Amazulu

I miss shooting

Count me in

scrubbedexpat098

You'll never know it was me, I'll be dressed as a clown. You might assume it was Garry

GarryP

The drones need cameras to navigate - they are already going to be there.

And there have already been court cases that have determined that lying in your back garden, you have no expectation of privacy (people can look over the fence, planes can fly over, etc.)

scrubbedexpat098

Then if they fly over my garden, ie: my air space I will consider it an act of war and launch a pre-emptive strike. In all seriousness, that is a bullshit reasoning, how are they going to prove to me that they're not intentionally spying on me? I will at least be making a wanker sign at every one I see. Erosion of civil liberties anyone?

Beoz

Someones drone with your gun might take the little fella out

scrubbedexpat098

If his timing's right he'll take the wife's head off with the same shot.

Beoz

Ha.

Alfresco

If I ever get one, I'll camouflage it as Seven of Nine. It will make an excellent drone.

Beoz

The Luddites are just easy targets.

https://cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/futurism.com/technology-and-the-future-of-work/amp/

Amazulu

Indeed

Aristotle wrote about technological unemployment in the 4th century......

So technological unemployment has been happening forever but there have been periods where the discussion about it has come to the fore - early 19th century Britain obviously, as farming mechanised in the western world towards the end of that century, in the 1920s and 1930s, in the 1960s and 1990s - and now

In pure, brutal terms it breaks down into simple economics - if the 2% want to keep making money out of the 98% it aint going to happen if the 98% have no jobs and are on the bones of their arse! I also reckon that the vast majority of the 2% don't want to live in a world where they have to cower behind walls, in constant fear of the 98% rising up, knicking all of their money and chopping their heads off

Beoz

Absolutely. Someone needs to buy the stuff that pays for the automation.

ozzieeagle

Unless, Not that I subscribe to the idea...Still I'm keeping half an eye on it.

Rich Silicon Valley doomsday 'preppers' buying up New Zealand land

The 'boltholes with airstrips' in New Zealand being bought by the world's super-rich | Daily Mail Online


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-of-the-world

Amazulu

So they get their heads chopped off and their money knicked by the Kiwi 98% - and the Aussie 98% who make it over there

It would be fun watching some of those Maori bikers getting stuck into 'em

A ridiculous idea and not a solution

Amazulu

And another thing, why would the 2% automate the world to a degree that would make this a reality. It makes zero sense because from that moment, their ability to keep making money is virtually gone

GarryP

I think most people will agree that most manual labour has been overtaken by machines in most parts of the first world. You might have someone to control/operate the machine, but there are generally less than a tenth the number of people that would otherwise have been employed. Often less than a hundredth.

If they aren't doing those manual jobs, what are they doing.

Well there's the semi skilled jobs. Repetitively work doing jobs that can be trained in a few weeks to a few months. The kind of thing that can be defined in a process manual.

The kind of jobs we are talking about when we talk about the automation that's forthcoming.

If you want to stand up the premiss that new jobs will arise that replace the manual and semi skilled jobs as they are automated - you need to say what they are, even in general terms.

Your answer needs to be couched in the terms of

• no dependence on manual effort (we know those jobs have gone)
• no more intelligence than is needed to follow rules
• no new capabilities than those that the people doing those rote jobs currently possess
• sufficient scale to match the size of the problem

Frankly, I'm not seeing them, but if you have ideas that match the above, I'd love to hear them.

If the industrial revolution got rid of the manual jobs, and the IT revolution the manual data processing ones, then the automation revolution gets rid of the pattern matching ones - the rule book based. If there were replacements, you ought to be able to point to them now - and all I'm seeing are the 'human touch' ones where being human is a real advantage. And the only way I can see that working at sufficient scale is domestic servants - upstairs and downstairs returning because how otherwise do you keep 50% of the population alive and engaged?

The biggest problem here is the intersection between the profit focused capitalist economy and the similarity of classes of job. Once automation of job X has been achieved, the time for ALL those jobs to be automated is very short. Thus trying to deal with the slug of newly unemployed isn't gradual - it's a sudden x million people, all with similar skills, all without jobs.

And worse, if you play with the deep learning AI stuff at all, you realise that succeeding in automating one task tends to mean the whole class of similar tasks tend to fall to slightly retuned approaches from the first. So it's not just the driving jobs, it's the pilots, it's robots manoeuvring around human environments, vacuuming a carpet, painting a wall.

At the end you reach a situation where the status quo can be maintained with relatively few people - and the roles of humans will be in upsetting that status quo. Which draws it's own picture politically...

It's the whole concept of work that's going to undergo massive revision, not just what particular jobs are. And that probably means what money is will undergo just as massive as revision.