Support NeoGAF

[……forgetit]

Okay now I understand what you meant. I also believe that there is also a lack of trust for fully autonomous vehicles which is completely understandable for today's implementations.

Lack of trust is there now, but people will acclimate to it and 20 years from now driving might be considered an insane and dangerous practice of yesteryear.

 

[90TilInfinity]

What would you be paying people a minimum income to do?

You'd be giving people leverage against employers, something that barely exists at this point -- a big reason why wages are stagnant, and why levels of inequality are only getting more and more egregious. It also has a liberating aspect, allowing people who could innovate, to actually innovate. Not everybody who lives hand-to-mouth in a job they hate has nothing to offer besides that.

 

[border]

Accounting for accidents doesn't mean a self-driving car will understand the concept of "pregnant lady", "old man", "toddler" etc.

There's still the question of whether or not to prioritize its occupants' safety over the safety of other drivers or pedestrians. A deer runs onto the road. Does the car swerve into another car or on to the sidewalk to avoid a head on collision? One option is much safter for the rider, but could harm or kill bystanders.

 

[M3d10n]

There's probably going to be something with cars that delays mass adoption. I can guess with trucks it's going to be the need for somebody to maintain the cargo and handle procedure at weigh stations.

Self driving trucks, much like self driving anything, would obviously be deployed first in routes adapted to them, so they don't need to carry a person with them all the time.

When automobiles were first introduced, you couldn't ride them everywhere. When electrical appliances started being sold, the gris coverage was tiny. Now there are roads everywhere and electricity is considered essential.

Cars didn't evolve to navigate everywhere a horse could and electrical appliances didn't stop relying on a grid. The world adapted to them. Same with self driving vehicles.

 

[RibMan]

It's that, or everyone goes to build a shack in the woods and live off the land.

Or you develop a set of valuable skills that can't be automated by a computer, thus ensuring a future where your job can't be replaced by a processor.

 

[reckless]

Or you develop a set of valuable skills that can't be automated by a computer, thus ensuring a future where your job can't be replaced by a processor.

And then a million other people develop the same skills and the wage becomes practically nothing because most jobs can be automated to some extent at least.

 

[Cocaloch]

You may have touched an important issue here. Our standards as people grow as time passes. Hundreds of years ago humans needed some food, some clean water, a roof, a bit of alcohol fun every few days, and not a lot more.
Now our standards are higher, we want superior education as it enriches us, we want annual holidays in other countries (something I suppose only very rich people could allow themselves), we want sophisticated entertainment in form of music, tv, cinema, video games, etc in an almost daily manner. We want news services, and they have to be fast, almost immediate. We want to go out to eat, and it has to be a decent quality as you say. Internet is another example, even taking in account the inflation of how the average website size has increased, what is considered a 'basic' Internet connection (as basic in our eyes as tap water and electricity) has multiplied several times in the last 10 years.

So as we progress and have more in theory idle time as jobs have automated (nothing new, we had the Industrial revolution already), we INVENTED new needs and things we want, that first were just a luxury but that later turned into basic needs. Some of these needs will be directly automated yeah, but some won't be possible and people will pay for it, so people will work on that new sector.
I'm sure in 50 years lots of actual jobs will be automated, but sure as hell new jobs that right now we can't even imagine will appear to cover a new 'need'. In quotes because sure as hell I won't die if my tv broke today, but I would go to buy a new guy instantly even using special savings, as if a tv was an ~essential~ need for humans.
Maybe this won't make the problem disappear, but it will slow it down considerably.

You shouldn't use the Industrial Revolution as a great example of how the economy fixes all problems from automation. It made life really terrible for 3 generations of Britions that lived through it.

 

[KingBroly]

Self driving trucks, much like self driving anything, would obviously be deployed first in routes adapted to them, so they don't need to carry a person with them all the time.

When automobiles were first introduced, you couldn't ride them everywhere. When electrical appliances started being sold, the gris coverage was tiny. Now there are roads everywhere and electricity is considered essential.

Cars didn't evolve to navigate everywhere a horse could and electrical appliances didn't stop relying on a grid. The world adapted to them. Same with self driving vehicles.

I think the problem with self-driving cars is we're going to make them adapt to the world, not the other way around, because of everything built so far.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

For safety concerns, at least early on, I could see "self driving lanes" to separate automated vehicles from manually operated vehicles.

I tend to think these articles massively overstate how many jobs will be lost to automation. How are they going to automate a lawyer or a doctor?

On doctors it's not just eliminating them, it's about much greater efficiency making it possible for a machine to be able to do the work of several with only one person needed on the job, machines will replace technicians, various roles of nurses/assistants serve and do all the work much faster and possibly at once and then there's the secretarial staff having someone answer phones and be in charge of scheduling appointments and everything are probably going to be the first eliminated and even now they probably could be or at least those tasks. Eventually an examination room could have a machine that replaces, X-Rays/scans, lab work and so on while also eliminating the need to be moved around from place to place. That's assuming some of what we do today will still even need to be done when it could become less invasive. It's probably a long way away from reaching the level of Star Trek but it's entirely possible tricoders will become a reality. They're being worked on and exist in a relatively primitive states but it's possible within a few decades that we won't have to leave home for a medical check up and health care costs could plummet as technology progresses. Doctors will still be needed but probably not as many and staff around a doctor and hospital will be the first to become obsolete.

 

[Makai]

Self driving trucks, much like self driving anything, would obviously be deployed first in routes adapted to them, so they don't need to carry a person with them all the time.

When automobiles were first introduced, you couldn't ride them everywhere. When electrical appliances started being sold, the gris coverage was tiny. Now there are roads everywhere and electricity is considered essential.

Cars didn't evolve to navigate everywhere a horse could and electrical appliances didn't stop relying on a grid. The world adapted to them. Same with self driving vehicles.

If we have to update our infrastructure, mass adoption is definitely going to be delayed. It took 50 years before 25% of Americans had electricity.

 

[George Washington]

Accounting for accidents doesn't mean a self-driving car will understand the concept of "pregnant lady", "old man", "toddler" etc.

There is no reason why it couldn't ( not short term, this is further off in the future).

At the very least, identify multiple humans vs. a single vs. a wall vs. etc.

Also, as with everything else, the concept will have to be programmed in

Thought this was interesting:

I re-wrote pr2_props for autonomous demonstrations and lab-visits. Instead of performing fixed actions on command, it performs six “social” behaviours:

It engages you with eye-contact.
If you try to take a photo of it, it waves and says a greeting.
If you hug it, it hugs back.
If you stop hugging, it also stops.
If you put up your hand for a high-five, it responds with a matching high-five.
When hands meet in a high-five, the robot detects the ‘collision’ and pulls back.

Imagine you changed the algorithm so that whenever you engaged in eye contact, it punched you. The robot has no sense of right or wrong, just how it should behave given input.

(This would be horrible &#129301

 

[SugarDaddy]

Or you develop a set of valuable skills that can't be automated by a computer, thus ensuring a future where your job can't be replaced by a processor.

I love starting my day with NeoGAF cause it's always good for laughs like this

 

[.JayZii]

Then you must be the saddest person alive because there are people dying of hunger every day everywhere. The reality is that we as society are OK with a lot of shit, I am just not hypocritical about it and don't fake outrage that other people aren't having as much as a good time in life as me nor I pretend I actually care for their well being.

I am pretty sad about the state of the world, a lot of people are. Are people in this thread faking outrage because other people aren't able to have as good a time as you, or are we discussing if people's basic needs being covered should be a right or not? People are OK with a lot of shit in our society, so discussing ways which would be beneficial to everyone means we are pretending to care about other people? You sound dead inside, and should probably be replaced by a computer.

Luckily everyone can just adapt and get jobs in the same fields when things change. Everyone get STEM degrees, because job scarcity doesn't exist now, and certainly won't when there are less jobs as a result of automation.

 

[AYF 001]

There's still the question of whether or not to prioritize its occupants' safety over the safety of other drivers or pedestrians. A deer runs onto the road. Does the car swerve into another car or on to the sidewalk to avoid a head on collision? One option is much safter for the rider, but could harm or kill bystanders.

At least with regards to other traffic, engineers are looking to network autonomous cars so that they can communicate with each other nearby. If your car swerves to avoid an obstacle, it could alert the other cars, and they too would brake or steer to maintain clearance between each other.

For pedestrians, the electronics will likely advance to the point where they can react quicker than a human with regards to braking, so while there may be instances where a collision is unavoidable, those precious milliseconds could save quite a few lives in the long run.

 

[SporeCrawler]

It's an interesting concept, but where does the money come from? I mean, $10,000 a year for (numbers from my ass) ~200 million adults is another $2 trillion a year. Sure you could pretty much get rid of welfare and social security but does that cover it?

Money is not real value, its just the faith we have in money that makes it of value. The monetary institutions (feds, ecb etc.) can simply print money but that doesnt mean value is created. The value add comes from the efficiency through automation.

 

[M3d10n]

I think the problem with self-driving cars is we're going to make them adapt to the world, not the other way around, because of everything built so far.

It's entirely possible that self driving cars will only be allowed to engage in auto pilot in specific places, due to legislation. The next step is roads and parts of cities where auto pilot is mandatory, for the simple fact that it allows speed limits to be lowered without compromising traffic, since they can be orderly unlike human drivers.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

Self driving cars will eventually have a much easier time avoiding hitting animals than people do by being able to spot and react to them, much sooner than a person normally would.

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

I am pretty sad about the state of the world, a lot of people are. Are people in this thread faking outrage because other people aren't able to have as good a time as you, or are we discussing if people's basic needs being covered should be a right or not? People are OK with a lot of shit in our society, so discussing ways which would be beneficial to everyone means we are pretending to care about other people? You sound dead inside, and should probably be replaced by a computer.

I am not dead inside, I just don't pretend I care. Example, I live in a big house, at least for myself, I have 3 dogs that I am sure eat better than a some homeless people that I usually see downtown or near college, do I invite those homeless people inside my house? Do I feed them? Can I do it? Do I question why I don't do it when it is in my possibility to do so? I answer all those questions and came to see the reality, while I would like to pretend I care for those persons, in reality I don't. So I don't beat myself over it and just accept the fact that I don't care. So I blatantly state that I oppose UBI because I don't want my taxes being used that way, period.

 

[RibMan]

And then a million other people develop the same skills and the wage becomes practically nothing because most jobs can be automated to some extent at least.

If only it were that easy to be a sheep shearer.

 

[Fenderputty]

This is a heck of a way to solve unemployment, lol

Economical Darwinism is deplorable, honestly.

Professormoran has an apt name

It's also hillarious Led_Zepplin thinks engineering and IT jobs won't be affected by deep learning algorithms.

 

[SporeCrawler]

I tend to think these articles massively overstate how many jobs will be lost to automation. How are they going to automate a lawyer or a doctor?

Well actually montesquieu said that a judge should be a subsumption machine

Joke aside. Templates and general terms and conditions are already a way to make more simple transactions "automated". IT is making such processes even more automated

 

[border]

Self driving cars will eventually have a much easier time avoiding hitting animals than people do by being able to spot and react to them, much sooner than a person normally would.

I suppose there's also the issue of whether or not the car should even care about the animal. Should the AI just plow through a dog or cat if it determines that swerving will cause an accident?

 

[ProfessorMoran]

This sounds eerily similar to those arguments for why we need religion. Without a fear of some sort of divine punishment, why would people want to live fulfilled lives, or be decent to each other?

To answer your question: people would want more out of their lives than the bare minimum. Your argument seems to be that it would be a morale drain, but I think people not having to spend all of their time working just to cover the basic costs of living would probably be a morale boost, no?

But I'm a person, and it would make me sad to see so many people starve to dead.

There are plenty of people on welfare not looking for jobs, we're always going to have people on welfare, but let's not put everyone on welfare and see who feels like going to work everyday.

 

[Makai]

Economical Darwinism is deplorable, honestly.

Professormoran has an apt name

It's also hillarious Led_Zepplin thinks engineering and IT jobs won't be affected by deep learning algorithms.

Or downward wage pressure from everyone rushing to become a programmer.

 

[Makai]

There are plenty of people on welfare not looking for jobs, we're always going to have people on welfare, but let's not put everyone on welfare and see who feels like going to work everyday.

What do we do with disabled people?

 

[.JayZii]

I am not dead inside, I just don't pretend I care. Example, I live in a big house, at least for myself, I have 3 dogs that I am sure eat better than a some homeless people that I usually see downtown or near college, do I invite those homeless people inside my house? Do I feed them? Can I do it? Do I question why I don't do it when it is in my possibility to do so? I answer all those questions and came to see the reality, while I would like to pretend I care for those persons, in reality I don't. So I don't beat myself over it and just accept the fact that I don't care. So I blatantly state that I oppose UBI because I don't want my taxes being used that way, period.

Cool.

I hope IT or civil engineering jobs aren't affected by some forms of automation or everyone surging into those fields. For your dogs' sake.

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

It's also hillarious Led_Zepplin thinks engineering and IT jobs won't be affected by deep learning algorithms.

I never said that, which is why I am investing my own time and money in learning how to invest in the stock market, which gain me a lot of money and also cost me a lot of it at times. I don't push anyone to do anything but I don't also pretend I care what other people do with their money and time as long as it doesn't involve my money or time (welfare).

 

[Abstruse Moose]

I am not dead inside, I just don't pretend I care. Example, I live in a big house, at least for myself, I have 3 dogs that I am sure eat better than a some homeless people that I usually see downtown or near college, do I invite those homeless people inside my house? Do I feed them? Can I do it? Do I question why I don't do it when it is in my possibility to do so? I answer all those questions and came to see the reality, while I would like to pretend I care for those persons, in reality I don't. So I don't beat myself over it and just accept the fact that I don't care. So I blatantly state that I oppose UBI because I don't want my taxes being used that way, period.

Which is a great reason why sociopaths shouldn't be involved in decisions that effect everyone.

 

[Fenderputty]

I never said that, which is why I am investing my own time and money in learning how to invest in the stock market, which gain me a lot of money and also cost me a lot of it at times. I don't push anyone to do anything but I don't also pretend that other people do with their money and time as long as it doesn't involve my money or time.

Everyone can and should invest in the stock market!

Or downward wage pressure from everyone rushing to become a programmer.

You mean everyone can't major in STEM?

 

[Messofanego]

Robots will probably be extremely good lawyers.

Second Renaissance Part 3

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

Everyone can and should invest in the stock market!



You mean everyone can't major in STEM?

As far as I know most of American's pensioners are already investing in the stock market, they like it or not. Isn't that how most pensions plans work or something? I think they are called 401K or something like that? Why are people so eager to not learn where they have their money invested?

 

[reckless]

As far as I know most of American's pensioners are already investing in the stock market, they like it or not. Isn't that how most Aren't they called 401K or something like that? Why are people so eager to not learn where they have their money invested?

More about how the stock market is a good long term strategy, trying to "game" the market and make short term money is usually a bad idea.

 

[Fenderputty]

As far as I know most of American's pensioners are already investing in the stock market, they like it or not. Isn't that how most Aren't they called 401K or something like that? Why are people so eager to not learn where they have their money invested?

A. A 401k isn't income and definitely isn't disposable
B. You should look into how many American have underfunded or no retirement at all

 

[ProfessorMoran]

You'd be giving people leverage against employers, something that barely exists at this point -- a big reason why wages are stagnant, and why levels of inequality are only getting more and more egregious. It also has a liberating aspect, allowing people who could innovate, to actually innovate. Not everybody who lives hand-to-mouth in a job they hate has nothing to offer besides that.

Employers pay because there's a need for workers, that's the leverage, to provide universal welfare only depresses the desire to work and drives up the cost of labor which in turn drives up the cost of products people pay for.

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

B. You should look into how many American have underfunded or no retirement at all

That is fucked up, but then again not the fault of society at large that should be paying them. For example my parents were all their life worked for low wages and my mother has no retirement. But I don't expect society to help her, I do it myself. People should take care of their families and don't expect society to give a hand.

 

[Abstruse Moose]

As far as I know most of American's pensioners are already investing in the stock market, they like it or not. Isn't that how most pensions plans work or something? I think they are called 401K or something like that? Why are people so eager to not learn where they have their money invested?

About 69% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank account, according to a new survey.

 

[platakul]

That is fucked up, but then again not the fault of society at large that should be paying them. For example my parents were all their life worked for low wages and my mother has no retirement. But I don't expect society to help her, I do it myself. People should take care of their families and don't expect society to give a hand.

How much do you have invested in btc?

 

[Cocaloch]

That is fucked up, but then again not the fault of society at large that should be paying them. For example my parents were all their life worked for low wages and my mother has no retirement. But I don't expect society to help her, I do it myself. People should take care of their families and don't expect society to give a hand.

What if you don't have a family?

And of course this is all conveniently ignoring the fact that economies are socially embedded. Almost every action that an engineer has preformed over the course of his life is based on hundreds of thousands of people working at low wages. Their work isn't less necessary than the work of engineers, they just have less power by which to assert themselves.

 

[Fenderputty]

That is fucked up, but then again not the fault of society at large that should be paying them. For example my parents were all their life worked for low wages and my mother has no retirement. But I don't expect society to help her, I do it myself. People should take care of their families and don't expect society to give a hand.

A. You're failing to grasp scope here. What do you think is going to happen when the demand for labor has decreased so much that 50% of America can't make money?

B. It is societies problem to solve. Unless you want a bunch of diseased incontinent old people shitting in the streets.

C. Your mother should be taken care of. She worked hard and was a productive cog in the machine. Society and the economey benefited from that. She produced a productive cog as well. Society shouldn't abandon these people

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

How much do you have invested in btc?

Funny story, I got into Bitcoins back in 2013 because of a security breach in company were I was called as contractor to help solve a hacking situation, a hacker gained access to the company servers and basically locked the admins out of it. Long story short, I recommended them to pay up the hacker (there were far too many internal problems) who was asking for u$s 10000 ransom in bitcoins, after that was solved I invested part of my own money on it because why the fuck not, that was when the bitcoins were worth u$s70-80.

 

[mrklaw]

Just do away with money


If they do bring in a basic income, what is the drive to work hard for a degree to fight for the few non-automated jobs? Just having more money than basic income? I suppose the optimistic outlook is that people have much more freedom to choose what work they do - more artists, or less people moving because of work.

 

[GatorBait]

If automation becomes widespread and we end up with no basic income/welfare type of safety net, we'll all be living in an anarchistic, dystopian society anyway. Even if I had a non-automated job, I wouldn't want to live in a society like that. It would be a constant warzone and if I had money, I'd be a constant target. When the choice for 50%+ of society is to just die, or steal and kill to survive, the latter is more likely.

I guess the other alternative is we could just round up the unemployed and put them in death camps under militaristic force to maintain order.

 

[AndrewPL]

There's still the question of whether or not to prioritize its occupants' safety over the safety of other drivers or pedestrians. A deer runs onto the road. Does the car swerve into another car or on to the sidewalk to avoid a head on collision? One option is much safter for the rider, but could harm or kill bystanders.

Robot Cars don't need to be perfect. Just better than human drivers. A human could easily make the wrong choice and kill 10 people to avoid a cat on the road too....

I'd prefer a robot making the choice of if to crash into a deer or swerve than 90% of the drivers I see on the road these days.

 

[Terribleness]

I love those 'fk you i got mine' people because usually its just angst or a huge chip, that along with some life success, brings a lack of perspective. We don't live in vaccuum unless you say you actually hate your parents, any family or friends and definitely have no plans on getting married or having children. Unless you say the above then why not create a better future for the possiblity that someone you love will need that system. You might have a daughter that decides to move to a city and fight that battle. Or you might lose an eye or get a disease and all of the sudden your super duper safety net is not there. Or you might be challenged by people tired of you giving them the crumbs. God forbid you are cornered by sick people with nothing to lose... In that scenario, what you do 9-5 is not that important.

It sucks so many people confuse good fortune with a false security of destiny.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

So, this means we'll see a huge shift in the labor market soon and no longer see fear mongering about aging populations because the wave of automation will be so productive it'll make your head spin? If not, I'm not sure why these automation stories keep getting posted. Labor productivity growth is in the toilet.

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

What if you don't have a family?

And of course this is all conveniently ignoring the fact that economies are socially embedded. Almost every action that an engineer has preformed over the course of his life is based on hundreds of thousands of people working at low wages. Their work isn't less necessary than the work of engineers, they just have less power by which to assert themselves.

It isn't less necessary but it is far more worthless, which is why they earn lower wagers than the engineer.

 

[MUnited83]

That is fucked up, but then again not the fault of society at large that should be paying them. For example my parents were all their life worked for low wages and my mother has no retirement. But I don't expect society to help her, I do it myself. People should take care of their families and don't expect society to give a hand.

Society should absolutely give a hand. That's why it's a fucking society to begin with.

 

[AndrewPL]

So, this means we'll see a huge shift in the labor market soon and no longer see fear mongering about aging populations because the wave of automation will be so productive it'll make your head spin? If not, I'm not sure why these automation stories keep getting posted. Labor productivity growth is in the toilet.

You've already started seeing it. I saw reports of lawyers not being able to get jobs after graduation. Part of that is so many students studying law, the other is ediscovery where less lawyers are needed for discovery.

There will be a shift in previous job roles, accountants will move to business intelligence instead of book keeping etc but if I was about to go into college I'd be looking for a career that wouldn't be dead in 10 years.
I'd imagine demand for computer science would go up but also supply will quadruple.

 

[StayDead]

We need this, but the people who own the money don't give a shit about the people who need this and would rather fire them all and save some money.

The system needs to change entirely, but once again it won't as those same people control it and benefit too much from it.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

What do we do with disabled people?

They're on disability benefits.