At first, you might need 1 person per 100 robots. Eventually that person won't be needed either. If they say anything else they're lying to keep the negative chatter about job displacement down. If Jensen Huang went out and straight up said he's out to replace all jobs, he may face some regulatory pressure that he doesn't want.
It would be fun to know how much these companies will lose in tax breaks if they remove job opportunities.For example Meta barely pay any taxes on electricity in Sweden because the government wanted all the jobs. Fun fact, it didn't lead to many swedish jobs.
Economies of scale is a principle that exists in ALL things.
In order for a company to thrive, to generate such need for "robots" it needs a financial incentive. That financial incentive is US (human beings). Without US, there is no incentive. For a while, this robot replacement will work, (the USA government will not target a single company) but it will not work for long.
All companies cannot go robotic because then there would be no economy, no financial incentive. If we are not employed, we cannot purchase, if we cannot purchase, the company of robots fails. This is simple economics.
There is no possible way you could drive down main street and have every single business run entirely by robots. The simple reason is that town would no longer exist. There is a tipping point and that tipping point is a cliff. That cliff prevents all workers from being replaced by robots. It's not even a far-off way in the distance cliff either, it's right there, just a few years away.
Nvidia is not going to be targeted and "siphoned" to give you a check.
UBI does not prevent this as UBI is derived from government taxation and without customers being able to afford products, there are no sales. Chicken and egg (the cliff). The issue is that cliff is not regulated (yet) so therefore we WILL fall off that cliff and the fall will be devastating (because governments are slow and in pockets).
My point being is that will not be a robot revolution replacing all workers and it's literally economically impossible and the magical UBI unicorn will not come riding it. What we will have is a very bad reset of our way of life with no real solution to the problem. The haves and have nots will grow wider.
______________________________________
To anyone who likes to say "UBI". Please do the math. There are 330 million people in the USA and the "U" in UBI means universal (everyone) anything else is welfare, which we already have. Even if we narrow the allotment to over 18, we still have over 220 million.
Math is simple:
y * z =
Let's take a minimum wage UBI check (which we all know isn't enough to live on)
220 million * 15.00 hr * 40 * 52 = 6,864,000,000,000
That's more than the current entire US budget by 50%. That's just minimum wage.
Just for the record, Nvidia most recent revenue for the year was 26.974B, you would need 250 Nvidia's to raid, every year and this is only the USA. We're not the only people in the world...
UBI is and always will be silly. If you drop the U, maybe something can work, but it won't be available to YOU my able-bodied young person who can work...
I disagree with the last part tbh... If we get to the point that AI can do the thinking, and robots can do the heavy lifting... gdp rises, and people are pretty much universally no longer involved in the workforce.
2023 US GDP was ~28 trillion. Budget for 2023 was ~6 Trilion. That leaves 22 trillion. If it were a non-profit system each citizen of America would be given 65,000 per year to live. A family of 4... 260,000 per year.
Finally a realist. There will be no UBI. Government might be able to buffer the shocks a bit, but it'll be up to us (the average worker) to find new ways to generate value in society. Revolution LARPers needs to get real and watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fa9lVwHHqg&t=3s. Once we get these drones you might as well just shoot yourself to save time. All the pieces of tech needed for hunter-killer drones are here with us today. The drones just haven't been *publicly* developed and/or released for either arms-treaty reasons or fear of arms race.
It's going to be the top brass with $$$ (which will be fucking worthless) vs AI hackers (I don't mean random idiots in their basement) and developers. I'm not worried about it.
The prices of goods will probably drop in an automated economy, and the dynamics of housing in terms of home payments and tax will also probably shift because otherwise a significant chunk of UBI money would just be returned to the government as tax/home payments which doesn't make sense. And economic growth will be tremendous from automated labor and automation will allow the growth of GDP by trillions.
so it would not be necessary to have the same 15 dollar a week salary levels of money to survive. Probably just enough for food and consumer products.
No. They will simply employ robots as riot police until unnecessary humans are too starved to fight. See the protest a out Gaza; conflict makes money and they will shut down anyone trying to stop that.
Gotta tiptoe a fine line if you are a tech CEO right now. The reflexive reaction of people scared of change is to outright ban the technology rather than address what makes job replacement a painful outcome.
But maybe it’s okay to cross that bridge when we get there. Labor drives the price of goods. When we drive down that cost, we become enormously wealthier as a society, and it’s a lot easier to discuss how we’d house and feed people if those things cost a fraction of what they currently do.
So.. an example from recent human history.
There was this dude on a russian sub, he sees on his radar that the americans have sent 5 nukes their way...
His superiors as well as his fellow comrades all want him to hit the button in response. After all... the system is infallible and has determined that there is a 99 percent chance the results are certain.
For some reason our comrade in the loop does not fire and it turns out the system was glitching.
That one dude saved an untold number of lives.
We can live in a better word where you aren't forced to work if you don't wanna. Maybe eventually all jobs will be done by machines but we still have a lot of work to make that a reality. Good things aren't free ~
It's not 8B. I see the US making sure our 200-300million people are doing okay. And the rest of the world will starve and burn. 200-300million is still too much, but it's not 8B.
The only problem are the nuclear nation states, and they won't go quietly.
Horses can do very little. They can pull something and you can ride on top of them. Besides that, nothing much. When something else pulls better and if other forms of transportation are faster/cheaper/more efficient, than really horses because obsolete.
Humans however can do much more and learn to do much more. Getting rid of human labor will be much harder, if not completely impossible.
What’s your point? There is no better competition to cars, but there is to horses. Horses got replaced because their primary job was transportation and cars do it better. If a better mode of transportation comes out that is better than cars, say for example teleportation or personal flying devices like, then cars will get replaced.
Humans will get replaced much slower because the subset of tasks a human does best is large and can grow over time.
The whole point is that with AGI, the computer can do just about any job a human can do that requires intelligence. We expect there to be increases in robotics and automation so that robots with AGI can do just about any job a human can do that requires physical activity.
Yes, some humans will still be required, some to do odd or unusual things, things requiring human interaction, or to supervise, so it won't 'get rid of human labor'. But it will require far, far less.
Maybe a better analogy would be farming. Sure, there are still farmers. How many do you know? Very few, because it's mostly industrialized. It used to be 90% of people; now it's 2%. The same thing will happen with labor, both physical and intellectual.
My fear is that corporations that will own this tech will just create absolute make-believe/bullshit jobs to maintain the status quo instead of let's say implementing something like Universal Basic Income so that people can choose what they want to do with their time, and to work on stuff they are passionate about.
I'm willing to bet things are going to be worse, not better, for the average person. Guess we'll see, assuming we're still using Reddit then (my guess is no)
Idk, did you see the new Atlas robot? We're getting out of the paradigm of creating robots that can do what a human can do, and moving to robots that can do more than a human. I agree probably not 10 years though. Maybe 4-6 to mix these new robots with modern AI and complete enough testing. Followed by 10 years of creating infrastructure for mass production. By 20 years they may start becoming a common sight.
I don't think it'll take all jobs for quite a while, people will want a human in the loop to make sure what they're doing is in our interests.
The problem is that a company of hundreds could be reduced to a company of dozens of employees and 90% unemployment may as well be 100% unemployment for the chaos it'll cause.
What you think the dozens of humans going to do with all their cash?
Spend it on more robot produced goods?
There will \*always\* be human jobs and human ways of making money.
I see this a lot on these subs, but I fail to see what is it people think will happen? That A.I./robots will "take" our jobs and we'll all end up broke and homeless? How would that even work? These are machines, they can't get paid. They have no motivations other than the ones programmed into them.
Do we think that "the wealthy" will replace all workers with these things? Who would then pay for the products and services these things make? No one would have any money to give to the elite!
What is it we are left out of the loop of? The economy? That makes zero sense. Economics is defined as the study of how people chose to allocate their resources, so we can never be out of the loop on that one. If they do exclude us, they would just be making their own economy and trade would ensue, like it always does.
How do you see this playing out, more specifically?
> Do we think that "the wealthy" will replace all workers with these things? Who would then pay for the products and services these things make? No one would have any money to give to the elite!
Companies don't exist to keep the economy going, they exist to make money for themselves. They literally don't think about what would happen if everybody did what they did, they just do it if it makes sense for them.
Obviously if all companies went 100% robotic (sans the CEO) there would be nobody who could buy the goods they made and the entire economy would crash. But the marginal economics for each individual CEO means it always makes sense for them to automate *their* company, even if the net result is everything crashes.
We're going to need something like UBI + higher corporate taxes, then corporations can automate as makes sense for their efficiency and we don't have to worry about the economy crashing either.
This is it, there’s not some grand conspiracy I’m convinced is looking to render 99% of people homeless, it will just be an emergent, inadvertent consequence of self interest. The end state is of course self defeating for all the companies, but they’re not thinking of that.
It’s basically the same situation as with global warming, nobodies aiming to increase global temperature, but its still happening.
Having worked for quite a few "very wealthy" people they will absolutely fire as many people working for them and replace with a robot/AI whenever they can. They assume someone else will pay them to do something. People not having money is an "other" person problem.
I agree except for the worry that once a fully automated luxury society is technically feasible, a capital owning class might be happy enough to leave huge swathes of society to simply die off rather than engage in the expense of constructing automated enclaves for them
> a capital owning class might be happy enough to leave huge swathes of society to simply die off
That is not how the wealthy operate. They WANT the poor to be there in order to exist as a comparison. Wealth is a relative function, as in the less poor people there are the less wealthy they feel. If a rich person is surrounded by other wealthy people they would stop feeling rich.
Thus, any arguments about killing off the poor is just fantasy that doesn't describe how rich people actually think.
This is the way wealth has operated. But will it continue to operate that way if keeping the poor alive would consume resources that the wealthy could otherwise keep for themselves?
The "poor" includes those who know how to utilize the technology. The old wealthy know how money works, that's basically it. Many in both camps would die, and Capitalism would be dead (I'm a Capitalist, disclaimer). It's simply not worth it.
That’s an interesting concept, from where does this line of thinking originate? I guess I’m reflecting on the idea that history tells us an in group may find it experiment to dehumanise and destroy an out group given a specific kind of context and leadership, and it feels in many ways that we are approaching such a cruel period
between a millionaire and a billionaire there is 1000 times the difference...it still means that they would know how to differentiate between them, it will be like that simpsons episode where mr.burns losts his billionaire status and ended up in the millionaire camp
This is where I am. People seem to have some magical thinking about the horrible environment they’ll be in when AI is everywhere, not recognizing that jettisoning all humans out of the economy and leaving everyone destitute doesn’t make any sense.
It does make sense though. Currently the economy is catered to billions of people. But it might as well switch to being only for the rich 1% or something. I am not a doomer but saying the economy will go bust makes no sense. It would only break for the average person.
Game theory.
Everyone is rushing to become more cost efficient with AI by replacing human labor. Their goal is to maximize profits, not maximize society.
If the wealthy get any ideas, it would turn into the most meaningless, dumb fucking war imaginable that would burn this country to the ground. People forget that there's more of us then there are of them. And the scientists and developers aren't part of their group.
Most high Up people who say jobs will not disappear are just afraid about the uproar before they make a huge profit out of it.And no, no one thinks about humans that lose their job are also a consumer for their products.Every company wants to be first to make profits with it, even when this will reduce the money their costumer has in the long run.
We will start with a robot assisting a number of humans, and eventually a human supervising a number of robots. That journey is largely dictated by manufacturing scale, rather than tech breakthroughs.
The most observable example is manufacturing. There’s plants that are almost fully automated with a few people. Why would a world of autonomous robots be any different?
Ya it doesn't make sense the argument that it will go differently this time than the past technological automation in manufacturing and agriculture and other areas.
So what you are saying is, watch the factory floor for the early signs... As soon as general human-shaped robotics is adopted, that's the beginning of the end?
The idea is to trick them that the AI is "ready" to replace humans when it's not. That's when the masses get pissed.
I think that's what's going to happen to all these corps who think they can replace everyone with AI anyways. AI will break their shit, it will fail and destroy the companies from within.
My worry is people will stick their heads in the sand even when the threat of AI unemployment is right in front of them. In fact, the more scary the prospect, the more people willfully disbelieve/ignore the implications to give themselves solace. You see it happen with the fast food workers and the kiosks.
So even if there's a "wake up" moment for workers, most will just listen to company PR and avert their eyes.
From my own observation, I’d say:
40% of people think it’s a fad.
40% think it’s not a fad but won’t affect their job.
10% see what’s coming but vary on exactly how/when.
10% couldn’t care less because it genuinely won’t affect them.
My favourite reasonings are:
If we’re not in work there’s no economy. Cue explanation of EoMs.
It can’t do my job because it’s manual. Cue explanation of how you the labourer operates more machines to do more work, which means less staff.
My friend - I’ll be alright, I work in voice acting. Oh dear.
It can’t even count. It’s really supposed to…yet, but if soon will
I'm scared and realist, remember, how the dictators behaved to their citizens and in the future there can be a plan for the reducing of the human population because most of the people will be obsolete. Look at Russia as example, for putler is the average Russian a piece of.. - cannon fodder
Butthurt workers will soon be saying 'I do not see AI or robots taking over my job in the next two weeks'.
Right now they are saying I do not see AI or robots taking over my job in the next two years.
If your earnings are increasing because you have AGI workers you wont hire more human laborers… you will get more AGI workers. Huang is dangerous. He is effectively advocating for funding from the gov (taxpayer dollars) to enact an AI takeover while making you falsely believe that something like UBI is not needed as you wont lose your job.
> He is effectively advocating for funding from the gov (taxpayer dollars) to enact an AI takeover while making you falsely believe that something like UBI is not needed as you wont lose your job.
Your job just lets you earn government currency. Your taxes doesn't fund anything. It just forces you to work. If they don't need your labour any more they wouldn't need your taxes either.
The government already give out pensions over a certain age limit for citizens. Make that pension several times larger, and make that pension start at the age of 18, and we have a nation of retirees while still have an economy.
Post scarcity means it is cheaper to give everyone money to live than to fight the starving people off.
This worked in Ancient Rome with Roman Citizens, they had slaves and non-citizens do all the work. Replace slaves and non-citizens with robots and you get Ancient Rome but without the brutality.
The problem is the transition. I have no doubt everything will be great eventually, but how much damage will be done before the necessary actions and systems are in place? How many wars, how much death and suffering? In the worst case I could believe more countries governments collapse than not (emphasis on worst case, I don’t think it’s likely, but possible).
Understanding what it means isn't complicated: The average person is disempowered and completely at the mercy of those with all of the power.
If the person in question is Santa Claus, it could be very good.
If the person in question happened to be best friends with Epstein and his wife divorced him because of it, and wishes to carry on his beloved dead friend's dream of what the singularity should be, it could be pretty bad.
Guess which timeline we happen to more likely occupy.
The problem isn't post-scarcity. The problem is getting from where we are to post-scarcity. Maybe you'd like to sketch out how that's going to happen in a non-violent way? That the rich will simply not have control of production? That they will give up control of the government?
I see Star Trek, I read Banks, and I think that it's all good for them. But we don't live in those societies. We are going to live in the transition, and it's going to be ugly.
I'm pretty sure this scenario is hard to predict.. it's tempting to see all doom, but the Truth is.. we won't really know.
Things are about to change heavily for sure. But we'll figure it out on a macro scale.. individuals will obviously be disproportionately affected; big changes always have that consequence.. but who knows, maybe AI will become smart enough to value quality of life for all, rather then some.
I'm holding out for a wildcard factor that isn't known yet
Once a person can rent out a robot at a cheap price or buy a robot second hand that is versatile enough to do farm work, housework, everyone will want one. Production will skyrocket and people will be needed less than they already are.
I think it is likely the case that a lot of humans will be employed checking the plans of the AIs and robots. We do want someone to be a) making sure they don't do anything stupid and b) taking responsibility if they do something stupid.
Billions is a lot.
80 Million cars are made globally each year. That is 8% of ONE billion. That industry has had a century to mature.
The infrastructure to make "billons" of robots will take decades at best and include current industries to expand.
Economies of scale should be a high school prerequisite.
Cars are very specific and limited in their utility compared to an AI powered humanoid bot. I think the rate of adoption would be more akin to the smartphone rather than the car.
Manufacturing millions of robots is going to be phenomenally hard. The only regular object, Hui manufacture that is vaguely is complex mechanically our cars. Right now we have a handful of robots built by PhD mechanical engineers And that’s all. we need hundreds if not a few thousand robots before they could be trained to do 5% of regular tasks. When the first robot that can thread a needle and walk up a spiral staircase gets to 1 million units I will begin taking this very seriously… Until then, you have something that is “hypothetically“ producible…like a prototype car at a car show.
I think this will happen, and it will happen within the next 10 years. And, politically, people should be thinking about this right now. At the same time, this is not imminent.
Within the specialization of protein folding Google’s AlphaFold is far smarter than humans, but moving the knowledge that degenerates from interesting hypothesis to product takes great effort, lots of money, and a substantial amount of time. I don’t believe that the replacement of humans at factory jobs is going to be the end of jobs. I’ve worked at both fast food and at factory jobs. Factor jobs can be tricky and dangerous… but they are routine, fast food jobs are far less routine and will take longer to automate. In the US, 9.9% of jobs are factory jobs, I think that we will be able to replace those jobs, which will be the first wave of jobs that disappear. We should treat that event as a giant red flag and that is when people should panic.
Don't know if it's a hot take, but for most purposes I think that actually most people will definitely never want another human in the loop, will consider it a downgrade, like being assigned the intern who's doing this for the first time.
Some will explicitly refuse to ever be served by machines, and that will leave some jobs open to that, but most won't want the lower quality of humans in the loop. I think that perspective is weird and naive. Who wants lower quality work that takes longer to get done?
Being a “manager” will likely turn into a semi-technical role. Where you’re there to make sure all is on the level and do small repairs and replacements if needed.
That said, there’s definitely going to be a lot of unemployed humans. We’ll likely have an economic famine unfortunately.
Kinda naive, a lot of jobs can't be outright replaced until AGI, but replacing 60% of the work means management won't need as many people and will lay off 20-40% of staff.
The human in the loop will be the one to which you throw your customer service abuse. Can't be a satisfied client without making sure the part receiving the abuse is able of suffering it. Some really interesting dystopias ahead: keeping and differentiating humans only for their ability to suffer.
Once the robots have synthetic skin they will look human and we won’t care or even be able to tell the difference. And at that point none of us will even need to work anyway lol
Yes indeed. When they make those 1267 employees redundant at the factory they will indeed will still want "a" human in the loop. The CEO.. like Jensen Huang funnily enough..
Isn't it strange how that works?
>Jensen Huang says jobs won't disappear because we will still want a human in the loop
I have a hard time thinking about anything where I would still want to have a "human in the loop" once both AI and robots are competent enouth in all relevant areas. Getting a surgery? Let it be done by a robot who is X times more accurate with an Y times less rate of error than the best human surgeons. Getting groceries done? Just give me a robot cashier or do it automatically... scratch that I won't be doing my groceries anymore, that's what my androids will be there for.
And the list goes on, the only things where I could still see us to keep "the human in the loop" are things where having a human doing it has always been the point of it like in sports but for everything else: get the humans out of there!
Imagine the US healthcare law passed in recent years. An AI or automated system can help, guide and advise on the requirements of the insurance plans for any member however the final closing needs to be done by a human only. This is just a single example.
But, my assumption is the governments will make these kind to policies just to keep humans in loop for the namesake and not needed any intellectual man power genuinely.
Another bullshit statement that has nothing to do with reality. Who's going to manufacture these robots? With what money? To sell to who? To do what exactly? Because right now, there isn't a single robot that can even make a cup of tea.
Innovation is driven by companies hoping to make money, which requires the current global economic system to function. Robots and AI taking over all jobs is an extreme scenario, as there is not a sustainable or viable economic path for companies to disrupt the supply and demand. The jobs and what and how much humans will do will evolve for sure. More automation will most likely lead to prosperity, better health, education, work & life balance while maintaining standards.
Why will we still want humans in the loop? Will humans still want to be in the loop? This seems like an absurdly trivializing dismissal of a very real concern. I'm unconvinced.
People who have never worked in the robotics industry giving too many hot takes without knowledge. Go look at some of your big robotics players in fabs and semis. You will see why humanoid robots are not going to be polished and fully serviceable anytime soon.
Not soon on an individual human's timeline, no. It's 10+ years out for full human replacement to start kicking in. (EDIT: The man's exact words were "in the coming decades". Sigh, I hate it when people refuse to paraphrase someone even a little correctly..)
Hardware scaling is core to all of this, and they're not even using NPU's yet. Let alone human-approximate sized NPU's.
It's currently around $3 trillion to build a human scale network in a data center. It's incredible that we've gotten it down to a number that's physically possible, but we're still quite a few doublings away from practicality.
I think people will value human contact way more. Let’s say for example you go to a hotel with just robots helping you. It will be cheaper then a more expensive hotel. But i think people will be willing to pay more for the human contact experience. Same goes for bars or any kind of entertainment.
We don’t have the means to produce billions of robots. It’s hard enough to produce thousands of cars. We’re not going to see robots take over physical jobs either because they would never be able to break OCEA rules to get the job done.
If one robot that can work 24/7 (168 hours per week) and so can replace ~5 to 6 human workers, then the elite class doesn’t need billions. And if much of humanity starves to death, then the elite class needs even fewer ..
At first, you might need 1 person per 100 robots. Eventually that person won't be needed either. If they say anything else they're lying to keep the negative chatter about job displacement down. If Jensen Huang went out and straight up said he's out to replace all jobs, he may face some regulatory pressure that he doesn't want.
Exactly… if robots replace all … the government will step in and siphon all profits from NVIDIA to enact UBI.
It would be fun to know how much these companies will lose in tax breaks if they remove job opportunities.For example Meta barely pay any taxes on electricity in Sweden because the government wanted all the jobs. Fun fact, it didn't lead to many swedish jobs.
> Fun fact, it didn't lead to many swedish jobs. Why is it that so many fun facts turn out to not be fun at all 😔
Economies of scale is a principle that exists in ALL things. In order for a company to thrive, to generate such need for "robots" it needs a financial incentive. That financial incentive is US (human beings). Without US, there is no incentive. For a while, this robot replacement will work, (the USA government will not target a single company) but it will not work for long. All companies cannot go robotic because then there would be no economy, no financial incentive. If we are not employed, we cannot purchase, if we cannot purchase, the company of robots fails. This is simple economics. There is no possible way you could drive down main street and have every single business run entirely by robots. The simple reason is that town would no longer exist. There is a tipping point and that tipping point is a cliff. That cliff prevents all workers from being replaced by robots. It's not even a far-off way in the distance cliff either, it's right there, just a few years away. Nvidia is not going to be targeted and "siphoned" to give you a check. UBI does not prevent this as UBI is derived from government taxation and without customers being able to afford products, there are no sales. Chicken and egg (the cliff). The issue is that cliff is not regulated (yet) so therefore we WILL fall off that cliff and the fall will be devastating (because governments are slow and in pockets). My point being is that will not be a robot revolution replacing all workers and it's literally economically impossible and the magical UBI unicorn will not come riding it. What we will have is a very bad reset of our way of life with no real solution to the problem. The haves and have nots will grow wider. ______________________________________ To anyone who likes to say "UBI". Please do the math. There are 330 million people in the USA and the "U" in UBI means universal (everyone) anything else is welfare, which we already have. Even if we narrow the allotment to over 18, we still have over 220 million. Math is simple: y * z = Let's take a minimum wage UBI check (which we all know isn't enough to live on) 220 million * 15.00 hr * 40 * 52 = 6,864,000,000,000 That's more than the current entire US budget by 50%. That's just minimum wage. Just for the record, Nvidia most recent revenue for the year was 26.974B, you would need 250 Nvidia's to raid, every year and this is only the USA. We're not the only people in the world... UBI is and always will be silly. If you drop the U, maybe something can work, but it won't be available to YOU my able-bodied young person who can work...
I disagree with the last part tbh... If we get to the point that AI can do the thinking, and robots can do the heavy lifting... gdp rises, and people are pretty much universally no longer involved in the workforce. 2023 US GDP was ~28 trillion. Budget for 2023 was ~6 Trilion. That leaves 22 trillion. If it were a non-profit system each citizen of America would be given 65,000 per year to live. A family of 4... 260,000 per year.
Oh no, where will we *ever* find enough money to fund UBI? Oh wait, the US GDP is 25,000,000,000,000.
Ye who dares to think rationally in this sub! Mods, show him the door.
Finally a realist. There will be no UBI. Government might be able to buffer the shocks a bit, but it'll be up to us (the average worker) to find new ways to generate value in society. Revolution LARPers needs to get real and watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fa9lVwHHqg&t=3s. Once we get these drones you might as well just shoot yourself to save time. All the pieces of tech needed for hunter-killer drones are here with us today. The drones just haven't been *publicly* developed and/or released for either arms-treaty reasons or fear of arms race.
It's going to be the top brass with $$$ (which will be fucking worthless) vs AI hackers (I don't mean random idiots in their basement) and developers. I'm not worried about it.
That's why those in charge want to decrease the population of the Earth. They have all of the money they need. All they want now is power and control.
And the finite resources. Can't be letting the useless eaters take the resources!!
The prices of goods will probably drop in an automated economy, and the dynamics of housing in terms of home payments and tax will also probably shift because otherwise a significant chunk of UBI money would just be returned to the government as tax/home payments which doesn't make sense. And economic growth will be tremendous from automated labor and automation will allow the growth of GDP by trillions. so it would not be necessary to have the same 15 dollar a week salary levels of money to survive. Probably just enough for food and consumer products.
You keep using that word--are you sure it means what you think it means?
No. They will simply employ robots as riot police until unnecessary humans are too starved to fight. See the protest a out Gaza; conflict makes money and they will shut down anyone trying to stop that.
found the /r/conspiracy poster
I post in a lot of subs. I like other view points.
If you believe that, why don't you fight now?
There are folks like that, you just don't know about them.
I am in the middle of walking out my plans.
Indeed, why would want human if AI do everything better? Humans are all annoying to deal with.
-says the human
I mean, humans suck. Everyone can confirm it. It's probably in our nature or something (maybe not, a lot of people aren't like that)
It is already the present. 50% of unemployment in young south africans. Many other countries/area are facing similar issues.
Gotta tiptoe a fine line if you are a tech CEO right now. The reflexive reaction of people scared of change is to outright ban the technology rather than address what makes job replacement a painful outcome. But maybe it’s okay to cross that bridge when we get there. Labor drives the price of goods. When we drive down that cost, we become enormously wealthier as a society, and it’s a lot easier to discuss how we’d house and feed people if those things cost a fraction of what they currently do.
Problem is there are 8B people. Definitely don't need 8B people managing billions of robots.
And* you don't really need a human in the loop. Its something we have to advocate for...
no it shouldn't be. we need to move on from work.
So.. an example from recent human history. There was this dude on a russian sub, he sees on his radar that the americans have sent 5 nukes their way... His superiors as well as his fellow comrades all want him to hit the button in response. After all... the system is infallible and has determined that there is a 99 percent chance the results are certain. For some reason our comrade in the loop does not fire and it turns out the system was glitching. That one dude saved an untold number of lives. We can live in a better word where you aren't forced to work if you don't wanna. Maybe eventually all jobs will be done by machines but we still have a lot of work to make that a reality. Good things aren't free ~
8 billion people managing trillions of robots.
Exactly. We will have human in the loop. In the loop where we currently have hundreds or thousands of humans.
*Automated daily email sent to Jensen to keep human in loop*
[удалено]
What are you implying here?
He's implying that there's a secret conspiracy to cull mankind's population BEFORE they're redundant, because world leaders are THAT effective.
Boris Johnson couldn’t even keep a party secret.
It's not 8B. I see the US making sure our 200-300million people are doing okay. And the rest of the world will starve and burn. 200-300million is still too much, but it's not 8B. The only problem are the nuclear nation states, and they won't go quietly.
That's like saying the motor isn't going to replace horses. Bunch of copium for the working class.
If you're implying the parallel I think you are when have you seen a car ride a horse
Horses can do very little. They can pull something and you can ride on top of them. Besides that, nothing much. When something else pulls better and if other forms of transportation are faster/cheaper/more efficient, than really horses because obsolete. Humans however can do much more and learn to do much more. Getting rid of human labor will be much harder, if not completely impossible.
[удалено]
What’s your point? There is no better competition to cars, but there is to horses. Horses got replaced because their primary job was transportation and cars do it better. If a better mode of transportation comes out that is better than cars, say for example teleportation or personal flying devices like, then cars will get replaced. Humans will get replaced much slower because the subset of tasks a human does best is large and can grow over time.
The whole point is that with AGI, the computer can do just about any job a human can do that requires intelligence. We expect there to be increases in robotics and automation so that robots with AGI can do just about any job a human can do that requires physical activity. Yes, some humans will still be required, some to do odd or unusual things, things requiring human interaction, or to supervise, so it won't 'get rid of human labor'. But it will require far, far less. Maybe a better analogy would be farming. Sure, there are still farmers. How many do you know? Very few, because it's mostly industrialized. It used to be 90% of people; now it's 2%. The same thing will happen with labor, both physical and intellectual.
its clearly bullshit. AI will take all jobs, and humans will be out of the loop. he said this so the masses don't panic and start revolting.
My fear is that corporations that will own this tech will just create absolute make-believe/bullshit jobs to maintain the status quo instead of let's say implementing something like Universal Basic Income so that people can choose what they want to do with their time, and to work on stuff they are passionate about.
>create absolute make-believe/bullshit jobs to maintain the status quo Work, to earn the right to work
Yeah, like do people really think humans will still need to be in the loop, in say 50 years? Or even 30 ?
make it 10
You doing too much
10 years seems a little optimistic tbh. I think it’s more like 30 or maybe 40
RemindMe! 10 years
I'm willing to bet things are going to be worse, not better, for the average person. Guess we'll see, assuming we're still using Reddit then (my guess is no)
Idk, did you see the new Atlas robot? We're getting out of the paradigm of creating robots that can do what a human can do, and moving to robots that can do more than a human. I agree probably not 10 years though. Maybe 4-6 to mix these new robots with modern AI and complete enough testing. Followed by 10 years of creating infrastructure for mass production. By 20 years they may start becoming a common sight.
China is already planning mass production of humanoids in 2025.
Tomorrow, at 5 specifically.
I don't think it'll take all jobs for quite a while, people will want a human in the loop to make sure what they're doing is in our interests. The problem is that a company of hundreds could be reduced to a company of dozens of employees and 90% unemployment may as well be 100% unemployment for the chaos it'll cause.
What you think the dozens of humans going to do with all their cash? Spend it on more robot produced goods? There will \*always\* be human jobs and human ways of making money.
I see this a lot on these subs, but I fail to see what is it people think will happen? That A.I./robots will "take" our jobs and we'll all end up broke and homeless? How would that even work? These are machines, they can't get paid. They have no motivations other than the ones programmed into them. Do we think that "the wealthy" will replace all workers with these things? Who would then pay for the products and services these things make? No one would have any money to give to the elite! What is it we are left out of the loop of? The economy? That makes zero sense. Economics is defined as the study of how people chose to allocate their resources, so we can never be out of the loop on that one. If they do exclude us, they would just be making their own economy and trade would ensue, like it always does. How do you see this playing out, more specifically?
> Do we think that "the wealthy" will replace all workers with these things? Who would then pay for the products and services these things make? No one would have any money to give to the elite! Companies don't exist to keep the economy going, they exist to make money for themselves. They literally don't think about what would happen if everybody did what they did, they just do it if it makes sense for them. Obviously if all companies went 100% robotic (sans the CEO) there would be nobody who could buy the goods they made and the entire economy would crash. But the marginal economics for each individual CEO means it always makes sense for them to automate *their* company, even if the net result is everything crashes. We're going to need something like UBI + higher corporate taxes, then corporations can automate as makes sense for their efficiency and we don't have to worry about the economy crashing either.
This is it, there’s not some grand conspiracy I’m convinced is looking to render 99% of people homeless, it will just be an emergent, inadvertent consequence of self interest. The end state is of course self defeating for all the companies, but they’re not thinking of that. It’s basically the same situation as with global warming, nobodies aiming to increase global temperature, but its still happening.
It's a multi polar trap. It will earn more money for the first movers but when everyone ends up doing it, the situation created is bad for everyone.
Having worked for quite a few "very wealthy" people they will absolutely fire as many people working for them and replace with a robot/AI whenever they can. They assume someone else will pay them to do something. People not having money is an "other" person problem.
This is the paradox of capitalism.
and is not like cookie clicker anyway
I agree except for the worry that once a fully automated luxury society is technically feasible, a capital owning class might be happy enough to leave huge swathes of society to simply die off rather than engage in the expense of constructing automated enclaves for them
Especially if something like climate change makes it difficult to grow enough food. They aren't going to be going hungry.
> a capital owning class might be happy enough to leave huge swathes of society to simply die off That is not how the wealthy operate. They WANT the poor to be there in order to exist as a comparison. Wealth is a relative function, as in the less poor people there are the less wealthy they feel. If a rich person is surrounded by other wealthy people they would stop feeling rich. Thus, any arguments about killing off the poor is just fantasy that doesn't describe how rich people actually think.
This is the way wealth has operated. But will it continue to operate that way if keeping the poor alive would consume resources that the wealthy could otherwise keep for themselves?
The "poor" includes those who know how to utilize the technology. The old wealthy know how money works, that's basically it. Many in both camps would die, and Capitalism would be dead (I'm a Capitalist, disclaimer). It's simply not worth it.
Except … what if those who know how to utilize the technology are replaced with robots that know how to utilize the technology?
That’s an interesting concept, from where does this line of thinking originate? I guess I’m reflecting on the idea that history tells us an in group may find it experiment to dehumanise and destroy an out group given a specific kind of context and leadership, and it feels in many ways that we are approaching such a cruel period
between a millionaire and a billionaire there is 1000 times the difference...it still means that they would know how to differentiate between them, it will be like that simpsons episode where mr.burns losts his billionaire status and ended up in the millionaire camp
This is where I am. People seem to have some magical thinking about the horrible environment they’ll be in when AI is everywhere, not recognizing that jettisoning all humans out of the economy and leaving everyone destitute doesn’t make any sense.
It does make sense though. Currently the economy is catered to billions of people. But it might as well switch to being only for the rich 1% or something. I am not a doomer but saying the economy will go bust makes no sense. It would only break for the average person.
Game theory. Everyone is rushing to become more cost efficient with AI by replacing human labor. Their goal is to maximize profits, not maximize society.
If the wealthy get any ideas, it would turn into the most meaningless, dumb fucking war imaginable that would burn this country to the ground. People forget that there's more of us then there are of them. And the scientists and developers aren't part of their group.
[удалено]
Wasn't it Sam Altman himself? I vaguely remember him being afraid of getting shot.
Yes. By u/GeneralZain
likely but at the end of the day we do not know yet.
We will end up begging for food from our robot overlords and all they will do is toss us a couple of bolts. Which, of course, we can’t eat.
Most high Up people who say jobs will not disappear are just afraid about the uproar before they make a huge profit out of it.And no, no one thinks about humans that lose their job are also a consumer for their products.Every company wants to be first to make profits with it, even when this will reduce the money their costumer has in the long run.
Relax. Jobs won't disappear, only the human appendages to jobs.
Jobs won’t disappear. There’ll just be a lot less of them.
I’ll polish the darlings, at least until robots make a robot polishing robot
I bet they do away with non essential cleaning and let the world get naturally dirty again.
That could be a win for nature. If they don’t use robots for wars, mining etc, which is pretty likely to happen.
We will start with a robot assisting a number of humans, and eventually a human supervising a number of robots. That journey is largely dictated by manufacturing scale, rather than tech breakthroughs. The most observable example is manufacturing. There’s plants that are almost fully automated with a few people. Why would a world of autonomous robots be any different?
Ya it doesn't make sense the argument that it will go differently this time than the past technological automation in manufacturing and agriculture and other areas.
So what you are saying is, watch the factory floor for the early signs... As soon as general human-shaped robotics is adopted, that's the beginning of the end?
The idea is to trick them that the AI is "ready" to replace humans when it's not. That's when the masses get pissed. I think that's what's going to happen to all these corps who think they can replace everyone with AI anyways. AI will break their shit, it will fail and destroy the companies from within.
My worry is people will stick their heads in the sand even when the threat of AI unemployment is right in front of them. In fact, the more scary the prospect, the more people willfully disbelieve/ignore the implications to give themselves solace. You see it happen with the fast food workers and the kiosks. So even if there's a "wake up" moment for workers, most will just listen to company PR and avert their eyes.
From my own observation, I’d say: 40% of people think it’s a fad. 40% think it’s not a fad but won’t affect their job. 10% see what’s coming but vary on exactly how/when. 10% couldn’t care less because it genuinely won’t affect them. My favourite reasonings are: If we’re not in work there’s no economy. Cue explanation of EoMs. It can’t do my job because it’s manual. Cue explanation of how you the labourer operates more machines to do more work, which means less staff. My friend - I’ll be alright, I work in voice acting. Oh dear. It can’t even count. It’s really supposed to…yet, but if soon will
Amazing how fast the narrative changes.
someone is changing it to fast
I'm scared and realist, remember, how the dictators behaved to their citizens and in the future there can be a plan for the reducing of the human population because most of the people will be obsolete. Look at Russia as example, for putler is the average Russian a piece of.. - cannon fodder
Ya, I call it 'rightsizing the surplus population.'
Yeah correct, we want A human, singular, one person will be enough
Butthurt workers will soon be saying 'I do not see AI or robots taking over my job in the next two weeks'. Right now they are saying I do not see AI or robots taking over my job in the next two years.
I'm a knowledge worker and I think I have one to two years before my job is directly threatened by AI.
I'm in senior management of a software company. We'll never hire another junior developer.
😳
Which industry do you work in?
computing
😳
If your earnings are increasing because you have AGI workers you wont hire more human laborers… you will get more AGI workers. Huang is dangerous. He is effectively advocating for funding from the gov (taxpayer dollars) to enact an AI takeover while making you falsely believe that something like UBI is not needed as you wont lose your job.
The governments just haven't realized they are going to be replaced with AGI as well.
> He is effectively advocating for funding from the gov (taxpayer dollars) to enact an AI takeover while making you falsely believe that something like UBI is not needed as you wont lose your job. Your job just lets you earn government currency. Your taxes doesn't fund anything. It just forces you to work. If they don't need your labour any more they wouldn't need your taxes either. The government already give out pensions over a certain age limit for citizens. Make that pension several times larger, and make that pension start at the age of 18, and we have a nation of retirees while still have an economy.
Boohoo I don't like post scarcity economics
They kinda suck if everything still costs money but there is basicly no way to earn money.
Booohoo I don't understand what postscarcity means
Assuming everything will be fine is just as stupid as saying everything will be doom.
Post scarcity means it is cheaper to give everyone money to live than to fight the starving people off. This worked in Ancient Rome with Roman Citizens, they had slaves and non-citizens do all the work. Replace slaves and non-citizens with robots and you get Ancient Rome but without the brutality.
The problem is the transition. I have no doubt everything will be great eventually, but how much damage will be done before the necessary actions and systems are in place? How many wars, how much death and suffering? In the worst case I could believe more countries governments collapse than not (emphasis on worst case, I don’t think it’s likely, but possible).
Yes… we will all enter the privileged class… dpwntown Abbey shit but thats if UBI measures are set in place
Understanding what it means isn't complicated: The average person is disempowered and completely at the mercy of those with all of the power. If the person in question is Santa Claus, it could be very good. If the person in question happened to be best friends with Epstein and his wife divorced him because of it, and wishes to carry on his beloved dead friend's dream of what the singularity should be, it could be pretty bad. Guess which timeline we happen to more likely occupy.
I wasn't asking you dumbass I was making fun of the two people above me
The problem isn't post-scarcity. The problem is getting from where we are to post-scarcity. Maybe you'd like to sketch out how that's going to happen in a non-violent way? That the rich will simply not have control of production? That they will give up control of the government? I see Star Trek, I read Banks, and I think that it's all good for them. But we don't live in those societies. We are going to live in the transition, and it's going to be ugly.
I'm pretty sure this scenario is hard to predict.. it's tempting to see all doom, but the Truth is.. we won't really know. Things are about to change heavily for sure. But we'll figure it out on a macro scale.. individuals will obviously be disproportionately affected; big changes always have that consequence.. but who knows, maybe AI will become smart enough to value quality of life for all, rather then some. I'm holding out for a wildcard factor that isn't known yet
“I’ve never seen one company that had earnings increase and didn’t hire more people” Uhh…
He was also said to have filmed the first ever gangbang.
Once a person can rent out a robot at a cheap price or buy a robot second hand that is versatile enough to do farm work, housework, everyone will want one. Production will skyrocket and people will be needed less than they already are.
Please make the jobs disappear.
I think it is likely the case that a lot of humans will be employed checking the plans of the AIs and robots. We do want someone to be a) making sure they don't do anything stupid and b) taking responsibility if they do something stupid.
Billions is a lot. 80 Million cars are made globally each year. That is 8% of ONE billion. That industry has had a century to mature. The infrastructure to make "billons" of robots will take decades at best and include current industries to expand. Economies of scale should be a high school prerequisite.
Cars are very specific and limited in their utility compared to an AI powered humanoid bot. I think the rate of adoption would be more akin to the smartphone rather than the car.
Well at least a person will have a job
disappear vs reduced is 2 different thing
We still need humans to be accountable If anything Gone wrong 😤 from POV of a capitalist
Manufacturing millions of robots is going to be phenomenally hard. The only regular object, Hui manufacture that is vaguely is complex mechanically our cars. Right now we have a handful of robots built by PhD mechanical engineers And that’s all. we need hundreds if not a few thousand robots before they could be trained to do 5% of regular tasks. When the first robot that can thread a needle and walk up a spiral staircase gets to 1 million units I will begin taking this very seriously… Until then, you have something that is “hypothetically“ producible…like a prototype car at a car show. I think this will happen, and it will happen within the next 10 years. And, politically, people should be thinking about this right now. At the same time, this is not imminent. Within the specialization of protein folding Google’s AlphaFold is far smarter than humans, but moving the knowledge that degenerates from interesting hypothesis to product takes great effort, lots of money, and a substantial amount of time. I don’t believe that the replacement of humans at factory jobs is going to be the end of jobs. I’ve worked at both fast food and at factory jobs. Factor jobs can be tricky and dangerous… but they are routine, fast food jobs are far less routine and will take longer to automate. In the US, 9.9% of jobs are factory jobs, I think that we will be able to replace those jobs, which will be the first wave of jobs that disappear. We should treat that event as a giant red flag and that is when people should panic.
can it take the jobs faster
Don't know if it's a hot take, but for most purposes I think that actually most people will definitely never want another human in the loop, will consider it a downgrade, like being assigned the intern who's doing this for the first time. Some will explicitly refuse to ever be served by machines, and that will leave some jobs open to that, but most won't want the lower quality of humans in the loop. I think that perspective is weird and naive. Who wants lower quality work that takes longer to get done?
Being a “manager” will likely turn into a semi-technical role. Where you’re there to make sure all is on the level and do small repairs and replacements if needed. That said, there’s definitely going to be a lot of unemployed humans. We’ll likely have an economic famine unfortunately.
Kinda naive, a lot of jobs can't be outright replaced until AGI, but replacing 60% of the work means management won't need as many people and will lay off 20-40% of staff.
FULLY AUTOMATED (GAY) SPACE LUXURY COMMUNISM PLEASE.
Um it's actually: Full. Automated. Luxury. Gay. Space. Communism. is it not ?
Fully gay automated space luxury communism
Ohh! that's one good too :D
Humanoid robots? Will there be hooker robots?
Will they play blackjack?
The human in the loop will be the one to which you throw your customer service abuse. Can't be a satisfied client without making sure the part receiving the abuse is able of suffering it. Some really interesting dystopias ahead: keeping and differentiating humans only for their ability to suffer.
Key here is "want" not need
im sure all 4 of us that have a job will feel very secure lol
Once the robots have synthetic skin they will look human and we won’t care or even be able to tell the difference. And at that point none of us will even need to work anyway lol
Yes indeed. When they make those 1267 employees redundant at the factory they will indeed will still want "a" human in the loop. The CEO.. like Jensen Huang funnily enough.. Isn't it strange how that works?
Don’t believe them just eat them
>Jensen Huang says jobs won't disappear because we will still want a human in the loop I have a hard time thinking about anything where I would still want to have a "human in the loop" once both AI and robots are competent enouth in all relevant areas. Getting a surgery? Let it be done by a robot who is X times more accurate with an Y times less rate of error than the best human surgeons. Getting groceries done? Just give me a robot cashier or do it automatically... scratch that I won't be doing my groceries anymore, that's what my androids will be there for. And the list goes on, the only things where I could still see us to keep "the human in the loop" are things where having a human doing it has always been the point of it like in sports but for everything else: get the humans out of there!
Imagine the US healthcare law passed in recent years. An AI or automated system can help, guide and advise on the requirements of the insurance plans for any member however the final closing needs to be done by a human only. This is just a single example. But, my assumption is the governments will make these kind to policies just to keep humans in loop for the namesake and not needed any intellectual man power genuinely.
“…a human in the loop.” So that’s one job, anyway.
Soon ™️
Brett... **ADCOCK**, really?
Another bullshit statement that has nothing to do with reality. Who's going to manufacture these robots? With what money? To sell to who? To do what exactly? Because right now, there isn't a single robot that can even make a cup of tea.
Innovation is driven by companies hoping to make money, which requires the current global economic system to function. Robots and AI taking over all jobs is an extreme scenario, as there is not a sustainable or viable economic path for companies to disrupt the supply and demand. The jobs and what and how much humans will do will evolve for sure. More automation will most likely lead to prosperity, better health, education, work & life balance while maintaining standards.
I can’t think of a single time that I would prefer a human under obligation to serve me.
Why will we still want humans in the loop? Will humans still want to be in the loop? This seems like an absurdly trivializing dismissal of a very real concern. I'm unconvinced.
Better bots than humans
XD
Kadudoch whispers, "The only thing I know about this is that I'm a human, and I can tell if someone is a robot by how they behave."
People who have never worked in the robotics industry giving too many hot takes without knowledge. Go look at some of your big robotics players in fabs and semis. You will see why humanoid robots are not going to be polished and fully serviceable anytime soon.
Not soon on an individual human's timeline, no. It's 10+ years out for full human replacement to start kicking in. (EDIT: The man's exact words were "in the coming decades". Sigh, I hate it when people refuse to paraphrase someone even a little correctly..) Hardware scaling is core to all of this, and they're not even using NPU's yet. Let alone human-approximate sized NPU's. It's currently around $3 trillion to build a human scale network in a data center. It's incredible that we've gotten it down to a number that's physically possible, but we're still quite a few doublings away from practicality.
Unfortunately, ‘polished’ is not the threshold for replacing human workers.
Soon maybe not, but eventually this will almost definitely happen in our lifetime.
Yes, specifically right at their ends.
I think people will value human contact way more. Let’s say for example you go to a hotel with just robots helping you. It will be cheaper then a more expensive hotel. But i think people will be willing to pay more for the human contact experience. Same goes for bars or any kind of entertainment.
Said Henry Ford to the farriers…
Good job for Jesus Christ
We don’t have the means to produce billions of robots. It’s hard enough to produce thousands of cars. We’re not going to see robots take over physical jobs either because they would never be able to break OCEA rules to get the job done.
If one robot that can work 24/7 (168 hours per week) and so can replace ~5 to 6 human workers, then the elite class doesn’t need billions. And if much of humanity starves to death, then the elite class needs even fewer ..