

Humans Need Not Apply - hugofirth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

======
dpatriarche
I particularly liked one of the points that Grey made towards the end: what do
we do about all of the people who will be "unemployable through no fault of
their own"? Right now our economic system is predicated on rewarding those who
deserve wealth (as judged by ability or hard work). The converse of that is
that we as a society accept that the undeserving (stupid and/or lazy) will be
punished economically. We rationalize this because we convince ourselves that
it was their own fault, therefore it's "fair" . But what happens when
intelligent, hard-working -- and therefore deserving -- people are
unemployable? It's going to be a massive shock to people and to the system.
(Or we will enter a state of mass cognitive dissonance and convince ourselves
that the majority of the population has become stupid and lazy and so is
getting what they deserve.)

~~~
deciplex
>Or we will enter a state of mass cognitive dissonance and convince ourselves
that the majority of the population has become stupid and lazy and so is
getting what they deserve.

A lot of people have already convinced themselves of that. Everyone is a part
of a persecuted minority now, which has the simultaneous benefits of
justifying the suffering of others (i.e. they deserve it), and providing a
nice scapegoat for their own suffering (it's the goddamn liberals, red-
staters, intellectuals, Hollywood, christian fundamentalists, etc. etc.). It
allows people to be angry about their situation (which is unavoidable) while
keeping that anger totally impotent. So goes the theory, anyway.

So you can oppress pretty much everyone, and present it to each group a little
differently, and as long as you keep them at each others throats they will
accept it.

------
netcraft
We already have an issue in the united states with not enough jobs to go
around, if this dystopian outlook is truly inevitable, what are our options
for mitigating it, or at least coping with it?

I have thought quite a bit about autonomous vehicles and how I can't wait to
buy one and never have to drive again, how many benefits it will have on
society (faster commutes, fewer accidents, etc), but I hadn't considered how
much the transportation industry will be affected and especially how much
truck drivers in particular would be ideal to replace. The NYT ran a story the
other day ([http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/upshot/the-trucking-
indust...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/upshot/the-trucking-industry-
needs-more-drivers-it-should-try-paying-more.html)) about how we don't have
enough drivers to fulfill the needs, but "Autos" could swing that pendulum
swiftly in the opposite direction once legeslation and production catch up.
How do we handle 3.6M truck, delivery and taxi drivers looking for a new job?

I haven't read it yet, but I have recently had recommendations of the book
Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies
([http://smile.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00LOOCGB2/0sil8/re...](http://smile.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00LOOCGB2/0sil8/ref=smi_ge_rl_btns1_setch?_encoding=UTF8&ie=UTF8&redirect=true&tag=0sil8&pldnNew=1))
which I look forward to reading and hope it might be relevant.

~~~
hugofirth
Agreed. I'll have to have a look at that book.

I personally just hope that for once, governments, organisations and media
outlets around the world can tackle something proactively and responsibly.

With social shifts as large and potentially difficult as those suggested by
this video, we need a mental, moral and legislative framework for coping as
soon as possible. Preferably before they are necessitated by the negative
consequences of inaction.

------
rthomas6
I don't buy the "this time it's different" argument. The reason to automate
things is to make more money, right? If you believe the video, nobody will be
able to afford the stuff that is being made cheaper through automation.

If we're making everything faster, cheaper, and more efficient, the overall
wealth for humans can only go up, not down. The question is who will get that
wealth. My guess is it'll be the same as it always is: A small group of people
will get most of it, and everyone else will get a little bit. In other words
we'll all be better off, I think. To assume the destruction of the middle
class means that the upper class will lose all of its buyers. Economics has
proven time and time again that over the long term, improving efficiency makes
everyone better off.

~~~
grinnbearit
Buyers are irrelevant if you can already produce (or demand) everything you
need. Money is credit for value in the future, not value itself.

~~~
rthomas6
But this assumes finite human greed, and people to be perfectly content with
their current standard of living.

~~~
grinnbearit
Its not only about what I can produce but what you can provide. Why would I
give you money to trade for goods I own, seems like a losing proposition.

~~~
rthomas6
Oh, I see what you're saying. You mean that wealthy individuals will someday
be able to use technology to completely automate out the need for goods and
services from others. That seems farfetched, even in a mostly automated
economy. Somebody's still got to produce, upgrade, and repair all those bots.
Not to mention greet people on the phone, give haircuts, make sales, and do
other jobs that benefit from a human touch.

Now if those bots can produce, upgrade, and repair themselves, and do jobs in
a "human" way, that's approaching strong AI. At that point if everything is
automated top to bottom from mining raw materials to a finished product, why
wouldn't it all be free for everyone? That sounds like a post-scarcity economy
to me, so it would seem pointless to hoard at that point. Backing up, the
reason why I disagree with you and the video is because I think that over the
long term, the more things get automated, the _cheaper_ they'll be, for
everyone, and therefore overall everyone's real wealth has gone up, on
average.

It is easy to say that this may result in a greater concentration of wealth,
and that will probably be the case. Where I disagree is that it will result in
the "everyone else" group being worse off than they are now. At the very least
I think their/our quality of life would remain the same. I don't think overall
wealth will increase slower than the concentration of wealth, if that makes
sense.

------
bjz_
Great work as always from CGP Grey. Be sure to check out his other videos -
they are well worth the watch.

~~~
hugofirth
They are fantastic. This video represents something of a departure in form for
him (in style, not quality), but I enjoyed the longer format.

~~~
pkfrank
I enjoyed it as well. This definitely feels like his most substantial video to
date. It was less fun-fact-filled and quirky than his usual videos; instead,
it was more serious/thorough, and focused on a major trend. Really quality
stuff.

------
nanomage
I read about this 10 years ago, from a book published in 1998
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class)

------
Joof
The real question is what to do about it. As a species what will happen to us
when we completely obsolete ourselves?

------
courseeplus
Wow Nice Story

