Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “We should be excited about automation”

TheShadowLord

Member
Jan 7, 2018
2,344
979
320
https://www.fastcompany.com/90314386/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-we-should-be-excited-about-automation?partner=feedburner
Robots have put half a million people out of work in the United States, and researchers estimate that bots could take 800 million jobs by 2030. But New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says that widespread automation is an exciting proposition–as long as some kind of government safety net is in place to equitably help the people who are displaced.

At the SXSW Conference in Austin, Texas, today, Ocasio-Cortez attributed widespread fear of robots taking jobs to the failure of underlying systems that should mitigate income inequality and economic precariousness. “We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work,” she says. “We should not feel nervous about the tollbooth collector not having to collect tolls. We should be excited by that. But the reason we’re not excited about it is because we live in a society where if you don’t have a job, you are left to die.”

So how do you ensure that automation doesn’t decimate the working class? Ocasio-Cortez cited Bill Gates’s idea that you could tax robots at 90%. (Of course, she says, this really means “taxing corporations at 90%, but it’s easier to say, ‘tax a robot!'”) Another proposal suggests that those who are displaced would receive a universal basic income, an idea that a 2018 Gallup poll found was supported by 68% of Democrats and 28% of Republicans.

“Whether its a tax rate, whether it’s distributing wealth that’s created by automation–if we approach solutions to our systems and start entertaining ideas like that, then we should be excited about automation because of what it could potentially mean,” she says.

She painted a picture of what automation should do for society if government systems ensured that the wealth it creates lifted everyone up instead of just a select few: It would enable people to spend more time on education, creating art, and scientific research and invention–“more time enjoying the world we live in,” Ocasio-Cortez said to cheering crowds. “Not all creativity needs to be bonded by wage.”


It’s the classic techno-futurist dream, one that Gates has also championed. But we don’t live in that world right now. “We should be working the least amount we’ve ever worked, if we were actually paid based on how much wealth we were producing, but we’re not,” she said. “We’re paid by how little we’re desperate enough to accept. And then the rest is skimmed off and given to a billionaire.”
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,767
3,346
250
of course she would be excited about automation. It's going to put people in the private sector out of work and onto the government welfare dole, giving people like her more power.

Robots aren't coming to take jobs in government beaucracy
 

嫩翼

so it's not nice
Apr 2, 2013
2,120
1,702
660
香港
I would really love to hear some concrete plans to mitigate the glaring concerns with issues like these, from any side of the political spectrum. This grandstanding is getting ridiculous. "Automation is good! Let's be excited about enjoying our wage-independent lives!" -- without a good plan, those people cheering for AOC will be swearing in a few years for not having a solid plan to go along with those propositions and motivational speeches. Automation is near.

I guess this is politics as usual, now.
 
Oct 26, 2018
2,131
1,536
230
So how do you ensure that automation doesn’t decimate the working class?
As a start, how about the government put more money into education so people have a better chance at landing jobs? Not every job out there is replaceable by robots.

And if schools geared more of the material into trends (like electronics, IT, AI robotics), maybe more people will do that. Pretty sure more people will forge ahead with that career choice than everyone spending years learning about useless geography classes and history classes. That kind of stuff you can read and learn on your own. But scientific things require being taught as it involves hands on testing and applications. Nobody becomes an engineer or chemist or doctor by reading that at home and figuring it out in their garage.

I'm all for capitalism and being your own fate, but things like education and healthcare are things the government should be in full force to promote with all the tax dollars people contribute. The best way to give people a good start is education as every kindergarten kid starts out there and helps breed their focus for later when they become an adult and get a job.

Put in little money and you get shitty schools = shitty teachers and students = losers

Put in money and get students to take schooling serious = better schools = better teachers and students = winners

Not surprised lots of countries out there have better students and scores. They take education more seriously. In the US, it's a hit and miss hodgepodge of ivy league schooling and ghetto schools with fences and guards.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,497
12,030
930
Australia
I would really love to hear some concrete plans to mitigate the glaring concerns with issues like these, from any side of the political spectrum. This grandstanding is getting ridiculous. "Automation is good! Let's be excited about enjoying our wage-independent lives!" -- without a good plan, those people cheering for AOC will be swearing in a few years for not having a solid plan to go along with those propositions and motivational speeches. Automation is near.

I guess this is politics as usual, now.
Andrew Yang made some good points on the JRE podcast about the negative effects that automation is going to have but I wasn’t convinced that his proposed UBI will be the solution.
 

嫩翼

so it's not nice
Apr 2, 2013
2,120
1,702
660
香港
Andrew Yang made some good points on the JRE podcast about the negative effects that automation is going to have but I wasn’t convinced that his proposed UBI will be the solution.
I'll be sure to check that out; thanks, matty :love:
 

Nobody_Important

Gold Member
May 22, 2018
4,527
3,661
365
I mean we should be. Its proof that we as a people are advancing at a ridiculously fast pace technologically. Thats a good thing.


But being excited for automation doesn't necessarily mean that you are also excited for people losing their jobs. One doesn't necessarily mean the other. All it means is that we need to figure out other ways to get those affected by automation back into the work force in other areas.
 
Oct 26, 2018
2,131
1,536
230
I mean we should be. Its proof that we as a people are advancing at a ridiculously fast pace technologically. Thats a good thing.


But being excited for automation doesn't necessarily mean that you are also excited for people losing their jobs. One doesn't necessarily mean the other. All it means is that we need to figure out other ways to get those affected by automation back into the work force in other areas.
People think automation means every job out there will be replaced by a robot. That's hardly the case. If it was, unemployment rates wouldn't be at it's lowest. Instead it would be 40% by now.

To me, automation focuses on things:

- That can be replicated and repeated ad-nauseam vs. a human sitting there and doing it all day
- Handle things that are safety risk to humans
- Are needed at anytime even 24/7
- Can't be done by humans..... too tech advanced or precision needed
- And overall result that is more productive than having a human do it. Robots don't complain, need vacation, salary bumps every year, or care if there's a relocation

If someone wants to keep their job, it's actually pretty easy:

- All you got to prove to the company is you add value beyond any AI bot can do. Nobody can outdo a machine churning out welded joints or making microchips with laser precision 24/7/365. But what you do is get a job handling the brains of it, repairing it, installing/testing it, designing it

I know what someone's going to say..... "Not everyone has the brains or technical skill to do that".........

- So get one of the million other jobs that aren't academic or too techie, and always require human interaction like trades. Hell, if you have to be a labourer for life panicking you will lose your job to a robot, do something no robot can do. Get a job landscaping or contracting. I've never seen anyone automating cutting grass, trimming trees, cleaning swimming pools or painting someone's house. Who knows. Chances are the person didn't have the greatest job to begin with, so don't be too picky. Cleaning swimming pools sounds like a boring shitty job. Probably is. I knew someone 20 years ago who did it and made $30/hr. And the person on the phone doing admin work was making $20/hr. Businesses and condo staff don't do this shit themselves. They hire companies to do this.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,497
12,030
930
Australia
I mean we should be. Its proof that we as a people are advancing at a ridiculously fast pace technologically. Thats a good thing.


But being excited for automation doesn't necessarily mean that you are also excited for people losing their jobs. One doesn't necessarily mean the other. All it means is that we need to figure out other ways to get those affected by automation back into the work force in other areas.
Except for journalism. That must be preserved at all costs.

#LearnToCode
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,895
2,741
540
Brampton, Ontario
I wonder how would Democrats respond if automation also means immigration becomes useless?

The argument of needing illegals to pick the nation's fruit or cut your lawn would be destroyed by Farmerbot 9000 being in every home.

And if the 1% control all the robots, what's stopping them from enslaving all of humanity too? All it would take is one rich supervillain to program every bot to perform Order 66 and it's game over.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,339
3,829
510
I wonder how would Democrats respond if automation also means immigration becomes useless?

The argument of needing illegals to pick the nation's fruit or cut your lawn would be destroyed by Farmerbot 9000 being in every home.

And if the 1% control all the robots, what's stopping them from enslaving all of humanity too? All it would take is one rich supervillain to program every bot to perform Order 66 and it's game over.

Dems will push identity politics. Either the robots are racist and just uphold the white patriarchy, or the robots are victims of racism by the white cis male patriarchy. They will make sure they get all the robo votes that way.

That is until Robo Trump wins the election and then they will say he was hacked by the Robo russians.
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
2,876
461
665
I like Bill Gates but his predictions have been very inaccurate in the past. Automation is a real problem and it won't be solved by half-baked ideas or taking queues from rich, small, Nordic nations.
 

MrTickles

Gold Member
Feb 22, 2018
2,105
2,635
440
The biggest industry by far that is under threat of robot takeover is the transport sector worth over $700 billion annually. Be it trucks, buses, planes, ships, taxis, etc. If this is taken over by self driving vehicles and delivery drones in the next ~20 years, then so many tens of millions of people will have to find new jobs-yet all they know is piloting or driving.
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,020
2,170
240
Only a idiot is excited when there are right now no solutions in sight for the increase in unemployment.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,901
6,170
435
We had such an event already with the industrial revolution. Jobs will not be vanishing. Instead jobs will experience a shift. You need new expertise etc. However. Someone who is so much against climate change and CO2 emissions saying such a thing is utterly ridiculous. For example constructing a hybrid car which uses electricity is far more harmful to the environment that a normal car being used until its broken. And this is the case with a lot of development of these machines as well.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,117
15,559
665
USA
dunpachi.com
Sounds like the Democrat party got her in line and she is already hooked up to her own invisible corporate tendrils.

Imagine saying "we should be excited about automation" to a bunch of Union workers, the same workers the party once advocated for.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
27,598
2,255
1,035
I agree with her that we should embrace more efficient tech.

I disagree about her solution though. I dont see how unemployment from automation is anything but an individual problem. We dont need some crazy government solution. Its on the workers to find a hireable skillset. If you are a truck driver you have plenty of time still to sit your ass down and learn how to code. Be useful. Adapt.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,895
2,741
540
Brampton, Ontario
I agree with her that we should embrace more efficient tech.

I disagree about her solution though. I dont see how unemployment from automation is anything but an individual problem. We dont need some crazy government solution. Its on the workers to find a hireable skillset. If you are a truck driver you have plenty of time still to sit your ass down and learn how to code. Be useful. Adapt.
Wont this result in market saturation?

Imagine if the only job in the future is programming? Is that really something the general populace can put up with?
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
760
559
845
Ottawa, Canada
At least she's actually addressing the reality of increased automation. Trump's Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, said in 2017 automation was "not even on our radar screen." It wasn't until this year that they even decided to form a panel to discuss it... there's certainly no concrete plan to address it.

The reality is that "just find a different skill set" is an overly simplistic solution. It assumes that you're in a position financially and age-wise to learn new skills; it assumes you won't be entering an oversaturated market; it assumes the market you're entering won't be automated relatively soon. We need to at least have a basic idea of how to accommodate people whose careers have been rendered obsolete by automation, just as we need to get coal and oil workers ready for the inevitable death of fossil fuels.
 

Bogey

Member
May 4, 2014
184
74
180
I agree with her that we should embrace more efficient tech.

I disagree about her solution though. I dont see how unemployment from automation is anything but an individual problem. We dont need some crazy government solution. Its on the workers to find a hireable skillset. If you are a truck driver you have plenty of time still to sit your ass down and learn how to code. Be useful. Adapt.
Nah. I'm very pro automation - not least because part of my job is precisely that - but it's more than just an individual's problem.

We may eventually reach a state where people don't need to work at all anymore and everything is automated. Not anytime soon, not during our lifetimes either. But either way, its pretty clear at the latest then you'd need some clever rules of wealth distribution.
That question doesn't only arise though when 100% of jobs are automated. Even if 99% are, there's no possible way everyone could find work even if they were all very highly qualified. So what about 98% 97% 96%?
Point being, it's absolutely worth discussing how wealth distribution may need to work in the future; ultimately, when manual jobs disappear; but definitely also how to set up society in the phase leading up to such a situation.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,678
3,288
1,090
I wonder how would Democrats respond if automation also means immigration becomes useless?

The argument of needing illegals to pick the nation's fruit or cut your lawn would be destroyed by Farmerbot 9000 being in every home.

And if the 1% control all the robots, what's stopping them from enslaving all of humanity too? All it would take is one rich supervillain to program every bot to perform Order 66 and it's game over.
I'm sure that cognitive dissonance will be ignored just like the fact that bringing in immigrants from countries low-per-capita CO2 emissions, or just low emissions in general, to a high-per-capita emissions country is going to generate more harm to the environment than not bringing them in.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
19,817
14,787
685
Sounds like the Democrat party got her in line and she is already hooked up to her own invisible corporate tendrils.

Imagine saying "we should be excited about automation" to a bunch of Union workers, the same workers the party once advocated for.
Yeah they did, my family is well-connected in politics. That's why I'm kind of like the dark sheep and separate myself from it as I got older.

My grandmother was a big union leader and used to take trips to Washington every few months. One time I went with her when I was in high school and that's how I met Hillary Clinton and had lunch at the Capital with her when Bill was president.

The whole "give them health, Hilary" campaign for unions she was running.

My family have always been liberal/voting Dem, and it's amazing to see the party that was once for the working middle class life support vein of the country, just turn their backs on them now.

Now it's the cheap poor votes throwing them crumbs, while keeping their fat rich cats even fatter.
 
Last edited:
Jan 9, 2018
605
923
240
This debate gets oversimplified when one reduces it to question of "don't you want progress?"

Automation of ordinary jobs isn't the only possible shape of progress; it's a very particular kind of development driven by a rush to "disrupt" the the most intransigent part of every business--the labor--and pull a much higher portion of the profit into a vanishingly smaller and smaller number of hands.

Technological advancement within industries doesn't need to look like that. It could look like the same laborers being given more powerful tools that yield greater control over their work; instead, the automation drive emerges from strains of Taylorism, which was the movement to reduce all human labor to a set of mechanized micro-skills that could be documented and trained, towards the goal that every position can be re-filled rapidly and every worker becomes fully expendable, the ultimate dream of the corporation. Automation simply means taking the human elements of expertise, creativity, pride in work out of the equation, and it's the exact same process whether you "automate" in the old way (dominant for a century now in industries) by strictly circumscribing each job to micro-managed behaviors, or automate in the new way by transferring those skills into a machine.

Removing the way in which humans build their own world and environment through labor--and siphoning the profits off to a few tech firms--is a great recipe for a well-deserved class revolution, but this time tech-obsessed progressives will find themselves on the side of the revolution they didn't expect--and a UBI pity allowance controlled by this new managerial class is only a deeper insult.

of course she would be excited about automation. It's going to put people in the private sector out of work and onto the government welfare dole, giving people like her more power.

Robots aren't coming to take jobs in government beaucracy
Let me take this opportunity to strongly recommend Subsurface Circular, which takes an interesting turn on this very question in a way I can't describe without spoilers.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,117
15,559
665
USA
dunpachi.com
Yeah they did, my family is well-connected in politics. That's why I'm kind of like the dark sheep and separate myself from it as I got older.

My grandmother was a big union leader and used to take trips to Washington every few months. One time I went with her when I was in high school and that's how I met Hillary Clinton and had lunch at the Capital with her when Bill was president.

The whole "give them health, Hilary" campaign for unions she was running.

My family have always been liberal/voting Dem, and it's amazing to see the party that was once for the working middle class life support vein of the country, just turn their backs on them now.

Now it's the cheap poor votes throwing them crumbs, while keeping their fat rich cats even fatter.
What doesn't make sense is that she was just shattering the Amazon deal in New York City claiming it was for "worker's rights", yet here she wants people to be excited for automation.

Does she not actually understand her topics? That seems to be the case.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,767
3,346
250
Sounds like the Democrat party got her in line and she is already hooked up to her own invisible corporate tendrils.

Imagine saying "we should be excited about automation" to a bunch of Union workers, the same workers the party once advocated for.
She said this in a room full of tech workers during SXSW. The type of people building robots.

I know from experience these people don't give a fuck about job replacement. They are excited for it.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,117
15,559
665
USA
dunpachi.com
She said this in a room full of tech workers during SXSW. The type of people building robots.

I know from experience these people don't give a fuck about job replacement. They are excited for it.
I mean, I have no delusions about a lot of impeding automation, but it seems like the Left would be against something that is causing fossil-fuel emissions to skyrocket, destruction of habitats through rare-earth mining, and the rapid loss of skilled jobs around the world. Automation itself isn't inherently bad, of course, but businesses can use it to wipe out competitors' workforces.

Again, how amusing that the "party of the worker" is now just the "party of the highest bidder, but with sympathy towards minority groups to help with the PR".

Sorry, but you can't carbon tax credit your way into a positive moral balance.
 
Oct 26, 2018
2,131
1,536
230
Working in an office my whole life, I'm all for automating as much grunt work as possible. 20 years ago, there were still a lot of admin and paper pushers at my old company. Ridiculous costs when half of them could be replaced if the company automated things.

Also, most of the people doing the jobs didn't exactly like it either. They know it's grunt work. So it's not like the culture the departments give off is friendly and they love processing payments and reconciling invoices. If they found a better job elsewhere they'd be long gone.

Automate as much menial work you can and it leaves IT type people to handle the execution of it (things can go wrong of course), a small staff to manually handle things for odd requests and manual fixes, and it frees up SG&A for more workers to analyze the data to grow the business (revenue generating jobs).

Corporations like to adhere to general SG&A levels at an XXX % of sales year over year. Fewer paper pushers means more analytics, sales people, and warehouse staff to push sales out the door.
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,767
3,346
250
Working in an office my whole life, I'm all for automating as much grunt work as possible. 20 years ago, there were still a lot of admin and paper pushers at my old company. Ridiculous costs when half of them could be replaced if the company automated things.

Also, most of the people doing the jobs didn't exactly like it either. They know it's grunt work. So it's not like the culture the departments give off is friendly and they love processing payments and reconciling invoices. If they found a better job elsewhere they'd be long gone.

Automate as much menial work you can and it leaves IT type people to handle the execution of it (things can go wrong of course), a small staff to manually handle things for odd requests and manual fixes, and it frees up SG&A for more workers to analyze the data to grow the business (revenue generating jobs).

Corporations like to adhere to general SG&A levels at an XXX % of sales year over year. Fewer paper pushers means more analytics, sales people, and warehouse staff to push sales out the door.
We are not talking about running a python script to handle invoices or query and join SQL tables. We are talking about truck drivers, manual labor, retail work. A shit ton of jobs that,while they may not be glamorous, pay a living wage and need to be done.
 
Oct 26, 2018
2,131
1,536
230
We are not talking about running a python script to handle invoices or query and join SQL tables. We are talking about truck drivers, manual labor, retail work. A shit ton of jobs that,while they may not be glamorous, pay a living wage and need to be done.
What's wrong with the automation factor involving office jobs? A truck driver counts, but an account payable clerk isn't?
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2010
4,306
240
625
“We should be excited about automation, because what it could potentially mean is more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing in and investigating the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that we live in,” she said. “Because not all creativity needs to be bonded by wage.”
Smart woman, but I think her concern is misplaced.

Unfortunately, in the years to come, the US economy is not going to be swamped by unprecedented innovation and high productivity. It's going to be growing slowly. There will be extreme inequality. Absurd health care costs. Some people will have their jobs automated and others won't. In the coming decades, unemployment will ebb and flow favorably like in 2019 and unfavorably like in 1933.


Now, if Pres. Trump and Congress came together to lay the groundwork for future generations, then maybe the US could avoid a disappointing future. Maybe you could live in a world where you should have more time than you know what to do with, but billionaires are taking more than their fair share. However, right now, there's no way to spin it other than the robots are a dud. The US economy is too inefficient rather than too efficient. Automation won't happen fast enough to save the US from its dim future.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
2,131
1,536
230
Smart woman, but I think her concern is misplaced.

Unfortunately, in the years to come, the US economy is not going to be swamped by unprecedented innovation and high productivity. It's going to be growing slowly. There will be extreme inequality. Absurd health care costs. Some people will have their jobs automated and others won't. In the coming decades, unemployment will ebb and flow favorably like in 2019 and unfavorably like in 1933.


Now, if Pres. Trump and Congress came together to lay the groundwork for future generations, then maybe the US could avoid a disappointing future. Maybe you could live in a world where you should have more time than you know what to do with, but billionaires are taking more than their fair share. However, right now, there's no way to spin it other than the robots are a dud. The US economy is too inefficient rather than too efficient. Automation won't happen fast enough to save the US from its dim future.
That utopia dream of somehow robots do everything at pennies on the dollar, so the government can magically collect tons of tax off generous corporations and give everyone free money, so they sit on a beach all day and chill out is among the dumbest things I've ever heard. Even the richest country out there where everyone makes 6-digits, low crime, hardly any poor people (probably a place like Luxombourg) still have people working. It's not like everyone retires at 25.

All that happens is the jobs shift to service/healthcare kind of jobs. Or jobs that need brainpower to keep businesses humming along. OK, maybe a genius there will figure out how to 100% automate garbage collection with self driving trucks, but you still need people designing, refining and repairing them. And any spare employees can be shifted to other sectors that always seem to need more manpower (healthcare in rich countries as people live longer. Machines can only do so much. You still need human caring).
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2010
4,306
240
625
That utopia dream of somehow robots do everything at pennies on the dollar, so the government can magically collect tons of tax off generous corporations and give everyone free money, so they sit on a beach all day and chill out is among the dumbest things I've ever heard. Even the richest country out there where everyone makes 6-digits, low crime, hardly any poor people (probably a place like Luxombourg) still have people working. It's not like everyone retires at 25.

All that happens is the jobs shift to service/healthcare kind of jobs. Or jobs that need brainpower to keep businesses humming along. OK, maybe a genius there will figure out how to 100% automate garbage collection with self driving trucks, but you still need people designing, refining and repairing them. And any spare employees can be shifted to other sectors that always seem to need more manpower (healthcare in rich countries as people live longer. Machines can only do so much. You still need human caring).
I don't know if dreaming about it is among the dumbest things I have ever heard. It would be nice for more folks to have so much time you could enjoy a fortunate life like people who can retire and live it up. Or a rich guy.

Make no mistake, traveling the world and chilling on a beach is awesome at least for awhile. I got bored myself, but then again I believe in work. It's not just about getting a piece of money. A number showing up in your bank account on a Friday. Or being a "slave" in order to live. It's about the routine, your purpose, connecting with your community and the rest.

Alternatively, the automation brigade has been spewing really dumb stuff. Fear mongering for years. It's sad to see their rhetoric has seeped into AOC's head.

I know some folks here and elsewhere don't want to give Pres. Trump any credit. However, he has done a decent job managing the economy. His latest tweet I posted earlier is a testament to how things are going on his watch.

In any event, the point is there's still a lot of work to do for the US's long-run future. It's not growing or innovating at a rate the likes of which we've never seen. Even so, more people are employed than ever before and unemployment is near a record low. That economic picture doesn't fit in with the narrative the automation folks are trying to sell you where everyone is losing their job because the robots are that good. Don't be tricked.

I mean some presidential candidates are out there saying you're going to have a world without work real soon. So let's gut welfare, raise taxes, and send out UBI checks...please don't fall for the BS.

In the real world, the US is going to be spending what $7 trillion/yr on health care (by 2031), have extreme inequality, and low productivity. For a lot of folks, robots are going to be the least of worries...
 
Last edited:

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
893
1,232
350
I donated to Andrew Yang and bought a t-shirt after watching him on Joe Rogan. First time I ever donated to any politician as I want to see him in the debates. He covers this topic extremely thoroughly, and I recommend anyone left or right watch the podcast as its super interesting.


People are not going to be excited. It will be a brutal period and some kind of redistribution is going to have to happen on a scale we have never seen, which she does talk about here. But, in a sense I know what she means. The whole concept of automation can either mean paradise or hellscape.

1) It can turn out like Star Trek society. Money is basically irrelevant at that point, and technology creates all goods for everyone. People are then free to pursue whatever they want, whether it's art / culture, or enrolling in the academy to explore space and further science.
2) It can also turn out like Total Recall where everyone is just living in a poverty stricken society where corporations own the entire planet, and the air we breathe. People are forced into crime and prostitution and there's open rebellion that is frequently put down by the government, violently.

Having robots do all the manual labor so we don't have to anymore could of course be a good thing if we determine that all of society owns these robots, and their output. It's the first time communism will finally become more relevant in western society. Marx made his critique of capitalism while watching something similar happen during the industrial revolution, with all that job displacement at the hands of factory machines and assembly lines. It really will ultimately break down into an ownership class and everyone else. The owners of the robots will rule the world unless we determine that everyone owns them together somehow. Whether that means 90% tax rate, Universal Basic Income, or something even more aggressive than that, we'll see.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
4,115
4,303
560
As a start, how about the government put more money into education so people have a better chance at landing jobs? Not every job out there is replaceable by robots.

And if schools geared more of the material into trends (like electronics, IT, AI robotics), maybe more people will do that. Pretty sure more people will forge ahead with that career choice than everyone spending years learning about useless geography classes and history classes. That kind of stuff you can read and learn on your own. But scientific things require being taught as it involves hands on testing and applications. Nobody becomes an engineer or chemist or doctor by reading that at home and figuring it out in their garage.

I'm all for capitalism and being your own fate, but things like education and healthcare are things the government should be in full force to promote with all the tax dollars people contribute. The best way to give people a good start is education as every kindergarten kid starts out there and helps breed their focus for later when they become an adult and get a job.

Put in little money and you get shitty schools = shitty teachers and students = losers

Put in money and get students to take schooling serious = better schools = better teachers and students = winners

Not surprised lots of countries out there have better students and scores. They take education more seriously. In the US, it's a hit and miss hodgepodge of ivy league schooling and ghetto schools with fences and guards.
The thing is, the US, like with many other things spends more money per capita for a lesser outcome than other countries.

I have my theories as to why we have lower outcomes but they are far from politically correct.
 

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,421
299
800
People are way too afraid of automation.

We will evolve industries to keep people employed, just in a different capacity.

And this fear that we will become communist is the funniest shit I've heard all day.
 
Last edited:

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
387
494
245
We *should* be excited about automation because technology is cool and in an ideal world we will all have robot butlers and do nothing all day while they work.

What will likely happen instead is companies will drive costs down even more using robots, so you will be able to buy more crap for cheaper. More people will have precarious employment. The rift between the poor and wealthy will widen. There will be huge inflation on education (I can tell you bachelor in many STEM fields these days is becoming increasingly not competitive enough, and many humanities are a joke degree good only for waiting tables).

The US can definitely benefit from being pushed farther left. It is fairly obvious that all the wealth gets concentrated at the top, and wealth begets more wealth. On top of that the middle class is shrinking. But for some reason many Americans would rather have the potential of making millions of dollars than see their low-income neighbor have a chance to send their kids to school or get reasonable healthcare.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,218
483
215
Marvel puts Thanos with the idea of finite resources, and people still don't get it. We don't have to kill half the population to reduce the population, we only have to regulate the reproduction. Automation and UBI only work with regulated reproduction. Even now, welfare will collapse given time without regulation of reproduction.

Raising everyone in the earth to average U.S. standards would take 4 earths, reduce the population to 1/4th and it only takes one earth.

There are a few tens of millionaires worldwide, if the population is reduced to say that amount, then everyone can have a millionaire lifestyle and the rest can be machines doing everything.

Though if we get new sources of energy, the balance sheet changes, and the wealth that can exist is vastly increased, as energy lies at the foundation, at the base of the pyramid. We each have tons of energy slaves, that is fundamentally the power behind civilization, the ability to do work.

The owners of the robots will rule the world unless we determine that everyone owns them together somehow. Whether that means 90% tax rate, Universal Basic Income, or something even more aggressive than that, we'll see.
Right now a similar thing is happening with ideas and copyright. The copyright of ideas allows a minority to hoard the social power of ideas, and enrich themselves while the rest must pay tribute for use of the ideas.

But the idea of the collective unconscious, suggests we all share memories, ideas, they are part of a pool of resources we all a share. A public good.
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,621
1,831
350
Moore Park Beach
In communist eastern europe, your shopping experience was this:

1, You enter shop. But you can not just walk around and put things in your shopping basket.
2, Person 1, You talk to person #1 and he will write down all the items you want to purchase. when your shopping list is finished you are given the list and yu move on to person #2.
3, Person 2 takes the list, goues through all items and verifies with you that the list is correct. One item at a time. If there is a mistake you go back to end of queue. Otherwise you go to person 3 and 4.
4, You give the list to person 3, a supervisor, and person 4 grabs a shopping basket. From now on the two will walk around in the store and the supervisor will tells the other guy what to put in the basket, and tick it all of. When that finishes,
5, You are given the list back, but not the shopping basket. The basked is going to person 5.
6, Person 5's job is to unload the basket and then check all items against your shopping list. When he is satisfied you may proceed to person 6.
7, Person 6, and person 7 (the supervisor) will now unpack your basket and calculate how much it will all cost. Once the supervisor is satirfied you get a ticket with a number and a price.
You now go to the other room and stand in line to pay the price indicated on this ticket to the clerk, person 8.
8, During this time Person 9 will repack your items into bags.
9, Once you have the receipt from person 8, you go to checkout where you meet person 10 and person 11 (supervisor)
10, Person 10 will again unpack your bags and check that all items from your receipt are present.
11, Person 11, the supervisor, will check that the receipt of payment is valid and confirm with person 8.
12, When person 11 is satisfied you get your bags and can go on your jolly way home.

That is how shopping at the corner grocery store worked in a socialized country where everyone is guaranteed a job.
But hey, everyone had a job!
 
Aug 29, 2018
829
1,042
235
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
We are not talking about running a python script to handle invoices or query and join SQL tables. We are talking about truck drivers, manual labor, retail work. A shit ton of jobs that,while they may not be glamorous, pay a living wage and need to be done.
Accountants and the like will be replaced by AI and an occasional call to someone in India before truckers start losing their jobs.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,218
483
215
Accountants and the like will be replaced by AI and an occasional call to someone in India before truckers start losing their jobs.
Progress is getting faster, since the amount of computation that can be done for a given cost doubles, the energy cost halves every 1.5 years approx, due to koomey law halving energy requirements.

That means 1.5 years later twice as much computation can go on, and 1.5 after that 4X as much(edit though doubling rate is now ever 2.6 years, a bit slower due to technical difficulties). Basically you quickly have more computation than the combined computation that was available throughout all of modern history.

Do not be surprised if self driving becomes possible in less than ten years.
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,621
1,831
350
Moore Park Beach
Progress is getting faster, since the amount of computation that can be done for a given cost doubles, the energy cost halves every 1.5 years approx, due to koomey law halving energy requirements.

That means 1.5 years later twice as much computation can go on, and 1.5 after that 4X as much(edit though doubling rate is now ever 2.6 years, a bit slower due to technical difficulties). Basically you quickly have more computation than the combined computation that was available throughout all of modern history.

Do not be surprised if self driving becomes possible in less than ten years.
Before we see massive fleets of autonomous vehicles on public roads, I don't think at this stage it is a matter of technology or computation power but liability and the legal system to catch up and define how liabilities are handled. That will take time to work its way through courts until we have a solid understanding of the legal side.


Example is, driver less vehicle XYZ kills a few children and the lollipop lady at a school crossing. Some one, a person, will have to go to jail if this happens.
We currently have no idea or framework even to know who. We know that someone MUST go to jail but not who.
The guy that owns the vehicle? The guy that serviced it and gave it the all clear, the guy that wrote the software, the guy that pushed the code out because deadlines? the underwriter that said it was safe?
Until all those questions are answered you will NOT see autonomous vehicles.

I seriously also doubt they will be able to get commercial insurance (i.e. not self insurance) for any of these vehicles until those questions are fully answered. I mean which insurance company will offer a policy for these things while the legal liability status is all up in the air?
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
1,218
483
215
Before we see massive fleets of autonomous vehicles on public roads, I don't think at this stage it is a matter of technology or computation power but liability and the legal system to catch up and define how liabilities are handled. That will take time to work its way through courts until we have a solid understanding of the legal side.


Example is, driver less vehicle XYZ kills a few children and the lollipop lady at a school crossing. Some one, a person, will have to go to jail if this happens.
We currently have no idea or framework even to know who. We know that someone MUST go to jail but not who.
The guy that owns the vehicle? The guy that serviced it and gave it the all clear, the guy that wrote the software, the guy that pushed the code out because deadlines? the underwriter that said it was safe?
Until all those questions are answered you will NOT see autonomous vehicles.

I seriously also doubt they will be able to get commercial insurance (i.e. not self insurance) for any of these vehicles until those questions are fully answered. I mean which insurance company will offer a policy for these things while the legal liability status is all up in the air?
It will be capitalism vs politicians and government. Governments that enact quick legislation once the tech arrives, their nations will have a competitive edge.
We know that someone MUST go to jail but not who.
Only with intent is there reason to deprive of the essential innate fundamental right of freedom. IF there is no intent even intent to be negligent or purposefully avoid responsibility, I do not see the need for such harsh punishment for mere accidents. Even if careful accidents do happen, this is essentially potentially punishing the innocents.

Keep in mind it is rumored one to two decades, and even human like true ai might exist. So if at first it doesn't pass, eventually it becomes a rights issue. You can't drive because you're a machine even though you're a better driver.
 
Last edited: