
Don’t Fear the Robots: Why Automation Doesn’t Mean the End of Work - andrewl
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/dont-fear-robots/
======
dzdt
I don't buy the historical argument at all: "in the past technology
improvements haven't reduced employment, so there is nothing to fear."

The analogy is humans now are to AI as 19th century horses were to the
internal combustion engine. For centuries technological advance just increased
the demand for horsepower. But when a better, cheaper substitute was
developed, demand for horse work dropped rapidly and never recovered.

As soon as there is an AI that can perform better and cheaper than unskilled
human labor, the change will come fast.

~~~
delbel
> demand for horse work dropped rapidly and never recovered.

I don't think horse work is a problem. If anything, now they can enjoy their
day wondering large vast fields in the summer , and eating high quality
alfalfa hay made by a tractor in the winter. And since the invention of the
Horse Trailer, they can travel with their owner on interstate highways at
speeds as much as 55mph while eating the same high quality hay going to
another field.

If anything, the horses benefited the most from the technology improvement.

~~~
drspacemonkey
Mostly, they're kept as pets, and the population has drastically reduced
because they no longer have much utility outside entertainment.

That's not exactly a scenario I would call an improvement for human beings.

------
Verdex_3
Where I'm at, well meaning authority figures, who tend to be greater than 10
years older than me, like to talk about the benefits of withdrawing from
technology for a period of time. A technology "cleanse" if you will.

I'm not just interested in electronics and programming languages. I'm also
interested in mathematics and the history of science and technology. Science
and technology not just in this century but in the previous ones. The
evolution of writing systems is fascinating. Check out the Hebrew or
Phoenician alphabets. You can almost see them being scratched into clay by
some sort of knife. Or look at the cursive writing of the founding fathers of
the United States and then look at the writing instruments of the day.

They ask me to stop using technology. Just take a break. And I immediately
wonder if they want me to stop reading. Stop writing.

Mathematics also has a fascinating development. And it also has quite the
impact in how I think and analyze problems. Am I supposed to stop thinking all
together when I go on my technology cleanse? Isn't the objection to technology
that it stops you from thinking.

Similarly, people fear automation because it's a new form of technology, but
they also ignore all of the exotic technology that they regard as baseline.
The absolute primitive limit was once cutting edge. And no doubt was feared in
its own day.

Yes, new technologies can be used to cause you personal pain. But that's also
the case for old technologies. You shouldn't seek to stop progress, but rather
stop those who are making progress from externalizing their failures such that
they are paid for by those who will not share in the successes.

~~~
mnctvanj
Tech can be a fine thing, yet there is also something to say about spending
more time walking on trails in the woods (for example). Maybe the well-meaning
elders are talking more about restoring a balance of activity and time-spent.
As I age I see the importance of that more and more.

~~~
crooked-v
On that walk you're still recklessly indulging in the technology of shoes and
clothing.

------
lovich
Automation should lead to the end of work. The end result should be that
everything we want is produced for us and humans wony be forced to do labor,
at which point we can focus on doing what we _actually_ want to do.

~~~
dmortin
The problem is if UBI is implemented then it may turn out like some kind of
basic standard of living (small flat, free public transportation, etc.)

And if you want more then you'll have to work in some high skilled job to earn
extra money on top of UBI. But there won't be enough such jobs for everyone,
so there will be fierce competion for these jobs, because those who'll be able
to work will enjoy a higher standard of living than people on UBI.

~~~
lovich
You are making the incorrect assumption everyone who works wants a continually
higher standard of living. I am perfectly fine with my current material
possessions. I don't really want new things anymore. The only reason I
continue to work is because I, or my family, are just one major health issue
away from losing everything.

~~~
dmortin
Of course, people have different needs. My point was it's possible one
wouldn't be able to maintain one's current standard of living if out of job
and living on this future UBI.

Then people would want to work to regain at least their previous standard of
living.

~~~
krapp
>My point was it's possible one wouldn't be able to maintain one's current
standard of living if out of job and living on this future UBI.

The purpose of UBI as I understand it would be to provide a stable floor of
income for people independent of employment. I think of it as being like a
minimum wage - not high enough for a middle class standard of living, but
hopefully higher than the poverty line. Enough to keep food on the table.

~~~
dmortin
If it will be like minimum wage then many people are mistaken thinking that
they will be able live on UBI in the future and maintain their current
lifestyles (big house, two cars, etc.).

~~~
krapp
Anyone who believes UBI will allow them to maintain that quality of life
fundamentally misunderstands its purpose and possible scope. UBI just
decouples employment from social welfare, people who want a big house and two
cars would still have to work for it.

------
dmortin
Automation won't mean the end of work, but if robots take over the simpler
jobs then lots of people will be out of work who won't be able to find new
work.

There will still be jobs requiring higher education, but not as many as many
simple jobs are eliminated. You need less robot maintainers than garbage men.

One high skilled worker does the job of many low skilled ones and if robots do
the low skilled jobs then low skilled workers won't find other low skilled
work.

~~~
nradov
Show me a robot that can pick up litter on the side of a road or repair a
leaking irrigation pipe. Some jobs that seem simple are actually extremely
hard to automate.

~~~
dmortin
Maybe they can't do all jobs, but it can be still a problem if they take other
jobs. E.g. if self driving cars can be perfected then you'll need much less
cab drivers and truckers.

Or if they invent cleaning robots which can clean malls and shops then lots of
cleaners will be out of job.

So the robots won't have to take all the simple jobs, because if they take a
lot of them then those changes will still cause serious social problems.

------
eli_gottlieb
But I _want_ the "end of work" to happen!

~~~
mathnmusic
Seriously. Leisure, not jobs or production, ought to be the goal of our
economic policies.

~~~
good_sir_ant
This was a Keynesian idea, and it did not manifest, nor will it manifest.

People will only work for leisure if they value leisure. What's changed over
the past century is that we have more choice in what that leisure is should we
choose to do it.

Output is essential. Automation will increase our output and free more people
from manual work. Will the transition be smooth? not likely. But it will be
better. None of these jobs would automate if the automation wasn't worth it
overall.

------
thx4allthestuff
While the robot masters may have won the intellectual battle, we can at least
feel safe that they completely lack our vibrant culture and quaint charm.
Worst case scenario, we'll have jobs being human furniture (snacks and whatnot
on our scantily clad forms), but at least we'll still be getting that
paycheck. I don't think things are quite as grim as they seem, there are
plenty of jobs left for humans to do as long as other humans exist. Stuck in a
box guy, needed (admittedly demand has dropped), artists, explorers, more
diggers for the Big Pit that the robots want us to make... the list goes on.

------
frgtpsswrdlame
A future society where everybody still works maybe isn't utopia but it doesn't
seem so bad and neither does a future society where nobody works. What seems
really terrible is a society where there's only enough jobs for some fraction
of the population. There's no economic law that there's always more new jobs
than old jobs and I don't believe we're going to hit some magical AI take-off
point so I think this middle ground is probably the more likely future and
it's going to take a painful reorganizing.

~~~
dmortin
The question is what kind of standard of living can be provided for people who
can't get a job in this future? If they can live at an acceptable level (which
can have differing interpretations!), then it's the better case.

But if non working people can only be provided some minimum sustanence then
those who work will be the elite, because they will be able live on a higher
standard of living than the rest and this could lead to some serious social
tensions.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
I'm not sure that it's actually okay to have a permanent underclass as long as
their conditions are 'acceptable.'

------
Animats
Not the end of work, but the end of the American working class. The present is
a huge number of people just barely making it, or not making it. The American
future is more of that. Huge numbers of old poor people with no pensions. This
is inevitable, since we now have a huge number of working age people with no
pensions.

If the policy changes the author outlines are needed to avoid this, we're in
big trouble. Because they are nowhere near happening.

------
maxxxxx
This all makes sense but all the trends are going the other way.
Unfortunately.

------
autoTomato
What a tone deaf load of shit.

Here's the deal. Automation _should_ mean the end of compulsory status as an
employee. It _should_ mean that we no longer need to fear poverty and
homelessness, simply because we weren't feeling the bullshit rat race. It
_should_ mean that we can have a place to live, food to eat, clothes to wear,
medicine to cure ailments, because production and accounting for such
necessities is automatic.

Automation should mean that we get to take on the jobs we enjoy, or at least
try to. Automation should mean that we get to throw the full weight of
ourselves at our passion.

Automation should _NOT_ mean:

    
    
      We don't write your paycheck, so out in the cold with you.
    

That's not how automation should work.

~~~
alexbeloi
Lots of things should be one way and aren't. See racism. The point of these
discussions is proposing on the _how_ of making _should_ into _does_.

------
chiefalchemist
> "Evidence does not show that rapid automation is here, or even that it is
> just around the corner."

I finished the paragraph this sentence started and closed the browser tab. I
don't come to NH to read fiction, especially not bad fiction.

------
BagOfDrunkMice
Hang on, I must have missed a meeting while busy building the robots.

Firstly, we still have to work after all of this?

And secondly, when exactly was it agreed that leisure is the enemy? Someone
really should have let me know.

On a more serious note, this article is thrown into sharp relief if you follow
it with David Graeber's essay "On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs" \-
[https://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-
gr...](https://libcom.org/library/phenomenon-bullshit-jobs-david-graeber)

Quick! Look busy!

