> Work has to be productive and add economic value
What the covid lockdowns shows us is that there are a lot of "bullshit jobs" out there that don't provide any value and aren't missed when gone but still exist just to keep people busy. It's more than likely that humans will keep having work just because our society likes it for people to do labor, even if that labor is useless.
We as a society need to recognize that labor for labor's sake is bullshit and that we should just provide people a decent quality of life without having to go through this useless ritual of sacrificing 8 hours a day to something that doesn't add value to society.
I'm afraid of the opposite of what people claim in this thread. I'm not afraid of mass-unemployment. I'm afraid of people not losing their jobs when their labor becomes obsolete
augustulus1 t1_it3a0c6 wrote
There are jobs where a robot never can replace a human per definitionem.
For example, a handcrafted item can't be made by a robot because it would not be handcrafted, even if it 100% identical to real handcrafted items.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments