Humans Need Not Apply

Mazille · #1 by **Mazille** » Aug 13, 2014 2:44 pm

CGP Grey, a very clever motherfucker, holds forth about automation and it's possible impact on human society.
I wasn't sure where to put this, but I guess here will do.

Me, I look forward to that future, provided we manage not to blow ourselves up in the process of getting there.

Thomas Eshuis · #2 by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 13, 2014 5:20 pm

NVm, Mazille beat me to it.

Agi Hammerthief · #3 by **Agi Hammerthief** » Aug 16, 2014 10:47 am

and then Butlers Jihad happened.

lpetrich · #4 by **lpetrich** » Aug 17, 2014 12:03 am

I like that video, another good one from CGP Grey.

I like how he noted what happened to horses. In the US, the number of horses peaked around 1915, and then declined due to the increasing popularity of alternatives powered by internal combustion engines.

This research on US horse history states around 1920, but that count includes mules, which peaked a bit later than horses.

He also has a very good point about what there would be for people to do if robots and computers took over all the more routine sorts of work. Artistic creativity is rather difficult to computerize, but it's rather difficult for a large fraction of the population to earn a living off of it, since the ability to do so depends on popularity.

Here is some other research that points in that direction.

Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to Computerization | MIT Technology Review
The authors did some subjective estimates and compared them to skills necessary for those jobs. Jobs requiring perception and manipulation were somewhat vulnerable, but jobs requiring creative intelligence and social intelligence are nearly invulnerable.

Moderately good AI: transport, logistics, production labor, administrative support, services, sales, construction.
Very good AI: management, science, engineering, the arts.

How Technology Is Destroying Jobs | MIT Technology Review

Brynjolfsson, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and his collaborator and coauthor Andrew McAfee have been arguing for the last year and a half that impressive advances in computer technology—from improved industrial robotics to automated translation services—are largely behind the sluggish employment growth of the last 10 to 15 years. Even more ominous for workers, the MIT academics foresee dismal prospects for many types of jobs as these powerful new technologies are increasingly adopted not only in manufacturing, clerical, and retail work but in professions such as law, financial services, education, and medicine.

That robots, automation, and software can replace people might seem obvious to anyone who’s worked in automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. But Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s claim is more troubling and controversial. They believe that rapid technological change has been destroying jobs faster than it is creating them, contributing to the stagnation of median income and the growth of inequality in the United States. And, they suspect, something similar is happening in other technologically advanced countries.

jaydot · #5 by **jaydot** » Sep 01, 2014 4:29 am

let the machines have it. i'm all for humans going extinct.

Nicko · #6 by **Nicko** » Sep 01, 2014 4:31 am

Agi Hammerthief wrote::popcorn:

and then Butlers Jihad happened.

Don't you mean the Butlerian Jihad?

Agi Hammerthief · #7 by **Agi Hammerthief** » Sep 01, 2014 6:48 am

yeah, was too lazy to edit

tuco · #8 by **tuco** » Sep 01, 2014 7:22 am

Registered nurses? Call me skeptical.

However, lets say a robot can do my job. While I do nothing *cough* robot does my job and I collect the paycheck. Now the argument goes: No, you do not get paid (for your robot), you get replaced by robot. OK so where the money went? To the business owner. OK lets tax the business owner dunno 99% and let me live on benefits. Its not like my job is not done.

lpetrich · #9 by **lpetrich** » Sep 01, 2014 4:49 pm

I think that that business owner would feel very exploited and oppressed by that. Exploited and oppressed by having to support failures and losers who don't have the decency to build their own business empires, robots and all.

So it's a serious problem.

Thomas Eshuis · **#10** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Sep 01, 2014 5:04 pm

tuco wrote:Registered nurses? Call me skeptical.

However, lets say a robot can do my job. While I do nothing *cough* robot does my job and I collect the paycheck. Now the argument goes: No, you do not get paid (for your robot), you get replaced by robot. OK so where the money went? To the business owner. OK lets tax the business owner dunno 99% and let me live on benefits. Its not like my job is not done.

No, it's that you're not doing it and hence deserve no financial rewards.

laklak · **#11** by **laklak** » Sep 01, 2014 5:24 pm

You have to buy your robot and send it out to work for you. You can get government sponsored robot loans, which you have to pay back at high interest and can't discharge through bankruptcy.

minininja · **#12** by **minininja** » Sep 01, 2014 5:34 pm

lpetrich wrote:I think that that business owner would feel very exploited and oppressed by that. Exploited and oppressed by having to support failures and losers who don't have the decency to build their own business empires, robots and all.

So it's a serious problem.

But, as the economy gets more and more unbalanced, you ultimately have to question whether the concept of ownership as a reason to be deserving of further wealth continues to be valid.

SafeAsMilk · **#13** by **SafeAsMilk** » Sep 01, 2014 5:56 pm

I like the Judge Dredd model, where most humans just have what's essentially an allowance, and lots of free time on their hands because machines produce everything. Of course there's tons of crime in that world, but nothing's perfect...

Keep It Real · **#14** by **Keep It Real** » Sep 01, 2014 6:02 pm

I'm so curious to see how things work out. 33 now...if I look after myself I might see some of it...not enough though. We have to see, we have to know.

Keep It Real · **#15** by **Keep It Real** » Sep 01, 2014 6:31 pm

I must say I was unimpressed by the composing bot. No production techniques, no lyrics, just a piano patch. Still a long way to go.

SafeAsMilk · **#16** by **SafeAsMilk** » Sep 01, 2014 6:51 pm

The point of it wasn't production techniques, lyrics, etc. The point was the composition: that a computer composed that music, and if it didn't tell you a computer did it you'd assume it was from a human. You wouldn't complain that a Chopin piano sonata didn't have vocals or studio tricks, would you? No, of course not.

Keep It Real · **#17** by **Keep It Real** » Sep 01, 2014 7:03 pm

Well, they said people couldn't tell the difference between the bot's track and human composers but I'm guessing they cherry picked the human composers who closely resembled the bot's style. I'd like to hear the whole thing I guess but still an abstract bashy piano composition with no discernible melodic themes is not that impressive as far as music go's. If you think it was as good as Chopin then that's up to you. Even then it's only piano music.

tuco · **#18** by **tuco** » Sep 01, 2014 7:17 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
tuco wrote:Registered nurses? Call me skeptical.

However, lets say a robot can do my job. While I do nothing *cough* robot does my job and I collect the paycheck. Now the argument goes: No, you do not get paid (for your robot), you get replaced by robot. OK so where the money went? To the business owner. OK lets tax the business owner dunno 99% and let me live on benefits. Its not like my job is not done.

No, it's that you're not doing it and hence deserve no financial rewards.

Deserve? I do not need to deserve anything. I just need to be in majority.

lpetrich wrote:I think that that business owner would feel very exploited and oppressed by that. Exploited and oppressed by having to support failures and losers who don't have the decency to build their own business empires, robots and all.

So it's a serious problem.

I do not think it is. First, business owners need consumers who pay/have income and second, instead of earning 1% which still would amount for substantially higher income than benefits, s/he could be on benefits too. I mean with such automation business owner could probably be replaced with robots also.

Of course, I cannot be proven wrong so ..

SafeAsMilk · **#19** by **SafeAsMilk** » Sep 01, 2014 7:42 pm

Keep It Real wrote:Well, they said people couldn't tell the difference between the bot's track and human composers but I'm guessing they cherry picked the human composers who closely resembled the bot's style.

Even if they did, so what? It doesn't change the fact that people apparently couldn't tell the difference. It also doesn't change the fact that if he hadn't pointed out in the vid that the music was made by a robot, you never would have known. That's the point.

I'd like to hear the whole thing I guess but still an abstract bashy piano composition with no discernible melodic themes is not that impressive as far as music go's.

It wasn't trying to impress you with melodic themes or whatever other arbitrary elements you deem necessary to make you like it. Liking it is completely irrelevant. The point was, once again, that it was composed by a machine and you, along with people who were likely prepared to pick out a machine's composition, couldn't tell.

If you think it was as good as Chopin then that's up to you.

I said nothing of the sort. I am saying that you seem to be missing the point by miles, repeatedly, even when stated in the simplest terms.

Even then it's only piano music.

This has got to be one of the most ignorant statements regarding music that I've ever seen on this forum. Can we get a dunsapy over here?

Agi Hammerthief · **#20** by **Agi Hammerthief** » Sep 01, 2014 7:48 pm

it's not true music

/sarcasm

Humans Need Not Apply

Humans Need Not Apply

"Humans need not apply"

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Re: Humans Need Not Apply

Who is online