
Automation to replace every job under the sun, eventually - elorant
https://www.itweb.co.za/content/nWJadvb8lQKMbjO1
======
bootloop
Well, the last paragraph says it all. For me it's crazy that people fight for
jobs which could be done by robots just so an enslaved human can get his fair
share of food.

Let's shift focus to how we can provide this in a world where not everybody
has to work. (And we can start with the current situation where not everyone
has work or can't work).

~~~
bootloop
Also want to add that I don't believe all jobs can be automated but resolving
the issues would allow us to actively working towards more automation and not
only because companies want to reduce their costs to maximise profits.

------
tekkk
When the robots can create meaningful art, color me impressed.

But all in all, what a silly article. Sure we have been automating all mundane
work since time beginning, but the article doesnt really give credit to the
sheer complexity of the tasks humans are capable. We are a product of billions
of years of evolution so any neural network used to simulate our brains has a
lot of catching up to do. But I guess as a CEO of AI startup you have to build
up the hype with non-informative predictions like this. Thank goodness they
didnt throw out dates for specific tasks to be fully automated. They dont
really explain the major problems what stops us from doing these super-duper
robots already.

~~~
freeflight
Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Just like it ain't only "mundane" work that is being replaced [0].

Imho right now most of humanity is still in denial about the consequences of
these changes, just like with climate change.

But in the long-term automation will leave us with a whole ton of "surplus
humans" that will struggle to find any meaningful economic activity to engage
in to finance their own survival.

Right now a whole economy exists around these mundane jobs: All of the
warehouse workers [1], delivery personnel, and a ton of others do their
"mundane" jobs in the logistics chain, because that's what they can do. For
many people, their driver's license is the only real qualification they have.
But in the long term, not even a pilot's license will be a qualification that
ensures employment [2].

What happens to these people once autonomous driving becomes adopted on a
larger scale? Are they all gonna start working at Boston Dynamics, creating
more autonomous tools? Will they all learn to code and start writing apps?
Will they become successful artists? I seriously doubt that.

Will they work in newly created auxilareily industries? Maybe a few of them,
but the "new jobs created" from this will never make up the number of jobs
lost because the change to automation is also an increase in efficiency of
productivity, meaning that the same work can now be done with way less effort.

[0] [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603431/as-goldman-
embrace...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603431/as-goldman-embraces-
automation-even-the-masters-of-the-universe-are-threatened/)

[1] [https://youtu.be/5iV_hB08Uns](https://youtu.be/5iV_hB08Uns)

[2]
[https://pressroom.ups.com/pressroom/ContentDetailsViewer.pag...](https://pressroom.ups.com/pressroom/ContentDetailsViewer.page?ConceptType=PressReleases&id=1569933965476-404)

~~~
tekkk
By purely speculating, just like the article, I guess everything that can't be
replaced by robots (or let me reword it: isn't as fun without humans) will be
left for humans. Meaning arts, entertainment, sports and artisan products.
Probably influencing too and whatever jobs our fledgling mind-control
apparatuses require. Sure not everyone can make the change so I guess they'll
end up doing maintenance work or something, social services or just sit on
their ass playing video games. I don't think the problem is as bad as it
seems, I mean I can't recall anyone complaining about doing less mundane work.
In my mind the problem isn't that there isn't enough "work" for everyone. We
can make up more work given enough time. It's the redistribution of the wealth
of the owners of these mega corporations that is the most puzzling problem.
Especially if all the wealth falls to only a couple of those companies.

Going forward I think whatever that is what makes us human will be our most
prized commodity. In a world full of synthetic products it's the ones that are
real which stand out. And if we can't tell the difference between synthetics
and reals, well. I guess we are screwed then. Perhaps it's just the next step
in our evolution to become one with the machine, legacy flesh-versions will be
left as curiosities, put in museums.

~~~
freeflight
Imho this isn't just pure speculation, it's simply extrapolating trends that
have already been going on for centuries.

And one of the most dangerous non-answers to it is this:

> Sure not everyone can make the change so I guess they'll end up doing
> maintenance work or something, social services or just sit on their ass
> playing video games.

Because it assumes that societies will properly respond to it with social
reforms accounting for these changes. But unlike the automation trend, the
social changes that need to accompany it are a far cry away from even being
recognized as a requirement.

In that context I do not see a future where people without a job will be
"sitting at home playing video games", it's far more likely that people will
be living on the street and won't even be able to afford food, because their
gig-economy job got replaced by a fleet of corporate bots, just like most
other menial and low-income jobs.

Will such a society recognize that not everybody can find a meaningful [0]
place to work? Will it maybe force people, to work underpaid just to keep up
the appearance of "pulling them bootstraps"? I mean, there's already a whole
lot of that going on.

Maybe it's just the pessimist in me, but I just don't see the kind of "utopia"
emerging from this many people imagine it to be. At least not in the way we
are currently going about it, where the societal impact of massive tech-
advances is regularly relegated to something that will be fixed post-release.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs)

------
Svip
I hate the usage of the word 'inevitable' like this. _Nothing_ is inevitable.
There are some events that are going to be hard to prevent, like say the Earth
being swallowed by the Sun (unless we could move the Earth out of harm's
way?), but automation is not one of those. That's an easy one to prevent. We
can just decide not to.

~~~
OrderlyTiamat
> but automation is not one of those. That's an easy one to prevent. We can
> just decide not to.

I agree with you in sentiment, however that last sentence contains a deceptive
concept in it- who is the collective "we" that would have to do the deciding,
and do they have a history of taking such choices?

~~~
Svip
Of course I was trying to keep the comment brief, but "we" in this case is
humanity. And the "choice" in this scenario is not automating _every_ job, as
the article suggests. If we automate 99% of jobs, it would still not meet the
proposed conclusion of the article.

In a more realistic sense of 'choosing' not to automate, it will largely come
from disagreements over the subject itself. It will not be that all humans get
together and decide it, but rather that a significant portion of humans won't
have any part in it.

But from a pure historical viewpoint, inevitability is a fallacy.

------
krzat
Replacing humans with human level AIs isn't really automation, is it? Their
work will not be automatic.

Also, humans will eventually start improving their biological capabilities, so
human level AI is a moving target.

------
platz
Does this really need to be on the front page

~~~
onion2k
The people who upvoted it certainly think so.

