21st Century Technological Change

[Furrowed Brow]

We stand at the cusp of a new era of technology with robots and AI. Planes can already fly and land themselves quite safely. Trains and trams can be easily automated. Driverless trucks, busses and cars are now being tested. Whilst not quite there yet it it obvious robots will soon be ready to take over nearly every job that could be done by a human. Here are a couple of videos that give a taste of things to come. 1.Robot arms prepare meal, 2.Backflipping robot, 3.Robot surgery

The luddites feared industrialisation would destroy jobs. However the Luddites were proved wrong whilst the number of jobs lost to new machines was surpassed by new jobs created. But some commentators are warning that technology is advancing at such a rapid rate we are reaching a tipping point where jobs created will not keep up with jobs lost. Whilst technology may be the driver of change it is economics that mediates how that change is realised. And whilst things can go many ways it is the economics tempered by political backlash that will eventually decide how this period of history unfolds. Maybe we will end up with a Star Trek future but I fear we will see The Hunger Games first.

The question comes in two parts. The first is to ask how good or bad are things going to get. So are we heading towards a dystopia or utopia or somewhere in between? The second part is to ask what role does religion have to play in the kinds of social change we will likely see over the next 50 years. So what role will religion play in helping or hindering people to negotiate technological change, job loss, the redefining of our roles in the work place, and the new kinds of societies that emerge? What answers does religion offer in the face of profound economic and social change?

[bluethread]

So if AI heads towards a singularity in which every aspect of human labour is automated should we regulate against that? Seems that scenario leaves the need for human activity and the doctrine not to regulate a paradox i.e. if we don't regulate humans will be out competed, out thrived and left obsolete. For free markets to stand a chance of providing a long term solution surely the robot learning revolution needs to fall short of its promise of cancelling the need for human labour.

How can every single aspect of human life be automated? Human life requires human life. If human life is automated, it is not human life. Also, who would take it that far? This is a dystopian fantasy. Think this through. Why would productive people stop producing? Nonproductive people, well, they are engaging in self-destructive behavior anyway. The best solution is to stop subsidizing nonproductive behaviors.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

I say keep the free market but nearly every single job is replaceable by AI. Economists, Chemists, Doctors, Farmers, Industry in general. There would be no incentive to keep human labor for at least 90% of labor. Only a small sector such as athletes, creatives, programmers, researchers would be insulated.

To what end? You are presuming a perpetual motion society. In this dystopian society of yours, why would athletes, creatives, programmers, researchers be insulated? The incentive for human labor is human labor. Very few people see ALL people as a means to an end. Living a life surrounded by machines, maintaining machines, for the benefit of machines is not human life.

Who in their right mind would hire a person when an AI or Ml algorithm can do the job faster, cheaper, better, and more reliably than a human?

Someone who enjoys the company of people.

So we keep the free market for general economic practice the question then becomes what do we do with the displaced masses that can't get a job? Surely they will want to do something lest they go insane. Most people want to work they don't want to sit around taking handouts.

Then they should do it. How are machines stopping them? In these United States, food is available in a plethora of forms in close proximity to nearly all of the population. Yet, people still plant gardens. Why is that? Economy is not the exchange of currency, it is the nature of human activity. The only thing that hinders a healthy economy is a sense of privilege and governmental restrictions.

What do you envision as a solution to mass unemployment?

Get off your butt. The problem is not the lack of human activity. That will take care of itself. Those who choose to sit around will die off from inactivity. The real problem is assuring that human activity is not a threat. That requires interacting with humans. That is the real threat, we are spending more time interacting with machines and less time interacting with people. This encourages people to be narcissists and sociopaths.

[Furrowed Brow]

So if AI heads towards a singularity in which every aspect of human labour is automated should we regulate against that? Seems that scenario leaves the need for human activity and the doctrine not to regulate a paradox i.e. if we don't regulate humans will be out competed, out thrived and left obsolete. For free markets to stand a chance of providing a long term solution surely the robot learning revolution needs to fall short of its promise of cancelling the need for human labour.

How can every single aspect of human [strike]life[/strike] labour be automated?

Human labour. Does that change your reflections on this point.

Why would productive people stop producing? Nonproductive people, well, they are engaging in self-destructive behavior anyway.

Even the most productive humans will not be able to compete with AI or at least that is the threat. This future that may be a long way off but I think it it pretty clear that in the meantime AI and robots will raise productivity to a level only a very few humans are going to be able to compete with. So as a cost of production human labour will become increasingly expensive compared to the robot. And as time goes on the gap between robots and humans - we might define as adaptability and imagination - where humans presently have the edge will narrow. If this is true more and more will be left non productive unless they pick up their pace and keep ahead of the robots.

For free markets to provide sufficient opportunities for human labour the robot learning revolution must only continue at a pace humans can adapt to and new markets can absorb. But technology looks to be accelerating. Can we simply depend on all the people you may class as presently not non productive continuing to out pace the robots. If they can't is that their fault for flirting with self destructive behaviour?

The best solution is to stop subsidizing nonproductive behaviors.

Ok that is one suggestion. But to stand a chance of working what counts as productive has to be achievable and the bar not rise at such a pace increasing numbers of people can't adapt quickly enough.

[Furrowed Brow]

Ok this is topical. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42 ... hess crown

What I though was significant and a tad unnerving is not that there is a computer really good at chess but that this computer taught itself chess from scratch in a matter of a few hours.

[Furrowed Brow]

Ok this is topical.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42 ... hess crown

What I though was significant and a tad unnerving is not that there is a computer really good at chess but that this computer taught itself chess from scratch in a matter of a few hours.

[bluethread]

So if AI heads towards a singularity in which every aspect of human labour is automated should we regulate against that? Seems that scenario leaves the need for human activity and the doctrine not to regulate a paradox i.e. if we don't regulate humans will be out competed, out thrived and left obsolete. For free markets to stand a chance of providing a long term solution surely the robot learning revolution needs to fall short of its promise of cancelling the need for human labour.

How can every single aspect of human [strike]life[/strike] labour be automated?

Human labour. Does that change your reflections on this point.

Not really, you are simply looking at the production side of the economy. There also must be a consumption side. Unless people decide to let machines do everything, there will always be something for people to do for other people. Also, if machines are doing everything for everybody, where is the problem? I can think of my own reasons, but I want to know the answer from your prospective.

Why would productive people stop producing? Nonproductive people, well, they are engaging in self-destructive behavior anyway.

Even the most productive humans will not be able to compete with AI or at least that is the threat. This future that may be a long way off but I think it it pretty clear that in the meantime AI and robots will raise productivity to a level only a very few humans are going to be able to compete with. So as a cost of production human labour will become increasingly expensive compared to the robot. And as time goes on the gap between robots and humans - we might define as adaptability and imagination - where humans presently have the edge will narrow. If this is true more and more will be left non productive unless they pick up their pace and keep ahead of the robots.

Why must they compete? What is stopping them from laboring for the benefit of their health or any other reason they should choose to? That is presuming that machines are not also doing that. If that is the case, then all of mankind will become nonproductive and live happily ever after. However, I doubt that will be the case. It is more likely that productive people will resist the urge to let thee machines do everything and the non-productive will die out, because labour is necessary to maintain one's health.

For free markets to provide sufficient opportunities for human labour the robot learning revolution must only continue at a pace humans can adapt to and new markets can absorb. But technology looks to be accelerating. Can we simply depend on all the people you may class as presently not non productive continuing to out pace the robots. If they can't is that their fault for flirting with self destructive behaviour?

It is not necessary for the non-productive to out pace machines. If machines are doing everything, they can simply choose to be productive for the sake of their health.
If they do not choose to do so, then it is on them.

The best solution is to stop subsidizing nonproductive behaviors.

Ok that is one suggestion. But to stand a chance of working what counts as productive has to be achievable and the bar not rise at such a pace increasing numbers of people can't adapt quickly enough.

Question, what makes something valuable? How many runners in an eight man race are being productive? Is it just the winner?

[Furrowed Brow]

Not really, you are simply looking at the production side of the economy. There also must be a consumption side. Unless people decide let machines do everything, there will always be something for people to do for other people.

Well yes. But the question is how is that going to work out for everyone. If everyone is out running and and keeping active ...what do they do for an income? Which brings us to the consumption side of the economy. There is no consumption if there is no purchasing power. But this is the same problem of the dust belt. Move the factory abroad and the company gains an advantage, everyone moves their factories abroad and then watch the decline in wages, rise in unemployment and under employment, so people take on debt they can't afford.Eventually the economy is hollowed out. It is a well told story. That decline has not been absolute but it has been dramatic with severe social dislocation. The robot learning revolution is going to be more of the same but on steroids. So pointing to people will always find something to do is perhaps a tad rosy if what they are doing is sifting through dumpsters looking for a meal.

Also, if machines are doing everything for everybody, where is the problem? I can think of my own reasons, but I want to know the answer from your prospective.

That one day machines can do everything does not translate to they will do everything for everyone. As I see it countries like India and China re not going to benefit from the robot learning revolution in the same way Western Europe and America benefited from the industrial revolution. They are not going to need to convert a large part of their populations to production because this revolution is going to be far swifter and more profound. These economies or a large part of them will remain agrarian and poor. Already major manufacturers that have pulled in tens of thousand of worker from the countryside are talking about automating and going fully robotic. This trend will escalate. The West will see a very mild benefitted as it will be possible to move manufacturing back to the West but this will create very little employment. In the early days there may well be a hive of activity where productive humans innovate new markets and take advantage of new opportunities afforded by the revolution but even these are going to eventually lose out and find themselves overtaken by the pace of robot learning.

As an aside Google aI DeepMind just won a chess computation. No big deal you may think. But this computer taught itself to play chess from scratch without help in just a few hours and then went on to win a world class competition. That is robot learning at an enormously accelerated pace. In 18 months that kind of story is going to sound like dial up internet.

Why must they compete?

I'd say that is a problem of the free market as corporations rush to lay off workers to exploit the gains of ever lower cost of labour. We will have to compete to keep an income. We have already been through that but the decline in wages and income is going to continue. For example the next sector set to lose million of jobs will be driving jobs. But now economic classes previously immune will feel the pinch. Accountants for example are going to be a major loser. There is already a ten year plan by all the major banks to shed 70% of all banking jobs worldwide. Doctors too are going to face choices they never expected. All this is obviously unsustainable as some will literally end up living in their car and eating out of dumpsters. More will increasingly look for alternatives which may mean trying to turn a niche hobby into an income in markets too small to be an immediate target of the robot revolution It may mean joining communes, taking to the land, going off grid, going back to farming communities and so forth. Churches probably have a major role to play here. I do foresee local community economies not reliant or very much less reliant on technology a growing trend. Incomes will definitely be lower across the board but those who form self help communities may find the quality of life improves in many other ways. But for every positive story there will be a downside. Not everyone can take to the country. I'm in the UK there is not enough room and all the land is owned by major landowners. So there is going to be major negative social dislocation in many regions.

Elite classes will be become firmly entrenched as an aristocratic class that live a completely different life to the rest of us. You could say that is the way it is already, but I think the robot revolution will benefit this class more than any other as it will free them from the tyranny of having to keep workers happy. IT is this group that will have everything done by robots and will lead the rosy life you envision.

However, I doubt that will be the case. It is more likely that productive people will resist the urge to let thee machines do everything and the non-productive will die out, because labour is necessary to maintain one's health.

Productive people may not get a choice in this matter, indeed they may stay active but there will be little room to channel their energies into highly productive economic work. That role will be taken by robots. There will be room to downsize, destress and go back to simpler way of living. Plenty of work to be done in the Amish's working day.

A collapse of the working classes and the middle classes spells the end of the consumer age of desirable goods. We will no longer be buying bigger brighter and faster unless it is cheaper. We will no longer aspire to premier brands or labels. Everything will be cheap and functional.

Another negative may a decline in universities as there is less need for an educated workforce. Sure many will self educated and maybe a very few on the genius level will be picked up by academia. But the trend over the last few decades to expand university intake will be reversed.

Question, what makes something valuable? How many runners in an eight man race are being productive? Is it just the winner?

The economic answer is high demand slow supply. The robot learning revolution promises the supply side of labour will always be met. So the economic value of paid labour will trend towards zero, except in those economies that avoid the revolution. But I do not foresee a future of greater economic and political freedom as the robots take up the slack. Most of us are going to find the next few decades highly stressful and a bit of a downer.

All this is going to be completely wrong if human innovation and the creation of new markets outpaces the acceleration in robot learning. If the technology proves more of a fizz than a bang then it is likely things will carry same ol' and the gloomy picture is just another case of the Luddites.