For higher education, I'd take MOOCs over 75% of the professors in a heart beat.
^^
For higher education, I'd take MOOCs over 75% of the professors in a heart beat.
Lol. Stem majors are okay, as with lawyers , and doctors (for now). I'm sure there are other disciplines that will be fine too.
You might know what it is but you dont know why it is. If you think that people with no food, no lodging, and no future that number in the tens of millions are just going to waste away and die silently in the gutter you are sadly mistaken. People talk a lot about adapting but the thing that needs to adapt is capitalism because if it doesnt its not going to be pretty.I know what welfare is.
What would you be paying people a minimum income to do?
What would you be paying people a minimum income to do?
Even if what you say is true and that those jobs are safe from automation the idea that in the next 20 years you are going to transform millions of truckers into those professions is laughable.
You might know what it is but you dont know why it is. If you think that people with no food, no lodging, and no future that number in the tens of millions are just going to waste away and die silently in the gutter you are sadly mistaken. People talk a lot about adapting but the thing that needs to adapt is capitalism because if it doesnt its not going to be pretty.
Lol. Stem majors are okay, as with lawyers , and doctors (for now). I'm sure there are other disciplines that will be fine too.
What would we be paying the government our taxes to do?
To live yea?
Because some of us strive for more than just food and shelter
Basically you're saying we'll all be eating from soup kitchens in a few years.
Capitalism is always adapting, people's needs are always changing and new industries would pop up to fill those needs that require people.
LOL no, either people starve to dead or study and enter a higher paying field than the service sector, but then again holding people accountable on their individual choices in life isn't a popular opinion.
You're acting like everybody has a choice between the service sector and higher-paying fields.
Infrastructure maintenance? Security? If those things are automated maybe we pay less taxes?
LOL no, either people starve to dead or study and enter a higher paying field than the service sector, but then again holding people accountable on their individual choices in life isn't a popular opinion.
They choose to work there and not invest on their studies, I am not paying more taxes so they can finance their own terrible decisions in life.
Basically you're saying we'll all be eating from soup kitchens in a few years.
Capitalism is always adapting, people's needs are always changing and new industries would pop up to fill those needs that require people.
If nothing is done soup kitchens would be best case scenario outlook for the next 50 years.
And new industries are not absorbing the losses as fast as automation is displacing them. What industry is going to absorb all the automotive jobs that will be lost from driving automation? Or is it something that has yet to be invented yet?
Your job is now automated. Please get in the bread line because you made a bad choice to pursue a field that went obsoleteThey choose to work there and not invest on their studies, I am not paying more taxes so they can finance their own terrible decisions in life.
You're probably not paying any taxes as is.They choose to work there and not invest on their studies, I am not paying more taxes so they can finance their own terrible decisions in life.
Your job is now automated. Please get in the bread line because you made a bad choice to pursue a field that went obsolete
They choose to work there and not invest on their studies, I am not paying more taxes so they can finance their own terrible decisions in life.
Your job is now automated. Please get in the bread line because you made a bad choice to pursue a field that went obsolete
im curious.. what field do you work in?
This is a heck of a way to solve unemployment, lol
This is a heck of a way to solve unemployment, lolPrecisely my point, if I make a bad call is on me not on the rest of society, people can see automation coming from years ahead. People should be responsible of their own individual choices, even if that choice is to starve to death because of a lack of marketable skill.
Because everyone starts from the same point and have perfect information, right?Precisely my point, if I make a bad call is on me not on the rest of society, people can see automation coming from years ahead. People should be responsible of their own individual choices, even if that choice is to starve to death because of a lack of marketable skill.
Don't bet on it. If self-driving cars are going to wipe out these jobs, why is there a human still driving my subway train? Self-driving trains have been around longer than my parents and yet there's still someone pulling a lever to drive in a straight line.
Benefits:
Among the anticipated benefits of automated cars is the potential reduction in traffic collisions (and resulting deaths and injuries and costs), caused by human-driver errors, such as delayed reaction time, tailgating, rubbernecking, and other forms of distracted or aggressive driving.
If a human driver isn't required, automated cars could also reduce labor costs; relieve travelers from driving and navigation chores (thereby replacing behind-the-wheel commuting hours with more time for leisure or work); and this technology would lift constraints on occupant ability and age parameters, as it would not matter if all the parties on board were under age, over age, blind, distracted, intoxicated, prone to seizures, or otherwise impaired. Additional advantages could include higher speed limits; smoother rides; increased roadway capacity; and minimized traffic congestion, due to decreased need for safety gaps.
There would also be an improved ability to manage traffic flow, combined with less need for traffic police, vehicle insurance; or even road signage, since automated cars could receive necessary communication electronically (although roadway signage may still be needed for any human drivers on the road). The area required for vehicle parking would also be cut down, as these cars would be able to go where space is scarce.
The vehicles' increased awareness could reduce car theft, while the removal of the steering wheelalong with the remaining driver interface and the requirement for any occupant to assume a forward-facing positionwould give the interior of the cabin greater ergonomic flexibility. Large vehicles, such as motorhomes, would attain appreciably enhanced ease of use.
When used for carsharing, the total number of cars is reduced. Furthermore, new business models (such as mobility as a service) can develop, which aim to be cheaper than car ownership by removing the cost of the driver. Finally, the robotic car could drive unoccupied to wherever it is required, such as to pick up passengers or to go in for maintenance (eliminating redundant passengers).
Potential issues:
In spite of the various benefits to increased vehicle automation, some foreseeable challenges persist:
Disputes concerning liability.
Time needed to turn an existing fleet of vehicles from nonautonomous to autonomous.
Resistance by individuals to forfeit control of their cars.
Customer concern about the safety of driverless cars, as previously occurred with the introduction of operatorless elevators.
Implementation of legal framework and establishment of government regulations for self-driving cars.
Drivers would be inexperienced when complex situations arise that require manual driving.
Loss of driving-related jobs.Resistance from professional drivers and unions who perceive job losses.
Loss of privacy. Sharing of information through V2V (Vehicle to Vehicle) and V2I (Vehicle to Infrastructure) protocols.
Self-driving cars could potentially be loaded with explosives and used as bombs.
Ethical problems in situations where an autonomous car's software is forced during an unavoidable crash to choose between multiple harmful courses of action.
Gestures and non-verbal cues by police and pedestrians are not adapted to autonomous driving.
Technical obstacles
Software reliability.
A car's computer could potentially be compromised, as could a communication system between cars.
Susceptibility of the car's sensing and navigation systems to different types of weather or deliberate interference, including jamming and spoofing.
Autonomous cars may require very high-quality specialised maps to operate properly. Where these maps may be out of date, they would need to be able to fall back to reasonable behaviors.
Competition for the radio spectrum desired for the car's communication.
Field programmability for the systems will require careful evaluation of product development and the component supply chain.
Current road infrastructure may need changes for autonomous cars to function optimally.
I don't see this being a major issue for at least 50 years. Sure a couple of people here and there but massive changes of this scale are always further off than predicted. We've been hearing about robots taking over production for over 40 years now. Look how far off predictions from the 60s were regarding space travel. 2001 a space odyssey for example. Robots will continue to improve and increase the amount of production per person, not totally replace them.
Yeah it's funny.. because every time someone talks about this.. it's really about cutting 1 freaking employee in lieu of 4 or 5 kiosks.
Automation of kitchen staff is not even close to being done. Especially since people these days are rejecting pre-made for fresh made at a pretty good rate.
Also, there's so much to work out with automated trucking to replace actual truck drivers.
It's not just people, it's infrastructure. How do you fuel these vehicles, how do you tell it to wait and park under the bridge until the fucking ships load is actually ready because the port is backed up.. it's not simple.
Even if what you say is true and that those jobs are safe from automation the idea that in the next 20 years you are going to transform millions of truckers into those professions is laughable.
You might know what it is but you dont know why it is. If you think that people with no food, no lodging, and no future that number in the tens of millions are just going to waste away and die silently in the gutter you are sadly mistaken. People talk a lot about adapting but the thing that needs to adapt is capitalism because if it doesnt its not going to be pretty.
- ethics
(can't avoid accident, should I crash into a group of kids or a mom with a toddler, etc.)
- safety
(what is the probability of survival/accident vs. human driver)
- reliability
(are these algorithms sustainable everywhere and does function degrade over time, i.e. bugs, things behave incorrectly)
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?Why would anybody do anything anymore if people don't have to worry about being out of the streets if they don't have a job?
But I'm a person, and it would make me sad to see so many people starve to dead.LOL no, either people starve to dead or study and enter a higher paying field than the service sector, but then again holding people accountable on their individual choices in life isn't a popular opinion.
The point is trains are far easier to fully automate, and we actually did it in like the 1950s, but we still have human drivers because adoption rates for new technology are truly abysmal. There are usually obstacles in the way that are ignored in foresight.I'm talking about fully autonomous. The train example you provided is not, if someone is pulling a lever. Also, there is a push from automakers as this is a new an exciting opportunity for them.
That's basically the equivalent of troll physics in economicsWhere does any money come from, its all just numbers on a computer, just add a few zeros
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.A train transports hundreds of passengers. It's cheaper to have one person pulling the lever than to invest in tech to replace them. Not so much with taxis, trucks and even buses.
The ethics thing is largely overblown. The car shouldn't crash, period. If the car is ever at the point where it needs to decide where to crash at, it has already failed before that (or something outside of it has failed, which is not the car's responsibility). I don't think you'll see a car designed to choose whether to kill a bunch of toddlers or a bunch of old people that got simultaneously thrown in front of it from god knows where.
Besides, ethical thinking is not really a core component of a self driving system, and it might require human-level AI which is farther off than self-driving cars.
But I'm a person, and it would make me sad to see so many people starve to dead.
I don't think the actual adoption of the changes will be as sudden as people assume.
That's basucally the equivalent of troll physics in economics
I know what welfare is and there's no way everyone can have it. Numbers don't work that way.
The ethics aspect is not overblown. You have to account for all possibilities, including accidents; especially if you have non-autonomous vehicles on the road with fully autonomous vehicles.
What would you be paying people a minimum income to do?
We're all doomed then.
They choose to work there and not invest on their studies, I am not paying more taxes so they can finance their own terrible decisions in life.
I don't pretend to solve anything, people should either live or die depending on their role on society, if they can't support themselves then maybe they should leave to other places or gain an actual marketable skill.
The point is trains are far easier to fully automate, and we actually did it in like the 1950s, but we still have human drivers because adoption rates for new technology are truly abysmal. There are usually obstacles in the way that are ignored in foresight.