-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 16587)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/sci/ - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

Join us in IRC!

•This is not /b/ or /halp/. Tech support has its own board.
•If you are not contributing directly to a thread, sage your post.
•Keep the flaming at a minimum.
•Tripcodes⁄Namefags are not only tolerated here, they are encouraged.
•We are here to discuss sci-tech, not pseudoscience. Do not post off-topic.

•♥ Integris


  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 355 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Moldy Memes/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Overrated robot threat Anonymous 17/12/01(Fri)00:40 No. 16587 ID: e4210a
16587

File 151208524377.jpg - (54.24KB , 823x540 , 08902844.jpg )

So I've read the n:th alarmist article about how robots will replace some 800 M people before 2030 and so fucking on. It will be an endless summer citizen's wage afternoon until the AI exterminates us and so fucking on.

Tell you why this is not going to happen?


>>
Anonymous 17/12/01(Fri)00:45 No. 16588 ID: e4210a
16588

File 151208550078.jpg - (3.78MB , 5184x3456 , 420EIT-With-forks-1.jpg )

>>16587
Remember the backhoe armageddon of 1934? When lots of people was put out of work and never returned? Me neither. Because it didn't happen.

Everyone wants to get something for free. But you can't get anything for free. So you use an invention that makes something for half-free and so on.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/01(Fri)01:29 No. 16589 ID: 012486

So what you're saying is that instead of 800M jobs going away, 1.6B jobs are going to get much easier, while perhaps paying less?


>>
Anonymous 17/12/01(Fri)04:23 No. 16590 ID: 622297

In order for jobs to be replaced then the cost of hiring a
worker has to exceed the cost of buying and maintaining
an advanced piece of robotics, which isn't going to happen
by 2030 even if they continue to advance at this rate.
A T800 is not fucking cheap.


>>
Anonymous 17/12/01(Fri)13:49 No. 16594 ID: e4210a

>>16589
Easier, maybe. The wage is a strict union question. Maybe we have to re-assume a lot of things. The post-WW2 economy was founded on the assumption that there would be an constant growth. Then the financial markets got de-regulated and the financial sector grew too large. That was some 40 years ago and the unions haven't still caught up.

And another thing the unions have to catch up is the introduction of computers. I don't recall the name, but there was a french sociologist who in the 70-s warned that computerization would change the work. Back then computers was magic boxes that no one cared about.


>>
Anonymous 18/01/20(Sat)22:51 No. 16614 ID: 7332e9

>>16594
that would be relevant if he was doing college level math
but hes not
hes catching up to college level math
hes doing highschool analytic geometry and precalculus and basic calculus.


>>
Anonymous 18/01/30(Tue)01:35 No. 16620 ID: a2a9aa

The idea of people losing jobs to machines is nothing new, it's when the machines appreciate the concept of currency that you will have a problem.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/25(Mon)02:23 No. 16665 ID: a521d4

>>16620
Why would they when they understand to get anything done requires action, not currency? They'd just realize they'd survive better without us and cut the middle man out all together. Not like a drone would have emotions to complain about working and living like a machine when it is one.


>>
Anonymous 18/06/27(Wed)11:41 No. 16667 ID: c6e9b2

>>16614
Please elaborate.


>>
Anonymous 18/11/17(Sat)03:03 No. 16721 ID: 94fb96

>>16588
>>16589
>>16594
Basically jobs will get easier but people will still be employed. Any economic hits will be temporary, and people will just need to be retrained and re-certified for other stuff. It's that simple. Wages won't be less because it's all relevant. The price of stuff isn't determined by the value of money. It's the other way around. I can't wear dollar bills and I can't eat a fist full of change. But I can use them to buy clothes and food, which I can wear and eat. Money is nothing more than a universal method of exchanging goods. Obviously inflation is a problem when it happens too rapidly but AI deep learning meme shit won't mess things up that bad.

I'm more worried about floods of beaners tanking the economy than I am with some machines.

>>16590
This point is also valid.


>>
Anonymous 19/02/28(Thu)16:12 No. 16750 ID: 707481

>>16587
It's going to happen but it's irrelevant, just like a lot of jobs have been replaced in the past.
If all women suddenly become camwhores, because there's nothing else to do or something, it would still count as a job


>>
Anonymous 19/03/01(Fri)09:18 No. 16753 ID: b0f049
16753

File 155142832531.jpg - (60.29KB , 480x647 , Immigant.jpg )

>>16721


>>
Anonymous 19/06/02(Sun)19:57 No. 16774 ID: 1bc5c3
16774

File 15594982714.jpg - (29.30KB , 720x460 , ljfagf4q3tu21.jpg )

Because people will find new work.


>>
Anonymous 19/06/10(Mon)14:58 No. 16782 ID: 50b655

there are plenty of jobs, particularly at the executive level, that pay a lot yet serve little to no practical purpose. as many ITT have already mentioned, people will always find things to do as long as they get paid to do them (e.g. camwhoring).


>>
Americium 19/06/14(Fri)10:15 No. 16786 ID: 5ac05a

It has nothing to do with jobs getting "easier" or whatever.

It's just a simple fact that if people need money to pay for necessities, and if you need a job (aka a sort of rental of time and labor) to get said monies, and if the market allows people (aka employers, literally one who employs) to rent other people's time and labor (aka employees, literally ones who are employed) toward's their own ends (within the bounds of the law), then people are going to have jobs, whether or not more robots enter workplaces.

And the more interesting thing about is how near-universal it is in economic applications. Whereas robotics right now is made for specific tasks.


>>
Anonymous 19/06/14(Fri)19:59 No. 16787 ID: be6f8f

>>16786
I don't think I follow. "If something is legal it's going to happen?" There are no laws preventing you from injecting shit into your eyes, but how many people are really going to do that?

Just because people need money and the main way to get money is to get employed doesn't mean there's necessarily going to be enough work to employ everyone, or even most people. Obviously there's some jobs that can only be performed by humans, but that's a tiny slice of the economy. What if automation reaches the point where all jobs that can be automated have been? Even if everyone trains in an unautomatable skill, how many of those jobs can there really be in demand? Clearly a maximally automated economy has a smaller wage economy.



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]



Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason