posted by
LaminatorX
on Friday August 15 2014, @09:46AM
from the welcome-our-new-robot-overlords dept.
from the welcome-our-new-robot-overlords dept.
A 15 minute clip has been posted to YouTube summarizing labor automation by machines and robots. The interesting, well-paced film covers various types of work sequentially. Self-driving vehicles, general task robots, sophisticated retail vending bots as well as machines capable of composing music and drawing all feature. In closing, the film counters skepticism with the fact that much of this technology has already arrived or is on the cusp of arriving. For the most part, the filmmaker echoes comments MIT academics made last year.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Labor Automation - Humans Need Not Apply
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 39 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday August 15 2014, @10:02AM
The video is pretty elementary, maybe overly so in the interest of informing the technology-challenged. Even so, it echoes what I've been telling young BSEE's for years.
If computers/IT is your thing, then godspeed. But if you want to get out of the cubicle, play with big, expensive toys, and make a shit-ton of money while you're at it, then get busy learning automation platforms (Step 7, Controllogix, Delta V, etc.) and welcome to the fun (and rewarding)new world.
Hell, anybody who understands teh maths and a bit of Newtonian mechanics can career-change into automation. Maybe not as a full-fledged Controls Engineer starting out, but technician-level automation guys are in high demand as well.
I know because I've helped mentor lots of them.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday August 15 2014, @03:19PM
In college I had a class that we were doing ARM dev board projects on. The teacher down played PLCs with a that's for the common folk attitude. He was an a$$.
Sad thing is that people who want you to do PLCs often want you to have an engineering degree. Knowing Differential Equations does not help program PLCs. Hard is when you grab a PID block. Awesome is when you do some weird addressing and routines to do what the manufacturer says their machine can't do. Most of a BSEE does not actually help you do PLCs really well.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday August 15 2014, @03:41PM
True, it's an acquired sub-set of knowledge, much like a medical specialization (without the board hassle...)
But as I said, there are tons of opportunities for non-degreed PLC programmers. A real sweet niche is being an American who can do Siemens and Mitsubishi. Most Americans are stuck on the Allen-Bradley treadmill, so Siemens guys are rare and expensive.
OTOH, Controls Engineering is so much more than just PLCs, though. Industrial robots, SCADA, safety systems, and process development are all facets of the field.
Being able to write a routine in Turbo Pascal, compile it to a little 8-Bit Z-world embedded, and have it do the work of a SLC-500, now that's bad-ass controls hacking. :)
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Friday August 15 2014, @03:53PM
"Whoa! It highlights the parenthesis when you click next to it!"
I found out they receive essentially ZERO programming education. They don't know about the tools, the don't know about basic concepts of reusability, modularity, etc. (don't even start on SOLID). I really wonder how much time and money companies have lost due to poor programming by EE's. Please note, I am not blaming them, just pointing out that they are pretty clueless coming out of college about an entire portion of their job (sometimes quite a bit of their job).
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Friday August 15 2014, @10:39AM
...but for good or ill? Manna [marshallbrain.com] has been used as shorthand for this kind of discussion on Slashdot since it was written in the early 2000's. For those that don't know Manna, it's a fictional short story which explores automation in the near future - in the Manna universe this culminates in both a dystopia and a (somewhat scary) utopia. Certainly worth the read.
Roberto Unger is an academic, philosopher and politician who has developed a political framework [youtube.com] around meeting an advanced technological future in a more positive and fluid way. The current political impulse to keep the same course and damn those who can't find gainful employment might have interesting consequences as much of the world becomes unemployed.
Whatever happens this century will certainly be "interesting". :-/
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 15 2014, @12:39PM
This attitude presupposes that jobs are a zero-sum game. They are not. As long as people have to work to eat, work will always either be found or created. The number of jobs truly available is only limited by human imagination.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bootsy on Friday August 15 2014, @12:54PM
Even if it is a zero sum game ( I don't believe it is although people with money often don't spend it to put it back into the economy to create more jobs ) who is going to buy the products that are automatically produced if no one has a job and therefore any income?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 15 2014, @02:19PM
You seem to be under the impression that only established businesses can create jobs. They don't for the most part. Only those businesses that are actively growing create jobs. The rest are job-neutral at best. Newly created and still growing businesses are where jobs are created and they are quite often created by the unemployed or those unsatisfied with their current employment.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by emg on Friday August 15 2014, @04:56PM
Another one who thinks factories exist to make stuff, rather than to make money. If no-one is buying those products, the factories will close down.
Or, I'll switch them over to building a billion robot army, and take over the world. Bow to me in fear!
Back in the real world, the industrial era was a temporary anomaly, as was the whole concept of permanent 'jobs'. Most of our ancestors never had a 'job', and most of our descendants won't, either. And few will care, as they'll be able to use their own robots (aka 3D printers) to build pretty much anything they want.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday August 15 2014, @06:50PM
> Most of our ancestors never had a 'job'
Could you be any more wrong? (unless you're talking about women in formal jobs)
Most of the males in the distant past learnt one trade (often from their dad) and did the same job their whole life.
> And few will care, as they'll be able to use their own robots (aka 3D printers) to build pretty much anything they want.
3D printers and their supplies will be magically provided to all people by the aether?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday August 16 2014, @01:11AM
I think he's going back a bit further to hunter-gatherer times. It's reasonable to say that most people didn't have "jobs" then, as there was no supervisor. Well, no one except Darwin.
P.S.: That's the period when most of humanity's social skills evolved. Survival was a social activity as much as an individual activity.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday August 16 2014, @06:26AM
In other words, we have to go back over 2000 years to find an example where he is correct. We would also have to kill off most of our population to make the hunter-gatherer lifestyle work again. There's just too many people in existence to support them all that way.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday August 16 2014, @06:55PM
Welllll....you're being a bit literal. He's presuming that everyone has their own factory producing all they need, so no need to work. I don't think that would work for long before we ran out of resources, but it's not intrinsically impossible for a short term. Just quite unlikely. And not sustainable. And what you end up with at the end is a totally ruined planet. Which *would* lead to a massive die-off. But he's not talking about taking up a hunter gatherer lifestyle to make it work, he's just saying that there's nothing inherent in people that demands a job. For that he's probably right, though it's thoroughly inculcated in everyone of the agricultural and technological civilizations. (I.e., you pretty much need to go back over 4,000 years in many parts of the world.) I'm not sure that nomadic tribesmen count as "having jobs", if not then the steppes of Asia didn't have them until quite recently. And I'm not sure how many of the Amerind groups had "jobs". Some of them did, but I think that many didn't...though I'm not sure. Often the records are quite romanticized and also incomplete.
I don't think what he's proposing would be sustainable, not without strict population controls, but I do consider it possible in the short term. Particularly if some of the approaches using carbon-based nano-structures as both a conductor and as an insulator and as a support frame can be made to work. (I have my doubts, but there are intriguing indications.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday August 17 2014, @05:50AM
To get to a sustainable solution, we'll need a more systemic approach, and that means we have to be proactive rather than just assume that robots, 3d printers, and raw materials will just appear when a low skill worker is laid off. Otherwise he will end up as a modern day 'hunter-gatherer' by necessity.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday August 15 2014, @12:56PM
The number of jobs truly available is only limited by human imagination.
Well, that and the desire and economic wherewithal to pay for someone to do them. But sure, let's ignore the actual economics in order to fuel your technotopian ideal.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 15 2014, @02:07PM
Technotopian? No. I just realize that people get hungry if they don't eat regularly and will generally get quite creative about solutions to that problem.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday August 15 2014, @03:54PM
"quite creative" but often resort to the simple solutions. I hope a robot can work for me and pay taxes to fund all the extra jails...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 15 2014, @05:26PM
I say get creative and you immediately think crime? That's all on you, Bob.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday August 15 2014, @05:35PM
Areas of high unemployment already exist. Cynical me doesn't believe that the people who have resources will be more ready to share with the technologically-displaced unemployed than they do today.
Building higher gates creates jobs.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 15 2014, @10:55PM
See, there's the flaw in your logic. Nobody is ever going to share nicely so that you will have what you want. You must give them something they value equally in return. If your skillset is worth beans, you will and should be paid beans.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday August 15 2014, @11:13PM
That's already true.
The problem is that the people who can't find creative solutions are typically the first ones to get replaced by robots.
In the absence of regular bloody wars to trim their numbers, the unskilled have been resorting to menial jobs, welfare, or illegality (too few can go to school, for many real-life reasons). Automation is shrinking the pool of menial jobs just as we tell people they should work longer because they live longer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday August 15 2014, @03:02PM
Lot more to the situation than jobs. Life. Why exactly do we have to work? The line we've all been fed is that you have to work to earn the means to buy the necessities of life. People who are unemployed, no matter what reason, get a lot of crap about how they're just slackers, moochers, and losers.
Work can be very fulfilling and rewarding. But that's if you're not stuck in a Dilbertesque, Office Space nightmare, stressed to the max, endlessly competing with cheap foreign labor and dealing with constant doubts that you're worth a damn, your workload is high enough, your work is important, and you're not a parasite.
Truth is, we're all parasites, parasites on the sun, totally dependent upon that massive input of free energy. Further, all animals are in a somewhat symbiotic and somewhat parasitic relationship with plants. Plants do the heavy lifting of converting solar energy to living material. We depend on them for oxygen and food. Plants get a little out of animals, get some use out of animals' mobility, and our breathing serves to clean up what to them is pollution, but we need them far more than they need us. Then we have the arrogance to elevate jobs to the holy of holies, a necessity of life. They truly are not, not compared to sunshine, air, water, and food.
An individual can reduce expenses an astonishing amount if really determined and willing to forgo a lot of so-called necessities that aren't truly necessary. And also if competition is gentle, not absolute. What does a person really need? A bit of land and shelter, personal access to raw materials and information, a 3D printer that could duplicate itself, solar cells to collect energy, and not much more. I look forward to a day when we can regain the independence our farming ancestors used to enjoy before the Industrial Revolution. Farmers absolutely hated being forced to give up their independence to go work a factory job.
If competition is fierce, then also need defenses. One thing we have to watch is not to fall into an overpopulation trap, and the resulting wars or famines to correct the imbalance. Our history is full of nations that lived on the edge and when disaster came, often in the form of drought, had to get back to a sustainable situation, and all the options for doing so were ugly: war, starvation, dispersion, collapse. Energy from the sun is free, but it's not infinite. It's up to us whether we will compete viciously with each other for that energy, or we will work out agreements. We've already had to give up total war since World War II. No loss there, but wars did relieve overpopulation pressures temporarily. Now the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and there's no going back. If we are to survive, we can't just let our natural impulses take their course, not if those impulses are to launch the nukes.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday August 16 2014, @01:21AM
The problems are:
1) There are socially necessary tasks that can't yet be automated. So some people need to work.
2) Most of those who have power and wealth will not willingly share it with someone else.
I will grant you that it's certainly possible to run a decent society with much less labor than it currently used, even at the current level of technology. The problems are:
1) Getting from the current state to that desired state.
2) The amount of labor (and the associated skill sets) needed aren't constant.
3) Most people get bored easily.
4) Most people dislike having to work while others don't, even if they like their work and wouldn't want to be unemployed.
I think that we are between 10 and 20 years away from practically complete automation of all socially needed jobs. This presumes that we don't have severe resource problems during that period. Getting from here to a non-dystopian there, however, won't be simple. It also may not be easy, though with good will and careful attention to detail from the top it could be. (I.e., easy, not simple.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday August 16 2014, @06:35AM
You assume that jobs are virtuous. If we can provide for our needs without a job, why should anyone have one?
Ideally, we want as few people working at a job as possible. Most people who find themselves no longer in need of employment will be unable to resist doing something useful for long.
Given the opportunity to return to a time when parents have time to raise their kids properly and to volunteer in the community and actually have civil discourse again, why are you so anxious to squander it by forcing the middle and lower class to continue devoting all of their time and energy to enriching the wealthy?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday August 16 2014, @11:32AM
And one can hope that automation ultimately reduces the number of people who have to work in order to eat to zero.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 16 2014, @04:34PM
Yeah, that would not be a good thing. Necessity is the mother of invention. Remove it and we stagnate as a species at best.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by modest on Friday August 15 2014, @03:42PM
I enjoyed the dystopian side of Manna. The utopian half felt like an all too idealistic sales pitch (and I'm pretty sure it is). There were many insights from the book I've thought over after reading it.
Particularly I am thinking of FOSS in a different way. The benefits of open software are enjoyed by everyone. How could open software act as a buffer, creating a middle ground between the two diametrically opposed outcomes presented in Manna?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Saturday August 16 2014, @02:18AM
I actually was independently thinking around similar lines and came up with the idea that a socially responsible system should be paying the staff, which is laid off due to automation either for re-education for something that has a future, or a considerable part of their salary. This should, of course, be forced down the throats of corporations above a certain size by appropriate legislation.
This would result in the people being able to adjust to the change appropriately and continue to spend money to suit the needs of an expanding economy.
Will probably never happen, but who knows... They can't just fire 50% of the world and not expect an uprising, can they?
(Score: 2) by Pav on Saturday August 16 2014, @05:01AM
I believe RMS has been hugely far sighted, and he was right all along that hardware and software we don't control will be used against us. I guess in the language of Manna he's our "Australia Project" guy. I've been playing a small part in a meta-automation free software project called FusionDirectory... perhaps this or something similar could be used as the base OS for some kind of automation franchise or cooperative to empower The Rest of Us.
Re: paying redundancies, in an ideal world workers would be actively helping to automate their own positions, but our current economic model actively disincentivises this.
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Friday August 15 2014, @10:58AM
The summer of 2014 has been the summer of robot speculation filler, that's for sure.
I'm a little sad that we don't have droids. Wouldn't it be great to have a C2 droid to do menial tasks that you don't have time for?
I think the Star Wars model is really interesting and worth considering. Systems in buildings, vehicles, and so on tend to be "dumb" systems with SCADA-like interfaces. Droids tend to be smart, and have the logic to operate systems. You interface with the droid, who knows you and learns how to work with you. The droid goes with you, so it brings your preferences and so on along with it.
The Internet 2014 model is broken, because each walled garden wants to trap your data on a server. You have no control over anything. Nothing is portable, so it's impossible to learn or bring things with you.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Friday August 15 2014, @12:46PM
Not like you to talk about Star Wars, Mr. Plinkett ;)
(Score: 2) by emg on Friday August 15 2014, @05:51PM
The lefties are getting desperate for something to justify their continued existence in a world that's rapidly becoming post-industrial. 'Man the barricades and smash the robots, brothers!' seems to be the current fad, and perfectly consistent with their Luddite forbears and conservative politics.
(Score: 1) by number6 on Friday August 15 2014, @04:12PM
Mrs Smith owns a lovely old Edwardian house in the suburbs. The paint trimming on one of the ornate windows is old and flaky. She hires a painter to freshen it up.
The painter gets out his triangular scraper and skillfully removes the flaky stuff all around the glass and moulding.
He then gets out his heat gun and proceeds to remove the tenacious stuff, working on small sections at a time, observing the softening paint and scraping it off while in this state.
He then lays newspapers and drop sheets on the ground around the work area. He also masks some special areas with his masking tape.
He gets out his sandpaper collection and skillfully tears and folds up pieces into numerous shapes to fit his fingers and skillfully glides across and into all nooks and crannies of the surface to be painted.
He runs his fingers gently across the surface and feels for uniform smoothness...and sands a bit more here and there.
He gets out a can of Isopropanol and carefully pours some onto a piece of old cotton bath towel and carefully cleans all the mouldings before beginning the painting process.
He opens the can of paint and gives it a stir.
He gets out his collection of paint brushes and chooses the best bristles and shapes for this job.
He makes sure his step ladder is nearby and ready for service if required.
He proceeds to paint with skillful application and delicacy of touch and a keen eye for detail gained from years of practice.
and so on and so on.
And finally, when the job is done, he cleans up his mess, packs up his tools and materials and leaves the house in a perfect state as if he was never there--except for the giveaway smell of fresh paint.
I cannot see a robot ever replacing this guy's trade or his skillset !!
(Score: 2) by mrider on Friday August 15 2014, @04:20PM
Every single thing you say is true, and I don't disagree at all. However, if a robot were 50% cheaper, and only did 25% as good of a job, the painter's would be relegated to a specialist role so fast you wouldn't know what hit you. Who sells more furniture - a custom furniture maker and craftsman, or Ikea?
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 1) by dougisfunny on Friday August 15 2014, @05:33PM
That's why they have vinyl siding right?
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Friday August 15 2014, @09:13PM
Learn computers or become relegated. And even if I am wrong, I see no downside to learning the ins-and-outs of the computer industry.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Saturday August 16 2014, @02:29AM
Even though a couple of years in the future, all the things you're saying are theoretically possible to do for a robot as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16 2014, @06:46AM
...one who did the job in less time for less money using powered tools
AND still earned enough to turn a profit to keep on doing it!
The other painter has to adapt to compete, start painting 'real art'
instead (i.e. The Mona Lisa) and try to sell that, change professions,
retire (if he can), turn to crime to survive, or just give up and
'punch his own ticket'....
What else can the artisan house painter do in a situation
like this?
Ever since NAFTA became law back in 1994, it has ultimately
been a race to the bottom that only benefitted the people
at the top who could relocate their business interests in
cheaper areas of the world and thus reap increased
profits at the expense of those who were displaced and
thrown out of work by NAFTA.
(Score: 1) by number6 on Saturday August 16 2014, @03:02PM
I've read all the replies so far, thanks to all +++
However, the arguments presented do not convince me that robotic methods are solving much of anything which is virtuous, profound or truly interesting. Thus --for the most part-- most applications of robotics and automation are a waste of resources and time, and can be ignored by humans with equivalent levels of enthusiasm, IMHO.
Continuing the story of the house painter...
The 'artisan' house painter also has highly developed communication and social networking skills. There really was no painting job to begin with; Mrs Smith did not have a pressing need to spend money on this; leaving the window moulding with a weathered patina was still quite acceptable. She ran into the painter in an incidental manner; it was a sunny day and the painter was walking along the footpath past her house; Mrs Smith was there out the front and the painter stopped for a moment to smile and say hello.
The conversation turns to her house... the painter described what he saw and what he could do; Mrs Smith was fascinated by his attentive enthusuiasm coupled with empathetic conversational skills. Mrs Smith was happy to give money away to a local lad such as this guy; he was more than just a painter, he was a nice chap.
The conversation turns to Tea... Mrs Smith and the painter discover that they both love a good cup of Tea. She invites him in and they chat. The painter loves strong brews; he asks her if she knows what blend of teas constitutes 'English Breakfast Tea'. The painter takes note of Mrs Smith's attention to details such as not to use a metallic container for steeping the tea. She uses loose leaves and not tea bags. She fills the cups with hot water to pre-heat them for a minute while the tea is brewing. The painter congratulates her on her tea making skill!
Before getting up to leave, the painter explains the cost of the job to Mrs Smith. He is not cheap, but he guarantees her total satisfaction. He gives her his business card and tells her he is always happy to take her calls and sort out any problems she might have.
Moving forward in time... Mrs Smith always passes on the painter's contact details to her friends whenever they mention house painting work ...The painter is always busy and never out of work; he has many clients waiting just for him; he tells them his services are expensive! the rich ones don't seem to care about the cost! the poor folks like him too...
An insight slowly dawns on the painter: .....quoting large sums of money to people who have large sums of money is not really the main concern; his professionalism and reputation is all they require. .....and quoting an affordable price to a poor person gets him a lot of work too; they appreciate the fact that he has the skill to find workarounds, compromises and solutions and speaks to them with direct honesty.
All cross-sections of society like him and want to use his services and enjoy sharing a beer with him; he realises there is much more to the game than 'human painter vs programmed machine'.