Robots Destroying Economy ?
nenTi
Join Date: 2005-02-26 Member: 42585Members
Join Date: 2005-02-26 Member: 42585Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">how does the future economy work ?!?</div> In close future there will possibly be a lot of Robots taking over jobs where now are jobs for humans. So there is no chance for our economic system to have a future with robots. So what do you guys think will the people work in future?
I guess it is going to be a slow process because of the many different cultures.
probably all of the people have to work on research and development. But what about money? it is loosing its value when robots are producing for free cause the few people behind the production would earn a whole lot of money and the others wouldn't have jobs.
I can not imagine how it is gonna work out maybe you can?
I guess it is going to be a slow process because of the many different cultures.
probably all of the people have to work on research and development. But what about money? it is loosing its value when robots are producing for free cause the few people behind the production would earn a whole lot of money and the others wouldn't have jobs.
I can not imagine how it is gonna work out maybe you can?
Comments
Even with robots, there have to be humans in the line somewhere. In the Off-Tpic forum, DOOManiak posted a link to a tour of the Gigabyte plant is wherever it is. It has a lot of robots, but it still needs a lot of humans to do some of the more delicate work.
I don't forsee this hapening too soon, although it might. But by then, new jobs for new technology will probly exist that requre human's to do them.
Technology has been improving the way people do things for hundreds of years, it keeps getting better and better, yet we still manage to adapt ot it.
You're right that the available work will dwindle, though, and that the work available will require more specialized knowledge. The two key factors I can think of are population control and education.
Population needs to go down, because as robotics advance, the available labour per person will increase dramatically. We will be able to get LOTS of work done, but there won't be as many jobs available. Fewer and fewer people will be able to provide for the whole nation. Since we don't want half our population to be unemployed, we need to be few enough that we have enough work for everyone. If that means reducing the population of, say, Germany to twenty or thirty million over a few centuries, then so be it.
And think about it: Assuming that production stays the same (because robots replace human labour), the fewer we are, the more rich everyone is. Isn't that great? We could wallow in consumerism.
The world is already overpopulated, and it's getting worse. Overpopulation is actually a problem that is easily solved locally (advanced nations like Germany would have a negative growth rate were it not for immigration), but is difficult to solve globally. In the less developed areas of the world, having lots of kids is still the only way to be reasonably sure of having someone who provides for you when you're too old to do it yourself.
The only real solution to overpopulation is removing the causes for it. It isn't enough to tell people not to breed so much (like I believe China is trying through taxes), you have to remove the need for them to breed. They'll stop by themselves.
I don't need to explain the merits of education, so we'll just skip that for now.
Eventually, the only jobs left for humans will be creative jobs. We'll live off of robots.
<a href='http://www.igreens.org.uk/wilderness_areas.htm' target='_blank'>Linky Linky</a>
I wager that the real problem is under-development. A problem which our robotic friends can help solve.
At the same time we are researching medical technologies that keep everyone alive much longer than even a couple of decades ago which wouldn't be so bad but the ultimate goal of a properous capitalistic society would be to administer these meds to everyone for as cheap as possible, if not free.
So what is happening in the big picture is industry is slowly becoming more mechanized which replaces countless workers (and even more to come) then we keep these unemployed, poor people alive with meds but they can't afford to support themselves since their jobs have been taken over by a machine. All in all it leads to a rather bleak outlook of the future of capitalism. I think a change will be needed fairly soon.
Yes, I agree - short term it "may" have a slightly adverse affect on the economy. However, as humans and as individuals, it is our job to make ourselves marketable. So a machine can do something better and faster than us - find the thing we can do that a machine cant! We have creative thinking / cognitiave reasoning skills for a reason.
The way I see it is this: People look at the jobs available, and they say "machines can do x% of these jobs - all those people are going to loose their job soon - what will having x-million people unemployed do to the economy?"
That is not the right way to look at it. The correct way is "we have x% of the population that is going to have to step up from unskilled labor to skilled labor soon" - and then be happy because your skilled labor job sector has just increased by x-million people!
I understand the fears - if it was all the jobs right this second, times would be tough - but it happens little by little over time, and the various industries absorb more people where needed.
People said exactly the same thing about the farming industry when combines came out, and so far it has adapted just fine. Yeah, there area a lot less mom and pop farms, but we don't find to many stories of farmers standing around doing nothing. The job markets shift - things tend to work themselves out. Fears about overpopulation combined with robotics are pretty well unfounded.
I'm sorry if I'm not making a ton of sence - my eloquence has gone out the window this morning <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It really depends on the nature of the robots. Genius-Bots which are inexpensive and maintain themselves reliably would be a problem. Simple robots wouldn't be much of a threat.
Yes, I agree - short term it "may" have a slightly adverse affect on the economy. However, as humans and as individuals, it is our job to make ourselves marketable. So a machine can do something better and faster than us - find the thing we can do that a machine cant! We have creative thinking / cognitiave reasoning skills for a reason.
The way I see it is this: People look at the jobs available, and they say "machines can do x% of these jobs - all those people are going to loose their job soon - what will having x-million people unemployed do to the economy?"
That is not the right way to look at it. The correct way is "we have x% of the population that is going to have to step up from unskilled labor to skilled labor soon" - and then be happy because your skilled labor job sector has just increased by x-million people! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not bleak at all. It just means the end of capitalism, not the end of democracy/civilization/the economy.
Isaac Asimov talked about this alot in his writings, and he longed for the day that robots would take over all the jobs that humans really shouldn't be doing, freeing us to persue more interesting endeavors.
Yes, I agree - short term it "may" have a slightly adverse affect on the economy. However, as humans and as individuals, it is our job to make ourselves marketable. So a machine can do something better and faster than us - find the thing we can do that a machine cant! We have creative thinking / cognitiave reasoning skills for a reason.
The way I see it is this: People look at the jobs available, and they say "machines can do x% of these jobs - all those people are going to loose their job soon - what will having x-million people unemployed do to the economy?"
That is not the right way to look at it. The correct way is "we have x% of the population that is going to have to step up from unskilled labor to skilled labor soon" - and then be happy because your skilled labor job sector has just increased by x-million people! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not bleak at all. It just means the end of capitalism, not the end of democracy/civilization/the economy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If anything, it spurs on capitalism - moultano summed up what I wanted to say <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There is no end to work, and just because we can do something faster and cheaper doesn't mean that we will run out of work.
Now, on to robotics and overpopulation. I still haven't seen a valid assertion that overpopulation is a problem...
Isaac Asimov talked about this alot in his writings, and he longed for the day that robots would take over all the jobs that humans really shouldn't be doing, freeing us to persue more interesting endeavors. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is exactly the scenario taught to me in my Automation and System Design class last semester. Most of the negative stigmas from robotics automation surfaced about 10-15 years ago when automation really kicked up. Workers were scared that machines would replace them and, in turn, eliminate their jobs. While implementing automation can and does eliminate certain positions, most manufacturers are finding that it creates more positions. Areas required for automation- design, construction, programming, implementation, maintenance, etc- all increase.
Also, there is a common misnomer that robotic implementation is beneficial to manufacturers because it reduces costs based on the idea that you don't have to pay employees. This is typically false. The most common reason for implementing robotics into a manufacturing system is to improve efficiency and consistancy. The cost, while usually higher, is meant to be offset by the increased efficiency.
We also discussed the ethics of implementing automation based around the idea that as a manufacturing (or loosely an automation) engineer, we would be asked to justify the elimination of human jobs against robotic implementation to management. While this is very site specific, history shows that the increased efficiency from automation allows the company to grow and therefore move the human workers into new areas of production. It's easier to implement new systems with human workers because they offer improvement suggestions that a robot simply can't.
We never looked toward AI with any seriousness but the "robots building robots" idea would be so far away that restricting automation in it's current form would be overly cautious.
All of the results of classical economics that show free markets producing socially optimal levels of production presuppose that the current distribution of wealth is optimal. We've seen even in the last 10 years that recent technological innovation has had the effect of enhancing disparities of wealth. I think we should be worried if this trend continues. While automation does create jobs and more interesting jobs, these jobs typically require more skill. At some point we are going to have to decide what to do with the people who don't have that skill and are economically unemployable. A lot of science fiction writers have examined the possibility of a universal welfare state at the point that our consumption needs can be met by a subset of the population.
Robots don't destroy the economy. The industrial revolution (as others have pointed out) screwed over artisans and destroyed many economic models, but a new one grabbed ahold. Yes, during these times, there were great disparities of wealth, but production output was so high and prices so low that it eventually settled itself out. Adam Smith called it the invisible hand. Economies have their periods of turbulence and peace, but too many people dawdle on the turbulence.
In the same way, we have many robots, but what happens? More industries are created. Research and development for more efficient robots, construction (although now it's highly mechanized) for even more production facilities, maintenance of robots (it'll be a far far away era before robots can fix themselves or others) and free up even more human resources for other endeavors.
No, robots don't destroy an economy, they merely revolutionize the economy. Those who adapt will score big, those who won't, die. Although many people today dismiss social Darwinism, it really is a plausible fact. That's right, fact, though not to the extent at which Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, and Vanderbilt tried to convey.
Economic efficiency in capitalism depends absolutely on a reasonable distribution of wealth. It is this assumption of a reasonable distribution that ensures social optimality in a free market. Suppose a single person were the only one to have purchasing power. The goods produced in this economy would be completely allocatively inefficient regardless of how productively efficient they are. It may be that the disparities of wealth that are developing are in some sense socially optimal, but this question deserves careful consideration with full knowledge of the implications.
As long as the majority of people live well, then disparity of wealth is meaningless?
Maybe on a national level it's extremely stable, but in poor regions, it's decaying. Rural America and Inner-City America are crappy places to live, because they are poor. Poverty leads to crime. Crime will kill a small town or a neighborhood. It's not stable at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the same way, we have many robots, but what happens? More industries are created. Research and development for more efficient robots, construction (although now it's highly mechanized) for even more production facilities, maintenance of robots (it'll be a far far away era before robots can fix themselves or others) and free up even more human resources for other endeavors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The service industry will expand. More creative jobs will be available. Eventually, computers/robots will replace those jobs. Why worry about the crappy service at McDonalds, when you can replace the employees with a computer system, for cheaper? Your order would never get screwed up again. Tech support jobs will be mostly replaced once computers become smart enough. Engineering and computer programming are doable by computers.
There are few fields where I don't see a decrease in available jobs. Those are administration (upper management, government officials, etc) and art. Most people aren't qualified to produce high quality art or high quality administrative work. The huge pool of unemployed people will all want those jobs, which have a limited supply.
Now, this isn't something that I see happening in 2015, or even 2050, but more like 2100. I don't doubt that it will happen. We will eventually have to switch away from a capitalist system.
One thing that would guarantee lots of jobs, would be interplanetary colonization. That's decades away from being a serious proposal, but that may be a response to the growing demand for new jobs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although many people today dismiss social Darwinism, it really is a plausible fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most people dismiss Social Darwinism, because it is used to justify disparity. In the 19th Century, they would say that Europeans have a more advanced civilization than Africans, because they are better than Africans. No one disputes the fact that the smartest and the most dedicated will be the most successful, however.
What happens if one breaks down? You still have to have R&D for better robots.
My statement still stands about disparity of wealth. Yes, downtown urban areas have the most crime and the most poverty. But there IS poverty. As I've said, if you can afford to live comfortably by honest means, crime goes down. 12% of America is classed as "below the poverty line". The vast majority of this particular demographic are in the cities. Not the metro area, the actual city itself.
And that's why we have crime, especially in those places.
Most of organized crime, however, takes place due to a lucrative drug traffick and protection rackets. Legalized drugs will seriously hamper most criminal organizations, and possibly looser gun control laws will control the latter.
Capitalist systems will always be in place, why?
Robots cannot do everything. Yes, people have stated before, nuclear fission is impossible, planes were impossible, all these things are impossible, but you can't expect robots to take control every aspect of even entry level jobs.
The only things that they can do more efficiently than a human are mundane repetitive tasks such as assembly and accounting (computers, for this one, though it kind of is a robot). Assembly does take away quite a few second tier jobs, but that still leaves service jobs available. Not to mention the death of one industry always leads to a birth of another. Just the transition period is turbulent.
Also, my comment of social Darwinism, you'll notice that I cautioned myself by saying "but not to the extent of the late 19th early 20th century robber barons". But the fact remains: those who adapt: survive, those who don't: die. I don't see the need for you adding to that comment, when I'm pretty sure most of us know about Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie and Vanderbilt (or at least one of the four most famous Captains of Industry [or Robber Barons]).
In any case, we still haven't defined what a "robot economy" is. Are we talking about robots as in the world of Asimov, or sophisticated (by today's standards) machines that can make basic choices and have advanced (again, by today's standards) motor skills enough to say...play the piano (with mechanical fingers, that is)?
An engineer takes a physics program, puts in a rough design, and his requirements for a final design, then lets a computer evolve millions of changes to his rough design, until it reaches an optimal product. Some small tech companies can use computers to design products for them, reducing their R&D budget, and (more importantly for our discussion) their staff.
Computers are on the verge of being able to drive on the highway by themselves. There goes many trucking jobs.
Computers can replace service industry jobs. Self-checkout lines will become more sophisticated through RFID (every product you buy will have a RFID, then you just put your shopping cart under a scanner, insert your credit card, and leave).
These are just a few examples.
Some scientists believe that computers will be as smart as us in 20-30 years. Robot technology will become more sophisticated. Eventually, robots and computers will become cheaper than even minimum wage workers, and they will replace them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->planes were impossible<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell that to Leonardo daVinci, who designed flying machines 400 years before the Wright Brothers. Humans have been trying to fly since the Renaissance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Capitalist systems will always be in place<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No system will stay in place forever. Times change. Ideologies change. How would capitalism work with 40% unemployment? The <a href='http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005' target='_blank'>best countries to live in, in the world</a> are capitalist/socialist hybrids. Capitalism ruled the 19th and 20th centuries, but I doubt it will rule the 22nd century, maybe not even the 21st century.
An engineer takes a physics program, puts in a rough design, and his requirements for a final design, then lets a computer evolve millions of changes to his rough design, until it reaches an optimal product. Some small tech companies can use computers to design products for them, reducing their R&D budget, and (more importantly for our discussion) their staff.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've heard of research in this area, but I haven't heard of anyone actually using it. What companies are you referring to?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Computers are on the verge of being able to drive on the highway by themselves. There goes many trucking jobs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, truckers drive a lot more places than the highway. I wouldn't count on computers being able to deal with stoplights, stopsigns, yield signs, pedestrians, adverse weather, and any of the other very complex driving situations that occur regularly any time soon. Roads aren't very regular things once you get off of a sunny highway. There's also the question of who would take care of the truck.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Computers can replace service industry jobs. Self-checkout lines will become more sophisticated through RFID (every product you buy will have a RFID, then you just put your shopping cart under a scanner, insert your credit card, and leave).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is going to be awesome. Lower prices, no checkout lines.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some scientists believe that computers will be as smart as us in 20-30 years. Robot technology will become more sophisticated. Eventually, robots and computers will become cheaper than even minimum wage workers, and they will replace them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who? Name them. The human brain is ridiculously more parallel than any computer we've created to date. Furthermore, the brain may even represent an entirely different realm of computation. See <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation' target='_blank'>Hypercomputation.</a> Its going to be quite a while before we reach anything close to the brain's capabilities in hardware, or in algorithms even if Moore's law were to continue indefinitely. I'm not counting on it happening in my lifetime.
The truck driver analogy does make sense in terms of simply driving down the road. However, if any of you have attempted to or even watched a fully loaded semi reversing into a crowded receiving dock, you'd be skeptical of this idea too. The controls, programming, and safety issues involved would be terribly cost inhibitive. Not to mention that every place these trucks go would have to be using some universal communication system.
On the other hand, I just took a tour of an injection molding plant that uses auto-guided vehicles in place of human hi-lo drivers. These robots are given orders from a central computer (called a vehicle facility manager) through radio frequency transmitters spread around the building. The AGVs have a map of the plant in their brains and verify their locations using magnetic strips in the floor. Operators use a bar code system to "call" the AGVs for a pickup or delivery. The damn things even take out the trash! Needless to say, it was awesome. But, they're very limited. The process has to be built around them as much as they are built for the process. Pretending that someday they'll just "know" what to do is a stretch.
An engineer takes a physics program, puts in a rough design, and his requirements for a final design, then lets a computer evolve millions of changes to his rough design, until it reaches an optimal product. Some small tech companies can use computers to design products for them, reducing their R&D budget, and (more importantly for our discussion) their staff.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've heard of research in this area, but I haven't heard of anyone actually using it. What companies are you referring to? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish I knew. I read an article in Wired a few months ago about a small company who designed a system to provide water heating for homes using this technology. I've been searching for the article but I haven't found it.
<u>______
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
</u>
This is a rough sketch, but it looked like a grid of mirrors that pointed to the container of water. I believe that they couldn't get the project within their price/power constraints, so they had the computer design a cheaper, better system using an evolutionary system. It ended up looking like a flower. The petals were mirrors, pointing to a water container in the middle.
I'm also hearing about other companies who have been using this, but they haven't been an indepth article like the Wired one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Computers are on the verge of being able to drive on the highway by themselves. There goes many trucking jobs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, truckers drive a lot more places than the highway. I wouldn't count on computers being able to deal with stoplights, stopsigns, yield signs, pedestrians, adverse weather, and any of the other very complex driving situations that occur regularly any time soon. Roads aren't very regular things once you get off of a sunny highway. There's also the question of who would take care of the truck.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Highways are easier to drive on because there aren't any stoplights/stopsigns/yield signs/pedestrians. You're right about that. Computers aren't ready to drive on regular streets yet. However, companies could save labor costs by placing buildings right next to the highway, that the computer controlled trucks could park in, so a human can drive the last 15 miles. You wouldn't have to pay a trucker to drive across the country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Computers can replace service industry jobs. Self-checkout lines will become more sophisticated through RFID (every product you buy will have a RFID, then you just put your shopping cart under a scanner, insert your credit card, and leave).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is going to be awesome. Lower prices, no checkout lines.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that it will be awesome, but it will still mean a loss of jobs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some scientists believe that computers will be as smart as us in 20-30 years. Robot technology will become more sophisticated. Eventually, robots and computers will become cheaper than even minimum wage workers, and they will replace them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who? Name them. The human brain is ridiculously more parallel than any computer we've created to date. Furthermore, the brain may even represent an entirely different realm of computation. See <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation' target='_blank'>Hypercomputation.</a> Its going to be quite a while before we reach anything close to the brain's capabilities in hardware, or in algorithms even if Moore's law were to continue indefinitely. I'm not counting on it happening in my lifetime.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, I wish I had a quote. I read this in Scientific American a couple years ago. It probably won't be 20-30 years from now. Once a few breakthroughs in computation occur (quantum computation maybe?), we may be able to create, say, an analogue of the maid robot on The Jetsons.
Anyway, my main point is that eventually, computers will take over from humans in almost every job imaginable (administration and art being the exceptions that I made; science could also be added to this list; i'm not sure that engineering/computer programming wouldn't be done robots eventually).
As for your claim that robots can create products...
This is bull****.
Read Spooge more carefully:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Really all you're looking at there is gathering all the design tools into one package and letting the software run the calculations. That's a big difference when comparing to true product development.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For a simple analogy, let's say I'm a soda can maker. And I want to minimize costs on building cans (maximum volume, minimum surface area). I would hire a programmer to write the code and then let the computer do the actual calculations, not hire twenty people with calculators to do the job. We already do all this sort of stuff. In short, the computer does the heavy lifting for us, because nobody wants to do trillions of calculations.
Even on the highway, there are plenty variables we have to take in account for:
Drunk drivers, bad drivers, drivers who don't use turn signals, etc etc. Humans make mistakes, and computers can't accomodate for all of our faults.
theclam, you've mentioned the economic models that will be wrecked with the advent of more sophisticated machinery and logic, but you completely ignore the new industries that will arise because of it.
What's the saying? When one door closes, another one opens?
As I've said before: transition is turbulence, it will settle out eventually. Even with capitalism, because it really is the best form of economic growth (please do not take into account of disparity of wealth, I mean generating the maximum amount of wealth).
As for your claim that robots can create products...
This is bull****.
Read Spooge more carefully:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Really all you're looking at there is gathering all the design tools into one package and letting the software run the calculations. That's a big difference when comparing to true product development.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For a simple analogy, let's say I'm a soda can maker. And I want to minimize costs on building cans (maximum volume, minimum surface area). I would hire a programmer to write the code and then let the computer do the actual calculations, not hire twenty people with calculators to do the job. We already do all this sort of stuff. In short, the computer does the heavy lifting for us, because nobody wants to do trillions of calculations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not talking about using CAD instead of graph paper and calculators. I'm talking about a couple engineers putting in some rough guidelines and having a computer design it, instead of 20 engineers and designers creating a product.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even on the highway, there are plenty variables we have to take in account for:
Drunk drivers, bad drivers, drivers who don't use turn signals, etc etc. Humans make mistakes, and computers can't accomodate for all of our faults.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right. These variables are the reasons why computers aren't able to replace humans in many jobs, yet. We already are able to plan routes using GPS. We can give a car and advanced radar system and an intelligent driving program. Then, it will be able to drive better than a human will. We just took another step down this path, with intelligent cruise control systems. They adjust their speed depending on how fast the car in front of them is going.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->theclam, you've mentioned the economic models that will be wrecked with the advent of more sophisticated machinery and logic, but you completely ignore the new industries that will arise because of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
New industries will obviously arise out of new innovations. Once robotics and computer science is well developed enough for robots and computers to replace humans in many jobs, then they will be able to replace humans in these new industries, too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I've said before: transition is turbulence, it will settle out eventually. Even with capitalism, because it really is the best form of economic growth (please do not take into account of disparity of wealth, I mean generating the maximum amount of wealth).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The strength of capitalism is that it can grow extremely quickly, compared to other economic modes. The weakness of capitalism is that it only works when the economy is expanding quickly. Look at what happens during a depression. The reason why we haven't hit a Malthusian crisis is that the economy is expanding exponentially, because of increases in innovation and productivity. It's silly to think that we can keep on expanding forever and that capitalism will still work for a very very long time. Feudalism was the main economic mode during the Middle Ages, Mercantilism during the Renaissance and early Enilghtenment, Colonialism during the late Enlightenment and early Industrial Revolution, Capitalism from the early Industrial Revolution up until the present. Why would you think that capitalism would still be the economic mode centuries from now? Just like the Industrial Revolution spurred capitalism and spelled the end to old economic theories, a Computational Revolution could end capitalism and encourage a new economic mode.
I wish I knew. I read an article in Wired a few months ago about a small company who designed a system to provide water heating for homes using this technology. I've been searching for the article but I haven't found it.
<u>______
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
</u>
This is a rough sketch, but it looked like a grid of mirrors that pointed to the container of water. I believe that they couldn't get the project within their price/power constraints, so they had the computer design a cheaper, better system using an evolutionary system. It ended up looking like a flower. The petals were mirrors, pointing to a water container in the middle.
I'm also hearing about other companies who have been using this, but they haven't been an indepth article like the Wired one.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a good area to use computers in, but it doesn't generalize. When you are looking to use some set of homogenous parts to maximize some well defined (preferably linear) value there are a number of approaches you can use to find a good result, even if the underlying optimization problem is np-complete. Simulated annealing and genetic algorithms are two popular approaches. If at some point we develop ways to quantify all possible engineering goals into a metric, these approaches could possibly be applied to engineering in general, but that isn't likely to happen any time soon. We may get better heat sinks through computer design, but computers aren't going to be making more user friendly interfaces or car interiors that feel more spacious because the goal is difficult to define. They also aren't likely to be designing components that are fundamentally new, because the parameter space is too large.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Highways are easier to drive on because there aren't any stoplights/stopsigns/yield signs/pedestrians. You're right about that. Computers aren't ready to drive on regular streets yet. However, companies could save labor costs by placing buildings right next to the highway, that the computer controlled trucks could park in, so a human can drive the last 15 miles. You wouldn't have to pay a trucker to drive across the country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are still going to have to deal with adverse weather conditions, pull into truckstops to refuel, change tires, but above all is the issue of liability. US Transportation Department data for road location is full of inaccuracies for one. Additionally, suppose your gps goes down briefly. Are you going to drive using only the variable visible cues? Is your truck going to stop in the middle of the highway to avoid hitting something? Will it even be able to find a safe place to pull over, and how will you define a safe place? It would be possible to outfit our highways with sensors and transmitters designed to alleviate these problems, but it would be a huge capital investment. Humans can generally be counted on to do something reasonable in most situations, which makes them a lot cheaper.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree that it will be awesome, but it will still mean a loss of jobs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is the loss of checkout lane jobs really something to be worried about? Does anyone really thoroughly enjoy these jobs? We'd be better off I think to increase the scope of our welfare programs and leave these people to do more useful things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again, I wish I had a quote. I read this in Scientific American a couple years ago. It probably won't be 20-30 years from now. Once a few breakthroughs in computation occur (quantum computation maybe?), we may be able to create, say, an analogue of the maid robot on The Jetsons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To me this seems like "Flying cars by the end of the century" type of thinking. I suspect we'll have a lot more robotic cleaning products (see roomba), but <i>I</i> have trouble carrying food from point A to point B without spilling it. I'm a lesser deity compared to our computers, and I'm specifically designed to do that type of task.
There is a lot of hype about quantum computers, but there are some incredible engineering problems that need to be overcome before they will be able to do any useful work. I haven't heard of much research into the capabilities of quantum computing to speed up traditional AI algorithms, but that complexity of computation on a quantum computer is very very very far off if we're even going to get there at all. At the moment its a big deal to get 5 qbits to play nicely with eachother.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyway, my main point is that eventually, computers will take over from humans in almost every job imaginable (administration and art being the exceptions that I made; science could also be added to this list; i'm not sure that engineering/computer programming wouldn't be done robots eventually).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What we're going to really see in this regard I think is better tools for humans to use that incorporate AI algorithms. The computers will take care of more of the details leaving humans to do the high level design, similar to how the progression from assembly to object oriented programming allowed us to make more extensible code more quickly.
Frankly, Scientific American is probably wrong. There is no way to tell when a breakthrough will happen. It could be 20 or 200 years. Some of my details are wrong, as a few of you have pointed out, but my main point remains. Eventually, computers will be able to replace humans in every single non-creative job and many creative jobs. It could even be a 1000 years in the future, but it will happen. Not everyone is smart enough or creative enough to do these creative jobs. Some people just can't do anything other than unskilled or low skill labor. These people wil be unemployed. High unemployment creates big problems under capitalism. I doubt it will destroy the economy, but it will fundamentally change the economy.
It will definitely change the economy, but the ultimate question isn't going to be so much whether computers can do it, but whether computers can do it cheaper.
As for your claim that robots can create products...
This is bull****.
Read Spooge more carefully:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Really all you're looking at there is gathering all the design tools into one package and letting the software run the calculations. That's a big difference when comparing to true product development.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For a simple analogy, let's say I'm a soda can maker. And I want to minimize costs on building cans (maximum volume, minimum surface area). I would hire a programmer to write the code and then let the computer do the actual calculations, not hire twenty people with calculators to do the job. We already do all this sort of stuff. In short, the computer does the heavy lifting for us, because nobody wants to do trillions of calculations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not talking about using CAD instead of graph paper and calculators. I'm talking about a couple engineers putting in some rough guidelines and having a computer design it, instead of 20 engineers and designers creating a product. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since my name got pulled into this I thought I'd reply again. Unfortunately, Rapier left out the more appropriate point I was making in his post (no offense taken <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you're talking about a program that gives you optimal parameters for manufacture based on tolerances and material types, that's different. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This particular type of design tool is actually being used more and more often. And yes, they're much more sophisticated that just a CAD software. But they're really just algorithms based on material properties data, space confinements, environment elements, and so on. The output generated is extremely useful but at it's core, it's little more than a calculating tool to give you the most effective, mathmatically acceptable response.
If we were to use that methodology for everything, Moultano's car interiors would be much different than they are today <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> There's a very good reason why product designers take a list of art classes. Could we incorporate all of this into a robotic computing machine? Maybe, but BLEH! who'd want to?
I guess this entire thread is a comedy of errors.