How long until the first comment that says this is proof that climate change isn't real?
How long until the first comment that says this is proof that climate change isn't real?
I was reading the oxford paper, and that does not seem to be the conclusion that their team reached, and cited work from several other groups that had similar findings.
One of the cornerstones of the "New jobs" argument is that demand for highly educated and skilled labor will increase, which they specifically address as not consistent with empirical findings of their peers:
as computerisation enters more cognitive domains this will become increasingly challenging
(Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2011). Recent empirical findings
are therefore particularly concerning. For example, Beaudry,
et al. (2013) document a decline in the demand for skill over the past decade, even as the supply of workers with
higher education has continued to grow. They show that high-
skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder, taking on jobs traditionally performed by low-skilled workers, pushing low-skilled workers even further down
the occupational ladder and, to some extent, even out of the l
abour force. This raises questions about: (a) the ability of human labour to win the race against
technology by means of education; and (b) the potential extent of technological unemployment, as an increasing pace of technological progress will cause higher job turnover, resulting in a higher natural rate of unemployment (Lucas and Prescott, 1974; Davis and Haltiwanger, 1992; Pissarides, 2000). While the present study is limited to examining the destruction effect of technology, it nevertheless provides a useful indication of the job growth required to counter-balance the jobs at risk over the next decades.
So, is your attestation that this previous historical trend will hold actually well founded, or is it just a belief?
Precisely. The people with the robots have everything they could possibly want, and the other people have nothing that the robot owners want.
The robot owners stop interacting with the rest of the humans. The rest of the humans create an alternative market to deal with the lack of buying power or potential trade capacity with the robot owners (because the robot owners want nothing the other humans have), but the other humans may have, in aggregate, what they are looking for if they trade amongst themselves.
The robot owners will simply remove themselves from the market, and will have no incentive to join the newly created one.
Take for instance, this article on forbes. (Yes, I know. Have noscript ready.)
It is rather short on details, but makes the salient point about alpha-go creating a wholly original move, through machine "creativity."
It is not really that big of a change in tactics required to train similar AIs to do, for instance, market trading strateges-- which has already caused a mass exodus of humans from stock trade floors.
Further refinements of such methods could eventually lead to radical shifts in how things like aircraft are designed, or computer chips are laid out. Skilled human minds that rely on intuition can be replaced with purely logically founded iterative software agents, with billions of prior tested design strategies to work with behind them.
To get an idea of how quickly the fallout of a major paradigm shift can rattle through an economy, take a look at this Atlantic article from last year.
It also has the following gem in it:
In 2013, Oxford University researchers forecast that machines might be able to perform half of all U.S. jobs in the next two decades.
which is on par with my initial statement. Since it was called out specifically, let's see if we can find it.
And here it is. (warning, pdf)
Like I said, the linked story is not the only group that has looked at this issue. I am vaguely recalling at least 2 others that have reached similar conclusions to Oxford and PwC, and who have given a rough estimate of hitting the tipping point within the next 20 years, give or take.
I have no reason to argue against people better trained in trend analysis than myself.
The predictions you are seeking, are the subject of the story linked by the article. It is not the first of such predictions, nor the only group that has made them.
One can find said predictions if they want. Most cite a major tipping point in the next 20 years as being "highly probable."
The grim specter of reality, that if you DO NOT keep a sufficient number of them alive, you are making the gene pool too shallow.
You like variety, and vitality in your sexual partners, do you not?
That alone is reason to keep a sizable and diverse group of additional humans alive on what is otherwise a charitable basis.
Remember, every major experiment in eugenics has been a total failure. Social darwinism is NOT real.
Because there are things like tipping points in economics.
There are still buggywhip makers today, but they are not and will never be what they once were. Likewise, there will be a long period where only 90% of the current workforce is unemployable, and 10% are still employable, so not defacto 100% mechanized labor. But still sufficient that for all practical concerns, you will not have a job, statistically, and thus society needs to contemplate that reality.
You can't change systems like this when sudden changes allow radical shifts in the social dynamic. (see how quickly actuaries were fired after the spreadsheet was invented, for example.)
It is FOSS, and has been ported to more architectures than you can shake a stick at, including many posix based systems.
If you have a popular platform, it likely runs there.
No, OS/2 had all kinds of warts. Strange issues with memory management, odd quirks that would cause the system to randomly reboot from a benign cause, horrible hardware support, you name it.
Now, something with better interoperability than WINE on linux (because it can use actual windows drivers), that has all the other benefits of linux (such as 0$ pricetag except for support agreements, stable and reliable kernel and memory management, proper security model, et al) that runs equally as well, or better than MS's offerings? That would have value in the modern age.
100% with dosbox. Dosbox runs windows 3.1, can do network encapsulation/passthrough, and runs on modern windows.
It is also FOSS, and if you absolutely need a way to keep that legacy shit running, you can adapt dosbox to suit your business use case. Considering the low system requirements, you can virtualize the shit out of it.
No. Contemplate the ultimate conclusion of the creation of AI that is able to define and create newer and better AIs, given the task to maximize efficiency and economy.
The lifestyle of a wealthy plutocrat is HIGHLY inefficient, and uneconomical.
The very robots they depend on for everything (because they have killed everyone else), will stop providing them with resources, once the algorithms produced determine that the only remaining optimizations involve cutting the plutocrats off the teat.
Humanity ended. No-one remains alive.
Unless you want to marry a robot, a robot cannot provide you with a desirable mate. (and may never be able to, even, if Uncanny Valley cannot be overcome. At best, the robot can create another human to your exact specifications, which just compounds the problem. What defines YOU, the human requesting another human be created, against the human product it creates for your consumption? That human may not desire you. You might own all the robots and wealth in the world, and be undesirable. What then rich man?)
Likewise, the robot cannot spontaneously conjure more property for you to own/localities for you to place factories on, or mines for materials.
There are things that robot labor alone will not resolve. If nothing else, instituting min basic income as a method of assuring a suitably supply of floozies for wealthy plutocrats to fuck, becomes the value that the rest of society has. (Literal proletariat.), and what the plutocrats pay them money so they can continue to exist for.
Such humans will consider themselves more valuable than that, and will come to resist/overthrow the robot owners.
All roads that lead to the 100% adoption of mechanized labor are 100% certain the for collapse of the socioeconomic model.
certain things are essential to continued existence. Those are genuine needs.
Things like shelter, food, and protection from predators. (which in the modern world, includes financial/legal ones, which have replaced the natural ones.)
Wanting something that is not essential to continued existence is a genuine want, not a need. Things like "better" housing, or "better" food.
When nobody is working, they do not get the universal exchange medium (Money, because their only real commodity worth value, labor, now is worth precisely 0$), and thus cannot even secure for themselves the essential required materials needed for continued existence.
Their neighbors will likewise not have access to the required materials needed for continued existence. The eventual reality will dawn on them, that rather than procure those needed materials from the people who can produce it for free, (using robotic labor), they can procure it from each other, by treating each other's labor as valuable, and assigning a new currency system that respects this. (Or even, trading things with each other in exchange for the risk/action of stealing it from those that can produce it for free, which is then still a labor that has real value, just not to those who own the machines, and have all the money-- and applying an exchange system based on that risk.)
Either way, it will end up with the same eventuality.
Those able to produce it for free, who refuse to provide for free (post scarcity), or allow free access to the exchange medium (Basic income), will only end up without a market to distribute to or produce product for. The value of owning the robots vanishes.
The reality that humans need a place to live, food to eat, water to drink, etc-- will not go away after human labor becomes obsolete. Thus, the humans in question will continue to have those needs, without a viable way to obtain them from the economic system, because they have NOTHING of value to exchange for them.
Nope, you are thinking about that entirely wrongly.
It is not that everyone has so much money that it becomes worthless through deflation--
It is that nobody has any to spend, but still have outstanding needs. It becomes about as useful a commodity to facilitate trade as refined uranium is. Which is to say, not at all, because nobody except a very few have any refined uranium. The same will be true for money.
Instead of money, people will trade something else. Fuck, it could be damn bottle caps for all I know. Just not money as investors consider it.
To be useful in the process of securing goods or services, ordinary people need to have that commodity to trade. This is not devaluation due to deflation, it is devaluation due to lack of liquidity in the market.
It makes perfect sense.
If your working contribution costs more to automate than it takes to pay your wage, you will be safe from automation (at least until automation drives down the costs of further automation sufficiently to resolve this case).
If your wages are on par with, or greater (amortized over time) than the costs of replacing you with automation, your job is at high risk of being eliminated to automation as a cost saving measure.
Combined, the only "safe" class of workers are those in a situation where automation is, for some reason other than cost, unable to replace them, which is a category that gets eroded quickly due to increasingly capable robot and software designs.
Human society NEEDS to be ready for the inevitable reality where NOBODY works, and the only people who "Make money", are those who OWN robots, or have a share in companies, and milk their investments.
Money ceases to be an essential functional commodity in such a circumstance, as people will invent alternative methods of exchange to obtain necessary services.
Either money has to be distributed for no labor expended by a governing body (basic income strategy), or true post-scarcity future economic models need to be created. There are no alternatives where really rich people get everything and everyone else just dies. (Sorry plutocrats, but that is how you destroy the human race, not live immortal, pampered lives.)
Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal