So apparently technology is gonna kill jobs in the next 30 years

So apparently technology is gonna kill jobs in the next 30 years

Solution?

Ban AI, ban the advanced technology to save jobs. Keep humans at work.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VJBVGbe8g9g
youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU
theregister.co.uk/2017/01/02/ai_was_the_fake_news_of_2016/?page=1
youtu.be/MRG8eq7miUE
futurism.com/a-new-ai-can-write-music-as-well-as-a-human-composer/
wired.com/2017/02/robots-wrote-this-story/
bigthink.com/natalie-shoemaker/a-japanese-ai-wrote-a-novel-almost-wins-literary-award
wired.co.uk/article/ai-write-code-microsoft
technologyreview.com/s/603381/ai-software-learns-to-make-ai-software/
medium.com/startup-grind/design-in-an-age-of-artificial-intelligence-739e656b44ba
artefactgroup.com/articles/ai-designer-2025/
smashingmagazine.com/2017/01/algorithm-driven-design-how-artificial-intelligence-changing-design/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

btw just watched this vid: youtube.com/watch?v=VJBVGbe8g9g

adopt a one child policy like in Chinkna. that would help some.

You can't ban something anyone with a computer can do, retard.
Second of all, banning shit doesn't work, double retard.

Real solution: proletariat seizes the means of production.

that jack ma dude looks like a fucking alien though

creepy af

I don't know about you, but I've evolved out of wanting to do menial tasks. Menial tasks are for machines. If a machine can do your job, it isn't a job worth doing.

I've taken up creative pursuits. 3D modeling, writing stories, programming, and music. These are things that machines can't do. This makes my human existence valuable in this age of increasing automation.

interesting point, will those skills increase in value though? does it mean those talents will be increased in demand and value in the future then?

>humans invent technology to make their lives easier and reduce their workload
>they are finally able to develop it to the point where they will never need to work again
>this is bad for some reason

Why are you so evil OP

The problem with this thread is that OP has failed to make the distinction between weak specialised AI which is glorified linear algebra and statistics, and strong general purpose AI.
We are still miles away from strong AI, which would bring different questions all together as it would be an alternate sentient being coexisting with humans. Or not.

>Machines take every means of earning a living
>Humans dont need to do anything and might as well be vegetables at that point
>This is good for some reason

Or you can move to a shitty country like Australia or Chile and live like a king

>Working is the only point to existing
>Americans ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS
The social propaganda was to strong.

The flaw is in your assumption hard work makes a living. If everything is easy menial tasks aren't valuable anymore and you need to change your way of making a living.

Its going to get ugly but eventually when so many jobs that employ low-wage people like making fast food or oh my god the transportation industry. Like, think of how many people work in transportation and as soon as self driving cars gets good and cheap enough basically overnight millions will be out of a job with decades of non transferable skills.

What im trying to get at is there will be many unemployed/impoverished, resulting in people dying, earth will literally have to adjust its population in accordance with the decrease in consumption

We should ban cars and bikes first. I mean, they sure save a lot of work walking.

but what if we reach the point where AI can make its own machines and shit?

solution?

- remove illegals, refugees, muslims, H1Bs etc

- mandatory sterilization for long-term welfare or heritable disabilities

- charge companies for any poverty relief their workers receive(I didn't vote to subsidize your labor costs, cunt.)

- strongarm corporations into choosing to be American or fuck off, no more "American businesses" who only manufacture in China, only assemble in Mexico, and only pay tax in Ireland

- stop forcing women into the workforce

- destroy the altar of diversity

how am i gonna make living if everything can be easily done by the machine?

do you want me to sit in my room all day and do nothing? I would hate that. How am I gonna make money?

i just think that the technology is already making humans horny and lazy, it's gonna be even worse in the future

>work for work's sake
Ah yes, the tell-tell mark of the souless

Kill all niggers.

wount work..
>mandatory sterilization for long-term welfare or heritable disabilities

>How am I gonna make money?
You get your universal income check that advertisers compete for. Welcome to late stage capitalism.

>MUH JOBS

Once the robots take over our jobs we wont have to work anymore.

yeah but what am i gonna do with my life though?

I think the issue is that if all businesses would use robots, people are out of work but businesses would still charge money for their services/products. But since the populace doesn't/can't work, there needs to be a medium of exchange that would replace the money the populace no longer makes. I'm all for post-scarcity, but I doubt businesses would want to give up the currently accepted medium of power

Travel, study, enjoy your days, have a family.
There's so many things you can do that are hindered by 40 hour menial jobs. In fact part of the reason for small current families is long careers with long working hours.

Ah god save my dream of working my whole life to somebody else so he can get richer than I and oppress me.

Work inna factory, billion dollar company. They don't want to buy new things, they rather keep the old stuff till it dies. One of the washers I worked with was from 1985 or something it slowly upgraded over the years. There will be always jobs that no one wants to buy a robot to do it when they can pay someone to do it. Also someone has to fix things and no one is going to use some ai to run there factory anytime soon, because the people that would make that choice are ones that would get replaced by it.

Productivity has never been higher, wages have never been lower. what makes you think mr.shekelstein is going to line your wallet when he can totally replace you with a robot that is a LOT cheaper than you to maintain/train/hire/fire?

You don't just magically get taken care of. You're going to starve.

I feel bad for you, slave.

He also is going to have to higher, a team of engineers that cost more in wages then the people getting replaced

Of course it's not, you idiot. Machines taking over livelihood means Humans lose the ability to trade because they have no capital. Unless there's drastic changes to currency and trading, humans cant self sustain

>The flaw is in your assumption hard work makes a living.
Define hard work. I dont even consider SE/web dev as hard work and machines can still take it away from us.

>If everything is easy menial tasks aren't valuable anymore and you need to change your way of making a living.
The only thing machines cant imitate IMO is art. Are you saying everyone has the capacity to draw? Thats why different jobs exist in the first place, for people to work on their field of expertise.

Why can't people see this is a good thing, if everyone is out of a job either everyone will pursue creative interests or everyone will get their base income from the government for doing jack shit.
This

>nothing proposed in this thread is going to happen

If we can build robots that are able to use AI to harvest from nature the same kind of energy they run on and will consume it when their supply is low, the way we humans do, then it won't be a problem. People won't need jobs anyway. Just let the robots provide for us autonomously.

If no jobs are needed then people are actually powerless. People need to be needed in order to have some leverage on the society. If no jobs needed doing the overlords could just kill anyone they don't like, in large numbers.

>Move to Australia to escape high cost of living
Fucking what

Why not just not give them feelings?
Corruption and evil are uniquely animal sorts of dispositions.
No reason to kill people you don't need if you're not the kind of thing capable of feeling good about doing that.

UNABOM.TXT

No they actually couldn't, because murder and genocide are illegal. Otherwise all the niggers would be dead right now. I don't think society is going to turn right in the future either.

I'll be retired by then

Good luck

Then the creators would be responsible and face trial and punishment.

What is a man?

Jobs died several years ago. Have they already evolved?? :thinking:

Yea, and when the plebs starve, who's gonna buy mr. shekelsteins products? A handful of engineers and artists? Then why bother ith robots at all.

>capital is the only way to organize society
You're as deluded as the dumb Ricardians who think work is what determines the value of goods.

This is a good video if you haven't seen it:
youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU

Get jobs in automation and programming and don't worry, only the plebs will get fucked

Not gonna happen.

As long as you do full capitalism you will find that keeping useless people employed won't happen.

Embrace inefficiency and you get outcompeted on the global market with your shitty human-based low volume high cost cottage industry that then actually can't source or sell much of either raw materials, machines or knowhow / technology. You will be poor.

Have you been alive long? Technology has been killing jobs since the industrial revolution or further.
If you value heavy, dangerous, repetitive work, you're probably lying to yourself. You value money you greedy pig. Or you're just too stupid to adapt.

Negative income tax

Its further. Even pre steam engine pre modern science technology like aequaducts killed water carrying jobs.

Quite many people did get fucked by that even then and yet it was a net benefit to societal efficiency that enabled the average to be theoretically be less poor (YMMV if you actually were, income inequality is a thing).

The reason shecklestein wants his products bought is so that he can get value out of his workers. His workers build the products, then he wants them sold to profit from his slave's efforts.

The products are just a means to an end- which is money and power. The economy will change. It won't be able about exploiting the masses, since they are no longer needed as a stepping stone to power.

>Solution?
Monetary policy change.
Working is stupid.

You're never going to get them to ban AI or automation. This shit is the future and can't be stopped.

Honestly speaking, the main problems of society all boil down to a few main problems:

1. Cost of living is too high, and housing is the culprit. If people didn't need to pay rent or make mortgage payments, they could even live comfortably on minimum wage. Additionally, nothing is more stressful than worrying about losing your home, and that stress likely contributes to other problems in society. I dream of the day the government buys up abandoned lots and unoccupied houses and builds shipping container houses to give away for free.

2. Education costs are becoming retarded and the return on investment is questionable. When people who hold degrees are being forced to get jobs that have nothing to do with their degree, then you know there's a fucking problem. You might as well educate yourself on the internet.

3. Healthcare needs to be free for everyone. Currently, private companies have to pay for healthcare for their workers, which, if you think about it, really isn't fair. If everyone had free healthcare, companies would feel more at ease hiring more workers instead of overworking the ones they already have, thus generating jobs. Besides, everyone should have a right to healthcare, this is just the right thing to do, period.

4. Legalize weed. No really, just fucking do it. I don't even smoke this shit but how much fucking money do we waste putting stoners in prison instead of just legalizing this shit and collecting tax on it? Compared to alcohol or cigarettes, it's not even harmful. Hell, it even helps people with chronic diseases. We could put private prisons out of business, deal a fatal blow to the illegal drug trade, and cut the prison population nearly in half just by doing just this.

>capital is the only way to organize society
Trading has been part of our history since early civilizations. How are we supposed to pay for desired thing if we dont have something of equal value to exchange it when Machines have taken our source of capital? Create dank memes?

>You're as deluded as the dumb Ricardians who think work is what determines the value of goods.

Where in my post did I say that, you imbecile? Your mental gymnastic baffles me. I didnt even tackle how a thing's worth is determined but questioned how trading would work in a capital-less world

If everyone was automatically a shareholder to companies (not necessarily to 100%, just a big chunk like 25-50% of all companies with no option to sell your shares & loose that income) in the current system we'd have solved many issues. People would still have incentives to work but if computers take over entire sectors it'd not be so terrible.

Trading and capital aren't the same thing user.

Mercantilism worked for a long time before capital gains, and the are the actual problem these days.

>Trading is different from buying
>Since you need capital to buy, which is different from trading btw, therefore capital is unrelated to the topic of trading

Im done. Thanks for the insight

Social credit offers a somewhat similar idea, but it looks more deeply at the creation of currency and how it must be made to allow production and consumption.

Social credit works from the view point that all our technology and knowledge, as well as our in place tools and production are a collective right so everyone should benefit from the wealth that is created. That's just the moral justification. In function social credit creates money for people to consume the goods created within an economy based off of the idea that the true cost of production is the total consumption and the difference between the two is the required amount of currency needed to be created.

Vastly superior to private banks needing money to prop up their lack of reserves to make loans and demanding new currency creation that is loaned to them below market rates.

>Why can't people see this is a good thing, if everyone is out of a job either everyone will pursue creative interests or everyone will get their base income from the government for doing jack shit.

frustrated people with nothing to do will only lead to work

>technology is gonna kill jobs in the next 30 years
So it's next 30years now? 10 years ago it was next 10years.

> our in place tools and production are a collective right
That's nice morals, but I generally notice how people tend to treat "stuff that isn't theirs personally" and how they try to avoid shit jobs / weasel their way around doing the most productive things for the collective if it's just easier for them personally.

To me that implies that actually we're NOT ready to collectively own tools and/or production in full or even in some roundabout way OTHER than in the sense of being shareholders (typically abstract level of control over companies, but participation in abstract income -money that can purchase goods & services- that is generated by those companies).

> based off of the idea that the true cost of production is the total consumption and the difference between the two is the required amount of currency needed to be created.
And depreciation and loss is modeled where and by who?

Society is pretty much unable to handle even this DESU. The older generation will generally want to be optimist about how little is lost (so they can get more money now) and the younger one will get saddled with the "woops, we calculated wrong" aspect. You need to tie it to income generated by companies directly.

> Vastly superior to private banks needing money to prop up their lack of reserves
No, just force them by law to have bigger reserves, and let them die if they can't run business even then.

theregister.co.uk/2017/01/02/ai_was_the_fake_news_of_2016/?page=1

Only ignorant rich assholes think ai is going to take human jobs as a way to threaten poor people that they shoul be happy for working for minimum wage.

AI hasn't taken a single job last year and never will. Not much has actually really innovated in the realm of AI. Most of the innovations you see in AI are not actually the result in any new algorithms with AI but the proliferation of lots and lots and lots of cheap data being groked by old algorithms and the only thing that people have liked is better voice recognition support but even that is not great, just executing commands by recognizing keywords. Not much actual AI at work.

The things that AI also appeals to is not the rest of the world. A bunch of comp sci losers think purchasing everything on your phone, talking to robots and having an iot house would be super awesome.
The rest of the world finds it a hassle, annoying, and stupid.

> theregister.co.uk/2017/01/02/ai_was_the_fake_news_of_2016/?page=1
That's the present.

Look, software has taken many jobs. And AI also has taken SOME jobs.

Many, many more are in the process of following (some obvious ones that are almost guaranteed to happen is the job of driving most vehicles -trucks, buses, tractors, trains, whatever). And operating a lot more machines with various robotics and 3D printing machines that DO actually employ simple AI (image recognition...) directly or indirectly (result of AI trained perceptual model is used by dumber software).

This (UBI)

>Technology will give us true freedom

>People fight it because they believe the point to life is job slavery

PS: Most people may not consider it to be "AI" if a robot vacuum is figuring out where it is in the room by matching up sensor data from a LIDAR and some other sensors, but it kinda is.

And it kinda does threaten the livelihood of some of the house cleaning jobs. No, not all housekeepers will lose their jobs, they also do other things, but we're at the point where it's quite possible that, for instance, some robot with the increasingly versatile arms will take over the job of putting dishes into a dishwasher and take them out and place them in the appropriate cupboards without requiring a programmer to set up exact instructions but pleb compatible machine learning (say, put one glass in once and say "this goes here" while the robot's camera looks - exactly like with a housekeeper).

And boom, another few jobs that are related to housekeeping are gone. Slowly it happens.

The system must somehow serve the majority or it collapses.
Unless one of the billionaires is secretly Beerus or something, i don't see a regular human being able to survive the ire of 100 humans, even if he's well armed.

It's more expensive to have homeless people live on the street now and go to the hospital every so often than it is to give them an apartment and groceries + basic amenities. That's why a basic income is necessary

>Keep humans at work.
What for? Wage slavery is silly and people are less productive than robots when it comes to most jobs.

In the future, people can do jobs a human can do better, like rating all the fresh media produced.

How long until AI removes the need for humans to program the AI?

This is what has me wondering about the value of a programming career. Will it even last?

Will any career last? Just enjoy the ride before everyone becomes unemployable.

> How long until AI removes the need for humans to program the AI?
Right now it looks like this will be one of the last jobs to go to (quite a bit more advanced) AI. Might easily not happen within your lifetime.

Don't try to be a crane operator or driver or even pilot, though. These are more immediately threatened.

Ray Kurzweil says 30 years.
Check this video out (short):
youtu.be/MRG8eq7miUE

name a job AI has taken last year. name one. You keep talking about how AI is taking jobs, but you never can say what jobs. Its just an existential fear fat fucks want you to believe to keep you in check.

> Keep humans at work
For what purpose?
Shouldn't we go further and ban all robots? Think of all the extra jobs.

PS: Maybe try to be a pilot if you can be soon and get a good wage for it. But yea.

That model has many problems and is at best a random guess.

We haven't actually established we'd need x amount of calculations to simulate or emulate yz human computation functions (not least because the hardware isn't fully mapped on humans yet, and ultimately the hardware ISN'T the same kind of hardware even - it has way more probabilistic parts than deterministic ones for instance).

Plus Moore's (corrected) conjecture seems to be in doubt again.

Plus the moment we get "enough" processing power won't coincide with us actually reading the software to emulate a human brain, much less with achieving economic viability for artificial brains to take over programming jobs.

Can computing power keep growing exponentially after we reach minimum transistor size, though?

I don't understand the problem, the machines will do all the work so I can enjoy my NEET lyfe. No one would ever have to work at all. Perfect!

Feels like I stumbled into HN.

>wagecuck mentality
>wah wah muh jerbs gonna be taken

How retarded can you actually be?

Machines will be the slaves, and you can dedicate your life to your hobbies, basically living like an aristocrat. It worked in the ancient world with human "AIs" and can work now with machine "AIs". Government will issue you with a paycheck gotten from the taxes that corporations will pay for owning AI bots.

AND YOU BITCH ABOUT IT.

R E T A R D S
E
T
A
R
D
S

Floor cleaning with robots.

Doing market analysis (Google's botnet analysis tooling also powered by AI and machine learning techniques did kill a few competitor's jobs again, right).

Picking and placing certain electronics components in a foxconn factory, foxconn replaced >60k+ workers with robot arms and such AFAIK and part of these were replaced by not purely mechanical machines but robots with cameras.

>Government will issue you with a paycheck gotten from the taxes that corporations will pay for owning AI bots.
And here's where you became incorrect.

Enjoy your just above poverty line handout.

>adopt a one child policy like in Chinkna. that would help some.
lol, no need for that. dont you see that western countries are dying out and we actually have to import muhammeds.

one child polici is needed for africa, india and the rest of the thirld world.

People say "What will we do when we don't have to work? It's how I fill my time."

But they also want to get rich so they don't have to work?

And then that thought goes away when jobs are threatened because the "leaders" are always prattling on about jobs (because they don't have anyone to lead without wageslaves)

fucking brailet, thats not the solution, the solution is to start learning CS and Math ((focus on math tho)) and better your life as a whole, thats what I did 5 years ago, because I predicted this whole thing and everybody was laughing at me, now I work as Data Scientist for a major bank in the region for 190k/y

Soon I am getting my Doctorate degree in CV and ML.

Good luck, plebs ;^)))

except that the roomba is a gimmick for rich people that doesn't function properly because it is a gimmick and always will be a gimmick. They hve had automation of the future in the 1950's of how we will all have robots that will make us everything from breakfast to open our doors. 70 years later it turns out it not only still doesnt work no one wants it.
This shit appeals to lazy faggots yourself who would rather troubleshoot a 15,000 dollar robot that does a 5 dollar task badly then people who actually want shit done.

How about a 20 hour workweek and a $40 (2017) minimum wage?

And they said art for art's sake was an empty phrase.

>when people who don't know shit about economics decide to open their fucking mouths and spout nonsense about the minimum wage

> to open our doors.
Like it's already the case? Robots play a huge part in food production too, creating one that would warm up shit (from an automated factory) would be trivial.

>a $40 (2017) minimum wage
so, what incentive would the business owner have to pay you (jamal) $40 per hour, when he could automate the job?

you gonna force him via government to do so?

or universal income?
Imagine the landlords that will take advantage of this, then you have your usual rent + 1000 on top, and then you have to go back to work for more than 20h, maybe even more than 40.

Thats the point, getting something like that means, others who dont get it will rise their taxes/rents/prices etc. and without regulations we are all fucked.
And with regulations, we are better off with USSR. And we all know their model failed over and over again.

There is no easy solution to something like this.

>giving universal income as a solution
>then giving a reason in the very next sentence why it wouldn't work

an AI can do all of those

futurism.com/a-new-ai-can-write-music-as-well-as-a-human-composer/
wired.com/2017/02/robots-wrote-this-story/
bigthink.com/natalie-shoemaker/a-japanese-ai-wrote-a-novel-almost-wins-literary-award
wired.co.uk/article/ai-write-code-microsoft
technologyreview.com/s/603381/ai-software-learns-to-make-ai-software/
medium.com/startup-grind/design-in-an-age-of-artificial-intelligence-739e656b44ba
artefactgroup.com/articles/ai-designer-2025/
smashingmagazine.com/2017/01/algorithm-driven-design-how-artificial-intelligence-changing-design/

my solution, it to put all those AI's into a simulated reality
then once we have reached peak AI
just release them all at once.

this way job loss wont be as bad since everyone will be out of a job at once. Which means no one will need an incetive to work, as compared to just replacing the food industry with ai so all the food industry workers have to look for others jobs which increases competition in that sector.
then just a cascade of misery.
If everyone is out of a job all at once we don't have a shit avalanche but rather a new awakening.