The transformation of the world has begun...

[seawasp]

(Posted a version of this to FB, too)

There are two directions to the future. Both of them include machines taking away (PERMANENTLY) jobs from a larger and larger population of human beings. The first one -- that appears to be the course we are currently on -- is one in which the human beings displaced from such jobs are UNABLE, through mental or physical limitations or, more likely, economic limitations, to ever get a job again because any job they know how to do is automated and they cannot be retrained to do something that isn't. This will result in an ever-increasing number of permanently unemployed who will be viewed with derision and contempt (as they already are) and IF society supports them at all, will be supported at the lowest possible level and trapping them and all of their children into the same conditions.

In that case, the ONLY people who aren't replaced and who live well? The ones who get to make the economic decisions, or in general the ones who are very rich already. 1%? No, more like the .01%, with any lower-level types keeping employment as servants, hand-work people, etc. providing the novelty of PEOPLE doing the work. Status symbols, in short. The vast majority MAY be kept alive, but not with dignity.

The second direction, which I assumed was taken in the world of _Grand Central Arena_, is that we allow the machines to more and more support ALL of us in the fashion to which we would ALL like to be accustomed. Many people, especially those with the Yankee work ethic ingrained in their psyche, have an automatic horror of that concept because it just seems WRONG -- if you live and are able bodied and able minded you should WORK for your living.

But that's not going to be possible for an ever-increasing proportion of the population. Will that include ME? Maybe. The limitation there is doing things that are "creative" in the same style that I do, and while I would *like* to think that that's something hard to automate, I do not believe it's even close to IMPOSSIBLE. I don't know if I'll see that before I die, but I'm pretty sure my kids will see it.

Below: Humans Need Not apply, the video that triggered my post:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

And here's a link to Manna, a novella or short novel by Marshall Brain that details these two courses and what they lead to.

http://www.amazon.com/Manna-Two-Visions-Humanitys-Future-ebook/dp/B007HQH67U


If you read Manna, you'll actually see that in GCA I go beyond his "version 2", in that I assume a preservation of privacy is determined important, and additional technology that empowers the INDIVIDUAL to the point that they are NO LONGER RELIANT on any centralized group for their basic needs.

Note that "basic needs" in GCA are vastly more than "basic needs" today or "basic needs" two centuries ago. I should probably write a separate post on that and how "basic human needs" increase with wealth of society... and SHOULD so increase.

Comments

[kjn]

I'm reminded of the throwaway comment in one short story by Charles Stross, where monster trucks were included in the list of basic human needs.

One thing to remember is that economic activity at the most basic level really is what people are willing to pay for. Entertainment and services are two things that automation will have a hard time displacing. On the other hand, right now we have lots and lots of crappy jobs that I'd prefer to say good riddance to. (Amazon, I'm looking at you, though there are plenty of other offenders. I'm not sure how much people realise how our modern society is dependant on extremely cheap labour, both domestically and abroad.)

[scott-sanford.livejournal.com]

Even entertainment is worthwhile. (If you're a work ethic crank, just remember it keeps people busy and not disrupting society.) Back in the Great Depression the WPA set up the Federal Theatre Project to get unemployed entertainers off the street - and there's not many people less employable than an aspiring actor during a depression. By giving space to any semi-functional band of bozos with artistic aspirations they got thousands of people paychecks and a chance to do worthwhile art. Quality of the writings, plays, and other output ranged widely, as did the subject matter. The program succeeded in its goals, which were roughly (A) give these guys something to do, (B) entertain the citizenry and distract them from the fact that the economy is shit, and (C) make good art.

There was, of course, an economic aftermath to the program. Many of the people involved in the FTP went on to discover that they could make a living in the arts without a government subsidy - people like John Houseman, Arthur Miller, and Orson Welles. It's eighty years later and we're still reaping dividends from that investment.

[rezendi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've been ranting about this at some length on my TechCrunch platform. (See top list of links here: http://rezendi.com/journalism.htm)

Solutions exist, but I think the problem is going to move faster than they do.

[randallsquared.livejournal.com]

Political solutions often move slowly (until they move much faster than preferred...), and I would agree with you if you're speaking of that sort of solution. I'm curious if you see any potential solutions which aren't political in nature -- that is, which might mitigate the problem *and* is obviously in individual self-interest already *and* is broadly achievable. The solution "get very rich ahead of time so that you're among the 1% or 0.1%" fails on that last, for example, while most proposals which being with "we should..." tend to fail on the middle requirement even if they pass the first.

[kengr]

One of the biggest problems in achieving it is that a large percentage of the population (and worse, a percentage that is influential way beyond their raw numbers) doesn't actually *understand* (much less believe) that for most jobs that don't involve highly specialized skills, it is not (and has not been for decades) a matter of "try hard and you'll get a job".

Instead it is quite literally a matter of sheer random chance.

Yes, there are things that will reduce your chances (often quite drastically) such as appearance, mannerism (and race/sex/etc). But the *only* thing that will increase your chances noticeably if knowing something. In short, having an "in".

This one fact renders most of the political discussion about jobs, unemployment and various benefits utterly irrelevant.

and this, and that "work ethic" thing (I could go on a long rant about how that isn't anything of the sort, but I won't) plus the other memes in that self-reinforcing cluster mean that the odds off us actually achieving the second world you describe (instead of the first) are pretty low.

I'm not sure that even a revolution could do it (too many ways one could go wrong).

A related data point. There are *seven* unoccupied houses for every homeless *person* in the US. And it'd cost less to put the ones who aren't homeless "by choice" (read "got dumped out of care facilities due to funding cuts") into those houses than we spend of "dealing with" the problem in other ways.

We need a *major* shift in how things are perceived. Until then, we are just digging the hole deeper.

[sublunarythings.livejournal.com]

I think there are more than two.

-- Lower income countries may remain poor for a long time to come, thus providing cheap labor that inhibits/disincentivizes much more automation than we have now. The technology may be developed, but being widely used is quite another matter ... humans are likely to remain cheaper.

-- Automation might be intentionally disincentivized to prevent the loss of jobs

-- Your first scenario happens, temporarily, but changes in education and society mean that more and more people end up in 'creative' and 'innovative' occupations, eventually nearly everybody. (I think most people do have the capacity to do so if they get the right education/environment.)
.
But then, I am very skeptical about the potential of AI to replace those kinds of occupations... (I think we are fairly close to the end of the age of exponential improvement in computer technology, and quantum computers may never be practical...)