Poll of the Day > Controversial Opinion #4: Automation

(+) Yeah! (+)

I just dont like it... Especially when its forced...
---

But we could be living in a Wall-E utopia

---

Lokarin posted...

But we could be living in a Wall-E utopia

I feel like you may need to rewatch that movie.
---

Lokarin posted...

But we could be living in a Wall-E utopia

Id rather not eat the cupcake shakes made out of people... Or be told I cant do something because of robot overlords dont like it...
---

Widespread automation wouldn't be as divisive of an issue if the profits of automation were given to society as a whole.

Entire workforces in several industries are a decade or two away from being completely phased out by automation. The enhanced productivity will stack with the lack of wages to pay, resulting in astronomical profits for companies. This isn't sustainable. There will need to be a shift to universal basic income supported by much higher corporate taxes. Further down the line, I think there will be a shift to a system of professional workers and professional consumers, where the workers are given an extra incentive for their work while the consumers get to enjoy their needs being met.

---

faramir77 posted...

Widespread automation wouldn't be as divisive of an issue if the profits of automation were given to society as a whole.

Maybe for some. I still wouldn't like it, though...
---

You haven't really given any reasons for why you dislike it, but regardless, it's not going anywhere and will only increase, so you're SOL either way.

Its inevitable, and in the long run I think thats a great thing that is gonna allow humanity to move on to all sorts of amazing things that currently are not possible.

---

JigsawTDC posted...

You haven't really given any reasons for why you dislike it, but regardless, it's not going anywhere and will only increase, so you're SOL either way.

Oh. I have. In other topics, though... One reason is because of jobs. Lots of people losing jobs to them. Another is because many are useless, or ways for people to be lazy. Some guy at Verizon kept trying to make me use the text thing when I called to get a replacement phone. I had to explain to him that I can't use the text thing because my phone didn't work. And that I was calling from a work phone. And before we even got to him, the robot voice told use like a dozen times to use the text to chat because it was faster. We just had to stay on the line and listen to that robot voice for like 5 minutes straight...

Also, apps. Like for food. Some are good. I like the Pizza Hut one. But some make it hard to get what you want at certain places. Like I literally can't order with the Subway app because I can't order the subway I want. I can't put more cheese. Or the Chipotle app. They are very stingy with cheese there, and I won't get enough... Even Sonic. For some reason, not everything is on the app. Like they replaced Cheddar bites with the Jalapeno version on the app. If I want to order the regular version, I have to do that there. So, I can't even use the app to have the food ready when I get there...

Mead posted...

Its inevitable, and in the long run I think thats a great thing that is gonna allow humanity to move on to all sorts of amazing things that currently are not possible.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'll be dead by the time too much becomes automation, anyway... So, I'm not too worried...
---

So you're basically complaining that automation isn't efficient enough which is why you don't like it? All of those, especially the Verizon story, sound more like problems of bureaucracy than anything inherently wrong with automation itself. Except for the loss of jobs, which is why conversations of automation and UBI tend to go hand in hand.

JigsawTDC posted...

So you're basically complaining that automation isn't efficient enough which is why you don't like it? All of those, especially the Verizon story, sound more like problems of bureaucracy than anything inherently wrong with automation itself. Except for the loss of jobs, which is why conversations of automation and UBI tend to go hand in hand.

The Verizon thing is only one thing. I also had trouble with the cable company, as well... It uses a voice to tell you how to fix your problem. The problem was I knew what was wrong. I just needed to talk to a person to figure out when the problem was going to be resolved. Though, the first time, I had to find out the problem. But it tells you to unplug the router, then makes you wait a minute while on the phone. After telling you to plug it back in, it makes you wait like 5 minutes on the phone. Then says it didn't work and finally lets you speak to the person. But the first thing I did was the router thing... multiple times. It really should ask. But it doesn't...

But it's not only efficiency itself. I do think they are terribly inefficient compared to a person. But it more about the lack of control. Or specifics, I guess. With the apps, like I said, I can't get what I want. Certain apps don't allow for certain things. If they make it where you have to use apps, or a person doesn't make you food, I lose out on many foods I like because it becomes impossible to order what I want. And I know many people like that. They get something super specific...
---

I love automation. Building massive factories to eliminate work and getting them fully automated to churn out parts. The grasslands will become my own industrial heartlands!

---

Gotcha. So your complaints boil down to automation isn't good enough for you, yet. The thing about technology is that it tends to improve and be made more efficient over time. Systems will be made more accessible and easier to work with, options and choices will be added. You're acting like your complaints are inherent flaws of automation but they're things that are easily fixable and likely will be fixed in the near future.

For what it's worth, I do think there are worthwhile arguments against automation. You're just not presenting any of them here lol.

JigsawTDC posted...

Gotcha. So your complaints boil down to automation isn't good enough for you, yet. The thing about technology is that it tends to improve and be made more efficient over time. Systems will be made more accessible and easier to work with, options and choices will be added. You're acting like your complaints are inherent flaws of automation but they're things that are easily fixable and likely will be fixed in the near future.

For what it's worth, I do think there are worthwhile arguments against automation. You're just not presenting any of them here lol.

Hence why I said in the OP, "I just dont like it... Especially when its forced..." And it could improve some. Still doesn't mean I'll like it. And I still think it has it's limits. Like with self-checkout. If you have a few items, it may be faster. With a full cart, a human would be faster as long as they aren't trash at being a cashier. Apps and phone robots already have the capacity to be better. But the people who control those companies don't seem to care. And even people who get mad about it don't complain. Probably because you'll have to complain to another robot... Even I'm guilty of that... But since I can't just go to the place (and have to go to the place anyway to pick up the food), I just go there instead of bashing the app (Though I'll "bash" it on Twitter to make them listen if they tried to go fully auto)... And they are flaws of automation, but they do happen because of it. When talking to a human, I can order what I want. But automation doesn't even allow it. And if you have to explain something to a human, it's doable. Trying to explain something to an app doesn't work out the same in most cases. Most of these things could have been fixed years ago, but haven't. How am I suppose to trust them to fix something in the future that fixable now?

And while you may not think my arguments are worthwhile, I do. Mainly because these are things that affect me personally...
---

LinkPizza posted...

With a full cart, a human would be faster as long as they aren't trash at being a cashier.

This isnt automation this is specialization and also have two people doing the work instead of 1.

LinkPizza posted...

When talking to a human, I can order what I want. But automation doesn't even allow it.

Again, not automation and youre just talking about a poor implementation of technology. I find I have greater levels of customization when ordering from apps/table kiosks/

LinkPizza posted...

I do. Mainly because these are things that affect me personally...

How people are personally affected is definitely important.

But let me mention a couple ways automation may have helped your personal life.
Lower cost of products.
Higher quality products.
Access to a wider variety of products.
It saves lives.

For example, do you play guitar? If you do, you may have noticed how guitars available to amateurs have changed throughout the years. Frets are now less sharp causing less finger pain and beginners to quit. Frets are more in place, not hanging off the edge. Pickups are better and more wound than in the past. Intonation is better. Action and bridges are set more properly. Body carves to fit your form, previously only found on high end guitars, are becoming standard on mid-ranged guitars. This just starts to touch how automation has improved a guitar in the past couple of decades.

Almost everything you touch is only possible in its current form through automation in ways you dont even know.

LinkPizza posted...

Oh. I have. In other topics, though...

>_>

---

blu posted...

This isnt automation this is specialization and also have two people doing the work instead of 1.

The automation isn't the cashier. The automation is the self-checkout...

blu posted...

Again, not automation and youre just talking about a poor implementation of technology. I find I have greater levels of customization when ordering from apps/table kiosks/

By automation in this example, I'm talking about things that could end up replacing humans. And the apps would most likely be a part of that...

blu posted...

How people are personally affected is definitely important.

But let me mention a couple ways automation may have helped your personal life.
Lower cost of products.
Higher quality products.
Access to a wider variety of products.
It saves lives.

For example, do you play guitar? If you do, you may have noticed how guitars available to amateurs have changed throughout the years. Frets are now less sharp causing less finger pain and beginners to quit. Frets are more in place, not hanging off the edge. Pickups are better and more wound than in the past. Intonation is better. Action and bridges are set more properly. Body carves to fit your form, previously only found on high end guitars, are becoming standard on mid-ranged guitars. This just starts to touch how automation has improved a guitar in the past couple of decades.

Almost everything you touch is only possible in its current form through automation in ways you dont even know.

Some of these may have happened, but not necessarily. I mean, some companies are pretty scummy. And even though automation has lowered their costs, they may keep things at the same price to make a bigger profit. Also, while quality goes up in some cases, automation can also actually lower the quality in other cases. Going from making something by hand to mass producing it can cause quality to actually lower. Meaning that automation can go either way... Especially if the company is trying to save money... As for access to wider products, not really sure what you mean by this one. I believe without automation, we'd still have access to many thing. Maybe less overall, though I believe the quality would actually be better. For saving lives, I think those are also more specific things. For example, I don't really see self-checkouts or food making robots constantly saving lives.

Since I know nothing about guitars, that example doesn't mean much to me since I have not noticed any difference between older and newer guitars... So, it's not an example that helps me to see anything good in automation... And I'd still rather not have it. Or, not have it much...
---

I used to have to manually deburr aluminum engine cylinder heads. This process was agonizing, as you had to flip the 35 pound head a few times in order to do the job, you would soak several pairs of cut resistant gloves through with coolant, and after doing 200 of these in a day, your hands were sore!

That got automated after I left that area, but that type of work is a massive positive to automation.

I think the jobs part is the most pressing aspect of automation, but the counter to that was very well described further up.

---

LinkPizza posted...

The automation is the self-checkout...

Thats not automation. Youre checking your self out. You are taking the cashiers job yourself. The automation here is the register and conveyor belt. Youre also taking the baggers job yourself, but those went out of style a while ago.

LinkPizza posted...

I'm talking about things that could end up replacing humans.

Youre generally against humans being replaced by technology?

It has constantly happened through history. All of these are relatively recent changes: People used to hire people to wake them up before alarm clocks. Milk used to be delivered to your door because people didnt all have refrigerators. People used to stand in elevators to tell them what floor to go to. People used to manually place every bowling pin and send the ball back. People not that long ago would have to manually clean streets. Every word on a printed document used to have to put on there by a professional. Someone would manually switch from one movie reel to another when you went to the theater.

What changes in technology are okay?

blu posted...

Thats not automation. Youre checking your self out. You are taking the cashiers job yourself. The automation here is the register and conveyor belt. Youre also taking the baggers job yourself, but those went out of style a while ago.

Idk. I hear people consider that automation... So, that's what I consider it... And automated stores are apparently coming. Amazon's been working on them. And that's what the internet articles were calling those stores. I mean, you can say it's not automated if you want. But people are apparently calling them that... But they are trying to get the store to work with no humans inside after enough time...

blu posted...

Youre generally against humans being replaced by technology?

That's probably my main concern. It's at the core, but that is more to it... That said, there are technologies I don't trust...

blu posted...

It has constantly happened through history. All of these are relatively recent changes: People used to hire people to wake them up before alarm clocks. Milk used to be delivered to your door because people didnt all have refrigerators. People used to stand in elevators to tell them what floor to go to. People used to manually place every bowling pin and send the ball back. People not that long ago would have to manually clean streets. Every word on a printed document used to have to put on there by a professional. Someone would manually switch from one movie reel to another when you went to the theater.

Just because it's happened al through history doesn't mean it's good or ok. Murder as also happened all throughout history, as well... I know that's an exaggeration, but it basically means that just because something has always happened doesn't mean it should continue to happen... And when all those things became automated, or had something make their job obsolete, they lost their job, which means they lost their income... Which is the problem...

blu posted...

What changes in technology are okay?

The ones that stop taking all the jobs away... Many people need those jobs...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Just because it's happened al through history doesn't mean it's good or ok. Murder as also happened all throughout history, as well... I know that's an exaggeration, but it basically means that just because something has always happened doesn't mean it should continue to happen... And when all those things became automated, or had something make their job obsolete, they lost their job, which means they lost their income... Which is the problem...

Do you suggest we get rid of alarm clocks, refrigerators, elevator buttons, bowling pin placers and ball returns, street cleaners, word documents/printing shouldnt have been invented? Maybe but probably not, as they all had a great upside to them and peoples current jobs depend on them.

Do you suggest we stop making new inventions? Lets go further back to inventions that cost a huge number of jobs (and youve addressed just because its happened, doesnt mean it should again). Airplane. Cars. Batteries. Light Bulbs. Vaccines. Printing Press. Calendars. Compass. Wheels.

Should the next thing in this line not be made for the disruption itll cause? Should we say life is good enough, the status quo among people is fine, stop trying to make life easier?

LinkPizza posted...

The ones that stop taking all the jobs away... Many people need those jobs...

Thats pretty much all of the technology. And if you want to do that...then you have to remove the jobs of the people whose jobs it is to make the new technology. People end up changing jobs or reskilling.

The problem is also...everyone has to subscribe for the philosophy of no new tech and really crack down on those who make it. Efficient companies will drive inefficient companies out of business unless theres something the inefficient companies can give (like the feeling of exclusiveness or moral superiority or a unique experience), and then jobs will be cost by NOT adopting the new technologies.

blu posted...

Do you suggest we get rid of alarm clocks, refrigerators, elevator buttons, bowling pin placers and ball returns, street cleaners, word documents/printing shouldnt have been invented? Maybe but probably not, as they all had a great upside to them and peoples current jobs depend on them.

Do you suggest we stop making new inventions? Lets go further back to inventions that cost a huge number of jobs (and youve addressed just because its happened, doesnt mean it should again). Airplane. Cars. Batteries. Light Bulbs. Vaccines. Printing Press. Calendars. Compass. Wheels.

Should the next thing in this line not be made for the disruption itll cause? Should we say life is good enough, the status quo among people is fine, stop trying to make life easier?

We can't get rid of them now. They're already part of our culture. And unless we get sent back to some pre-technology era due to some kind of destructive event, people aren't going to let us "take away" this technology. Also, only rich people paid people to wake them up. Normal people most likely didn't do this. Like certain farmers had east facing window. Or just woke up at the same time everyday, which in something that happens these days, as well... Or you could have a rooster...

And you don't need to stop making new inventions altogether. Just stop making the ones that takes people's jobs away. For example, self-checkout takes a job away. But when conveyor belts were put into stores, the cashier kept their job. The conveyor belts helped to speed things up. it's helps, and the person keeps their job. Technology isn't bad... It's the technology that takes jobs that make things worse...

You can make people's lives easier. But taking away their source of income actually makes people's live harder, just incase you didn't know...

blu posted...

Thats pretty much all of the technology. And if you want to do that...then you have to remove the jobs of the people whose jobs it is to make the new technology. People end up changing jobs or reskilling.

The problem is also...everyone has to subscribe for the philosophy of no new tech and really crack down on those who make it. Efficient companies will drive inefficient companies out of business unless theres something the inefficient companies can give (like the feeling of exclusiveness or moral superiority or a unique experience), and then jobs will be cost by NOT adopting the new technologies.

No it's not. Not all technology takes jobs away. Many pieces of technology help others instead of hurt them. Like when I mentioned the conveyor belt. It helps without taking away a job. So, no. You don't have to take away their jobs... As long as they aren't taking away other people's job...

The problem is that not everyone has to subscribe. Just the majority... And jobs are usually safer by not adopting the new technology. Had we not adopted to self-checkout lines, many cashiers would still have jobs... But adopting self-checkout, many have actually lost their jobs, just to let you know...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Like when I mentioned the conveyor belt. It helps without taking away a job. So, no. You don't have to take away their jobs... As long as they aren't taking away other people's job...

Conveyor belts have definitely taken away jobs. Its just this specific implementation of a conveyor belt did not. Maybe it did though? It replaced a countertop. The people who made checkout counters for grocery stores had to downsize or look for work elsewhere.

Dur ticking er jerbs!

---

blu posted...

Conveyor belts have definitely taken away jobs. Its just this specific implementation of a conveyor belt did not. Maybe it did though? It replaced a countertop. The people who markeres towards grocery stores that had to downsize or look for work elsewhere.

Really? What jobs have they taken away? Because the places I see with conveyor belts still have counter tops. Smaller countertops still means countertops. And that mean those people still have jobs. Plus, places that make countertops don't only make countertops for supermarkets. Meaning they still supply either countertops for other places, or make other stuff. If they only made countertops for supermarkets, they would have went out of business a long time ago... SO, no. Conveyor belts didn't take away any jobs cashier jobs...

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Dur ticking er jerbs!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-kgb1QtSnU
---

Conveyor belts absolutely reduced the number of workers needed for factory type work. Just because some employees were still needed doesnt mean the workforce wasnt reduced.

---

Mead posted...

Conveyor belts absolutely reduced the number of workers needed for factory type work. Just because some employees were still needed doesnt mean the workforce wasnt reduced.

For factory work. But I'm not talking about factory work. I was talking about in grocery stores...
---

LinkPizza posted...

For factory work. But I'm not talking about factory work. I was talking about in grocery stores...

Those actually did reduce jobs. Along with grocery scanners stores ended up need a lot fewer cashiers when they could complete transactions faster.

---

Automation doesn't reduce jobs.

Greedy company owners who realize their automation means they don't have to pay as much for pay roll do.

Mead posted...

Those actually did reduce jobs. Along with grocery scanners stores ended up need a lot fewer cashiers when they could complete transactions faster.

Doesn't seem like it. When I use to work retail at somewhere like Target, all the cashier spots were filled. Same with places like Wal-Mart, where the whole front was just cashiers. And they had belts. Those stores are just so crowded that they still needed all the cashiers. Even the grocery store around the corner full of cashiers during certain times of the day (they don't even have conveyors. The only time those stores seemed to lose cashiers was when self-checkout came... Conveyor made things faster, but they still needed cashier to keep up with the large amount of people...

IronBornCorps posted...

Automation doesn't reduce jobs.

Greedy company owners who realize their automation means they don't have to pay as much for pay roll do.

True. But that still means automation plays a part. They couldn't use it if it didn't exist... So, I still don't like automation...
---

It's not really a matter of liking it or not - it's happening and we need to figure out how to adapt to an automated world.

IronBornCorps posted...

Automation doesn't reduce jobs.

Of course it does. Automation (and its predecessor, industrialization) has been reducing jobs for centuries. Automation and industrialization are the reason why we've shifted from a primarily goods-based economy (for much of human history, ~80% of our work force went to the cultivation of food; today that number is less than 5%) to a service based one.

The very definition of "automation" is to get a machine to do a job that was previously done by a human. And the only way that's economical is if jobs - or their benefits - go down. Like, say that I'm the CEO of Company X that makes XYZ widgets. I pay my 20 employees $50k a year each, for a total of $1 million a year. Then a robot salesman comes along and tells me he can automate half my production line. The only way that offer makes economical sense for me is if my overall pay for the robots works out to $500k a year or less.

This is a bit oversimplistic, but it shows the critical problem here. If the robot company sells me the robots to automate my production line at $400k a year, that means that their own employees that worked to build those robots must cost, at most, $400k a year minus the cost of materials and overhead. For my ten now-unemployed former workers who are looking for jobs and who, collectively, previously made $500k a year, they couldn't just go work for the robot factory without either taking a pay cut or having some of them remain unemployed.

---

darkknight109 posted...

It's not really a matter of liking it or not - it's happening and we need to figure out how to adapt to an automated world.

And I know that. I never said I could (or would) stop it. I just said I didn't like it. And while people are going to have to learn to adapt, I won't. I have no need to. Like I've said, by the time the world is shitty and automation has fully taken over, I'll be dead, anyway...
---

LinkPizza posted...

And while people are going to have to learn to adapt, I won't. I have no need to. Like I've said, by the time the world is shitty and automation has fully taken over, I'll be dead, anyway...

You planning on dying in the next ten years?

Because if not, I think you're grossly overestimating the amount of time it will take for automation to have a huge impact on the economy.

---

darkknight109 posted...

You planning on dying in the next ten years?

Because if not, I think you're grossly overestimating the amount of time it will take for automation to have a huge impact on the economy.

Everything won't be fully automated in 10 years.
---

darkknight109 posted...

You planning on dying in the next ten years?

Because if not, I think you're grossly overestimating the amount of time it will take for automation to have a huge impact on the economy.

Who knows. That being said, I don't see the world being fully automated in 10 years. You seem to always overestimate the speed of these things. The first self-checkout was apparently invented in 1992 when I was 3. They became more popular and were in store in the early 2000s. Now, nearly 20 years after becoming popular, they still aren't in all stores. And in many stores, they only have a few. And that's just self-checkout... And with my life expectancy, I don't expect to be around when they finally replace almost all, if not all, cashiers... I don't think it's moving as fast as you think. I may or may not be around in 10 years. But I think it'll take at least 20 years before the world's fully automated. And even that is being generous. I think it'll take longer than that...
---

Revelation34 posted...

Everything won't be fully automated in 10 years.

Enough of it will be that you'll notice and be impacted by it.

Like, self-driving cars are a technology that exists today. That's not future tech, that's something that exists and is already on the road. The first automated buses have already been introduced on select routes in pilot cities. The first fully-automated long-haul truck delivery has also been done. The next step is going to be widespread rollout and costs dropping from economies of scale.

About 10% of the US workforce is employed in the transportation sector and the vast majority of those jobs can and will be destroyed by self-driving cars. And that will happen in years, not decades. People act like self-driving cars are still a conceptual thing, but they're not - they're real and they don't have to be perfect to replace humans, just better than us, and they're already there.

And that's just one piece of tech. Farmers are experimenting with automated harvesters to reduce their reliance on farm labourers. Newspapers employ programs to pre-write their articles, then just use a human editor to touch them up. Lawyers use algorithms for discovery, engineers have been programming pieces of their jobs into obsolescence for years, and medical workers are increasingly turning to AIs like Watson to help them in their job. We're even seeing robot artists and musicians producing artwork from automation.

And again, I hasten to add, none of this is future tech, it's all out there today. If you don't think change is in your near future, you are mistaken.

---

LinkPizza posted...

The first self-checkout was apparently invented in 1992 when I was 3. They became more popular and were in store in the early 2000s. Now, nearly 20 years after becoming popular, they still aren't in all stores.

Counterpoint: the first true smartphone showed up in 2002; 10 years later, there were 680 million of them in circulation and five years after that they hit 1.5 billion.

---

darkknight109 posted...

ust better than us, and they're already there.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/self-driving-uber-car-hit-killed-woman-did-not-recognize-n1079281

Definitely better.
---

IronBornCorps posted...

Automation doesn't reduce jobs.

Greedy company owners who realize their automation means they don't have to pay as much for pay roll do.

Guns dont kill people.

People kill people.

LinkPizza posted...

Doesn't seem like it. When I use to work retail at somewhere like Target, as the cashier spots were filled.

Imagine if they didnt have those belts and scanners. What would happen? Theyd need more cashiers or need to sell less stuff or ask customers to spend much longer in line instead of going next door to Walmart.

Being able to sell more stuff lets you into more business strategies, like low profits on any item but make up for it in volume. The lower cost next door option will destroy you.

darkknight109 posted...

Enough of it will be that you'll notice and be impacted by it.

Enough isn't everything. I said everything. It's already around enough to affect things, so the only thing that changes is it affect more things. But that's not what I said. I said when the world is fully automated, I'll be dead. Not when most things are... So, again, I'll be dead by the time the world is gully automated (and shitty because of it)...

darkknight109 posted...

And again, I hasten to add, none of this is future tech, it's all out there today. If you don't think change is in your near future, you are mistaken.

That's my point. Self-checkout was invented nearly 30 years ago. And still hasn't taken over every store yet. Some stores still don't have any. And many stores only have a small section of them... Technology seems to be moving much slower than you think it is...

darkknight109 posted...

Like, self-driving cars are a technology that exists today. That's not future tech, that's something that exists and is already on the road. The first automated buses have already been introduced on select routes in pilot cities. The first fully-automated long-haul truck delivery has also been done. The next step is going to be widespread rollout and costs dropping from economies of scale.

With how long it's taken self-checkouts (something that needs much less testing to use) took to get where it is today, it'll probably be at least another 10-15 years before it becomes somewhat common. And common doesn't mean at vehicles will be self-driving. Probably not even close to it...

darkknight109 posted...

About 10% of the US workforce is employed in the transportation sector and the vast majority of those jobs can and will be destroyed by self-driving cars. And that will happen in years, not decades.

It'll be at least a decade... Not to mention, there are still lots of thing to work out. Like for example, at the bus station I was at, we'll have drivers for at least a while. Especially since a huge portion of out clients are in wheelchairs, and need to be secured once on the bus. In other cities where self-driving buses are, I'm guess they don't have the same amount of people in wheelchairs, if they have any...

darkknight109 posted...

And that's just one piece of tech. Farmers are experimenting with automated harvesters to reduce their reliance on farm labourers. Newspapers employ programs to pre-write their articles, then just use a human editor to touch them up. Lawyers use algorithms for discovery, engineers have been programming pieces of their jobs into obsolescence for years, and medical workers are increasingly turning to AIs like Watson to help them in their job. We're even seeing robot artists and musicians producing artwork from automation.

Yeah. And it's costing people their jobs, which really suck and make the world a shittier place...

darkknight109 posted...

Counterpoint: the first true smartphone showed up in 2002; 10 years later, there were 680 million of them in circulation and five years after that they hit 1.5 billion.

Yep. A lesser technology that needs less testing that goes faster. If we follow that rules, it'll be like another 20 years before self-driving cars are popular... And if you want to know, the reason they are popular is also because they have less non-smartphone phones. People who only use their phones for calling end up having smart phones because that's mostly what they sell. Sometimes, it can be harder to get the older phones or they don't work as well, anymore...
---

blu posted...

Imagine if they didnt have those belts and scanners. What would happen? Theyd need more cashiers or need to sell less stuff or ask customers to spend much longer in line instead of going next door to Walmart.

Being able to sell more stuff lets you into more business strategies, like low profits on any item but make up for it in volume. The lower cost next door option will destroy you.

They don't have the room for them. Also, hiring more people is different than firing. For example, a store could have 10 employees, then got scanners and belt that made it easier an faster. Because of that, the store could get stuff done faster. Which means more customers can get their items. When they belts and scanners go down, they higher more people (normally temps) to help out until they're back up. But just because they would hire more people when the scanners and belts break down doesn't mean they fired anyone when they first got them. When they got them, it's possible they hired more because more people were able to shop... And more cashiers would make people not go to Wal-Mart. Some would go because of the hassle...

And if they wanted to sell more stuff, they should have less self-checkouts. The lines would be horrendous if everyone had to use them... it would take at least three times as long to buy stuff... And probably longer...
---

LinkPizza posted...

I just dont like it... Especially when its forced...

If you're so against automation, toss your computer out the window.

---

Revelation34 posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/self-driving-uber-car-hit-killed-woman-did-not-recognize-n1079281

Definitely better.

are you not aware of how many people are killed every single day by human drivers making errors? Self driving vehicles have a WAY better track record

---

Revelation34 posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/self-driving-uber-car-hit-killed-woman-did-not-recognize-n1079281

Definitely better.

You're making a common error, which is mistaking "better" for "perfect".

Self-driving cars aren't perfect. They also don't need to be.

Self-driving cars don't get tired or angry or distracted. They don't try to drive drunk or hung-over or stoned. They don't speed and run red lights because they're running late for a meeting or cut somebody off because they forgot to shoulder-check.

That alone already puts them pretty far ahead of humans. That they have other problems that humans don't doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Car accidents are one of the leading causes of injury and death. They're the top cause amongst non-medical ailments and also the top cause period amongst children and those under 25. The same day that woman was killed by a self-driving car, over 100 other people in the US alone died in car accidents caused by humans.

LinkPizza posted...

So, again, I'll be dead by the time the world is gully automated (and shitty because of it)...

Ironically, the point where the world is *fully* automated is actually when things look like they'll be amazing, because we'll be in a Star Trek-like utopia where no one needs to work because robots handle everything.

It's the point between then and now, where robots do some stuff but not everything, that will be challenging. *That* is the part you should be worried about, not the post-singularity fully automated world.

LinkPizza posted...

A lesser technology that needs less testing that goes faster.

You think *smart phones* are "lesser" and need less testing than self-service check-outs?

Seriously?

LinkPizza posted...

With how long it's taken self-checkouts (something that needs much less testing to use) took to get where it is today, it'll probably be at least another 10-15 years before it becomes somewhat common.

There's a huge difference in economic drivers there.

Self-service checkouts take a minimum wage cashier off the floor of a store whose biggest expenditures are overhead and inventory. The costs of wages for them are puny compared to their other expenditures.

By contrast, for transportation companies their drivers are by far their biggest expense (especially if you count in incidental expenses, like damages, accidents, and down-time caused by human error). Over half of their expenditures are salary for drivers. There is a huge incentive for them to automate and it's not going to take long for them to do it, hence why some of them are already moving in that direction.

LinkPizza posted...

Especially since a huge portion of out clients are in wheelchairs, and need to be secured once on the bus. In other cities where self-driving buses are, I'm guess they don't have the same amount of people in wheelchairs, if they have any...

People in wheelchairs exist in all cities. That problem has already been solved.

https://www.iberdrola.com/innovation/disabled-vehicles

Self-driving cars are actually being looked at with a great deal of interest by the disabled communities. There's buses that know sign-language, which put them ahead of a standard driver, and they're generally seen as improving accessibility for those who are unable to drive them selves in a normal vehicle.

LinkPizza posted...

Yeah. And it's costing people their jobs, which really suck and make the world a shittier place...

Better start working to figure out how to improve that then, because automation isn't stopping. Instead of sitting there and saying, "It won't affect me" - which isn't a very smart gamble, if you ask me - you'd be better off brainstorming solutions to allow humans to function in an increasingly automated world.

---

LP's biggest problem here is a lack of imagination. He consistently interprets reality through his subjective bias (we all do this, that's normal) and then creates weird boogeymen in his head but can't imagine any other alternatives or possibilities. I mean, he's seriously arguing for less innovation in this thread. People like that just hold society back.

darkknight109 posted...

Ironically, the point where the world is *fully* automated is actually when things look like they'll be amazing, because we'll be in a Star Trek-like utopia where no one needs to work because robots handle everything.

It's the point between then and now, where robots do some stuff but not everything, that will be challenging. *That* is the part you should be worried about, not the post-singularity fully automated world.

Not to me. I tried to think of a fully automated world. And all I ever see if one of those gross future worlds where technology was suppose to save everyone, but ends up destroying most things. And no one needing to work sounds boring. Especially when you can't afford anything because you make no money. And robot sound like a bad idea. Not just because they are part of a future where they could turn on us because humans suck toward them. But they can probably be hacked, as well... Which is also pretty bad... And who said I'm not worried about the time in between. In another UBI topic months or a year ago, I said I was worried about transition points the most because those are the times when every could go wrong will go wrong...

darkknight109 posted...

You think *smart phones* are "lesser" and need less testing than self-service check-outs?

Seriously?

Yeah. They already know how to make computer. A smartphone is basically a smaller computer. Or very similar to one. They've been making this smaller and smaller for years now. And a computer is no different. They even have it where tablet are basically computers. A phone is a smaller one. Self-checkouts have a computer, but also other things like a scanner, conveyor belt (for some), weight sensors (for some, again), and have to see how they will be used by people. Especially since people will still try to steal stuff... And people have to get use to them. It may be hard for some to get use to them, considering some people still have problems with computer...

darkknight109 posted...

here's a huge difference in economic drivers there.

Self-service checkouts take a minimum wage cashier off the floor of a store whose biggest expenditures are overhead and inventory. The costs of wages for them are puny compared to their other expenditures.

By contrast, for transportation companies their drivers are by far their biggest expense (especially if you count in incidental expenses, like damages, accidents, and down-time caused by human error). Over half of their expenditures are salary for drivers. There is a huge incentive for them to automate and it's not going to take long for them to do it, hence why some of them are already moving in that direction.

Except it's been just sitting for 20 years. In 20 years, the amount of money that could have been save from self-checkouts in a ton. And it still took them forever to get to this point. Just because drivers have a more expenses doesn't mean much. I mean, 20 years worth of money that could have save is big to a company. So, there must be some other reason the technology is taking this long to spread when it could have been in every store for the past decade at this point... That's why I'm sure no matter how fast they want to move (some places, at least), they won't be able to. There's still a bunch of other stuff that needs to be dealt with, as well (AFAIK). Like how the insurance will work, which I think is a big one. Obviously, CEOs of store would want to make more money by getting rid of more cashiers, and having more self-checkouts. But I assume there's a reason that they haven't been able to. And whatever that reason is might also affect the self-driving trucks from taking all the truckers jobs...

darkknight109 posted...

People in wheelchairs exist in all cities. That problem has already been solved.

https://www.iberdrola.com/innovation/disabled-vehicles

Self-driving cars are actually being looked at with a great deal of interest by the disabled communities. There's buses that know sign-language, which put them ahead of a standard driver, and they're generally seen as improving accessibility for those who are unable to drive them selves in a normal vehicle.

That's cars. But I'm talking about public transport. The people we pick up can't even afford cars. And when I say people, I don't mean a few. The amount of people we pick up in just wheelchairs is insanely high. And that's just for the paratransit vans. The buses have a bunch of regulars with wheelchairs. If we change to those vans (which look like they hold one person), we'd never be able to finish picking up everyone in one day... Not to mentioned the lack of space, and the cost to get even close enough to getting enough. Like when you were talking about thinking our station was getting self-driving buses anytime soon when our company has trouble getting the money for a regular (that's half the price, and hold twice as many people). Those would probably be close to our paratransit van prices, but only hold one person. The more profitable (and helpful) solution would be to keep utilizing paratransit vans that can actually hold 12 people (or 6 people in wheelchairs) at once. Especially when all going to the same place...

darkknight109 posted...

Better start working to figure out how to improve that then, because automation isn't stopping. Instead of sitting there and saying, "It won't affect me" - which isn't a very smart gamble, if you ask me - you'd be better off brainstorming solutions to allow humans to function in an increasingly automated world.

Oh. I won't do that. Not like I can do much, anyway. Other people will try to figure it out. Like I said, I'm not really trying to make the world a better place. Nobody listens to a nobody, even if they have the right answers. Wouldn't do much, anyway. They'll still fuck it up. And I'll be dead by the time complete automation becomes a thing. And then it won't be my problem anymore. And it really won't affect me. How will it do that if I'm dead? I'll let the people who have to live through it figure out a solution. I'm just going to live my life the best I can, and then die, as all creatures do.
---

ReturnOfFa posted...

If you're so against automation, toss your computer out the window.

Can't. Need to use it. Work makes me use it for emails and stuff... Plus, like I was telling blu, getting rid of the current technology does nothing but hurt. The way we should proceed is to make new technology that helps people instead of continuing to make technology that takes their job away. Make technology to assist, not replace...

JigsawTDC posted...

LP's biggest problem here is a lack of imagination. He consistently interprets reality through his subjective bias (we all do this, that's normal) and then creates weird boogeymen in his head but can't imagine any other alternatives or possibilities. I mean, he's seriously arguing for less innovation in this thread. People like that just hold society back.

No. I have imagination. But I also know what normally happens in reality. And I'm not saying we need less innovation. Like I said, technology can continue to get better. But not at the risk of making people lives worse by taking away their jobs. They need that money to live. Making things to make jobs safer, or easier is better than making things just to replace people altogether...
---

Managing the growth of automation and managing the human consequences of automation requires the kind of vision that extends beyond the next election, unfortunately.

---

LinkPizza posted...

The way we should proceed is to make new technology that helps people instead of continuing to make technology that takes their job away. Make technology to assist, not replace...

Theyre the same technology.

---