Poll of the Day > So how is society going to deal with not needing human workers anymore

(+) Yeah! (+)

This is going to take some time still (maybe like 2 decades I dunno) but thanks to AI, automatization etc there is going to be a LARGE number of people not able to get a job simply because they aren't needed.

The problem then is not having a job carries a really big stigma in society. I think people will fight to have jobs even if they aren't necessary because of that stigma

So what will happen?

The vast majority of jobs still require human input, and will continue to do so.

Sucks if you're in the tech sector but hammers still need to be swung.

Like this:

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/original/i9BAQDsWcqnXUKAyFWvve5f0OxG.jpg

Either we implement universal basic income or people start burning down robot factories. There's no middle ground. If the entire world suddenly has to pivot to robot assembly and repair, that doesn't actually improve the world, as most people don't want to do that for a living, and it also would render most people's professional skillsets useless. Either we all the up like the people in Wall-E, but hopefully less fat, or we go right back to where we are now after a lot of violence and starvation.

man101 posted...

as most people don't want to do that for a living

Life has almost never been about what you want to do, as much as what you need to do (to survive).

We have been coping with the automatization of jobs since 1960's.

The loss of the middle class and the increased gap between the haves and haves not is a direct result.

As long as the drive for increased profits continues so a very few can have more wealth than they would ever need, while others struggle to maintain basic living necessities, at some point the haves not will have no reason to not attempt to overthrow the haves. Increased rates of automatization will only hasten such an era.

grind us all up to make lubricant for the robots I guess, cause they sure as fuck aren't going to just let us have nice shit and live comfy lives or anything cool.

Nursing is gonna be fine so I'll be ok

SunWuKung420 posted...

We have been coping with the automatization of jobs since 1960's.

The loss of the middle class and the increased gap between the haves and haves not is a direct result.

As long as the drive for increased profits continues so a very few can have more wealth than they would ever need, while others struggle to maintain basic living necessities, at some point the haves not will have no reason to not attempt to overthrow the haves. Increased rates of automatization will only hasten such an era.

Since the Renaissance I believe.

What also happens is humans have to keep staying smarter than the machines.
And we actually do. Average IQ has increased steadily over the years.

There's only a stigma about employment because not being employed makes you a drain. If you existence is free, then the only stigma left is doing actively socially destructive things (until some other activity becomes the social norm, then not participating in that will brand you an outsider).

Problem is, the ai and robotics manufacturers would be in it for profit and would probably only be looking at short term gain, as people are bloody idiots. So instead of implementing a decent UBI and then being part of an elite class that owns the means to produce literally everything people will buy and gradually getting richer and richer, theyll probably just block any attempt at UBI because they dont need it and would effectively be subsidising it.

Judgement Day.

AI is going to take tons of resources (energy and jobs) out of the equation for little to no actual human benefit. All the wealth is going to be funneled into those companies and their ai programs as it continues to cut human jobs. Human industry that pertains to life collapses (they aint giving you ubi) as there is no money going into it. Revolt begins and they genocide the masses through forced famine or nuke us.

Or...a new economy emerges separate from the central one kind of like those community farms where communities will be more self sufficient. Which will really piss them off and they'll nuke them for sure.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Life has almost never been about what you want to do, as much as what you need to do (to survive).

Yeah but a lot of people like or even love their jobs as it is. Pretty sure almost no one would love doing robot repair. Especially not if it's one of only two or three jobs available to most people. And if full automation and AI lead to a net negative in overall human happiness then it defeats the purpose.

SinisterSlay posted...

And we actually do. Average IQ has increased steadily over the years.

The current state of the world disproves that theory. People refuse to see that billionaires are the biggest threat humanity has ever face and keep falling for anti-immigration propaganda.

Robots will never be able to do certain jobs, like harvesting farm fields and building houses. Those would require robots with a full range of movement, while our current robots can't even walk straight.

So don't worry, you're always going to be able to work in the fields or haul lumber for houses. Or... you can show support for getting rid of billionaires.

KingInBlack posted...

People refuse to see that billionaires are the biggest threat humanity has ever face

This is meaningless. In 50-100 years billionaires will be the new millionaires and completely normal. There are a lot of problems but it takes more than one sentence to name them

Damn_Underscore posted...

This is meaningless. In 50-100 years billionaires will be the new millionaires and completely normal. There are a lot of problems but it takes more than one sentence to name them

I think most people would read that and interpret "billionaires" as "the class that controls an inordinate amount of wealth and thus has too much influence over the world" and not "people who literally have $1 billion or more and I will never update this interpretation based on inflation or other factors."

either they'll introduce a universal basic income or the lower class will slowly die off until we reach more sustainable population levels.

it won't be the first one.

Either billionaires will sustain AI as a thing; or much like the Netherlands tulips, NFTs and all the others, the bubble will burst and the economy will recess for a time.
So in the likely event of the second one, I guess AI did steal a lot of jobs.
Therefore I guess well handle it the way we always have

Damn_Underscore posted...

So what will happen?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/2142b0a5.jpg

adjl posted...

I think most people would read that and interpret "billionaires" as "the class that controls an inordinate amount of wealth and thus has too much influence over the world" and not "people who literally have $1 billion or more and I will never update this interpretation based on inflation or other factors."

When has that not existed? He should say what he means.

Nade_Duck posted...

either they'll introduce a universal basic income or the lower class will slowly die off until we reach more sustainable population levels.

it won't be the first one.

The problem no one seems to understand is, even if it is the first one, all it will really do is devalue your autonomy as a person even more than it already is.

When your sole purpose for existing (in the eyes of government and corporations) is to be a "consumer", there will be an even greater vested interest in maximizing your consumption. They will care even less about you as an individual if you aren't actually contributing anything of any real value to the system. You'll be nothing more than a cog, or a statistic (even more so than you are now).

People think online ads are annoying now, imagine a world where you're legally obligated to watch a specific number of ads per week, and if you fail to meet your quota they throttle your ability to access basic services (with methods for ensuring that you're actually watching those ads and not just letting them play in the background). Or where you have to fill out mandatory surveys on your life and interests so that the algorithms can better "serve" you. Meanwhile, luxuries would wind up getting priced beyond the ability of anyone to pay with the amount of money they make from UBI, so elites would still disproportionately control wealth and resources (and benefit from same), even more so than now.

Imagine every video game shifting back to the arcade model - "Insert $2.99 to continue playing for the next 5 minutes". Or every show and movie you watch shifting to a direct PPV model. Because, after all, "You will own nothing, and you will be happy."

Then imagine your UBI gets tied to your social credit score. If you voice the incorrect opinions on social media (or even in real life), you get docked a penalty and now you're eating ramen for the next few weeks. Or conversely, the carrot instead of the stick - if you voice the correct opinions, you get a bonus, and you get to eat better, enjoy more media, and generally have a better life than all the other plebs who are still stupidly clinging to free will and refusing to praise the glorious leadership of your wonderful nation, which is obviously as perfect as it can possibly be!

A lot of people see UBI as "the government gives me free money so I don't have to work, and nothing else about the economy or society will change at all, so everything will be better". But that's not really how any of this works.

lower birth rates

SinisterSlay posted...

And we actually do. Average IQ has increased steadily over the years.

KingInBlack posted...

The current state of the world disproves that theory.

So much this. I can name the three branches of U.S. government even though I probably didn't make top grades in Civics class during high school.

Meanwhile, there a lot of people who likely assumed the president already decided everything and that judicial and legislative branches were just part of the trees out on the capitol lawn.

Nade_Duck posted...

either they'll introduce a universal basic income or the lower class will slowly die off until we reach more sustainable population levels.

it won't be the first one.

Revolutions will start happening before the 2nd one actually goes through. Once people start starving en masse that's when you are pretty much guaranteed a revolution

I don't think we are at the point where we have 100's of machines working in warehouses without having someone to maintain them and make sure the environment is clean and cool enough to keep them operating 24/7. but when are nearing the point of every job being nearly autonomous I would hope that society would be at a point of universal income or a point where money is no longer a concept.

Damn_Underscore posted...

This is going to take some time still (maybe like 2 decades I dunno) but thanks to AI, automatization etc there is going to be a LARGE number of people not able to get a job simply because they aren't needed.

The problem then is not having a job carries a really big stigma in society. I think people will fight to have jobs even if they aren't necessary because of that stigma

So what will happen?

20 years? You gotta be kidding me. Anyways, assuming human workers were phased out in 20 years, we would still need people to supervise and maintain the machines.

The world will end so there will be no more society.

Damn_Underscore posted...

When has that not existed? He should say what he means.

Because most people would correctly interpret the original statement without needing an explanation.

Yes, wealth inequality has always existed, but it fluctuates over time and within societies. The period after World War 2 in the US is generally considered one of the most prosperous economic periods in history, and, surprise, the income inequality was relatively much lesser than it is now.

man101 posted...

Because most people would correctly interpret the original statement without needing an explanation.

This is how meaningless buzzwords are created. The first thing I said was this is meaningless.

This topic is about how society might respond to an upcoming major societal issue. And a lot of people are speculating with actual answers, not just popular buzzwords. And actually if these billionaires played their cards right, they might be able to keep their wealth for a longer time. But people have also pointed out that many people only think of today, they don't have the awareness to think of what might be the best thing to do for the future.

maybe people can find meaning in their lives that aren't focused on how they serve landlords.

Damn_Underscore posted...

This is how meaningless buzzwords are created.

It's more how language reflects common assumptions in contemporary vernacular.

Right now, "billionaires" is an accurate label for the class in question. Because this conversation is happening right now and not 100 years in the future, that mean it's an appropriate and effective way to communicate that point. If he's still saying "billionaires" to communicate this point in a hundred years, then you can take up the issue of his inaccuracy.