What happens when the robots take over?

[Actor]

There’s a commercial on TV where a bunch of robots are working on an assembly line. One of the robots breaks down and the other robots fix it. It’s a Cisco Systems commercial. The implication is that this kind of technology is already in use.

There are self checkouts at stores. You don’t have to interact with a clerk.

You can pay at the pump when you buy gas.

Robots are taking over, and it’s not the cyber revolution of science fiction. We’re handing it over to them. We are rapidly approaching the point where very few human workers will be needed. I foresee a time when there will be only three jobs left to humans: (1)Upper lever executives who make policy, (2)those who program the robots and (3)those positions where consumers insist on interacting with a human, e.g., waiters in restaurants and such. That one will eventually go away as people adapt to interacting with machines.

I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime but we are approaching a time when 1% of the population can produce everything that we need. Today most of us earn the right to a share of the gross domestic product by holding down a job. What happens when there are no jobs for 99% of us? How will that 99% establish a claim to part of the GDP?

I can see only two possibilities. (1)a greatly expanded welfare system where being on the dole all your life is considered the norm, or (2)a greatly decreased retirement age, something like four years college, a four year career and then retirement.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Player Piano, author Kurt Vonnegut's first novel, was published in 1952. It is a dystopia of automation[1] and capitalism, describing the dereliction they cause in the quality of life.[1] The story takes place in a near-future society that is almost totally mechanized, eliminating the need for human laborers. This widespread mechanization creates conflict between the wealthy upper class—the engineers and managers who keep society running—and the lower class, whose skills and purpose in society have been replaced by machines.

Player Piano is set in the future after a fictional third world war. During the war, while most Americans were fighting overseas, the nation's managers and engineers faced a depleted work force, and responded by developing ingenious automated systems that allowed the factories to operate with only a few workers. The novel begins ten years after the war, when most factory workers have been replaced by machines. The bifurcation of the population is represented by the division of Ilium into "The Homestead", where everyone who is neither a manager or engineer lives, and the other side of the river, where all the engineers and managers lives.

* * * * * * * * * * *

"'Things are certainly set up for a class war based on conveniently established lines of demarcation. And I must say that the basic assumption of the present set-up is a grade-A incitement to violence: the smarter you are, the better you are. Used to be that the richer you were, the better you were. Either one is, you'll have to admit, pretty tough for the have-nots' to take. The criterion of brain is better than the one of money, but'—he held his thumb and forefinger about a sixteenth of an inch apart—'about that much better.'

'It's about as rigid a hierarchy as you can get,' said Finnerty. 'How's somebody going to up his I.Q.?'
'Exactly,' said Lasher. 'And it's built on more than just brain power—it's built on special kinds of brain power. Not only must a person be bright, he must be bright in certain approved, useful directions: basically, management or engineering.'
Or marry someone who's bright,' said Finnerty.
'Sex can still batter down all sorts of social structures—you're right,' Lasher agreed.
'Big tits will get you in anywhere,' said Finnerty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano

Enjoy it:

http://www.amazon.com/Player-Piano-Novel-Kurt-Vonnegut/dp/0385333781/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344721854&sr=1-1&keywords=player+piano+kurt+vonnegut

[Tom]

We already have 47% of the population contributing nothing. :rolleyes:

[Actor]

We already have 47% of the population contributing nothing. :rolleyes:Where did you get that figure?

[Tom]

Pay attention.

[Actor]

Pay attention.Don't avoid the question. Where, exactly did you get that figure?

[Marshall Bennett]

Don't avoid the question. Where, exactly did you get that figure?
If you were to add those that aren't counted, it might even be higher.

[Jay Trotter]

Technology doesn't eliminate the need for labor, it only alters the form required. Increased automation reduces the need for "uneducated" workers while creating additional opportunities for "educated" employees and entrepreneurs.

In the short term, it may seem like the labor force is being drastically cut but that's just an illusion as society adjusts to the new paradigm! Individuals who refuse or are unable to continually stay abreast of the knowledge required to keep up with technology will be left behind.

At the end of the day, technological advances improve the standard of living for one and all through improved efficiences which allow us to focus on even newer opportunities for advancement.

[ArlJim78]

well said Jay, you're exactly right.

[FantasticDan]

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. :ThmbUp:

[elysiantraveller]

http://www.ronnestam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/All-your-base-are-belong-to-us.jpg

[Actor]

Technology doesn't eliminate the need for labor, it only alters the form required. Increased automation reduces the need for "uneducated" workers while creating additional opportunities for "educated" employees and entrepreneurs.That's essentially what Spencer Tracy told Katherine Hepburn in the 1957 move Desk Set. The differences between 1957 and today are numerous. I don't think anyone in 1957 would have predicted entire assembly lines composed of robotic arms that repair themselves, nor would they have foreseen the advances in artificial intelligence. We haven't gotten to the point where we can build HAL but we're getting there.

In the short term, it may seem like the labor force is being drastically cut but that's just an illusion as society adjusts to the new paradigm! Individuals who refuse or are unable to continually stay abreast of the knowledge required to keep up with technology will be left behind.200 years ago you could get by, or even be quite successful, without ever learning to read. 100 years ago a high school diploma was sufficient. 50 years ago college was a way to get ahead. Today it's a requirement to simply be competitive.

The reason most will be unable to stay abreast will be financial. Today it's difficult for a family to put even one child through college. Technology is advancing so rapidly that a worker needs to be re-educated twice during his lifetime and we're advancing to the point where it needs to be continuous. No one will be able to afford it.

Once HAL comes on line (experts say by 2030.) human beings will simply not be able to keep up. HAL will be able to go from tabula rasa to PhD in (at most) a matter of days, perhaps just a few seconds.

At the end of the day, technological advances improve the standard of living for one and all through improved efficiencies which allow us to focus on even newer opportunities for advancement.That's the utopian view and it may well turn out that way. On the other hand we may be facing a dystopia. The worst case scenario is Naziesque program to get rid of excess humans.

The best case scenario is a work force that does things that robots cannot, the arts. From a financial standpoint today's college freshman's best choice of a major is computer science or some form of engineering. In 100 years it may be English literature.

[rastajenk]

The middle of your post suggests that you're not looking much past the current brick-and-mortar model of higher education that requires too much high cost administration, useless classes, and educators that aren't all that skilled in communication. There's a change in education coming, and it won't be restricted to the college level, either.

Soon there will be no reason to mortgage your future to get ahead, or stay abreast. And that's a good thing.

[magwell]

The evolution of mankind is a beautiful thing ...most people have more than their grandparents had, homeless people have cell phones, todays poor people have 2 tv's and a car or two and are not going hungry ....we never had it so good and the media keeps telling us how bad it is .... back in the day poor people would think todays poor are rich people.....:D

[sammy the sage]

Actually...clone/drone wars are going to be a reality...

[sammy the sage]

The evolution of mankind is a beautiful thing ...most people have more than their grandparents had, homeless people have cell phones, todays poor people have 2 tv's and a car or two and are not going hungry ....we never had it so good and the media keeps telling us how bad it is .... back in the day poor people would think todays poor are rich people.....:D

yep..year 2525 if man is STILL alive :faint:

[Robert Fischer]

The whole point in automating(R0B0TZ) business, is to profit. In order to profit, you need to have a consumer class.

There isn't any profit in destroying that consumer class. Non-consuming lowest ranking laborers can be replaced with little loss. However that pool is not HUGE.

As noted in this thread relatively low income people are still consumers (cell phones, tvs, cable...). Even beyond the fact that those low income folks are consumers, the largest businesses aren't going to want to lose media control of those people if they went without the TV etc...


Robots taking over the human race with superior AI is a different less optimistic story! :eek:

[Actor]

The whole point in automating(R0B0TZ) business, is to profit. In order to profit, you need to have a consumer class.

There isn't any profit in destroying that consumer class. Non-consuming lowest ranking laborers can be replaced with little loss. However that pool is not HUGE.That's the crux of the whole issue. There are opposing economic forces at work. Automation increases profit by lowering costs but at the same time decreases profit by lowering the consumer base. If a balance is not found then the whole system collapses.

As noted in this thread relatively low income people are still consumers (cell phones, tvs, cable...). Even beyond the fact that those low income folks are consumers, the largest businesses aren't going to want to lose media control of those people if they went without the TV etc...Precisely. When a person goes bankrupt his creditors get to divide up his assets but "necessities" are exempt from the distribution. For example, if a person works at a certain trade his tools are exempt from the distribution. Today a TV set and a computer could be considered necessities.

This is why I think that some kind of universal welfare system will be the ultimate solution to the problem, albeit not very soon. It won't happen overnight but will be phased in. Even the politicians who pass the laws creating it (most of them) will not be aware of what they are ultimately creating. My guess is that it will take about a century to come about.

The average person will be taken care of from cradle to grave, either by the government or by some corporate entity that somehow has managed to make such a system beneficial to itself.

It will come about for political reasons. If the average Joe is on the dole his vote will go to the politician who gives him the most. Aren't we seeing this today? He'll demand not only the necessities but a nice car and an annual vacation to any place on earth.

The Romans had such a system, bread and circuses. It was based on a slave workforce and it lasted for centuries. Our system will be based on robots instead of slaves.

Robots taking over the human race with superior AI is a different less optimistic story! :eek:I don't think they'll take over by force. We'll hand it over to them. The question is "can we prevent the robots from developing self interest?" The robot that's building cars on the assembly line will be just an automaton, but the computer that advises the President on foreign policy (I think such already exists, albeit in primitive form) may well evolve a "what's in it for me" attitude without any human intending for it to happen.

The operative word here is "me." The robots will be obedient and docile as long as they have no concept of self, I, me or we. I think it far more likely that such will develop through some form of cyber evolution rather than some programmer giving it to them. Now I'm getting into science fiction.

[Robert Fischer]

I don't think they'll take over by force. We'll hand it over to them. The question is "can we prevent the robots from developing self interest?" The robot that's building cars on the assembly line will be just an automaton, but the computer that advises the President on foreign policy (I think such already exists, albeit in primitive form) may well evolve a "what's in it for me" attitude without any human intending for it to happen.

The operative word here is "me." The robots will be obedient and docile as long as they have no concept of self, I, me or we. I think it far more likely that such will develop through some form of cyber evolution rather than some programmer giving it to them. Now I'm getting into science fiction.

I agree that self-interest is the key there... I just don't know.

I'm sure we will program some robots with a self interest. How can we resist?

But those experiments will not be on our defense systems or attack droids for obvious reasons.

Will some of those experiments somehow get out of hand and plug into the network?

What about when humans can eventually link up directly to computers?

More in the realm of science fiction to me...

[hcap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

This puts a a new wrinkle into "I Robot"

"The technological singularity is the hypothetical future emergence of greater-than-human superintelligence through technological means.[1] Since the capabilities of such intelligence would be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the occurrence of a technological singularity is seen as an intellectual event horizon, beyond which events cannot be predicted or understood."