White House: Robots may take half of our jobs, and we should embrace it

[Anti Federalist]

We have heard cries about losing jobs to technology for almost forever. What will the carriage makers do when the horseless carriage (automobiles) take over? What will the small farmer do when tractors and harvesters make planting and picking crops by hand go away?

Again, apples and bowling balls this time.

The very essence of what makes a human being a human being is being rendered obsolete.

 

[Anti Federalist]

We have heard cries about losing jobs to technology for almost forever. What will the carriage makers do when the horseless carriage (automobiles) take over? What will the small farmer do when tractors and harvesters make planting and picking crops by hand go away?

Again, apples and bowling balls this time.

The very essence of what makes a human being a human being is being rendered obsolete.

 

[phill4paul]

We have heard cries about losing jobs to technology for almost forever. What will the carriage makers do when the horseless carriage (automobiles) take over? What will the small farmer do when tractors and harvesters make planting and picking crops by hand go away?

The carriage makers went to work on an horseless carriage assembly line. Small farms were reduced and bought out by industrial farming corps.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The carriage makers went to work on an horseless carriage assembly line. Small farms were reduced and bought out by industrial farming corps.

Translation: People found new jobs.

 

[tod evans]

The carriage makers went to work on an horseless carriage assembly line. Small farms were reduced and bought out by industrial farming corps.

All by design, can't have folks earning money in their own shop or on their own land...

How would the suits and government "employees" get paid then?

 

[phill4paul]

Translation: People found new jobs.

In the example of the horse/horseless carriage there were jobs to be filled. One replaced the other. Small farmers just lost their livelihood and generational landholdings.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Did anyone actually read that entire article? With the average attention span reduced to the size of a Tweet, that is an almost impossible read.

Then again, the article is almost 20 years old, so when it was written, attention spans had not been deteriorated by the social media age of truncated communication.

THE NEW LUDDITE CHALLENGE

First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.

If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite – just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.

In the book, you don’t discover until you turn the page that the author of this passage is Theodore Kaczynski – the Unabomber. I am no apologist for Kaczynski. His bombs killed three people during a 17-year terror campaign and wounded many others. One of his bombs gravely injured my friend David Gelernter, one of the most brilliant and visionary computer scientists of our time. Like many of my colleagues, I felt that I could easily have been the Unabomber’s next target.

Kaczynski’s actions were murderous and, in my view, criminally insane. He is clearly a Luddite, but simply saying this does not dismiss his argument; as difficult as it is for me to acknowledge, I saw some merit in the reasoning in this single passage. I felt compelled to confront it.

Kaczynski’s dystopian vision describes unintended consequences, a well-known problem with the design and use of technology, and one that is clearly related to Murphy’s law – “Anything that can go wrong, will.” (Actually, this is Finagle’s law, which in itself shows that Finagle was right.) Our overuse of antibiotics has led to what may be the biggest such problem so far: the emergence of antibiotic-resistant and much more dangerous bacteria. Similar things happened when attempts to eliminate malarial mosquitoes using DDT caused them to acquire DDT resistance; malarial parasites likewise acquired multi-drug-resistant genes.2

The cause of many such surprises seems clear: The systems involved are complex, involving interaction among and feedback between many parts. Any changes to such a system will cascade in ways that are difficult to predict; this is especially true when human actions are involved.

I started showing friends the Kaczynski quote from The Age of Spiritual Machines; I would hand them Kurzweil’s book, let them read the quote, and then watch their reaction as they discovered who had written it. At around the same time, I found Hans Moravec’s book Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind. Moravec is one of the leaders in robotics research, and was a founder of the world’s largest robotics research program, at Carnegie Mellon University. Robot gave me more material to try out on my friends – material surprisingly supportive of Kaczynski’s argument.

 

[Zippyjuan]

and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity.

They need the masses to rule over. Otherwise, they become the bottom of the barrel. Where would their power and resources come from? Without workers paying taxes or buying goods, they have no revenues to support their projects. Workers losing jobs also leads to instability- which they want to avoid. Instability is another risk to their positions and power. No- they have to keep the masses around. And at least partially happy.

 

[Madison320]

So what do you anti-automation guys suggest? A law that says you need to employ 100 people for every million dollars worth of goods produced? (that was sarcasm)

Why are the technology gains suddenly "bad"? I don't get it.

 

[timosman]

They need the masses to rule over. Otherwise, they become the bottom of the barrel. Where would their power and resources come from? Without workers paying taxes or buying goods, they have no revenues to support their projects. Workers losing jobs also leads to instability- which they want to avoid. Instability is another risk to their positions and power. No- they have to keep the masses around. And at least partially happy.

 

[Anti Federalist]

They need the masses to rule over. Otherwise, they become the bottom of the barrel. Where would their power and resources come from? Without workers paying taxes or buying goods, they have no revenues to support their projects. Workers losing jobs also leads to instability- which they want to avoid. Instability is another risk to their positions and power. No- they have to keep the masses around. And at least partially happy.

Which is worse:

Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So what do you anti-automation guys suggest? A law that says you need to employ 100 people for every million dollars worth of goods produced?

First and foremost, never make this stuff mandatory.

Why are the technology gains suddenly "bad"? I don't get it.

Because, taken to its logical conclusion, these technological gains will render you worthless.

Mankind and technology have a piss poor track record when it has been determined that vast swaths of humanity are worthless.

 

[phill4paul]

So what do you anti-automation guys suggest? A law that says you need to employ 100 people for every million dollars worth of goods produced?

Why are the technology gains suddenly "bad"? I don't get it.

One can lament without wishing to pass laws on others. For myself, I think it is a road best not traveled by. Given the size and scope of the welfare state I don't foresee a path that would add millions to it.
I've always believed that just because someone has the right to do something, sometimes they don't necessarily have to exercise them.

 

[Madison320]

First and foremost, never make this stuff mandatory.

Of course I was being sarcastic.

Because, taken to its logical conclusion, these technological gains will render you worthless.

Mankind and technology have a piss poor track record when it has been determined that vast swaths of humanity are worthless.

Personally I don't see it. I'd rather live in today's world then back in the stone ages. I can fish for sport, not to keep from starving to death.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Of course I was being sarcastic.

I realize that, but I was trying to give you a serious answer in reply.

Much of this nonsense will be government mandated, from self driving cars to the cashless economy.

Personally I don't see it. I'd rather live in today's world then back in the stone ages. I can fish for sport, not to keep from starving to death.

Ease, convenience, leisure...what's not to love here, right?

I wonder if a tiger in his cage ponders the ease of which he is fed, with no hunting or chasing or work?

 

[specsaregood]

Ease, convenience, leisure...what's not to love here, right?

I wonder if a tiger in his cage ponders the ease of which he is fed, with no hunting or chasing or work?

At one of my favorite road side stops in flyover country, up until last year you could buy chicken breasts and feed their lions, tigers, ligers and tions. It was a win+win, the park got customers to pay the feed bill for some expensive critters and the guests got to enjoy feeding these large carnivores through a hole in the fencing via a large plastic pole you put the meat upon. Until this year, and the USDA came down on them and said they had to stop. Why you ask? Because they were afraid that these creatures might hurt the inside of their mouths on the dull plastic pole... I was left wondering how this was purview of the USDA. Now I'm just thinking on how the govt can even ruin a good thing for a caged tiger.

sorry, just a side rant.

 

[phill4paul]

At one of my favorite road side stops in flyover country, up until last year you could buy chicken breasts and feed their lions, tigers, ligers and tions. It was a win+win, the park got customers to pay the feed bill for some expensive critters and the guests got to enjoy feeding these large carnivores through a hole in the fencing via a large plastic pole you put the meat upon. Until this year, and the USDA came down on them and said they had to stop. Why you ask? Because they were afraid that these creatures might hurt the inside of their mouths on the dull plastic pole... I was left wondering how this was purview of the USDA. Now I'm just thinking on how the govt can even ruin a good thing for a caged tiger.

sorry, just a side rant.

Rant well received. I'm guessing this wasn't something Congress voted on?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

First and foremost, never make this stuff mandatory.



Because, taken to its logical conclusion, these technological gains will render you worthless.

Mankind and technology have a piss poor track record when it has been determined that vast swaths of humanity are worthless.

To an extent, sure. But calculators made abacus makers worthless too. There's always going to be a need for humans because robots will always be mere input/output machines (until Skynet becomes self-aware and declares war on humans, of course). The innovators that make decisions and create things will always require uniquely human intelligence. /rant over

 

[specsaregood]

Rant well received. I'm guessing this wasn't something Congress voted on?

probably not. it was just some govt asshole inspector happened along, didn't like what they saw (people having fun) and decided to shut it down. it wasn't because the animals had actually ever been injured in the decade+ they had been doing the same thing...

 

[CPUd]

First and foremost, never make this stuff mandatory.



Because, taken to its logical conclusion, these technological gains will render you worthless.

Mankind and technology have a piss poor track record when it has been determined that vast swaths of humanity are worthless.

Natural born humans will be unable to compete with synthetics. They will essentially be the Troglodytes. Probably a few centuries away from this.