Robot apocalypse ..The war has started

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Hmm.

The British Retail Consortium reckons that something that will cost retailers more money will cost a gazillion jobs. Why am I not surprised?

Their excuse for change may be cynical I agree.

But the mechanism for change will be technology.

People adopt too narrow a definition of robots anyway. "Robots" will be answering mundane customer queries over the phone in a short period of time. They won't look like robots, but they still meet the definition of an automaton.

If I were to wager, I'd suggest 1m fewer jobs was the better bet than 1m more jobs in the sector in a decade's time.

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

Yup. As I said, humans are so much easier to program. Anyone can do it; you don't need to hire some techie to do it.
...

At a place I worked at we replaced humans with a robot for a particular function because the humans got bored and would make mistakes with a very expensive component!

It was down to guaranteed quality, not ease of programming, or flexibility.

On the other side of course, Bentley have gone back to using a human to stitch their leather steering wheels together. He gives better results than the automation which was trialled.

Motto of this story? Like Humans -> Buy Bentleys!! (err...)

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

maybe, because some economists take the view that an increase in tax on a product, tends to reduce the demand?

If you put a minimum price on something then it may or may not reduce demand depending on the clearing price for that thing.

There's plenty of evidence so far that the minimum wage in the UK has been low enough not to dent demand for labour except perhaps among the young.

Time will tell whether this increase will reduce demand.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Their excuse for change may be cynical I agree.

But the mechanism for change will be technology.

People adopt too narrow a definition of robots anyway. "Robots" will be answering mundane customer queries over the phone in a short period of time. They won't look like robots, but they still meet the definition of an automaton.

If I were to wager, I'd suggest 1m fewer jobs was the better bet than 1m more jobs in the sector in a decade's time.

They already do for Foxtel in Aus (and I would guess Sky in the UK). They take the initial basic details in a 'conversational' manner.

I agree about the definition of Robot. Those self-serve tills are effectively crap robots IMHO, certainly they are Zombie Robots.

padington

Generali wrote: »

Our bearded hero is our first champion of the Resistance.

It is going to be interesting to see what happens. Personally, I am optimistic although that is probably a reflection of my temperament as much as anything else.

Our experience of the past is that people displaced by technology find other jobs in the same industry or elsewhere. Look at US agricultural employment and output for example:



If you'd been in a policy meeting in 1930 and said that employment in agriculture would drop by over 90% then people would have been wondering what no earth they were going to do. I'm yet to see demonstrations calling for sharecropping to be brought back by displaced farm workers.

That may be true but for the generation concerned, the new technology tends to be devastating, unless you live in a large vibrant city.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

They already do for Foxtel in Aus (and I would guess Sky in the UK). They take the initial basic details in a 'conversational' manner.

I agree about the definition of Robot. Those self-serve tills are effectively crap robots IMHO, certainly they are Zombie Robots.

I'm familiar with the workings of conventional robots and automation. It was my degree subject.

But I really do struggle with the idea of single function nanobots, where millions could be housed in small containers. It's really mind blowing; there are some immensely clever people doing the research.

Could we see jobs advertised for "drug programmers"? People who program the exact cocktail of drugs and nanobots for your specific condition?

How would these jobs be seen by the traditional medical fraternity? Would they see them as needing doctor qualifications? Maybe. Perhaps the UK is not an ideal proving ground.

kabayiri

padington wrote: »

That may be true but for the generation concerned, the new technology tends to be devastating, unless you live in a large vibrant city.

Interesting, would you have a city in mind?

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm familiar with the workings of conventional robots and automation. It was my degree subject.

But I really do struggle with the idea of single function nanobots, where millions could be housed in small containers. It's really mind blowing; there are some immensely clever people doing the research.

Could we see jobs advertised for "drug programmers"? People who program the exact cocktail of drugs and nanobots for your specific condition?

How would these jobs be seen by the traditional medical fraternity? Would they see them as needing doctor qualifications? Maybe. Perhaps the UK is not an ideal proving ground.

When I was being treated for cancer I ended up reading quite a lot of stuff about it and the point that I kept coming back to is that cancers are put into groups but the reality is that most are individual in a way that bacterial and viral infections are not.

People, AIUI, are working on ways to treat your cancer rather than cancer. Presumably, nano bots and so on would help in that fight.

mwpt

I'm not sure if anyone reads Sci-Fi here, in particular Iain. M. Banks. (not Iain Banks who is the same chap but the non Sci-Fi version). Sadly he is deceased now.

_The Culture_ novels are very good and offer a view into what a potential post scarcity culture might look like. The enjoyable thing is that Banks is dark. The plots are almost always based around the still human elements that abide in a post scarcity world. Revenge, war, cruelty, etc. I highly recommend them even if you're not into Sci-Fi. If Sci-Fi puts you off, one way to look at it is an exploration of society, progress and the interplay of human "flaws" in this society. The Sci-Fi is just there to set the scene. You also have the angle of a superior tech/advanced culture interacting with other cultures (as happens now).

Anyway, in _The Culture_ exist these machines called Minds. They are godlike-intelligences which pretty much run the society. People lack for nothing because energy is all but free and unlimited, anything can be manufactured and everyone is kept safe. The citizens invent their own ways to pass through life, including throw-backs to earlier unsafe times, sky-diving-on-steroids (of sorts) etc.

I have a particular interest in AI, it was central to my masters (cluster detection in extremely large datasets). People have been trying to predict true AI for years, so I'm hesitant to give any hard prediction except that I think anyone who bets against AI will be very very wrong. Progress is now being made swiftly and we have large companies throwing their weight behind AI research as well as open source sharing and community interest ramping up. Like most technologies, the small breaks count, and people stand on the shoulders of previous. We're getting steady advances interspersed with significant jumps.

My upper limit for true AI is 50 years from now, but probably a fair amount less. Maybe 20-30 years. And I think we'll get there by evolving the AI rather than designing. We're smart but evolution is persistent.

Another parallel bet is human brain interaction with tech and super-intelligence through that path, rather than non biological. That would possibly solve the problems with knowing what a super-intelligence would want.

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

...
I have a particular interest in AI, it was central to my masters (cluster detection in extremely large datasets). People have been trying to predict true AI for years, so I'm hesitant to give any hard prediction except that I think anyone who bets against AI will be very very wrong. Progress is now being made swiftly and we have large companies throwing their weight behind AI research as well as open source sharing and community interest ramping up. Like most technologies, the small breaks count, and people stand on the shoulders of previous. We're getting steady advances interspersed with significant jumps.
...

Lofti heights eh?

(Apologies to Mr Zadeh for a really carp pun).

I lost faith a bit in AI, I confess. There wasn't a shortage of self promotion, but a lack of meeting expectations. I introduced the first expert system on to the manufacturing shop floor of a company, and the boss there was disappointed that it didn't "teach itself to solve new problems". No pleasing some people...