Researcher says tech could replace nearly all human labour within 20 years and societies urgently need to prepare

[multivita-man]

Let's assume Adam Dorr is correct. This has enormous implications for society, particularly younger people who may find they graduate just in time to see their career path doesn't exist.

Is the solution universal basic income? After all the wealth is still being created but is monopolized by the robots instead of people.

Futurist Adam Dorr on how robots will take our jobs: ‘We don’t have long to get ready – it’s going to be tumultuous’

Researcher says tech could replace nearly all human labour within 20 years and societies urgently need to prepare

www.theguardian.com

I doubt it replaces all human labor, but I do think tech (robotics, AI, etc.) will make laborers in highly developed countries so efficient that there will be a lot of excess human capital. In other words, lots of underemployment and unemployment, particularly in information and intellectual jobs. Humans will still be needed for plumbing, roofing, carpentry...that sort of thing.

So if I had to give a youngin' some advice, it would be learn the trades. There's absolutely no way I would save my paychecks to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for my imaginary offspring's higher education. We live in a different world now.

 

[multivita-man]

How many humans will be needed when that occurs?

Question of the moment, isn't it?

I suspect we're rapidly approaching the moment when the powers that be are already beginning to decide what to do with excess human capital, and I have a feeling we're not going to like the answer. Those data centers we keep building are going to be tapping into the same land, water, and energy that ordinary people depend on to sustain modern living. Those AI investments are going to win out over investments for the rest of us, I predict, and that's going to be a major flashpoint. We're not that far away from that moment, IMO.

 

[aociswundumho]

Yaay, more clickbait

Publishing bias. Doom and gloom sells.

No, AI and robots won't replace anyone's job in 20 years. We'll be lucky to have genuine self-driving cars in 20 years.

Voice to text still doesn't work right. Google maps sometimes sends me in circles. Bluetooth still doesn't work as well as it should. Self-checkout machines constantly need “assistance,” which defeats the whole point.

We've been subjected to these types of hysterics for decades, and somehow people keep on working. Apparently, people keep being necessary, and keep finding things to do. What a concept.

Exactly.

By the way, in 2020 Dorr predicted that solar, wind and battery storage will "inevitably" disrupt the energy industry by 2030. How's that prediction going?

 

[aociswundumho]

All labor robots need to be taxed at a set rate, determined by their net output.

Good luck defining what a robot is. A washing machine automates the task of washing clothes. What about software bots?

Net output would need to be determined as a unit of measurement, the details of which is something that needs to be ironed out by comparison to human labor output, I suppose.

The net output of a robot is extremely difficult to calculate. You would have to isolate the value generated specifically by the robot, separate from the rest of the system it operates in. Robots come in all kinds of forms, from industrial arms to ai chatbots. And there are tens of millions of them.

So I guess you could tax them at a rate that is low enough that it doesn't negate the savings netted by eliminating human labor, but high enough to offset the job losses.

Does that make sense to anyone else?

No, because in the end you are taxing efficiency, and when you tax something you get less of it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Good luck defining what a robot is. A washing machine automates the task of washing clothes. What about software bots?



The net output of a robot is extremely difficult to calculate. You would have to isolate the value generated specifically by the robot, separate from the rest of the system it operates in. Robots come in all kinds of forms, from industrial arms to ai chatbots. And there are tens of millions of them.



No, because in the end you are taxing efficiency, and when you tax something you get less of it.

LOL as long as you lump a washing machine into the same category as something from Boston Dynamics, there is no point in paying attention to any of your arguments.
You're trying to force a sealion move and it's not going to work.

 

[NJBob]

Trades would be different

Most buildings would be modular and likely made in a factory moved to the site and stacked together.


Repairs would likely not occur as much as replacement of equipment or sections of buildings

Dentistry employment can be reduced. We already have remote robotic surgery, dental cleaning certainly can't be more difficult than remote robotic surgery

Modular construction will definitely take on a larger role but it isn’t going to replace uniquely designed buildings entirely. You’re not going to build an opera hall out of stacking modules.

Repairs will always be needed as materials and systems fail or simply wear out over time.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Modular construction will definitely take on a larger role but it isn’t going to replace uniquely designed buildings entirely. You’re not going to build an opera hall out of stacking modules.

Repairs will always be needed as materials and systems fail or simply wear out over time.

Which means trades won't be eliminated, but the required demand will drop

 

[NJBob]

Which means trades won't be eliminated, but the required demand will drop

Unless robots take over construction of the modular units, many construction workers will simply work in a factory environment.

You’ll still need someone to assemble the units and make the necessary connections.

 

[Revelation]

Let's assume Adam Dorr is correct. This has enormous implications for society, particularly younger people who may find they graduate just in time to see their career path doesn't exist.

Is the solution universal basic income? After all the wealth is still being created but is monopolized by the robots instead of people.

the Oligarchs already have this covered with the Georgia Guidestone Monuments....


the first thing it says is to maintain the Population at 500 million, which tends to Eliminate most of Earth's population and makes the remaining easier to control. Throw in CBDC and a Control grid and their plan is in full motion.....

What do the Georgia Guidestones say?​

The 10-part message on the vertical stones is what proved controversial, with some claiming the commandments were instructions for an incoming "new world order".

The inscription read:

• Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

Futurist Adam Dorr on how robots will take our jobs: ‘We don’t have long to get ready – it’s going to be tumultuous’

Researcher says tech could replace nearly all human labour within 20 years and societies urgently need to prepare

www.theguardian.com

 

[Girlpower]

Let's assume Adam Dorr is correct. This has enormous implications for society, particularly younger people who may find they graduate just in time to see their career path doesn't exist.

Is the solution universal basic income? After all the wealth is still being created but is monopolized by the robots instead of people.

Futurist Adam Dorr on how robots will take our jobs: ‘We don’t have long to get ready – it’s going to be tumultuous’

Researcher says tech could replace nearly all human labour within 20 years and societies urgently need to prepare

www.theguardian.com

People say this about any new technology.

For example, look how many jobs the computer eliminated but look how many it also created.

Who knows what AI will create.

If you want some interesting reading look up some old newspaper articles about when electricity was being introduced.

The same people were giving the same warnings.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

We already have plenty of jobs for people who don't want to work and instead watch others work like machines. It's called middle management.

 

[bythoughts]

Is the solution universal basic income? After all the wealth is still being created but is monopolized by the robots instead of people.

One way or another, the robots will be taxed.

The current way is that their production is strictly limited under an invasive regime of private inspections and judicial processes to one or a very few companies, granted government monopolies to "promote the useful Arts". The one or few people who own them take all the world's wealth and systematically exterminate everyone else for fun, except a few slaves they can implant with microchips.

The rational way is to recognize that industry is now limited by the environmental capacity of the Earth, which no one made, and that this bounty should be shared fairly among all the people of the world. This is not "universal basic income", it is the birthright of Man.

The probable way is that elites firmly go down the first path, but people resist, and in War, and Crime, and Desperation, make themselves enough of a nuisance that they are still valuable in fighting one another. For which they are paid some pittance in, um, 'local taxation'. We should look at Haiti as the golden vision of humanity's future.

 

[Econ4every1]

Remind me again why the declining birth rate is such a huge problem?

One problem with declining populations can be thought of like this. Imagine a high rise, where if you need more apartments, you can build another floor up to some reasonable number of floors before you have to build another, let's say 10 stories, give or take. And for decades every few years a new floor is added and all of the infrastructure, water, sewage electricity etc that goes with it.

Now imagine that the population in the building falls to 90%, 80%, 70% ect.

The problem the tenants face is that the cost of living in the building is is no longer in portion to the number of people it takes to support so either maintenance goes neglected or rents go up (or some of both).

Now in apartments it's easy enough for people to abandon some and all move to another, but it's much harder when we're talking about the population of a city. Gary Indiana is a good example of what happens in a declining population. If memory serves the population in Gary hit 200k-ish and today it's about 80k. So all the streets and infrastructure that exists has to be maintained because a street with 1/2 the houses abandon is a street that's 1/2 full. But now you have more infrastructure than there is people to reasonably support it, so the city is forced to neglect certain areas. Today, Gary is a run down steel town that is one of the most dangerous places in the US.

Basically Gary would be better off if it could bulldoze about 1/2 the city so that it could eliminate costs, but that has problems of it's own. This is a big problem in Japan, So. Korea and soon in China.

The US is uniquely suited to deal with this problem because we allow immigration, but recent attitudes may make that less of an option.

 

[Econ4every1]

Let's assume Adam Dorr is correct. This has enormous implications for society, particularly younger people who may find they graduate just in time to see their career path doesn't exist.

Is the solution universal basic income? After all the wealth is still being created but is monopolized by the robots instead of people.

Futurist Adam Dorr on how robots will take our jobs: ‘We don’t have long to get ready – it’s going to be tumultuous’

Researcher says tech could replace nearly all human labour within 20 years and societies urgently need to prepare

www.theguardian.com

I recently saw a video that discussed limitations in the way that AI scales and that we can expect AI performance to run into a rate of diminishing returns problem between processing and memory capabilities added relative to results. Now this may change in the future as someone can solve that problem, but it's clear, to me at least, AI is not going to have a "Moore's Law" type of ascension.

I see the next generation of AI users being valued more for their creative use of AI (valuing creativity more and technical skills less) to solve problems and devise novel solutions.

For the foreseeable future I expect that AI won't outright replace most people, but it will be essential to learn to work with AI. AI can typically get a task 70-95% of the way to where it needs to be, humans are often needed to complete it and move it past the uncanny valley, not in every task mind you., but I think it's significant enough to ensure that predictions of AI replacing most people in 10 years is highly overblown. I do think it could significantly impact how employers value there employees and for that new paradigms will have to emerge.

 

[LittleNipper]

Imagine a movie with long deceased actors or real long dead people taking place in any period in time. And it looks entirely real to life. Imagine Judy Garland doing hip-hop. Imagine additional episodes of LEAVE IT TO BEAVER and all the characters are alive, well, and forever young!