How will automation affect the future?

>automation at an ath
>unemployment in the countries with the highest automation levels at an atl
"MUHHHHHHHHH AUTOMATIONNNNN""
kys you disgusing commie pig you will get the rope

subhumans will be replaced with sexy robot anime girls. its better this way

Not at all because it won't happen. People have been prattling on about automation for decades and yet not much has changed. Besides I think it is all bullshit anyways, if they could automate then they would have done it.

That's a geek's fantasy. It won't happen.

>hopefully we'll need less immigration.
You never needed it in the first place.

>Not much has changed.
Then you aren't paying attention.
They've been building the foundation for this for 20 years now.

We don't fucking know. Automation and particularly artificial intelligence and machine learning could change the entire world in ways we literally don't fully understand yet. It's possible that new technology makes new applications of tech possible that create more jobs or at least create more opportunities for humans to get fulfillment from their lives.

>That's a geek's fantasy. It won't happen.
You want to explain why its a geek's fantasy?
Or why it won't happen?

Or just sit there like a pleb?

I could give you half a dozen wildly different answers from people a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than us. Humans seem to be pretty shit at predicting the future in general. It may do anything from growing the job market massively in some capacity to making 90% of the population unemployed. It may lead to a massive disparity between the haves and the have nots or traditional notions of wealth will fall apart.

>You never needed it in the first place.
I do wonder.

>How will automation affect the future?
less work, more play

i think it will improve productivity resulting in a lower cost of consumer goods available to the public

t. automation engineer

Mechanical automation has been thing since the late 1800's. There is nothing new about any of this. You don't even need computers for automation in a majority of production. Robots have been a thing since the 70's so there is that too.

>If we just automate then the world will be a colorful and happy happy place
>Everybody will be a programmer and everybody will have tech jobs
>The kids will be programming in elementary school
It is a religious dependence on technology.

Play Horizon Zero Dawn to find out.

IF AUTOMATION HAPPENS
Currency and the trade market as you know it would be completely default and not useful, ummm....obsolete is the word

REASONING: The reason behind a good's cost is it's manufacturing. When automation takes away the labor then the wage would be forfeit as there is no one to pay. No company would be able to continue pricing goods as if they had a manual(human labor) manufacturing process. There would be no way that the good would ever cost as much, or be priced the same ever.
BECAUSE the human labor element was removed and thus no one expended their own finite energy to create this, thus the company didn't lose money from paying workers.

ANYONE saying that automation is a bad thing is only looking at it with their own limited mind and not with an imaginative idea that there would be no way an economy would support a company that charged for goods at human labor prices when no human labor was used.

Automation is something we should strive for. Fuck work. Fuck waking up and making someone else rich. Fuck your boss, fuck every man who's ever strived to be in authority. Those men are evil.

BECAUSE if there is no human labor to produce a good, then the good could NOT cost as much as a good that did require human labor. Because the company didn't have to pay for labor.

I don't think the OP understands basic free market principles.

Attached: 4b2bcea160aaf7d49eac5c60af7aeff4.jpg (1600x1200, 547K)

The problem is that just before we arrive at the automated society, all of the earths money is going to be held by a few megacorps who own all the automations.

Thus, those corporations will have unlimited power to do whatever they want. Hence the distopian prospects.

this is also stating that currency would NEVER be a thing in a completely autonomous future. There would be no need to ever buy anything.

Niggers and ignorant white trash hoosiers would certainly stock the fuck up on ANYTHING they could get their hands on, that'd probably be the only problem, but that's being stated as if those people wouldn't be changed as well

No currency
No robbery
No slavery
No work
No debt
If you wanted your neighbor's chair, you'd merely have to go get yourself one.

Fuck money, currency is an innovation that makes every person compete against every person. It tore up our planet, the only one we have, in leiu so a few men would be able to live in the lap of luxury. Those men must die, as well as their families.

The only thing I can say to answer that is the fact that those megacorps, if they ever did exist (which they do now) would be fighting TOOTH and CLAW to keep the ideas of currency and wage slavery alive and well. The idea is that the patents for those innovations would be the KEY players here.

so who's gonna buy the products if no one has a job and income?

Authority is inherent to nature. Alphas will always be in charge. This is misjudgment that geeks always make when they talk about their automated utopia. You think you can't get a woman now? See what happens if you automate and free up the chad. Chads will get into sports and military endeavors and women will be more interested into these men now that work has been eliminated. Men will be born to be virgin programmers and never reproduce.

at that point we'll have to consider nationalization of the industries. It does sound like communism but with a democratic government it would hopefully give the population enough control.

I'm basically saying we'll have to try and make the future like star trek rather than the USSR. That's an issue I see with some left parties, they want to bring in a communist regime for the sake of it.

>There is nothing new about any of this.
You realize that computers were inventing fairly recently and to build machines capable of performing the same labor of humans you need complex logic that is feasible only with computers yes?
Of course not because you are fucking retard who doesn't understand complex concepts.
>It is a religious dependence on technology.
Literally adds nothing to the conversation and completely skirts any of the points I raised, to the point that you don't even directly address my arguments but you thrown out "its a religious dependence on technology" as if that says anything at all.
We are religiously dependant on technology NOW.
And has been since the fucking advent of creating fire.

Technology comprises 100% of human advancement.
Fire, simple tools, agriculture, commerce, lending, on and fucking on are all products of technology.

Come to think of it, it might be the most reliable religion to ever exist if you think about it.

Stupid people will die out which is a good thing. I won't stop automating till im dead.

t. Software developer

Well, it will never affect me

t. Every Jow Forums faggot

It will keep creating more work, seriously unemployment has never been lower.

One thing's for certain: the powers that be will have no further need for most humans and will start culling them. We're going to have a 'mysterious' great plague that kills a good portion of the world's population by the end of the century.

Computers have been around longer than you or I have been alive. Hell they have been around longer than your parents have been alive. Like I said there is nothing new here, there is no innovation, you aren't original about any of this.
>people talking about a utopia based off of a fictional world in a TV that geek's watch
Yes this is a religious view. Just give it a few years and you will see, nothing will change. ! of 2 things will happen to you; either you become jaded and you give up OR you become a fundamentalist.

There's a dormant viral genome in gmo crops that shouldn't be there with no observable function. That will be one of the global population kill switches when it's activated.

>
>There's a dormant viral genome in gmo crops that shouldn't be there with no observable function.

Don't they use viruses to actually edit the genome of gmo's in the first place?

I think that's just part of the process.

people are not taught about the industrial revolutions effects on workers. it took about 50 years for them to exceed the living standards they had prior to it. After that things improved rapidly though in the shelter and food people had.
I think it will be the same this time and we probably won't see the benefits but our children will.

Better question is how is automation affecting the present?

Call me a lefty if you want but ubi could become a neccesity. Less jobs plus a growing population means lots and lots of unemployment. Further to this, people will still have to be spending money to prop up automated industries (supermarkets, transport etc.) and people need to have money to spend it thus ubi becomes necessary.

The real joke is all women were replaceable. They're cookie-cutter cut outs of each other. They go to great lengths to hive mind and act like each other, copying even fashion and appearance.
It's only because of men that women were raised up. Now that men have been destroyed women becoming replaceable is the natural consequence.

Or we could just kill the people who can't compete in the age of automation? Why would we need to keep low IQ low skilled people alive?

Transition between fully human work to fully robotic work will go rough. As fuck. But after robots fully replace human workforce. Human will be free to sustain country cuz robots will do it for you.

You make a convincing argument

The difference is that computers used to be a tool to improve productivity.

Have an office of 25 people with adding machines, well you can sell 250 units. Give each of them a computer and now you're selling 25,000 units. There's no unemployment just because one person can do the work of 10, just more productivity.

But when the computers make the computer operators superfluous, then you get unemployment.

When you look at technological change, you shouldn't look at what cars did to the stagecoach drivers. You should look at what cars did to horses.

Think for a minute though.

Now you can have 25 people sitting on a computer operating 25 robots selling 25,000,000 units.

I hear your objections already: But automated factories are very expensive!

however, so were the first computers. As time goes on, the automations will make our productivity so much improved that the cost of automated factories is going to plummet, and normal people will be able to afford them.

I don't really know how it's going to go, though.

Yeah, if we put the horses in front of the cars and make them pull the cars, they will go even faster!

You don't get it friend.

It paves the way for absolute monopolisation of certain industries. Companies that are big enough to afford automated systems will become exponentially more cost effective (due to paying less wages, streamlining their processes, and removing human error). I don't need to break down why monopolisation is bad to you guys but with automation in the mix it would be an order of magnitude worse.

Automated factories still require operators.
It's just that it's fewer operators than were previously required.

You're thinking of self improving AI or something. That's a different question. (Although it's related).

>Now you can have 25 people sitting on a computer operating 25 robots
You mean 1000 robots being operated automatically with 1 computer tech monitoring them while 999 people are jobless.

>You mean 1000 robots being operated automatically with 1 computer tech monitoring them while 999 people are jobless.
I think such a situation is a very long way off. You're overestimating our level of technology.

If you account for all the things from which humans are completely removed from, that's not really true. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

For an example there's a harbor in Germany that has only a few guys in a control room. The cranes unload and load the cargo autonomously and the cars negotiate their schedules on their own.

A self driving truck requires a mechanic, but so does a regular truck. The thing it doesn't need is a driver.

Modern robots are increasingly built not to make humans better at their jobs - they're so good at the human's job adding a human just makes them worse.

There's not going to be an AI robot sitting at the computer, there's going to be a piece of software running on that computer doing the exact same thing the human who was there used to do, only hundreds of times faster. The exact same computer repair guy won't lose his job, at least not right away, but the 25 others will.

If you think it's impossible, it's already happening to stock traders. Computer programs do up to 40% of modern stock trades. They're developing software that can diagnose diseases and software that can automatically check legal databases for past case law to develop legal arguments.

It's a long way off for some industries but just around the corner for others. Think of transport. Once self driving cars are reliable (not too far away the way things are going) then that's every truck/delivery/taxi driver out of a job.

>then that's every truck/delivery/taxi driver out of a job.
And transportation is the largest single employment in the US.

Why do the robots have red eyes and angry expressions? That's not a very appealing design choice.

Ok, so I'm thinking about it differently from you guys.

I'm thinking of a business. Somebody has a product they want to make and sell to somebody.

How many people do I have to pay in order to carry out this process?

I don't think converting to modern automation can decrease the number of people by a factor of 1000. I'm thinking maybe a factor of 10 or 20... which is still a big number, but 1000 is a huge number.

Attached: calvin no life.png (895x282, 145K)

You do realize you're quibbling, right? Societal stability goes out the window when half the population is unemployed.

Well, I basically agree with your idea being a possible future.

I'm pointing out another possible future. The more people there are to work, the more total production the US can achieve.
This means that i's possible that automated societies are going to become the center of production for the world, and draw in all the wealth so that all the people will not only have jobs, but will be incredibly wealthy.

That's the thing though: the moment automation is a feasible option, it turns out people really suck at being cannon fodder. They can work a measly 10 hours a day, they go on sick leave and have accidents... once replacing humans is feasible in some job, humans are gone for good.

I know, I've written software that replaced human workers.

The difference is that you think there's such a thing as a "truck driver". You think that when we fire the truck driver, then one truck driver is unemployed.

Whereas I think there's a human who drives a truck. If we don't need humans to do that, the human will do something else. If there are fewer workers required to operate a business, then we can have more businesses producing more products.

It doesn't matter that we don't need humans to drive trucks. You're implying that there will be NOTHING for that person to do in the new economy. I'm not sold on that premise.

And why is that a good thing for actual people?

For total automation to succeed, some form of communism or socialism will have to be implemented. People cannot simply have their jobs taken by AI and go die. Robots will have to taxed enough to provide basic income for everyone.

That sounds more like the rich and super rich are the enemy.

>then we can have more businesses producing more products.
>It doesn't matter that we don't need humans to drive trucks. You're implying that there will be NOTHING for that person to do in the new economy. I'm not sold on that premise.
I'm afraid you're operating on the faulty premise. There's a reason people's interests diverge into hyper-repetitive simple tasks like driving, and intensely demanding, complex tasks like product development.
>protip: the average IQ of a truck driver is like 90 whereas the average R&D engineer's is around 115

The whole point of the automation is that it disproportionately affects simple, repetitive jobs, and those people can't just be "retrained" to something more intellectually demanding.

universal pay. post WWIII

It won't

UBI, yes. Practicing an outmoded political idea from the industrial revolution based on class resentment that literally doesn't make sense in the current age and will be even less relevant in the future which is espoused by faggots, degenerates and stoned college sophomores, no.

UBI is a form of communism.

Clearly there is an IQ below which a person ceases to be a useful worker.

However, I reject that high IQ jobs are the only kind that will require human input any time soon.
Like I said, earlier I think that will really only happen when we get some kind of self teaching AI. I don't believe that you will make mediocre IQ people obsolete any time soon.

Remember that IQ only determines the rate at which you learn a skill, and doesn't necessarily imply that you can't refine a skill to a high level with practice.

>Clearly there is an IQ below which a person ceases to be a useful worker.
You're backpedaling, hard. Transportation occupations is the largest employee group and there are many like it.

>I don't believe
Then you're not arguing facts, you're arguing emotions.

>Remember that IQ only determines the rate at which you learn a skill, and doesn't necessarily imply that you can't refine a skill to a high level with practice.
This is a liberal meme. There's a reason you don't see MDs with an IQ of 100.
See
>youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0

>>Clearly there is an IQ below which a person ceases to be a useful worker.
>You're backpedaling, hard.
Am I? The statement is true even today (and has always been true) as you've shown with your jbp video.
The fact that some people are too stupid to do anything is not controversial.

>Then you're not arguing facts, you're arguing emotions.
We're talking about predicting the future. You are projecting your beliefs about something you can't possibly predict accurately, just like I am.

>There's a reason you don't see MDs with an IQ of 100.
I bet you that there are MD's with 100 IQ. Many of them don't seem particularly smart.
By the way, in the video you linked, jbp actually says almost the exact same line as what you're calling a "liberal meme". (4:35 timestamp).

Probably not on the level the doomsayers and utopians say it will. I think AI is a bit of a meme but we can see unskilled labor be essentially obsolete for human laborers.

>Am I?
>The fact that some people are too stupid to do anything is not controversial.
Yes you are. The group classified as too stupid to do anything is increasing dramatically.

>We're talking about predicting the future
You're talking as if we were speculating into a void, which is not the case. Like I said, I'm a contributor to this process, it's very real and it's happening right now.

>jbp actually says almost the exact same line as what you're calling a "liberal meme". (4:35 timestamp).
He's talking about high-end performers you fucking dolt.

>I bet you that there are MD's with 100 IQ. Many of them don't seem particularly smart.
Aand we're done. You're officially a fucking idiot who's talking out of your ass.
>protip: check out the average IQ of a person in med school

>The group classified as too stupid to do anything is increasing dramatically.
Source? Sounds like you're talking out your ass.

>You're talking as if we were speculating into a void, which is not the case.
No, I simply stated a fact. You cannot predict what soceity is going to evolve into. You're very arrogant to think you can.

>He's talking about high-end performers you fucking dolt.
So am I to believe that the meaning of IQ radically changes when you reach a certain number? What number is it that the transition occurs where suddenly IQ predicts how fast you learn something?

Talking out your ass again?

>>protip: check out the average IQ of a person in med school
And we're done.
>Doesn't understand the difference between an average and a distribution curve
>protip: there is such a thing as a statistical outlier.

We can hope....
The alternative is of course a kleptocracy of corporations with the government as their PR department.

>techfags honestly think that automation won't wipe out their jobs as well
>"hurr I'm the TECH ELITE! XD I work night and day to make it so those flyover bumpkins aren't allowed to work at the Walmart anymore! TAKE THAT DRUMPIES!! XDD"

It's getting to the point where algorithms can do the work of most programmers. Also it's common practice now for companies to hire busybody innovators to put an idea or infrastructure in place, then fire that guy and hire a bunch of low-pay graspers and interns to work in the new establishment. LITERALLY the only jobs that will be safe from automation are trade jobs (AKA jobs that techie soikids think are "beneath" them.) When the soikids finally figure it out it will be too late for them, since most trade jobs and unions are run by the conservatives they hate so much already so by that point the sois will be barred from any opportunity.