Smart robots will take over a third of jobs by 2025, Gartner says

The entire argument above can be summarised as the Luddite Fallacy, but the debate has moved on and the reality of the situation is that this is now viewed as overly simplistic and applies to an economic reality that is rapidly receding into our past.

The debate, along with the world economy and potential impact of technology, has become far more complex.

If you have any doubt, read this recent article in The Economist. It covers a number of issues from the perspective of developing economies where automation is now becoming more affordable than even the lowest paid workers.

Arrested development
The model of development through industrialisation is on its way out
Oct 4th 2014
http://www.economist.com/news/speci...trialisation-its-way-out-arrested-development

 

And more specifically on technological advances increasingly making old arguments obsolete:

 

I'd like to see a vid of boris in action I bet it takes him an hour to load the dishwasher .

Menial tasks are where robots fall in a heap their dexterity is terrible . .Like the robots u see climbing ladders ...looks they are on drugs . .

There will ALWAYs be a place for humans no matter how good robots are . Firstly not everyone can afford a robot & if u have one for a housekeeper you cant kiss it :lol: well u can if your a WEIRDO !!

 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpd8cqxvb0g[/youtube]

 

Yes. this time is different

Either robots replace humanity and humans are extinct or they are simply a continuation of historical productivity improvements.

The use of robots does not exist in a vacuum. They are specifically used to produce output. But where is that output going? To consumers. More output per person means more consumption per person. As Hawkeye already discussed, one of the key areas where the additional consumption is absorbed is in our leisure time. This has been a substantial part of the whole process. As I posted: "In 1840 an operative in the cotton mills of Rhode Island, working thirteen to fourteen hours a day, turned off 9,600 yards of standard sheeting in a year; in 1886 the operative in the same mill made about 30,000 yards, working ten hours a day. In 1840 the wages were $176 a year; in 1886 the wages were $285 a year." And before you raise "but how will they be distributed?" the answer is simply "in exactly the same way the production of current factories are distributed - by trade for mutually beneficial outcomes". A factory owner not trading their products is no different to you not trading the products of your home cooking or arts and crafts. If there are people who are not engaged in the robot economy their demand or ability to produce things doesn't magically disappear. They can continue operating in a non-robot economy and there's no real difference compared to now.

 

^^^ Arguments from the 1800's are not necessarily relevant today. The old arguments are being reexamined in light of current economic and technological reality. There is genuine debate in this area now:

The New Luddites: What if technological innovation is a job-killer after all?

Our livelihoods are set for technological upheaval

 

& has an uncanny resemblence to my housekeeper

 

Yes. This time it's different

The laws of economics are just as relevant today as they were 5,000 years ago. They haven't changed. Say's Law reigned then, reigns now and will always reign.

Say you are the lucky factory owner that can produce 10,000 pairs of shoes a day for $1 each using nothing but robots (and some purchased materials) in the entire factory. Well then what? You sure as heck do not want 10,000 pairs of shoes a day nor could you actually consume such. They will be traded away to other people for the other things that you want. Multiply this by the tens of thousands of products that we have and that is the economy. In the extreme, think Jetsons or Futurama style "working" for the abundance of things they consume.

 

The only way a robot factory owner can undercut competition is by offering their products to the market. If they don't offer them then there is essentially no impact of the robots on people's livelihoods as the labour-using competition is still in existence. If they do offer them, then there is increased production.

 

^^^ The onrushing wave: Previous technological innovation has always delivered more long-run employment, not less. But things can change
http://www.economist.com/news/brief...s-delivered-more-long-run-employment-not-less

 

8

Can't read it as I've reached my daily limit, but the title itself is wrong. Innovation hasn't "delivered more long-run employment", long-run employment continues despite innovation. Cutting and pasting from one of the previous threads on this topic

If we are at the point of becoming god's whose wants can be satisfied by automation, then sweet, there's no need for anyone to work.

But re-iterating: "The only way a robot factory owner can undercut competition is by offering their products to the market. If they don't offer them then there is essentially no impact of the robots on people's livelihoods as the labour-using competition is still in existence." This is undeniable. There is no problem that requires "policy planning" but there will be many opportunities for people to exploit to aid the ongoing transition. As always, the biggest barriers will be regulations that ban people from adapting.

 

Robots cannot be less limited and smarter than their software writers and users.
If 33% jobs get wiped instead of replaced, then it won't be due to robots, but due to the theft committed by the lazybutters, including governments.
Does this smell abit more as reality?

 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhDG_WBIQgc[/youtube]

 

Is it impossible for humans to build a machine that can travel faster than humans? Is it impossible for humans to build a machine that is stronger than humans? Is it impossible to build a machine that is smarter than humans?

It is a mistake to assume that machine intelligence will always be limited by the rules and knowledge the designer encoded a priori like a large program of if-then-else statements.

The field of machine learning covers systems that are not limited in such a way.

Will it be incredibly difficult? Yes. But impossible? No.

 

2014, the year we fight back!

dada dum dada (Terminator theme)

 

Source: 2001: A Space Oddessy

I hope sentient robots don't become intergalactic people smugglers.

 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjOvveaZu6I[/youtube]

 

I talk about the "thinking" of robots, not about mechanical speed and whatever.
Smartness sits in the brain not in the legs. Your next sentence doesn't read different so why this sentence?

It's not about rules.
It's not about knowledge.
It's not about size of programs.
It's about thinking, solving the wide variety of problems that nature / circumstances can pose.
See, the world is not a totally predefined sandbox environment.
It's a big and complex interaction of numerous processes, resulting in situations in a wide variety.
For a robot to achieve the same abilities as a human, it would need to become a human, with some things blocked in the mind to prevent it going against its maker or so.

Of course it's not impossible. Fuck with a woman, wait some years, and you have a productive entity that can do way more than your Universal Robot, IF it wants.