Automation and future human occupations

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think we'll get a Brave New World precisely for the reasons Huxley gives in the book. The pursuit of nothing but pleasure is empty. We need a higher meaning to our lives. Which, I suspect, is the real reason why religion persists today, in spite of it being... well... wrong.

Nah... the robot run future is going to get weird.

Do you think organized religion can resurge due to automation?

I think it's already happening. I think ISIS and whatever the abomination of a religion pushed Trump to power is the result of this. White collar jobs being increasingly automated has been going on since the 80'ies.

I don't want to be alarmist. I'm sure it'll sort itself out in the end. But all this is new(-ish), and whenever there's a new paradigm people get confused with what to do with their new toys

 

[rousseau]

There are certain types of work that can't be automated, regardless of technology, so what we're likely to see is that professions which are outside the scope of automation will remain, and routine, non-cognitive jobs will soon disappear, with more cognitive jobs getting a chunk bitten out of them down the road.

What I don't think, though, is that the same proportion of populations are going to be working in the future as they are now. The work-week will likely be shortened again, more people will be on welfare, and in the long-run a greater and greater proportion of us just won't work.

 

[DolphinDynasty]

There are certain types of work that can't be automated, regardless of technology, so what we're likely to see is that professions which are outside the scope of automation will remain, and routine, non-cognitive jobs will soon disappear, with more cognitive jobs getting a chunk bitten out of them down the road.

What I don't think, though, is that the same proportion of populations are going to be working in the future as they are now. The work-week will likely be shortened again, more people will be on welfare, and in the long-run a greater and greater proportion of us just won't work.

So with this question, I can see the fear of those who want less tech or consider it an evil thing. At the same time, I love the advancements, because Theresa doctor in Australia who helps burn victims with stem cell advancements that limits the horror of the effects of 3rd or 4th degree burns, because of tech. I don't know, really, what the next step is, but if it involves more of the advancement like that, I can't say I'd be against it, but I it involves taking people from work they did for decades, all because a computer makes it faster, but outsizes the human element /. . .. what a quandry this is.

 

[LordKiran]

In a broader way, Brave new World is about a society that looks Utopian on the outside but beneath the surface is a nihilistic nightmare where people exist for no greater purpose than for that of their assigned role and to satisfy their base wants. I wasn't touching on the technicals for how Huxley's Brave New World came to be because they're not what I'm driving at. The people in BNW aren't just cogs mindlessly plodding away at their assigned role, they're also comparable to animals in a way. They have no desire to affirm themselves as individuals or self-actualize through the formation of a greater purpose. They just thoughtlessly exist from moment to moment, drowning themselves in drugs and sex and never bothering to ask for something beyond that. THAT is the future that awaits us as I see it.

The Savage's speech to the World Controller argues for the greater purpose, but he doesn't give any reason why striving for a greater purpose would be better for the people than their current predestined existence. The World Controller argues that the world is stable and people are happy. The society of Brave New World is actually a desirable existence for many people; it is only a minority, represented Bernard, Heimholtz. the Savage and Mond, who suffer existential angst and aren't satisfied with sex, drugs and sports.

The key difference between BNW and reality is that the distracted majority will not live happily ever after in reality. Huxley imagined a world were everyone had an economic role, but in the real world automation will take the place of most of Huxley's Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons and some of the Alphas and Betas. Society simply won't donate them the means to permanently anaesthetise themselves will sports, sex and drugs.

I agree with DBT's prediction that there will be period of upheaval, represented with the impoverishment of the formerly-working class. When this happened during the industrial revolution it led to the rise of the socialist movement to improve working conditions. Next time around, it won't be for working conditions; it will be for living conditions.

And who knows--perhaps we will have savage reservations where people can work for a living.

But what do you imagine people doing with themselves in a world that provides them everything they could want for? I realize this maybe doesn't apply to everyone at least initially. But when the world around you can do everything for you better than you can do it for yourself, what's left but to sit around and drink yourself to death?

 

[bilby]

There are certain types of work that can't be automated, regardless of technology, so what we're likely to see is that professions which are outside the scope of automation will remain, and routine, non-cognitive jobs will soon disappear, with more cognitive jobs getting a chunk bitten out of them down the road.

What I don't think, though, is that the same proportion of populations are going to be working in the future as they are now. The work-week will likely be shortened again, more people will be on welfare, and in the long-run a greater and greater proportion of us just won't work.

I disagree with your opening premise.

I can't think of a single example of a type of work that can't be automated.

Can you give an example of a job you believe can never be automated?

 

[Juma]

There are certain types of work that can't be automated, regardless of technology, so what we're likely to see is that professions which are outside the scope of automation will remain, and routine, non-cognitive jobs will soon disappear, with more cognitive jobs getting a chunk bitten out of them down the road.

What I don't think, though, is that the same proportion of populations are going to be working in the future as they are now. The work-week will likely be shortened again, more people will be on welfare, and in the long-run a greater and greater proportion of us just won't work.

I disagree with your opening premise.

I can't think of a single example of a type of work that can't be automated.

Can you give an example of a job you believe can never be automated?

Suicide supportline?

 

[J842P]

I disagree with your opening premise.

I can't think of a single example of a type of work that can't be automated.

Can you give an example of a job you believe can never be automated?

Suicide supportline?

Rapid advances are being made for such a thing. Probably not "soon", but probably not "never" either.

 

[bigfield]

I disagree with your opening premise.

I can't think of a single example of a type of work that can't be automated.

Can you give an example of a job you believe can never be automated?

Suicide supportline?

An AI could do that job, and every other counselling job as well. I don't see what technical problem prevents that. An AI could do a better job of gauging a subject's needs and providing a helpful response: it would have access to far more information; it would always provide its best quality of service; it could emulate the most approachable and empathetic people you could ever hope to have staffing the lines.

 

[Juma]

Suicide supportline?

An AI could do that job, and every other counselling job as well. I don't see what technical problem prevents that. An AI could do a better job of gauging a subject's needs and providing a helpful response: it would have access to far more information; it would always provide its best quality of service; it could emulate the most approachable and empathetic people you could ever hope to have staffing the lines.

that is not about techical problems, its about knowing that you speak to a fellow human. even a total silent listening human works.

 

[barbos]

In that vein, we'd probably see more people pursue self-actualisation rather than shaping their lives around an economically-necessary profession. Intellectual types will pursue philosophy while artistically-inclined people will pursue the arts, but other types of people will pursue things like athletics, sports and Guinness world records.

If I didn't need to spend so much time doing paying work, I'd probably dedicate myself to hobby robotics.

Wait, a minute. We're already there. The number of people doing work necessary for our sustenance is actually a minority Perhaps 5% are doing critical work for our survival. We could stretch it to 10% if we include stuff like police and functions designed to protect us from our own idiocy.

The rest is bullshit jobs. Very few people actually need to work today. And that number is falling fast. We've created an economic system which forces us to come up with ways with which to generate income. Which is heritage from the bad old days when industrialisation was just starting out. And now we've just kept it because... well... it works. Why fix something that ain't broke.

But I think it will break. When the robot revolution picks up and we fail in coming up with enough bullshit services to employ the swelling (not-)working class, then the current system will be in trouble. I think we're very very close to the breaking point.
....

I remember time when I had to buy car insurance. I would buy it from local nearby companies and I would usually go to the office in person, and I have always felt I was the only customer there for the whole day, yet there were a woman sitting there doing something clearly meaningless.

The whole thing will break within next 10-20 years. High paying jobs like doctors will be gone. Even surgeons will be robots I think. People will be working just for the fun.

 

[barbos]

I imagine a need for incentives to attend courses, higher education programs, time management, developing interests and so on as a set of (arbitrary) conditions for receiving a social wage. Perhaps with bonus payments for courses attended, sports, hobbies or pastimes developed, as a means of keeping the idle masses out of mischief.

How aren't you basically describing our current world?

It's different from the current world in that you will be paid to attend courses, not pay for it.

 

[rousseau]

There are certain types of work that can't be automated, regardless of technology, so what we're likely to see is that professions which are outside the scope of automation will remain, and routine, non-cognitive jobs will soon disappear, with more cognitive jobs getting a chunk bitten out of them down the road.

What I don't think, though, is that the same proportion of populations are going to be working in the future as they are now. The work-week will likely be shortened again, more people will be on welfare, and in the long-run a greater and greater proportion of us just won't work.

I disagree with your opening premise.

I can't think of a single example of a type of work that can't be automated.

Can you give an example of a job you believe can never be automated?

Early Childhood Education.. at least I hope that's never automated.

Not so much *can't*, but rather *shouldn't* be automated.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The whole thing will break within next 10-20 years. High paying jobs like doctors will be gone. Even surgeons will be robots I think. People will be working just for the fun.

When I got my eyes fixed, my surgeon was a robot

- - - Updated - - -

How aren't you basically describing our current world?

It's different from the current world in that you will be paid to attend courses, not pay for it.

Aha. Well, in Sweden people are paid to attend courses.

 

[bilby]

I disagree with your opening premise.

I can't think of a single example of a type of work that can't be automated.

Can you give an example of a job you believe can never be automated?

Early Childhood Education.. at least I hope that's never automated.

Not so much *can't*, but rather *shouldn't* be automated.

Every time anything has been automated there have been people who claim that it shouldn't.

I'm not sure that there are many jobs that shouldn't be automated. I am struggling to come up with any that can't.

The idea of children being educated by machine may be horrifying to us today, but that's not in itself a sufficient reason to say it won't or shouldn't happen. The idea that women might be allowed to vote was looked upon with horror a century or so ago. The idea that men might marry other men still is looked on that way by some people today. Times change, and today's unthinkably ghastly can be tomorrow's normal and unremarkable.

The sound of people claiming tha this task or that could never be automated is usually drowned out by the sound of a machine doing that task. It's a residue of substance dualism - people desperately want there to be something unique about humans, but ultimately we are just very complex and generalised machines. The ability to get a more robust, efficient, and accurate result from a specialised machine for ANY task that humans can do should be possible - unless the task requires a 'soul'. I don't think that such a thing exists as a task that requires a 'soul'.

 

[rousseau]

Early Childhood Education.. at least I hope that's never automated.

Not so much *can't*, but rather *shouldn't* be automated.

Every time anything has been automated there have been people who claim that it shouldn't.

I'm not sure that there are many jobs that shouldn't be automated. I am struggling to come up with any that can't.

The idea of children being educated by machine may be horrifying to us today, but that's not in itself a sufficient reason to say it won't or shouldn't happen. The idea that women might be allowed to vote was looked upon with horror a century or so ago. The idea that men might marry other men still is looked on that way by some people today. Times change, and today's unthinkably ghastly can be tomorrow's normal and unremarkable.

The sound of people claiming tha this task or that could never be automated is usually drowned out by the sound of a machine doing that task. It's a residue of substance dualism - people desperately want there to be something unique about humans, but ultimately we are just very complex and generalised machines. The ability to get a more robust, efficient, and accurate result from a specialised machine for ANY task that humans can do should be possible - unless the task requires a 'soul'. I don't think that such a thing exists as a task that requires a 'soul'.

Fair enough.

I'd argue that there's a stark difference between someone arguing that hand-weaving shouldn't be automated, versus nurturing a child. I'm not going to say that robots will never be able to do the job effectively, but I'd like to think that there's something fundamentally important about humans, especially young children, being taken care of by other humans.

I don't disagree with anything that you're saying, although the idea of us creating machines that can produce 'positive psychological outcomes' in how they interact with people is indeed horrifying to me, and I hope it collectively stays that way.

 

[bilby]

Every time anything has been automated there have been people who claim that it shouldn't.

I'm not sure that there are many jobs that shouldn't be automated. I am struggling to come up with any that can't.

The idea of children being educated by machine may be horrifying to us today, but that's not in itself a sufficient reason to say it won't or shouldn't happen. The idea that women might be allowed to vote was looked upon with horror a century or so ago. The idea that men might marry other men still is looked on that way by some people today. Times change, and today's unthinkably ghastly can be tomorrow's normal and unremarkable.

The sound of people claiming tha this task or that could never be automated is usually drowned out by the sound of a machine doing that task. It's a residue of substance dualism - people desperately want there to be something unique about humans, but ultimately we are just very complex and generalised machines. The ability to get a more robust, efficient, and accurate result from a specialised machine for ANY task that humans can do should be possible - unless the task requires a 'soul'. I don't think that such a thing exists as a task that requires a 'soul'.

Fair enough.

I'd argue that there's a stark difference between someone arguing that hand-weaving shouldn't be automated, versus nurturing a child. I'm not going to say that robots will never be able to do the job effectively, but I'd like to think that there's something fundamentally important about humans, especially young children, being taken care of by other humans.

Well of course you do; you were raised by humans.

I don't disagree with anything that you're saying, although the idea of us creating machines that can produce 'positive psychological outcomes' in how they interact with people is indeed horrifying to me, and I hope it collectively stays that way.

Surely that's better than the sizeable minority of humans who raise children with sharply negative psychological outcomes?

 

[rousseau]

Fair enough.

I'd argue that there's a stark difference between someone arguing that hand-weaving shouldn't be automated, versus nurturing a child. I'm not going to say that robots will never be able to do the job effectively, but I'd like to think that there's something fundamentally important about humans, especially young children, being taken care of by other humans.

Well of course you do; you were raised by humans.

I don't disagree with anything that you're saying, although the idea of us creating machines that can produce 'positive psychological outcomes' in how they interact with people is indeed horrifying to me, and I hope it collectively stays that way.

Surely that's better than the sizeable minority of humans who raise children with sharply negative psychological outcomes?

Well we're talking the child-care profession, not parenting.

At some point we need a balance between 'efficiency' and 'humanity', when we totally lose our humanity in the name of efficiency, there's something lost. Take child-rearing robots to the extreme and you can see the absurdity of it. Why not just strip babies completely away from their parents and have robots raise them for their entire child-hood? If we can get the algorithm right, we're going to have a lot of productive, mentally healthy citizens.

A world where we're primarily interacting with machines is a world I don't believe in. Will that necessarily be the case anyway? It very well could be. It's just far outside my own comfort zone. So like I say, I don't disagree with you that it's a possibility, it's just not a future I hope for.

 

[bilby]

Well of course you do; you were raised by humans.

I don't disagree with anything that you're saying, although the idea of us creating machines that can produce 'positive psychological outcomes' in how they interact with people is indeed horrifying to me, and I hope it collectively stays that way.

Surely that's better than the sizeable minority of humans who raise children with sharply negative psychological outcomes?

Well we're talking the child-care profession, not parenting.

There is a considerable overlap.

At some point we need a balance between 'efficiency' and 'humanity', when we totally lose our humanity in the name of efficiency, there's something lost.

That's what people have always said whenever any new technology emerged.

Take child-rearing robots to the extreme and you can see the absurdity of it. Why not just strip babies completely away from their parents and have robots raise them for their entire child-hood?

Indeed, why not?

If we can get the algorithm right, we're going to have a lot of productive, mentally healthy citizens.

Correct.

But I sense that you don't actually believe this.

A world where we're primarily interacting with machines is a world I don't believe in.

Funny - It's the world I already inhabit.

Will that necessarily be the case anyway? It very well could be. It's just far outside my own comfort zone.

Indeed. But your life today, the stuff you are completely happy and comfortable with, and don't even notice, would be a dystopian nightmare to a person from two centuries ago.

So like I say, I don't disagree with you that it's a possibility, it's just not a future I hope for.

That's OK; You won't be expected to live in it, and your great great great grandchildren will think it completely unremarkable (unless they happen to be interested in history).

 

[bigfield]

At some point we need a balance between 'efficiency' and 'humanity', when we totally lose our humanity in the name of efficiency, there's something lost. Take child-rearing robots to the extreme and you can see the absurdity of it. Why not just strip babies completely away from their parents and have robots raise them for their entire child-hood? If we can get the algorithm right, we're going to have a lot of productive, mentally healthy citizens.

'Why not', indeed. It will probably happen with the rise of transhumanism.

The society of the future may be a place of happiness for those who live in it but horrifying to those of us living in the Anthropocene Era.

 

[bilby]

At some point we need a balance between 'efficiency' and 'humanity', when we totally lose our humanity in the name of efficiency, there's something lost. Take child-rearing robots to the extreme and you can see the absurdity of it. Why not just strip babies completely away from their parents and have robots raise them for their entire child-hood? If we can get the algorithm right, we're going to have a lot of productive, mentally healthy citizens.

'Why not', indeed. It will probably happen with the rise of transhumanism.

The society of the future may be a place of happiness for those who live in it but horrifying to those of us living in the Anthropocene Era.

It was ever thus. The paeleolithic lifestyle would make a modern human deeply miserable, if it didn't kill him in short order. But it was likely rather pleasant by the standards of those who lived it. Humans are products of the societies in which they live, and significant change is horrifying - Which is unsurprising when you consider the sheer effort we have expended to learn how to exist in the society we have, all of which would need to be discarded, and new skills, mores, and ethics learned, if we were to travel very far in time.

The past is a foreign country - and so is the future.