Speculation: what happens when robots obsolete us?

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Bri

In the Soviet Union, for all it's faults, scientists in many disciplines were prepared to put in a lot of effort for little to no extra benefits over simpler jobs. There is something about taking part in projects that are larger than one self (space exploration, fundamental sciences, cure for cancer, etc) that would provide an incentive for people to work.

The ancient Greek city states might have come closest to a society where it's citizens were left to pursue other interests, and they didn't really stay in bed all day. Ironically it was built on slave labor, although automation/robots would remove the ethical side of the problem in a future society.

The key problem I see with your arguments here is that "free time" options have changed and increased drastically over the past few decades. This is especially true if we compare modern day to ancient Greece.

Of course people don't want to "stay in bed" all day. But how about indulging yourself on a wide array of video games, anime shows, TV shows, movies, internet surfing, etc...? In past eras, this wasn't possible. Even for the scientists working in the old USSR, their entertainment options were very limited compared to today. Now there is more entertainment than what you could ever hope to fully consume even if you did nothing but eat, sleep, and consume entertainment.

The life of the layabout was loathed not just because it indicated laziness, but also because it portended quite a bit of boredom. That's not necessarily the case any more.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

The key problem I see with your arguments here is that "free time" options have changed and increased drastically over the past few decades. This is especially true if we compare modern day to ancient Greece.

Of course people don't want to "stay in bed" all day. But how about indulging yourself on a wide array of video games, anime shows, TV shows, movies, internet surfing, etc...? In past eras, this wasn't possible. Even for the scientists working in the old USSR, their entertainment options were very limited compared to today. Now there is more entertainment than what you could ever hope to fully consume even if you did nothing but eat, sleep, and consume entertainment.

The life of the layabout was loathed not just because it indicated laziness, but also because it portended quite a bit of boredom. That's not necessarily the case any more.

Seems like a very empty existence to me. Don't you think people would tire from only consuming entertainment and want to search for meaning or work towards a goal in their lives?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Bri

Seems like a very empty existence to me. Don't you think people would tire from only consuming entertainment and want to search for meaning or work towards a goal in their lives?

Sure, but how long would that take, and how much would their minds have deteriorated in that time?

Besides, there are plenty of "goals" in entertainment to fulfill that craving (think video games achievements). It's just a substitute calculated to maintain our addictions, but it works well enough to keep people clicking mindlessly for hours.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I think you might be overestimating your percentages a bit. There are a lot of jobs that I doubt most people will be comfortable handing over to robots. Jobs like teachers, professors, doctors, nurses, psychologists, politicians, police officers, financial advisers, lawyers, judges, etc... Basically, any profession where you have to deal a lot with the general public (with the possible exception of very basic clerical work - working on the counter at McDonalds, say). And a lot of these professions are absolutely essential to a modern, functioning society.

And a lot of people prefer fresh, organic food prepared by a chef over a microwavable meal, but they can't or won't pay the price (money, time) for it.

At first, sure, people will prefer humans. But as there are less and less of those available (because those are hard jobs), they'll get used to robots. Who never lose their temper, are never lazy or bigoted...

Except for politicians. You'll always get plenty of human volunteers for that. And I'm not sure we'll ever be all that hot for robot overlords.

[JMvS]

I think the concept of only the 1% remaining, leaving the rest to starve and rot, will never happen, for very simple reasons: prestige and power.

Huxley already explored the idea in Brave New World:

Spoiler for spoiler:

At some point, the protagonist confront the leader, and in the discussion, he exposes that while they could eliminate labor and produce only Alpha individuals, experiments have shown that a full Alpha society degenerates as strong personalities conflict with each other.

Somebody brought up the example of the slave driven Greek Cities of Antiquity, but I think that ancient Rome is a more fitting example: as most of the production came into the hands of a mass of slaves brought by the conquests, they obsoleted a still large plebeian population, that came to rely more and more, as client, of the largesses (free food and entertainment) of rich and influent patrons, and later the Emperor.
A big point of being powerfull was and still is to create infrastructures and institutions that benefit the masses, sometimes if not most of the time for prestige sakes only.

There's no point in being a 1% alone: there will always be pet artists, pet sport teams and pet athletes, and masses to cheer on them, and there will still be those who'll see their job as their hobby and vice-versa.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

And where those profits come from if the costs not only remain unchanged but even increased?
So far it worked because production improved drastically but it is naive to think this system will work indefinitely. There will be a point where increasing production will be pointless because no matter how many more goods you can make per minute, there's someone that needs to buy them and simply producing more won't increase the sales.

Think of it this way.
Let's say that you have 5 people that can produce a certain product for 10.000 persons, now for the sake of argument let's say that it's the kind of product that a single person can't possibly need more even if it costs shit, for example food or toothpaste. the ratio is 5 to 10.000. Now let's say a new machine is introduced so now 5 people can produce for 50.000 persons.
Your argument is that nothing changed because that's still 5 people working, but it's not true. The ratio has changed, it's now 5 to 50.000 and that means that whereas before you needed 5 people for those 10.000 customers now you only need 1 in comparison.

I think the better word would be "revenue".

Like I said, things will always shift towards an equilibrium, be it supply or demand forcing it to do so. Price moves because of inflation.

The basic trend is that the more technology advances the less people you need to produce a product and the less it will cost. This will go on until production will require 0 workers and the cost will be equally null.

Logically speaking, that would be impossible thanks to something called consumption with reference to personal ability to produce. If the person can produce the raw materials and turn it into something he/she wants to consume, that the thing will be of zero value.

As long as any component used in the production process has to be taken from someone else, there will be a cost. And labour because one needs to get off his ass in order to make it - even pressing a button on the replicator requires work.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Except for politicians. You'll always get plenty of human volunteers for that. And I'm not sure we'll ever be all that hot for robot overlords.

When mechanical implants start replacing our body parts, robot sex will be used to enslave us. Nuff said.

[speedyexpress48]

Originally Posted by Bri

Seems like a very empty existence to me. Don't you think people would tire from only consuming entertainment and want to search for meaning or work towards a goal in their lives?

Well, hey, in this universe, there will likely be SAO-like MMORPGs to play (a lot of this tech is already there...Google Glass, anyone?) so you can immerse yourself in a whole different world from reality which might as well be reality...

And hell, video game achievements are pretty much like real life achievements. Video game companies know this (its how they get you playing for a loooong time...)

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Bri

Seems like a very empty existence to me. Don't you think people would tire from only consuming entertainment and want to search for meaning or work towards a goal in their lives?

I'm sure some would agree with you, and maybe that's enough to keep the sciences going strong even without some form of compensation. But I'm also sure that many would feel that it's just not worth the hassle and time commitment when they could just goof around and have fun all the time. Those who goof around and have fun all the time would probably find a way to add some sense of meaning and purpose to it.

Anh Minh mentioned video game achievements which some actually do take very seriously even in today's world. There's also dabbling in creative writing, fanfics, artwork, music playing. A lot of people pick up a guitar and become good enough at it that they can play for small audiences of friends and family members and get applauded for it, and they find some small degree of meaning/purpose there.

Keep in mind that the way I envision things playing out is that the jobs left for humans would be scarce enough that competition for them would be truly fierce. Some people, probably most people, would think that the competition just to earn this job in the first place is too much for them. So they'd settle into an unemployed existence.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

And a lot of people prefer fresh, organic food prepared by a chef over a microwavable meal, but they can't or won't pay the price (money, time) for it.

And has the microwave and cheap microwavable food put restaurants out of business?

At first, sure, people will prefer humans. But as there are less and less of those available (because those are hard jobs), they'll get used to robots. Who never lose their temper, are never lazy or bigoted...

I don't know. How many women are going to want to see a robot gynecologist?

You could be right that people get used to humans being phased out gradually over time, but I have real doubts here.

Except for politicians. You'll always get plenty of human volunteers for that. And I'm not sure we'll ever be all that hot for robot overlords.

Yeah, politicians is the one I'm most confident about in my list. The prestige and semi-celebrity status alone will draw a lot of people to being politicians, even in an age when there's no financial compensation for being a politician.

[grylsyjaeger]

Well, I guess someone will have to dig the resource mines of our new robotic overlords.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

And has the microwave and cheap microwavable food put restaurants out of business?

No, but how many people have even set foot in a gastronomic restaurant even once in their lives? If the choice is having a robot service you adequately now for free, and maybe having a human do it in months, with at best the only real difference being an emotional, irrational preference (and at worst said human being a shit), most people won't bother with a human.

Yeah, politicians is the one I'm most confident about in my list. The prestige and semi-celebrity status alone will draw a lot of people to being politicians, even in an age when there's no financial compensation for being a politician.

That, and it doesn't take thousands and thousands of hours of hard work to even be competent. And the robots are no competition, unlike other jobs.

[HasuMasu]

I actually think government is one of the areas in which robots are absolutely necessary.

People shouldn't lead people.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by Masuzu

I actually think government is one of the areas in which robots are absolutely necessary.

People shouldn't lead people.

So you are a supporter of the vision put forth in Asimov's Robot Series where a highly evolved artificial intelligence eventually manipulates humans towards their own good.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Masuzu

I actually think government is one of the areas in which robots are absolutely necessary.

I'd be more inclined to agree if we had good voting machines... Robots have to be programmed.


Oh, other change if we transition to a robot-based economy: we'll move out of the cities. No need to be where the jobs are, after all. And everything can be delivered by robots.

Though I suppose there'll still be communities based on various things. For example, athletes will want to be near stadiums... and each other. The old and sick will want to be near hospitals and their robot-doctors...

[Hooves]

Originally Posted by Joyce_Steele

Reapers kill us all.

Then humanity will start over from the ground zero.

If robots ever fully take over manual labor (which will happen eventually). Then my speculation is we'll just take more mentally-required jobs or things outside physical labor jobs. Now if we have robots taking us over, then it's practically good game for us.

[SummeryDreams]

I guess there's nothing wrong to such. If robots do the labor, then let those human laborers be employed to factories that creates robots, or some fine stuffs that robot still can't use, or simply, be the one to manipulate the robots instead.

[ChainLegacy]

I just made a post in the Science and Technology thread discussing the Fermi Paradox (which goes something like: plenty of intelligent life seems likely to be out there due to the sheer vastness of space, so why haven't we made contact?). In it, I alluded to one of the 'solutions' to the paradox I once read about.

The "solution" is that perhaps intelligent life eventually decides to forgo any further advancement and instead opts to use their technology to stimulate themselves to the utmost. In other words, create a "matrix" of pure pleasure, better than any drug, giving unending feelings of bliss, fulfillment, accomplishment, pride, joy, etc all at the push of a button. One could certainly see the plot of the movie "The Matrix" played out differently - the humans are indeed connected in, not in a simulation of modern life, but in a state of virtual nirvana, all tended to by their robotic servants.

[HasuMasu]

Originally Posted by Dextro

So you are a supporter of the vision put forth in Asimov's Robot Series where a highly evolved artificial intelligence eventually manipulates humans towards their own good.

I don't know that series, my idea is based mostly on The Living Tribunal.

[Ledgem]

An interesting topic. While we can speculate about the future, it's worth taking a look at what automation has already done to society. It was assumed long ago that automation would result in people spending less time working and having more leisure time, as the technology would enable us to be just as productive in less time and with less effort. I can't speak for Europe or the rest of the world, but in America that never panned out. Part of the problem was that production-based metrics were never used; people continued to use time-based metrics for performance. Certain jobs were eliminated, but the development of technology led to the creation of other jobs.

I don't think that any of us can comprehend what society would be like with everything (or near-everything) automated. In order for such a thing to become reality it would need to take place over a long period of time. Aside from the time needed for the development of such a thing, and for the economics to be feasible, it would have to happen gradually for society to accept and adapt to it. All of us were born with the expectation that we would ultimately work; a person's career defines them. To be born into a world where profession isn't a large part of society would make for a totally different set of values and thinking than what we have.

[U. N. Owen]

Well, many possibilities are born from your scenario.

Foremost among them being society reaching a point of stasis and life loosing meaning on a macro scale, or robots becoming self-aware and deciding that Rust is bad for them and decide to get rid of all of the oxygen on the planet or any other sentient robot doomsday scenario that's been done a thousand times.

In all seriousness, I think that it really depends on the individual. Some people would loose purpose in life, others would be delighted. I guess it kind of depends on whether or not the robots can invent new things and improve on existing technology (although, again, were they to gain sentience...), because if they couldn't, a static society is one I wish not to live in.

And if they were self-aware, well, they have rights too. Or, at least that's what a lot of crazy seeming people, myself included, will fight for tooth and nail.

But I digress.

[Kafriel]

Fun topics always seem to sprout when I'm away

Hmm, if robots could get a good 90% of manual labor done:

1) We'd hire engineers for maintenance; even if robots could do it by themselves, complex frames would require improved software for pinpoint accuracy and measurements.

2) Could also hire programmers to further improve the ever successful robotic industries.

3) Probably still advertise a lot, since ads can't be conceived by robots, since human behavior is rather complex in ways that definite algorithms can't cover.

4) What keeps the world moving is new discoveries and inventions, things that robots will never be able to do on their own - even if they could, it would take a mind far superior to theirs in order to conceive of such an A.I. With researchers and scientists in the spotlight of any kind of breakthrough, people would still have enough to talk about.

5) A large part of the world would probably live the same way they do today. Even with an enormous leap in mechatronic technology, nobody would just give it away for the good of mankind...and durable materials (casually lab-produced at steep costs) would deter the mass production of such modules, leaving them available to a lesser part of the world's population (think exoskeletal suits, high-efficiency fuel, superconductors, graphene/carbon nanotubes etc.)

6) Some people would faithfully refuse or ban such technology in order to maintain the balance of the current system, or because machines are the devil's spawn, your pick. Lots of unreasonable excuses with millions of followers would just wait to burst out.

[synaesthetic]

The more interesting question is this:

Would we consider the artificial intelligences as legitimate people, or would we enslave them simply because they wouldn't be human?