Some things are quite interesting, and I do think will be likely to happen, but other things I think are a lot farther off or simply things that will not happen.
That said, if anyone has the time to read through his semi-lengthy article and answer my question, I"d greatly appreciate it.
Basically he claims that these robots will create a mass unemployment problem, but, unlike past advancements, there won’t be any new jobs that are created for these people to fill because those jobs will already be covered by a robot anyway. He then goes on to describe draconian measures in which to redistribute wealth so as to make it so the (claimed) 50% unemployment rate in the distant future will alleviate.
I know I"m missing some super-obvious problem with his whole argument, but I can’t quite put my paw on it. Any and all help will be greatly appreciated.
edit: Also, I think this has been discussed here before, but I can’t seem to find that topic again.
Obviously, the question is “what are people going to do with all that time?” Some will be employed entertaining, others thinking, others teaching, others training, others for R&D. Plus work was for humans not humans for work if there was unemployment amongst plenty I wouldn’t argue.
Who builds the machines? Well, OK, maybe there are machines which build other machines. Who repairs the machines? OK, maybe there are machines designed to repair certain machines. But, given that machines do not have entrepreneurial spirits, it will always be a human which develops and builds machines first; that human can later choose to invent some type of robot to mass produce his machine. And, given that machines do not have entrepreneurial spirit, the human will always have a leg up in competition, given that the human can think of new ways to provide a good or a service and make a living.
Thanks for the information; what about the people though who aren’t that highly educated though (ie: during the transition process)–since most service would be…in essence, wiped out?
still, things would still cost some money, and the argument goes “if 50% are unemployed, where do they get ANY money to pay for anything?”
I’m not trying to support their arguments, just present them so I know how to counter them.
Neal Stephenson imagined such an economy in The Diamond Age. Essentially everything is made by nanotechnological home compilers. There is no more “manufacturing” economy. What results is an economy where the only kind of valuable asset that isn’t real estate is intellectual property. Society is thus divided in those classes that create intellectual property, those classes that provide services (basically just house servants), and the class of artisans making ultra-specific luxury goods, such as furniture craftsmen and inter-actors.
I’m sure such discussions came about with the invention of the windmill, steam engine, chain production plant and countless others. There truly is an unlimited supply of jobs around. And indeed if there isn’t, well vacation time! I’ll take Balkan island in ’s The World.
As Nielsio said, there is always work to be done. And if there isn’t, think about what that means. It means precisely that everyone’s needs for material well-being are completely fulfilled. That is what we call paradise.
I would tend to agree with Nielsio; what with “the sweat of your brow”.
While I asked thie question within the context of “this will happen one day”, I really do question if AI will ever reach a level where it is capable of nearly entire independence to be able to handle various tasks.
So, you think that humans will be able to re-create the human brain and nervous system in such a way that it would give robots parity with the human spirit for entrepreneurship?
I have no doubt about that. A self-evolving AI can progress much, much faster than a human brain can. If we can develop the software that allows a semi-intelligent program to evolve and learn by itself, all we have to do is plug to the internet to provide it with the raw space to grow and all the information it’ll ever need. Within a moth of operation it would probably outstrip every human intelligence. Practically an Eagle Eye kind of scenario. Now, whether such an intelligence would be hostile or cooperating (there’s an other cool thread here about that), useful or useless, provide us with paradise on earth or extinction, and indeed participate to the division of labor, all this would depend on how would the Mises assumptions would hold true with such an AI: positive time preference, a longing for a better “life”, non-utility of “labor” and the like. If they hold, such an intelligence would just develop the same social structure as we do, act entrepreneurially and all that.
A robot economy would just mean employment for some things would go meta (i.e. workers re-trained to fix & repair robots who do the actual work, whereas others who cannot be trained, refuse to train, or are unable to fill in to become a fixer are actually unemployed in this area, & will seek employment in other areas).
The Gutenberg press didn’t completely abolish the uses of passing information before printing, just made it more niche & more useful as a backup in-case the newer technology wasn’t there. Latin is more or less a dead language, & English may be the current King (ignoring the future of Chinese currently), but Latin is still required for access to older information only written in Latin.
If you only have a hammer in your toolbox, of course a robotic economy is going to look like every other nail.
Likewise, if the power goes out, I’m S.O.L if i want to write on my computer without a backup power source, so older ways of candles, pen & paper, a typewriter, etc. become more practical to use in a given situation.
Even in Star Trek, with all their automated & advanced technology, they still needed to fix replicators when they went on the fritz; they couldn’t just replicate another replicator from a broken one, & humans still have use in knowing & provided such services.
Honestly, look at computers: yeah, they are more advanced, programming is more abstracted, but humans are still necessary to provide input, fix things , & analyze the layers when they go awry. Even if computers were to become intuitive & intelligent on level on par with ours, we would still have, as a species, thousands of more years of experience in dealing with the intuitive & abstract, compared to a few years to a few decades computers might at some point have.
This phrase comes to mind actually, that makes the future of apparent mass unemployments due to a robotic economy seem silly: “Who Repairs The Repairers? Who Fixes the Fixers? Who would work to ensure that the robots continue to work?”.
However, we currently have massive unemployment regardless, so I wouldn’t be surprised if a robotic economy under a state-society would result in further unemployment. After all, not just anybody with merit & ability can be employed, you have to have all sorts of permits, credentials, amounts of money to pay for said permits, credentials, & taxes involved, etc.
This is also of course excluding the arguments of the benefits of more localized economies in wake of the collapsing modern state society, of which, automated production would certainly be an aid in reducing costs of business.
This is wonderful news! We can all live on the beach in paradise in all perpetuity while our robot slaves do all the hard work we want to be done with nothing more than our verbal commands required!
All that matters is that property rights be properly enforced. That is, you have no right to steal my robot and make it do your work, against my will. As long as property rights are consistently enforced, a world where robots do all the hard work would be the closest thing to heaven any of us can imagine. Basically, everyone would be rich.