What will the economy look like when robots take over most of the jobs as a result of scientific and technological progress?

[ольга]

Robots don't get paid, so they don't have any money. Peaple don't have jobs, so they don't have money either. Will the money stay in the economy?

 

[Seattle]

Yes, money will stay in the economy. Farm machines don't get paid so they don't have any money. Manual farm laborers aren't now needed in the hundreds on a large farm. Yet, man was in charge of the whole process and our quality of life is greater than before. Robots are no different.

 

[ольга]

Yes, money will stay in the economy. Farm machines don't get paid so they don't have any money. Manual farm laborers aren't now needed in the hundreds on a large farm. Yet, man was in charge of the whole process and our quality of life is greater than before. Robots are no different.

Были времена, когда веками ничего значимо не менялось. Но за последние десятилетия всё изменилось стремительно. И будет продолжать меняться по нарастающей. Придёт время, когда почти все рабочие места заменят роботы. И управлять процессами будет ИИ. Он для этого и создавался. На каких работах ИИ никогда не сможет заменить человека? Если такие и есть, то их немного. Основная масса людей останется без работы. Это не произойдёт завтра, но произойдёт всё равно рано или поздно. Возможно, уже в нашем 21-м веке. Сейчас люди получают зарплату и тратят её на товары и услуги. Роботам зарплата не нужна, и товары с услугами тоже, но они будут их производить. А каким образом люди будут эти услуги и товары получать без денег?

 

[DaveC426913]

We used to have to calculate numbers by hand. There were offices of number crunchers who did nothing but add up numbers all day.

Then mechanical adding machines came along. Did it put accountants out of business? No. Accountant uses adding machines to do their work faster.

Then electronic calculators came along. Did it put accountants out of business? No. Accountants used calculators to do their work faster.

Then computers came along. Did it put accountants out of business? No. Accountants used computers to do their work faster.

All that automation does is help people do their their jobs more efficiently - their jobs change to encompass more.



My uncle used to paint advertizing signs to promote businesses. Then computers came along. I can now produce advertizing in a tenth of the time it took him. Am I out of a job? No. Advertizing is simply one aspect of my more complex job. I can do more in less time. That means businesses that depend on me can develop and grow faster and cheaper. That accelerates the pace of the economy.


Did the advent of tractors put farmers out of work? On the contrary, a tractor is a critical tool in the farmer's arsenal - absolutely essentially for him to be productive and competitive.

Pick any industry you want; you'll find the same pattern.

 

[ольга]

This is a false logical sequence.

We used to have to calculate numbers by hand. There were offices of number crunchers who did nothing but add up numbers all day.

Then mechanical adding machines came along. Did it put accountants out of business? No. Accountant uses adding machines to do their work faster.

Then electronic calculators came along. Did it put accountants out of business? No. Accountants used calculators to do their work faster.

Then computers came along. Did it put accountants out of business? No. Accountants used computers to do their work faster.

All that automation does is help people do their their jobs more efficiently - their jobs change to encompass more.



My uncle used to paint advertizing signs to promote businesses. Then computers came along. I can now produce advertizing in a tenth of the time it took him. Am I out of a job? No. Advertizing is simply one aspect of my more complex job. I can do more in less time. That means businesses that depend on me can develop and grow faster and cheaper. That accelerates the pace of the economy.


Did the advent of tractors put farmers out of work? On the contrary, a tractor is a critical tool in the farmer's arsenal - absolutely essentially for him to be productive and competitive.

Pick any industry you want; you'll find the same pattern.

Это всё было до появления ИИ. Калькуляторы, счёты, компьютеры, и пр. не могли работать сами по себе без человека. И к тому же растущая экономика требовала больше бухгалтеров, рекламы, и т.п. ИИ не просто так создают и совершенствуют, он действительно сможет скоро водить автомобили, управлять самолётами, сельхоз.техникой, обслуживать вас в магазинах, вести уроки в школах, и пр. Где ИИ не сможет заменить человека, по вашему мнению?

 

[DaveC426913]

This was all before AI. Calculators, abacus, computers, etc. could not work on their own without a person.

It means more people will go into AI training jobs. Accountants will have to teach AI bots how tax laws work. Farmers will have to tend to their AI tractors.

And besides, the growing economy required more accountants, advertising,

And will continue to do so, ensuring the job market both grows and changes.

etc. AI is not just created and improved, it will really soon be able to drive cars, control airplanes, agricultural machinery, serve you in stores, teach lessons in schools, etc. Where, in your opinion, will AI not be able to replace a person?

As I said: computers can do the work of a hundred pencil-pushers. Have accountants disappeared? No. There are ever-more people eeding accountants. They need computers just to keep up with the demand.

Tractors can the work of a score of cows. Has that put farmers out of business? On the contrary it makes them competitive. They simply till larger fields. The farmer of the next century won't be out in the field; he will be in a cockpit surrounded by displays on all his farmbots, tilling - not hundreds of acres - but thousands of acres, to feed the ever-growing demand of a burgeoning world population - that food will be shipped by AI -controlled ships to new faraway lands - feeding the rising populations in the developing nations of Africa. "The rising tide lifts all boats."


They don't replace people, they facilitate people moving into more advanced jobs. Instead of taxi-driver being the bottom-tier job, that guy can learn, say web development to make a living - or better yet, auto mechanics, so he can get a job maintaining self-driving taxis.

Things change: as some opportunities thin out, others burgeon. this is the way.

 

[ольга]

It means more people will go into AI training jobs. Accountants will have to teach AI bots how tax laws work. Farmers will have to tend to their AI tractors.


And will continue to do so, ensuring the job market both grows and changes.



As I said: computers can do the work of a hundred pencil-pushers. Have accountants disappeared? No. There are ever-more people eeding accountants. They need computers just to keep up with the demand.

Tractors can the work of a score of cows. Has that put farmers out of business? On the contrary it makes them competitive. They simply till larger fields. The farmer of the next century won't be out in the field; he will be in a cockpit surrounded by displays on all his farmbots, tilling - not hundreds of acres - but thousands of acres, to feed the ever-growing demand of a burgeoning world population - that food will be shipped by AI -controlled ships to new faraway lands - feeding the rising populations in the developing nations of Africa. "The rising tide lifts all boats."


They don't replace people, they facilitate people moving into more advanced jobs. Instead of taxi-driver being the bottom-tier job, that guy can learn, say web development to make a living - or better yet, auto mechanics, so he can get a job maintaining self-driving taxis.

Things change: as some opportunities thin out, others burgeon. this is the way.

И управлять комбайнами на полях, и ремонтировать их, когда-нибудь будет ИИ. Обслуживать растущее африканское и арабское население? Возможно, но что они дадут взамен?

 

[Seattle]

Были времена, когда веками ничего значимо не менялось. Но за последние десятилетия всё изменилось стремительно. И будет продолжать меняться по нарастающей. Придёт время, когда почти все рабочие места заменят роботы. И управлять процессами будет ИИ. Он для этого и создавался. На каких работах ИИ никогда не сможет заменить человека? Если такие и есть, то их немного. Основная масса людей останется без работы. Это не произойдёт завтра, но произойдёт всё равно рано или поздно. Возможно, уже в нашем 21-м веке. Сейчас люди получают зарплату и тратят её на товары и услуги. Роботам зарплата не нужна, и товары с услугами тоже, но они будут их производить. А каким образом люди будут эти услуги и товары получать без денег?

Man is in control of what we do with robots so if it's isn't good, we won't do it.
However this argument is old and has been applied to all change.

Someone has to make the robots, program them, do the maintenance. Robots aren't going to be doing all jobs. The nature of jobs just changes like it always has.

If, though technology, prices come down then the average person will need to spend less and therefore they can work less. It just frees up more time for other activities.

People used to spend all their time just surviving. The Industrial Revolution came along and a shoe maker could make 100 shoes a day instead of just one. Therefore we needed less shoe makers and there was more excess and therefore there was more wealth.

Before that there was little wealth because there was little excess. Much the same could be said about personal computers, the internet and now AI. Capitalism works with all those changes.

Jobs have always been the positive side benefit of production and not the reason itself. We never need to create a job just to keep someone busy. That's not a sustainable system.

 

[ольга]

Man is in control of what we do with robots so if it's isn't good, we won't do it.
However this argument is old and has been applied to all change.

Someone has to make the robots, program them, do the maintenance. Robots aren't going to be doing all jobs. The nature of jobs just changes like it always has.

If, though technology, prices come down then the average person will need to spend less and therefore they can work less. It just frees up more time for other activities.

People used to spend all their time just surviving. The Industrial Revolution came along and a shoe maker could make 100 shoes a day instead of just one. Therefore we needed less shoe makers and there was more excess and therefore there was more wealth.

Before that there was little wealth because there was little excess. Much the same could be said about personal computers, the internet and now AI. Capitalism works with all those changes.

Jobs have always been the positive side benefit of production and not the reason itself. We never need to create a job just to keep someone busy. That's not a sustainable system.

Роботы будут создавать и программировать роботов. Уже сейчас они иногда могут делать это даже лучше человека. Конечно, какие-нибудь выдающиеся изобретатели и конструкторы останутся, но их не будет так много, чтобы это могло значимо влиять на количество рабочих мест.

 

[DaveC426913]

And someday AI will be in charge of driving combines in the fields and repairing them.

Yes, and humans will have moved on from such menial tasks.
Such is as it has been since time immemorial.
There was a time when clay pots were made one at a time, and it took days.
Are potters out of existence? No. Pots are made, bought and sold by the second rather than by the day.

Serving the growing African and Arab populations? Perhaps, but what will they give in return?

What will they give in return?? You sound like Trump in the Oval Office asking Zelenskyy what's in it for him?

Developing countries bring people into the workforce as well as money and open up new market channels. They are a half billion new customers, eager to buy food, shoes, clothing, automobiles, business services, etc. as well as provide their own goods and services. Ask Coca Cola and Nestle why they're so interested in the African market.

In a hundred years, we'll be shipping our farmbot-tended goods to the Moon colonies, then to Mars as we continue to grow.

 

[ольга]

Yes, and humans will have moved on from such menial tasks.
Such is as it has been since time immemorial.
There was a time when clay pots were made one at a time, and it took days.
Are potters out of existence? No. Pots are made, bought and sold by the second rather than by the day.


What will they give in return?? You sound like Trump in the Oval Office asking Zelenskyy what's in it for him?

Developing countries bring people into the workforce as well as money and open up new market channels. They are a half billion new customers, eager to buy food, shoes, clothing, automobiles, business services, etc. as well as provide their own goods and services. Ask Coca Cola and Nestle why they're so interested in the African market.

In a hundred years, we'll be shipping our farmbot-tended goods to the Moon colonies, then to Mars as we continue to grow.

Просто раньше потребление было меньше. Человек покупал ботинки и носил их пол жизни, ещё и детям передавал по наследству. Так же и глинянными горшками пользовались всю жизнь. Но потребление не может расти бесконечно, каждый день ботинки менять не будешь. К тому же сейчас их делают китайцы, а скоро начнут делать роботы.
Африка даёт природные ресурсы, этим и живёт. Конструкторов и изобретателей, которые будут создавать новые интеллектуальные продукты, она вам вряд ли даст в большом количестве.
Лунные и марсианские колонии? Вы говорите, как Маск Трампу, который сидит в этом кабинете...

 

[DaveC426913]

It's just that consumption used to be lower. People bought boots and wore them for half their lives, and then passed them on to their children. People also used clay pots their entire lives.

But consumption can't grow indefinitely;

Why not? It has so far.

you can't change your boots every day.

There are now eight billion people who need boots. Back then, there were only 1 billion (or so).
Instead of just one pair, I have about six, one for each purpose.
And I buy cheaper ones, which will wear out faster, and I will replace them more often. Because I can.
People who prefer boots that will last their lifetime can still buy them. A growing economy results in more options for all of us.

Besides, the Chinese are making them now, and robots will soon start making them.

So? They're part of the global economy too. The more money they make off boots the more they have to buy products and services from us.

Africa provides natural resources, and that's what it lives on.

Yes. For now.
Canada was once only food for beaver pelts. Now it is a world leader.

It's unlikely to give you designers and inventors who will create new intellectual products in large quantities.

Why?

India, once a third world nation, is how a leader in the tech industry. They even have their own rockets.

Africa is a good site for some future mega-projects, like the proposed space elevator, partly because land labour and taxes are cheap. In a century, Arica might be the hub of the space industry.

Moon and Martian colonies? You sound like Musk to Trump, who sits in this office...

Europe was once the whole world.

Imagine them saying: "Trading with colonies in the Americas? The New World? You migit as well go sail on Columbus' little boat!"

 

[ольга]

Why not? It has so far.


There are now eight billion people who need boots. Back then, there were only 1 billion (or so).
Instead of just one pair, I have about six, one for each purpose.
And I buy cheaper ones, which will wear out faster, and I will replace them more often. Because I can.
People who prefer boots that will last their lifetime can still buy them. A growing economy results in more options for all of us.



So? They're part of the global economy too. The more money they make off boots the more they have to buy products and services from us.


Yes. For now.
Canada was once only food for beaver pelts. Now it is a world leader.


Why?

India, once a third world nation, is how a leader in the tech industry. They even have their own rockets.

Africa is a good site for some future mega-projects, like the proposed space elevator, partly because land labour and taxes are cheap. In a century, Arica might be the hub of the space industry.


Europe was once the whole world.

Imagine them saying: "Trading with colonies in the Americas? The New World? You migit as well go sail on Columbus' little boat!"

Ну хорошо, пусть Африка и другие страны развиваются, это всё равно ничего не меняет. Чтобы понять сколько рабочих мест ИИ отберёт у людей, нужно просто понять чего он делать не может, и не сможет даже в будущем. Можете назвать такие сферы деятельности?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, let Africa and other countries develop, it still doesn't change anything.

Hopefully not. Our global economy is and has been growing since we first made fire and domesticated crops. KIdeally, that will continue, raising the qualiy of life for everyone on the planet (and off).

To understand how many jobs AI will take from people, you just need to understand what it can't do, and won't be able to do even in the future.

Good. it follows then that here are plenty of jobs that won't be taken away from people.

Can you name such areas of activity?

It will always be merely another tool, used for the development our our society.

The Industrial Revolution looked a lot similar to people of the 18th and 19th centuries. "How will we have jobs if all these automated factories can churn out my pots in seconds?" Then they all got jobs in factories. Instead of making pots, they operated machines that made the pots.

The average quality of life - due to steady, organized work - improved the overall education, options and life-expectancy of the world.

 

[Seattle]

Роботы будут создавать и программировать роботов. Уже сейчас они иногда могут делать это даже лучше человека. Конечно, какие-нибудь выдающиеся изобретатели и конструкторы останутся, но их не будет так много, чтобы это могло значимо влиять на количество рабочих мест.

It's like Amazon. They displaced much retail but Amazon has many, many employees, all paid better than retail clerks.

 

[ольга]

Hopefully not. Our global economy is and has been growing since we first made fire and domesticated crops. KIdeally, that will continue, raising the qualiy of life for everyone on the planet (and off).


Good. it follows then that here are plenty of jobs that won't be taken away from people.


It will always be merely another tool, used for the development our our society.

The Industrial Revolution looked a lot similar to people of the 18th and 19th centuries. "How will we have jobs if all these automated factories can churn out my pots in seconds?" Then they all got jobs in factories. Instead of making pots, they operated machines that made the pots.

The average quality of life - due to steady, organized work - improved the overall education, options and life-expectancy of the world.

Дейв, я же не говорю, что жизнь станет хуже. Возможно, она станет намного лучше, чем сейчас. Людям не нужно будет заниматься тем, что им не нравится, но они занимаются этим ради пропитания. Мне интересно понять, как изменится при этом экономика. Возможно, наступит коммунизм, и всё будет бесплатным? Или, нет?

 

[ольга]

It's like Amazon. They displaced much retail but Amazon has many, many employees, all paid better than retail clerks.

У них и дальше может быть много сотрудников, но только это будут роботы.

 

[DaveC426913]

Will communism come and everything be free? Or will it?

Communism almost invariably leads to capitalism over time.

The world will never be such that ambitious people want to get more recompense for more work they do.
The industrious entrepreneur will always be there, wanting to work more to get more than their contented neighbour.
The only way to stop this is to have the government step in and intervene, taking away from he who has acquired much to give to he who has acquired little.

Why would anyone try harder than they need to, only to have their gains taken away and given to their neighbour?
It works fine on a smaller scale the size of a village, where everyone knows everyone, b ut it does not scale well to populations where one's neighbours are strangers.

But that's a talk about politics, and beyond the scope of my interest.

 

[DaveC426913]

They may still have a lot of employees, but they will be robots.

Great, that means every individual can run their own business!

Which is kind of what we have. Then they get conglomerated into larger businesses, and the individual owners retire on the profits of the sale of their businesses. Works very well.

 

[ольга]

Communism almost invariably leads to capitalism over time.

The world will never be such that ambitious people want to get more recompense for more work they do.
The industrious entrepreneur will always be there, wanting to work more to get more than their contented neighbour.
The only way to stop this is to have the government step in and intervene, taking away from he who has acquired much to give to he who has acquired little.

Why would anyone try harder than they need to, only to have their gains taken away and given to their neighbour?
It works fine on a smaller scale the size of a village, where everyone knows everyone, b ut it does not scale well to populations where one's neighbours are strangers.

But that's a talk about politics, and beyond the scope of my interest.

Политика и экономика идут вместе. Мне тоже не нравится уравниловка, как была в СССР. Поэтому мне и стало интересно, что будет выступать стимулом в обществе, где нет денег. Работать на работах, недоступных для ИИ, смогут только самые талантливые, способные творить что то новое. Таких немного. Не получим ли мы разделение на новые элиты, и те, кто будет жить на пособия? Это в случае, если деньги останутся в экономике.