Originally Posted by GarryP

I think it just stands for "f**k it".

Beoz the problem is that even when presented with the numbers, data, references, etc. you go off on a strawman, talk some b*ll*cks, then claim to have 'won' the argument. It's pigeon chess, and why I, and others, just give up trying to explain it to you.

Take your claim that more jobs will be created than destroyed, that everything will be OK. Firstly, you don't have any data to back that up, you simply state that "its always happened in the past, it will happen again". Not only does that ignore, as has been pointed out, that this change is different, in that there's nowhere for a large swathe of society to go. It also ignores the very real structural changes that have already taken place, with the underemployment of undereducated men, and the only low paid jobs replacing high paid ones for them - coupled with general wage stagnation for those in jobs. In addition it turns a blind eye to what economists have pointed out, and technologists, and in short everyone likely to be able to see the elephant coming over the horizon.

In short, it's not true. It's wishful thinking.

In the US there are about 3.7m driver jobs and when automation hit many of those will disappear. Even if 1m remained to service the automation, fix problems, load/unload, that's still 2.7m unemployed truck drivers. And it hits fast because any company not automating is losing work.

I'm not sure if you have ever done any business planning, strategy, etc. - but most that have understand that that human resource line is both expensive, and a mountain of hassle. If you can cut it down, outsource it, etc., you do. And the bigger the swathe of people with the same role, the same responsibilities, the bigger the target for automation because you can do it once and then sell it 10,000 times over. Scale helps automation - and means whole LARGE job classes go almost overnight. Not a lot of scope for "User Experience Designer" to take up the slack. Worse, if you are being an entrepreneur, looking to build the next unicorn, you design the business model from the ground up to use automation, because that gives you quick scale. So the new companies don't have people wound into the fabric either.

Automation will be pushing at an open door.

And even if you won't take any of that, the threat of it happening alone should be enough to say that planning and preparing should be the order of the day. Like climate change, the risk of you being wrong is too great to not take action.

But our politicians aren't taking action.

In the main this is because they are law graduates who's understanding of technology is limited at best (they can tweet, woohoo). It's also that those that get to the top, to lead, are generally the oldest, and least connected with technology and how it can be used. Trump can't even manage email FFS.

https://hbr.org/2017/01/why-trump-do...out-automation

Nothing you have said has in any way invalidated or negated these factors. You don't even come close to really seeing the big picture, or presenting an alternative that joins together into a credible scenario. In the real world, Melbourne has continued to grow in population, and continued to add new jobs as a result. However it's unemployment percentage stays roughly the same - new demand isn't translating into new jobs in a sustainable manner - now - and that's before automation hits. What happens when another GFC hits, probably at the same time automation takes a chunk out of existing jobs? In the real world things are already in trouble, and no amount of telephone sanitiser wishful thinking is going to be a fix for that.

https://theconversation.com/what-the...and-work-82051

Originally Posted by uk_grenada

Let me try to assist.

1, dont be crass, there will still be a gazillion proles in need of chinese clothing and poor food to shorten their dreary lives, and that needs logistics.

2, also pretty dumb, you tried that one earlier, both is the answer.

Originally Posted by uk_grenada

As a bye the bye one of my old employers is a global logistics giant, they move around 40% of all sea freight, they are trialling drone technology in container vessels. They will never be crewless [except never say never] but they can cut the unskilled crew down from 20 to 6 and get better efficiency its claimed. [Plus 6 'experts.']

Originally Posted by Beoz

I could pull this apart but its long so keep it short with a couple of basic questions

1. Automation and technology development requires a buyer. If no one has jobs there are no buyers which equals no development. How do you explain that?

Originally Posted by Beoz

2. Saving money vs Making money. Finite vs Infinite. You know, business planning strategies. Where do you want to be?

Originally Posted by GarryP

The market is dumb with no foresight and only a short term focus. During the 90s and 00s large amounts of work was outsourced to cheap 3rd world countries to reduce costs. That then meant that wages were depressed and those in western countries didn't have funds for the services that work was enabling.

How do YOU explain that?

Originally Posted by GarryP

With the ability to scale swiftly to global markets. Which comes via write-once, run-everywhere ...... in other words just what AI offers.

Originally Posted by Beoz

1. Ok. So Siemens will be developing automated transport logistics for the Red Cross free of charge.

2. Ok. That makes no sense.




A hundred years ago freight ships had a 100 crew.

But guess what. There were less freight ships.

Like history, the future will see more freight ships, less crew, and a total increase in shipping employment numbers, including total crew numbers globally

Remember point 2. Saving money is finite. Making money is infinite. Its all about volume.

This game is so easy.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1

Thing is, as humans, with organic intelligence, we recognize the significant role that human error plays in many a cock up. So how long before an ever learning AI comes to the conclusion that humans are the weakest link and wipes us all out? Where's Sarah Connor when you need her?? Or Neo for that matter

Originally Posted by uk_grenada

Also nope, look up panamax 2, you know nothing about this subject and really have no interest, but really enjoy trolling, so sorry, no more food from me, i have a real life.

Originally Posted by Beoz

Where in the 90', 00's or even 10's did the western world not have funds for the services that work was enabling?

Originally Posted by Beoz

Write-once is finite. Technology is never finite unless its something that has no future. Ie. Google Wave. Technology and automation thrives on recurring revenue. Ongoing, growing, repeat buyers, new buyers over extended periods of time.

Originally Posted by GarryP

And that's what making an AI do job X does - it lets you scale to all the jobs in a weekend (in theory). If you come out with an AI that can do a call centre job, you can take over quickly with a cost structure that no human call centre can match. And bang go the jobs. That's why it will be so disruptive - it feeds off of large markets and fast scale due to being software.

Originally Posted by Shard

And then all those call center agents will become quantum physicists and harness the power of black holes. See automation creates jobs.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqwL7GnxiI0

Someone on here invented this, I'm sure of it

Originally Posted by GarryP

You do realise you are arguing against your case, don't you?

My point was that outsourcing was exactly the same kind of short sighted behaviour as automating without changing the distribution of the wealth resulting. And the market certainly did that, didn't it? You need something to make things more equitable, because the market is dumb on its own.

Originally Posted by GarryP

What does that even mean? It's just word salad with an admix of repeat business in a world where agility rules the roost.

The point is that unicorns result from being able to create your solution elements once, and instantiate millions of times for little incremental cost. That's what Facebook did, it's similar to what Netflix is doing, Google obviously. Scale and the ability to scale with minimal friction and additional cost as a business model allows a company to dominate a sector with dramatic growth curves.

And that's what making an AI do job X does - it lets you scale to all the jobs in a weekend (in theory). If you come out with an AI that can do a call centre job, you can take over quickly with a cost structure that no human call centre can match. And bang go the jobs. That's why it will be so disruptive - it feeds off of large markets and fast scale due to being software.

Originally Posted by GarryP

I think if you invented some automation to deal with the other end, you'd be a billionaire.