Converting to Post Scarcity

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:37 pm UTC

1) Automate the factories
2) Raise taxes on the factories, but still keep automation more profitable than not automating
3) Use some tax revenue to retrain or directly HIRE workers for other jobs (rather than welfare)
4) Use remaining tax revenue to research more efficient production methods
5) Repeat

The idea that we could possibly run out of things to hire people to do any time soon is absurd. You see automation as massive unemployment. I see it as an opportunity to have classrooms with 1 teach for every 8 students. Police departments that never have to ignore crimes for 'lack of resources'. Nursing homes with individual nurses.

When 80% of the people farmed, we couldn't spare the resources for things like specialized firemen and EMTs and Police. Automation has freed up enough people to do so, all while keeping people better fed and with more clothing. It seems the same would happen in the future. We just have to stop with the AMAGAD NO TAXES ON THE JOB CREATORS nonsense, as well as being more willing to hire government employees. Sure, we need a welfare system, but if given the choice between hiring another teacher or paying someone not to work at all...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:16 pm UTC

Reko wrote:We might be off topic from the OP already, but if the costs of production are being driven to zero, thereby driving cost to the consumer to (near) zero, is the citizen's wage even necessary at that point?


Not really. In a post-scarcity world, money is unnecessary. At least, for the things that are post-scarcity. Money exists as part of solving the allocation problem...if the problem goes away, money can do so as well.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Trebla » Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:38 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The idea that we could possibly run out of things to hire people to do any time soon is absurd. You see automation as massive unemployment. I see it as an opportunity to have classrooms with 1 teach for every 8 students. Police departments that never have to ignore crimes for 'lack of resources'. Nursing homes with individual nurses.


This is a very good description of how workers can be used for services when post-scarcity of goods has been achieved. But doesn't (maybe it doesn't, I don't know) post-scarcity also mean post-scarcity of services? Teachers, police and nurses are unlimited and free (robots and A.I. in this fancy hypothetical scenario). If we're talking about absolute post-scarcity, we're probably extrapolating beyond the needs that are created by solving our current needs to a society where all conceivable needs are satisfied freely and infinitely.

Maybe that's beyond the scope of the discussion.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Yakk » Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:36 pm UTC

Suppose if you go beyond 1 teacher per child learning, it gets inefficient.

And suppose a robot teacher can be as good as a human at teaching, and the resource cost to have the computer teach the child is half the resources required to feed a single adult human.

Now a human being teaching every hour of their life cannot compete against the robot doing the same: the marginal alternative (the robot) costs less than it costs to feed them. (even if feeding is cheap, the robot remains cheaper)

Start knocking off tasks. Programmer, teacher, farmer, police officer, masseuse, doctor, hedge fund manager, robot repair guy, cleaning lady, chef, waitress, civil servant, philosopher, literary critic, actor, director, politician.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:42 pm UTC

Researcher, drug tester, sex worker, juror, artist, lawyer, philosopher.

Such a scenario is so far off that we have no meaningful reference for it beyond scifi novels. And honestly, at the point where all work can be done with a flick of a switch and humanity can do whatever it wants and consume as much as it wants? Where the arguments between capitalism and socialism and anarcho-communism are rendered moot? Mission accomplished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 18, 2014 9:18 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:The idea that we could possibly run out of things to hire people to do any time soon is absurd. You see automation as massive unemployment. I see it as an opportunity to have classrooms with 1 teach for every 8 students. Police departments that never have to ignore crimes for 'lack of resources'. Nursing homes with individual nurses.


This is a very good description of how workers can be used for services when post-scarcity of goods has been achieved. But doesn't (maybe it doesn't, I don't know) post-scarcity also mean post-scarcity of services? Teachers, police and nurses are unlimited and free (robots and A.I. in this fancy hypothetical scenario). If we're talking about absolute post-scarcity, we're probably extrapolating beyond the needs that are created by solving our current needs to a society where all conceivable needs are satisfied freely and infinitely.

Maybe that's beyond the scope of the discussion.


Well, potentially. In practice, it'll likely be a more gradual thing, of course. Some roboticization of services exists now, and there's certainly potential for more. I don't know if we'll *ever* get to a point where we run out of more things to want and imagine. It may be that no matter how fast technology advances, our desires will always be for more.

Still, we can do rather a lot of good by fulfilling the needs of today.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Zcorp » Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:59 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The idea that we could possibly run out of things to hire people to do any time soon is absurd. You see automation as massive unemployment. I see it as an opportunity to have classrooms with 1 teach for every 8 students. Police departments that never have to ignore crimes for 'lack of resources'. Nursing homes with individual nurses.

It's not really. We are already encountering that problem, much less severely, just check out the links I supplied for Gen Y's employment issues.

All of those things you mention require, generally, at least a college degree, and as labor becomes less scarce and more people compete for such positions the salary for those jobs will decrease further. All the while the education for those positions is getting much more expensive. This will compound the problem of resource allocation between labor and capital.

We just have to stop with the AMAGAD NO TAXES ON THE JOB CREATORS nonsense, as well as being more willing to hire government employees. Sure, we need a welfare system, but if given the choice between hiring another teacher or paying someone not to work at all...

We certainly need to stop with that nonsense, but we don't seem to be headed in that direction politically. Yet automation is moving forward at consistently higher speeds.

To hire more government employees government needs resources. The Right doesn't want to give it to them for a lot of reasons, the most valid one is that the people in government continually show they can't be trusted with it (and they ignore that the private sector can't). While the Left wants to give it to them but often fails in displaying their trust with those resources (not that the Right when succeeds).

We need not only more resources given to the government but the government needs to be a lot more effective with those resources. If we want bigger government we also need it to be much better. For example the US department of education has regressed our educational practices over the last two decades. No Child Left Behind, Race for the Top and now Common Core, if the people given the resources to make country better enact policies like these why keep giving them money?

The problem is not that large unemployment and further consolidation of resources while getting greater productivity is unavoidable. But rather that we are not on a path to avoid it. Education costs are massive, policy makers are failing to produce effective policy and squandering money and the divide of wealth is now so great that the average person has basically zero impact on elections.

So how do we go from where we are now to fixing the likely problems we are to encounter soon in relation to unemployment, great productivity and inequality of capital and labor? Or if we don't fix them, what is likely to happen?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Thesh » Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:21 am UTC

There will come a point where there are no jobs that don't require creativity. Not everyone is creative, so what do we do with those people? There is also a limit to time for each person, and I don't think you can state optimistcally that there are unlimited services to perform that require human involvement, even today, let alone a near-post-scarcity society. On top of that, what happens when manual labor is made obsolete, requiring most people to go back and get a degree? By the time we could create enough schools to get them through, how can you guarantee they won't be made obsolete by the time they acquire the new degrees?

And just in general, why do you think all the services they perform are more valuable then their time in a world of abundant services? Let's say productivity is 10 times what it is today, would you choose $50k per year, workjng 27 days, or $500k working 270 days? I know I would choose to work 27 days out of the year.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:31 am UTC

Soldier
Security guard
Nurse/Orderly
Professional drug tester
Accountant
Hotel receptionist

None of those jobs require creativity or too much intelligence, just decent work ethic (note, most accountants are NOT CPAs). Sure, nursing requires an associates degree, but masons and welders and virtually all other decent blue-collar jobs require similar. We are a long way off from running out of things for people to do.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Zcorp » Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:03 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Soldier
Security guard
Nurse/Orderly
Professional drug tester
Accountant
Hotel receptionist

None of those jobs require creativity or too much intelligence, just decent work ethic (note, most accountants are NOT CPAs). Sure, nursing requires an associates degree, but masons and welders and virtually all other decent blue-collar jobs require similar. We are a long way off from running out of things for people to do.

Why does this straw-man keep coming up?
No one is talking about running out of things for people to do.
We are talking about removing the value (to the economy) of people doing many things in that are done now by them and what is left of value does not need everyone to do it and requires a lot of education (which is right is often a lifetime of significant debt).

Everything you mention there except drug tester will likely be automatable in my lifetime and yet I find it hard to believe based on the current political climate and values of my country that we will be prepared for that automation.

Security guards serve mostly as a deterrent to theft, often there are often policies preventing them from detaining.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... ology.html

Will there be people who are employed as security guards, certainly. But most poeple will be worse than just recognizing who is a threat or committed the crime and telling someone else who and do something about it

Nurses:
http://innovation.uk.msn.com/personal/w ... ing-for-us
http://www.hsi.gatech.edu/hrl/project_nurse.shtml

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:49 am UTC

Accountants aren't going to be automated any more than they currently are. My job, actuary, has long been told we'd go obsolete as soon as computers were up to speed, yet the faster and better we make computers the bigger my profession grows. Because ultimately? Accountants and actuaries are auditors more than anything else. And auditing isn't being replaced any time soon.

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't claim I was strawmanning, especially considering that the entire AMAGAD THE ROBOTS WILL TERK ERR JARBS argument has been bandied about since before the word "robot" even existed.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Zcorp » Fri Sep 19, 2014 2:12 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:And I'd appreciate it if you didn't claim I was strawmanning, especially considering that the entire AMAGAD THE ROBOTS WILL TERK ERR JARBS argument has been bandied about since before the word "robot" even existed.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't straw-man, once you stop doing so I'll stop pointing out when you do.

And you throw another one out here.
" AMAGAD THE ROBOTS WILL TERK ERR JARBS "
Is not what anyone is saying, take the time to understand the statements being made and arguments to back them before you post next time please.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Yakk » Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:45 am UTC

Thesh wrote:There will come a point where there are no jobs that don't require creativity.

Where did you get the idea that a robot/computer cannot be creative?

"Real intelligence" in AI is simply what we label "what we cannot get computers to do better than humans yet". It keeps on retreating.
On top of that, what happens when manual labor is made obsolete, requiring most people to go back and get a degree? By the time we could create enough schools to get them through, how can you guarantee they won't be made obsolete by the time they acquire the new degrees?

Yes, there is the possibility of a change that is way faster than people can adapt. What if humans are still useful, but only humans trained extensively at some previously esoteric art? And by the time you train humans to be good at that, the really useful skill is now something completely different?

Now, that would require extremely fast jarring change. We are currently living in a serious economic lull compared to the rapid pace of change caused by the last industrial revolution.

Take a look at this graph (log scale real GDP per capita):
Image
See those steep parts?
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

quantropy
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:55 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby quantropy » Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:42 am UTC

Post scarcity in the sense that everyone can have anything they want very unlikely. Post scarcity in the sense that everyone can have everything they need for a fulfilled life is approaching.

  • Internet
    This has largely reached post-scarcity. I'm not being billed for the amount of text I post here. I expect stuff to be available for free - I don't have to go on a course to learn how to do lists in BBCode. If I do pay for something, I expect it to be on the basis of 'all you can eat', rather than usage being metered. And the internet can provide a substitute for many other things if we let it - why make a trip to the supermarket when you can order stuff over the internet and have it delivered
  • Shorter working lives.
    Two centuries ago you would start work at a young age and most likely work until you drop. Now you may well not start a career until your mid-20's and retire in your mid-60's, expecting to live for another 20-30 years. If we could just get deal with that annoying 40ish years in the middle we'd have achieved post scarcity.

I'm doubtful about the idea of a basic wage being paid out of taxes - it gives the state too much power. I'd want something more along the lines of charitable foundations giving grants for your latest project. You want to write a book - here's an income for a couple of years to enable you to do it. In the 19th century it looks like the Oxbridge colleges were so rich that they could afford to give out small fellowships to their ex-students with no strings attached - not enough to set up a grand house, but enough for a chap to get by. That's the sort of thing I have in mind.

There are a few problems to reaching the post-scarcity state.
  • Housing.
    We don't want to just let people build houses whereever they want, but this means that those who own houses have an unfair advantage over thoses who don't. And however much housing costs, people seem willing to put any extra money they have into having more empty bedrooms.
  • Economics.
    We really don't understand economics. Free market economics says that there should be no unemployment, and that there should be a lot less inequality than there is. Why do we have unemployment (which pushes wages down) rather than leisure (which would push wages up)? Education seems more about seeing who is willing to spend the most money, and then do unpaid internships in order to get the top jobs (I find it amazing that profitable companies can get highly educated people to work for free).
These things can be dealt with though. Suitable property taxes should discourage people from having empty rooms when many are struggling to find somewhere to live. And we must be able to work out economics eventually.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:06 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:We just have to stop with the AMAGAD NO TAXES ON THE JOB CREATORS nonsense, as well as being more willing to hire government employees. Sure, we need a welfare system, but if given the choice between hiring another teacher or paying someone not to work at all...


Well, anyone can be a job creator. Folks aren't inherently born with that trait or anything. It's important to make it easy for folks to start businesses, hire people, etc, so lowering barriers to that makes sense...but it needs to be done in a universal fashion, not in a way that only benefits existing companies, or only very large companies or what not. Systemic imbalances like that slow down progress.

My beef with these isn't the need for job creators, as it is the pursuit of systemic advantages disguised as such.

Zcorp wrote:To hire more government employees government needs resources. The Right doesn't want to give it to them for a lot of reasons, the most valid one is that the people in government continually show they can't be trusted with it (and they ignore that the private sector can't). While the Left wants to give it to them but often fails in displaying their trust with those resources (not that the Right when succeeds).


More accurately, the Right wishes to give more funding and resources to ends the Right supports. Same, same as left. Spending under right-wing governments, at least in the US, is not significantly lower. Yes, they make many fine words about spending less, but in actual practice, they don't deserve a lot of credit for frugality.

Yakk wrote:
Thesh wrote:There will come a point where there are no jobs that don't require creativity.

Where did you get the idea that a robot/computer cannot be creative?

"Real intelligence" in AI is simply what we label "what we cannot get computers to do better than humans yet". It keeps on retreating.


Indeed. Randomness is something computers do fairly well, and of course, this randomness can be guided based on any number of factors. Computers that create art already exist.

There may come a time when computers are better than us at literally everything. For some people, this is a crisis of identity, but, really...it's little different from the status quo. There are enough humans out there that, statistically speaking, someone is already better than me and you at everything. *shrug* The economy will keep on ticking even if driven by automation.

quantropy wrote:[*]Economics.
We really don't understand economics. Free market economics says that there should be no unemployment, and that there should be a lot less inequality than there is. Why do we have unemployment (which pushes wages down) rather than leisure (which would push wages up)? Education seems more about seeing who is willing to spend the most money, and then do unpaid internships in order to get the top jobs (I find it amazing that profitable companies can get highly educated people to work for free).[/list]
These things can be dealt with though. Suitable property taxes should discourage people from having empty rooms when many are struggling to find somewhere to live. And we must be able to work out economics eventually.


I'm not aware of any philosophy of economics that says there should be NO unemployment. Which system of economics are you referring to?

In most classical systems, some unemployment is, in fact, necessary.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:31 pm UTC

Tyn,

Whenever someone says JOB KREATORZ in normal context, it's always a code word for "rich people". You know who really creates jobs? Customers.

As for employment and Econ, (true) socialism, communism, feudalism, tribalism, and so forth have 0% unemployment. That doesn't mean they are better. Unemployment isn't so much "good" as it is part of a functioning system. People are not always the most efficient doing what they are currently doing, and transitioning from a carpenter to an exterminator takes time. Part of a functioning local government's job is shortening that time.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 19, 2014 3:38 pm UTC

Did I miss something? Is creativity been defined in some fashion. Is it something random?

When last I looked Intelligence hadn't be defined in any quantifiable way, in terms of what it is exactly. And computers are a long way away from from having the capabilities of humans however you define intelligence.

Talking about mining asteroids is premature. And no matter how good recycling gets it imposes loads on the environment that we may not be able to accept. Talking about post scarcity at this point sounds a lot like Christian views of Heaven.

We may well be at the point where automation leads to structural unemployment at levels that may cause social unrest. That is Post Scarcity, is it?

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:06 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Yakk wrote:
Thesh wrote:There will come a point where there are no jobs that don't require creativity.

Where did you get the idea that a robot/computer cannot be creative?

"Real intelligence" in AI is simply what we label "what we cannot get computers to do better than humans yet". It keeps on retreating.


Indeed. Randomness is something computers do fairly well, and of course, this randomness can be guided based on any number of factors. Computers that create art already exist.


IMHO the problem with computers creating art has more to do with the fact that computers can't (yet) make associations with real-world things or ideas. Computers can make art, but they can't make art with any intentional meaning or message unless explicitly programmed to do so by a human.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:11 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Tyn,

Whenever someone says JOB KREATORZ in normal context, it's always a code word for "rich people". You know who really creates jobs? Customers.


I'm aware of the misuse...but job creators does have a very literal meaning too, and I think it's fair to call out those using the term as other than it's literal meaning as the ones using it incorrectly.

morriswalters wrote:Did I miss something? Is creativity been defined in some fashion. Is it something random?

When last I looked Intelligence hadn't be defined in any quantifiable way, in terms of what it is exactly. And computers are a long way away from from having the capabilities of humans however you define intelligence.


Intelligence isn't really a singular thing. It's a wild collection of capacilities. Automated systems have gained in a number of these areas in recent history, and there's little reason to think they won't continue to do so. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though.

LaserGuy wrote:IMHO the problem with computers creating art has more to do with the fact that computers can't (yet) make associations with real-world things or ideas. Computers can make art, but they can't make art with any intentional meaning or message unless explicitly programmed to do so by a human.


They can certainly make associations with real-world things, usually via a camera. As for intent, well...does that really matter?

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Zcorp » Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:30 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:IMHO the problem with computers creating art has more to do with the fact that computers can't (yet) make associations with real-world things or ideas. Computers can make art, but they can't make art with any intentional meaning or message unless explicitly programmed to do so by a human.


They can certainly make associations with real-world things, usually via a camera. As for intent, well...does that really matter?

I believe he means real world ideas not images.

Computers are being programmed to create things that we view as artistic: music, drawings etc.
However they are not likely to soon be creative in the sense that they can create an new idea, let alone an original one.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Derek » Fri Sep 19, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

quantropy wrote:Internet
This has largely reached post-scarcity. I'm not being billed for the amount of text I post here. I expect stuff to be available for free - I don't have to go on a course to learn how to do lists in BBCode. If I do pay for something, I expect it to be on the basis of 'all you can eat', rather than usage being metered. And the internet can provide a substitute for many other things if we let it - why make a trip to the supermarket when you can order stuff over the internet and have it delivered

I wish this were true, but sadly it's far from it. Internet access still costs hundreds of dollars a year in the developed world. Just because you aren't charged by the byte, doesn't mean it's free. And in the poorest parts of the world, it's still widely unavailable. That's not post-scarcity.

I think we'll see internet access become much, much cheaper and nearly universal in the coming decades, but there are infrastructure maintenance costs that can't really be removed, so it will never be completely free/non-scarce.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 20, 2014 12:24 am UTC

We already hit "post scarcity" in the Western world for Food, Water, and Clothing. Sure, you can't use infinite water, but it's too cheap to meter in most places. We could with basic living space too, but that's iffy. So we could do with cars/TV's/widgets what we do with food; if you want fancy stuff you pay for it, foodstamps for everyone who needs them.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Derek » Sat Sep 20, 2014 1:08 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:We already hit "post scarcity" in the Western world for Food, Water, and Clothing. Sure, you can't use infinite water, but it's too cheap to meter in most places. We could with basic living space too, but that's iffy. So we could do with cars/TV's/widgets what we do with food; if you want fancy stuff you pay for it, foodstamps for everyone who needs them.

Where do you live? In most of the US water is still metered and you pay by the gallon you use. It's cheap, sure, but not free. Many of the drier parts of the US also have frequent water shortages requiring more strict measures to ensure that there is enough water for everyone. Of course, much of that water is not going to vital purposes, a lot o fit gets used watering suburban lawns, or for farm irrigation or industrial use. But that's the point: Even when basic needs are met, there are always more non-essential demands that consume the surplus.

Food and clothing are even further from post-scarcity. Again, having enough to cover everyone's basic needs is not post-scarcity.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Sep 20, 2014 1:45 am UTC

Derek wrote:having enough to cover everyone's basic needs is not post-scarcity.


It kind of is. I mean, if we were to create some sort of energy source where everyone could have 1 gigawatt/h a day, just because everyone can't use 1 petawatt/h each day doesn't mean we aren't post scarcity for electricity. Otherwise, post-scarcity is impossible. Air is effectively post-scarcity, or perhaps pre-scarcity, but that doesn't mean I can take all of Earth's oxygen to the moon without anyone complaining.

Well, they won't complain, seeing as they suffocate to death.

wumpus
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:16 am UTC

How about converting to post artificial scarcity?

Postby wumpus » Sun Sep 21, 2014 3:31 pm UTC

In 1844 Jules Dupuit proved that the ideal toll for an uncongested bridge was $0.00 (this assumes that the traffic does not damage the bridge. This might not be true of real bridges, but doesn't effect the argument below).

I would ask that instead of assuming an post scarcity society (which sounds difficult considering that energy is unlikely to be unlimited in the forseeable future, and many critical items (food, for one) require considerable labor). Instead, consider "simply" removing any artificial constraints on wealth.

While there are complaints on these fora and others about IP laws (most often in the guise of patent trolls), we should really look closer at just how much they reduce our current wealth. The original copyright laws worked fine (well into the 20th century), largely because the consumption of books (eaten any good books lately:) and other media had fairly high individual costs, so that the economic costs of the book weren't out of line with the cost paid by the reader. In current society, not only do media works have zero costs for additional copies, but physical goods have the price jacked up in obvious ways. For some clue about the minimum cost added to the product by IP laws, consider the cost of so-called "pirated goods": such goods are often made exactly the same way (some factory in China gets a set of plans, then makes the stuff) but have wildly different prices. While I won't argue that organisations sufficiently large often have a "Not Invented Here" attitude (presumably once they get to the size/age to have "invented it here"), the current laws tend to force you re-invent the wheel over and over again (ignoring the fact that patent trolls* can often charge for blindingly simple "reinventions").

Unfortunately, we are much in the same condition that Jules Dupuit was in regarding the financing of bridges. Socializing* IP seems the obvious solution, but loses the feedback mechanism that helped shape economic development of much of the infrastructure. A huge problem with socializing IP is that it ignores the fact that IP would simply flow right past any national boundries, typically requiring large-scale agreements between countries (which have be relatively recently put in place for the presurvation of IP, and presumably paid very well for those who signed them off). I suspect the international issues are even harder than dealing with the domestic issues (there are plenty of countries that are sufficiently socialist to handle the first part).

I really suspect that the country (or group of countries) that gets this right will become the dominant player in the 21st century. Judging from memory, I would claim that the Dutch invented (or at least had a working system) capitalism in the 14th century and really took off. Once the English copied them a bit later, they got more and more powerful until they basically cherry picked the most valuable parts of the planet and strongly influenced the rest by the end of Victoria's reign. The country (or whatever organisation it may be) that solves the issue of integrating IP into an economy.

To paraphrase the mastercard commercial, IP needs to be liberated from money. For everything else, there is scarcity, and thus a monetary price. Presumably, supply and demand will work just fine for that which truly is scarce, or perhaps it will simply be ignored (I would assume not, if only for real estates "location, location, location").

quantropy
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:55 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby quantropy » Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:23 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm not aware of any philosophy of economics that says there should be NO unemployment. Which system of economics are you referring to?

Classical microeconomics. A can make 5 units of X or 2 units of Y in a day. B can make 4 units of Y. C owns a machine that can make 10 units of Z. You know the sort of thing. Everyone is better off and all resources are used optimally if there is a free market. What's not to like? Except it doesn't work that way, so we have to introduce macroeconomics, which of course everyone disagrees about. The surprising thing is not so much that we don't get the optimum of the simple free market model, but that we are so far from it, despite the fact that it would be preferred by most people.

Some people think that the free market model really does describe how the world actually works, e.g. Steven E. Landsburg in The Armchair Economist, but he's talking nonsense. For instance he starts with an example of a city getting a new aquarium with free entry, but the utility lost from queuing equals the utility gained from visiting it, from which he concludes that public facilities like this are a waste of money. Did he really think that we didn't notice that he was the one who made the rules for the example, and there's no indication of whether they apply in reality. In museums and the like where entrance is free I never experience queuing to get in. (Well possibly for the Ashmolean, but that's because people get confused by the door - there's plenty of room inside).

I see such museums as an example of post scarcity - yes, someone has to pay for them (although many of their staff are volunteers), but you are not charged to visit them. And water costs money, and is scarce in some parts of the world, but you don't usually get charged for water use if you use the lavatory in a museum. Likewise the internet, yes it costs money, but you don't have to worry about each byte you are using.

I think post-scarcity has to be defined in terms of everyone having a reasonable lifestyle, rather than having everything they want. Forget spaceships, think about everyone having a big house in a desirable location - it's never going to happen.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby morriswalters » Mon Sep 22, 2014 12:06 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:1) Automate the factories
2) Raise taxes on the factories, but still keep automation more profitable than not automating
3) Use some tax revenue to retrain or directly HIRE workers for other jobs (rather than welfare)
4) Use remaining tax revenue to research more efficient production methods
5) Repeat

The idea that we could possibly run out of things to hire people to do any time soon is absurd. You see automation as massive unemployment. I see it as an opportunity to have classrooms with 1 teach for every 8 students. Police departments that never have to ignore crimes for 'lack of resources'. Nursing homes with individual nurses.

When 80% of the people farmed, we couldn't spare the resources for things like specialized firemen and EMTs and Police. Automation has freed up enough people to do so, all while keeping people better fed and with more clothing. It seems the same would happen in the future. We just have to stop with the AMAGAD NO TAXES ON THE JOB CREATORS nonsense, as well as being more willing to hire government employees. Sure, we need a welfare system, but if given the choice between hiring another teacher or paying someone not to work at all...
Automation requires the ability to scale and sell lots of widgets, otherwise automation is too expensive.

If you raise taxes too much on factories the will go factory somewhere else. No uniform tax worldwide.

Workers can't be just be moved around like pawns. Retraining all the workers in a given location assumes there are jobs in that location for those retrained workers.


We don't have to run out of jobs for people to do. All we need to do to create a very ugly world is to create persistent high unemployment. Even assuming that you could keep people fed and housed and semi entertained they would still look for things to do. And it is not required for those things to be conducive to good order. Certainly a lot of novels have used this conceit.

When 80 percent of the people farmed, the population was low compared to today. It is arguable that the growth in productivity was required to handle the growth in the population as sanitation and health improved. We have EMT's not because we have the luxury of having enough labor, but because we have enough people to require them, the same for any other of the public and private services. And if you want a teacher for every 8 students I suggest you figure out how to churn out passable teachers much quicker than we do now. I see nothing to indicate that we could do that. The same skill sets and talents that make good teachers are in demand in other fields that are better respected and make more money.

The assumption that all things will continue to happen as they have always happened is happy think and unsupported by history. It may be that there are limits that we can't see in advance. The idea of post scarcity is itself vague. It is so poorly defined as to have little real meaning. For instance, lifespan is a limited resource. Better definitions make for better discussions.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:50 pm UTC

Automation currently requires large efficiencies of scale. Nothing says that in the future a small workshop couldn't be automated. And it's perfectly possible to set up a tax structure that doesn't cause the factories to just move overseas. For starters, you could tax revenue instead of profit, or tax based on where you sell rather than where you claim the money is made (eg, you manufacture in Germany but sell in France making $50m profit, France declares your company made all that $50m in France not Germany).

High unemployment is kind of the same as running out of jobs. Which isn't going to happen any time soon. There are always "things to do", even if it's civil service work. And there is no shortage of things for civil service to do. Do you have any idea just how understaffed every single department is? Sure, not everyone can be a teacher. Not everyone can be a cop. But you show me someone that couldn't possibly do any type of civil service work and I'll show you someone who shouldn't be allowed to breed.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby morriswalters » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:38 pm UTC

What may be true isn't to the point. It is about what is true. Automation is expensive. You can't plan on what may be. That would be the equivalent of playing the lottery.

Businesses have shown what they will do if given the chance. If it can be manipulated, it will be manipulated. Business is just as smart as the people who want to take a share of what they produce.

CorruptUser wrote:There are always "things to do", even if it's civil service work.
Four million plus Federal workers, and counting. And more local workers than you can shake a stick at. At all skill levels. That ship has sailed. It's somewhat of a joke in Kentucky. In some counties here, it is about the only source of employment. As a humorous aside on the point of the intelligence of some workers, for many years the Postal service(and a lot of others) had phantom workers, which didn't require intelligence because no one ever showed up for work.

We may or may not be in the first stages of high structural unemployment, the trend is not clear if it exists at all. But I wouldn't bet that it isn't possible. The driver(increasing automation) may lead the actual fact. By the time you know it as a fact, it may be well advanced. Even assuming you believe in the fairy tale of post scarcity the gap to the end may not be bridgeable if you don't before that point.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:57 pm UTC

Stop thinking of the economy in terms of money and instead think of it in terms of production. In simplest terms, lets use apples.

Apples are everything in Appleton. People would scrounge around for apples, and a typical person could gather 5 apples a day from the woods. One day someone develops the "orchard". A farmer owns the orchard and hires the workers to pick the apples there. The farmer pays the workers 10 apples a day to pick 15 apples, keeping 5 for himself. But he hires so many workers that he is swimming in apples. This is the economy of the early industrial revolution.

Appleton is a democracy though, and the people vote for things like apple picking safety guidelines, apple picking training, professional guards to watch for apple thieves, research and development into apple pie recipes. The apple recipe research ends up starting a few businesses making apple cider and apple sauce. Total apples picked rises even though fewer people are picking apples. People vote for things like transfer of apples to people too weak to pick apples, apple pensions for people to old to pick apples, etc. People have enough disposable apples to hire apple jugglers, pay to watch people to play apple ball, or have lavish harvest festivals. This is the current economy.

So now, an apple engineer has figured out how to make a machine to pick all the apples rather than hire workers to do so. Your fear is that there will be no one hired to pick apples. But nothing is preventing the workers from voting in more taxes on the orchard and apple payments to everyone unemployed, or using the taxes to hire more people to develop more apple pie recipes.

wumpus
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:16 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby wumpus » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:22 pm UTC

Automation is expensive.

Well, 3d printing is expensive (and the stock still is), but most automation seems to run on relatively common hardware.

So the software is expensive, the hardware may or may not be, and can be expected to go down.

So we are left with the question: will the [legally created artificial] scarcity of the automation software prevent a "post scarcity"* society? Will the fact that the first [few] owners of the copyrights to the automation software can set prices that bring in extreme profits, yet keep out competition? I suspect that in the current legal and economic framework, this is exactly what happens.

* asterisk next to "post scarcity" due to things like energy, land, and food/grazing issues unlikely to ever be "unlimitedly abundant"

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Derek » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:37 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:When 80 percent of the people farmed, the population was low compared to today. It is arguable that the growth in productivity was required to handle the growth in the population as sanitation and health improved. We have EMT's not because we have the luxury of having enough labor, but because we have enough people to require them, the same for any other of the public and private services. And if you want a teacher for every 8 students I suggest you figure out how to churn out passable teachers much quicker than we do now. I see nothing to indicate that we could do that. The same skill sets and talents that make good teachers are in demand in other fields that are better respected and make more money.

This is pretty obviously backwards. Fertility rates have not increase, in fact they have declined, yet in historical times people did not increase production or divert significant amounts of labor to healthcare to handle the extra population. They just kept farming, because that was the first thing they needed to do to stay alive, and the extra population simply died because there weren't enough resources to support them.

It was the increase in production that allowed fewer people to work just to keep themselves alive, and more people to work to keep others alive. Once the production was in place, then the population exploded (while fertility rates remained unchanged).

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Zamfir » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:25 am UTC

Automation is expensive.

Well, 3d printing is expensive (and the stock still is), but most automation seems to run on relatively common hardware.

So the software is expensive, the hardware may or may not be, and can be expected to go down.

So we are left with the question: will the [legally created artificial] scarcity of the automation software prevent a "post scarcity"* society? Will the fact that the first [few] owners of the copyrights to the automation software can set prices that bring in extreme profits, yet keep out competition? I suspect that in the current legal and economic framework, this is exactly what happens.

In industrial automation, labour is often the main cost. Harware less, and (OTS) software hardly at all.

You typically need a custom-made or at least customized solution, which has to be designed, build, tested, some trouble shooting, repairs. Lots of hours, even to automate simple tasks. From what I have understood, the same is true in other fields as well - think of the sheer armies of IT people required for fairly common office automation projects. When software becomes a cost driver, it is typically about custom software, far more often than artificially scarce software. And that custom software is rarely cutting edge complicated artifical intelligence. A lot of industrial automation runs literally on hardwired AND gates and voltages comparators , not even a simple PLC.

That's a big reson why automation is so coupled to scale. Either the one-off custom solution serves a large production volume, or many people need a similar solution and someone can sell quasi-standardized solutions.

quantropy
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:55 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby quantropy » Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:07 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote: apple pensions for people to old to pick apples

In fact the apple pickers actually own most of the orchard, in that a proportion of the apples they pick are invested for them in the ownership of the orchard, so that when they get old they can have a share of the apples without having to work at picking them. Others want to save a few apples in case of a time when not so many apples are on the trees. A few people are needed to take care of this, but they take to gambling with the apples in their care, (which tree will produce the most apples etc.) Somehow these people seem to end up with most of the apples, whilst everone else is struggling to get by.

In another orchard, things are done much more logically - the orchard is declared to be the property of everyone. But it still need people to administer it, and somehow these people end up with most of the apples again.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby morriswalters » Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:13 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Your fear is that there will be no one hired to pick apples. But nothing is preventing the workers from voting in more taxes on the orchard and apple payments to everyone unemployed, or using the taxes to hire more people to develop more apple pie recipes.
No, I have no fear at all. Being greedy and selfish I don't care, I have mine. A fairly common POV. The trick is, if it does occur, is to make people believe it has before social unrest turns into something ugly. But this is just speculation based on my interpretation of human nature.

Derek wrote:This is pretty obviously backwards. Fertility rates have not increase, in fact they have declined, yet in historical times people did not increase production or divert significant amounts of labor to healthcare to handle the extra population. They just kept farming, because that was the first thing they needed to do to stay alive, and the extra population simply died because there weren't enough resources to support them.

It was the increase in production that allowed fewer people to work just to keep themselves alive, and more people to work to keep others alive. Once the production was in place, then the population exploded (while fertility rates remained unchanged).
Sanitation and hygiene improved around the turn of the century, the result being that people lived longer and fewer babies died early. Fertility didn't have to change. Population pressure induced change. If the car had not been invented we would have drowned in horse manure. Farming improved because it had to improve to feed more people. Family farms couldn't feed 7 billion. The question now is will efficiency outrun population as fertility rates decline in the industrialized world and as more people join that club?

wumpus
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:16 am UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby wumpus » Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:42 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Automation is expensive.

Well, 3d printing is expensive (and the stock still is), but most automation seems to run on relatively common hardware.

So the software is expensive, the hardware may or may not be, and can be expected to go down.

So we are left with the question: will the [legally created artificial] scarcity of the automation software prevent a "post scarcity"* society? Will the fact that the first [few] owners of the copyrights to the automation software can set prices that bring in extreme profits, yet keep out competition? I suspect that in the current legal and economic framework, this is exactly what happens.

In industrial automation, labour is often the main cost. Harware less, and (OTS) software hardly at all.

You typically need a custom-made or at least customized solution, which has to be designed, build, tested, some trouble shooting, repairs. Lots of hours, even to automate simple tasks. From what I have understood, the same is true in other fields as well - think of the sheer armies of IT people required for fairly common office automation projects. When software becomes a cost driver, it is typically about custom software, far more often than artificially scarce software. And that custom software is rarely cutting edge complicated artifical intelligence. A lot of industrial automation runs literally on hardwired AND gates and voltages comparators , not even a simple PLC.

That's a big reson why automation is so coupled to scale. Either the one-off custom solution serves a large production volume, or many people need a similar solution and someone can sell quasi-standardized solutions.


Interesting. I still wonder how much could be replaced by CNCs and other "general purpose" automation if that was sufficiently mass produced. Are there that many jobs for low-level electronic design? I'm in the market for a job and am old enough to have experience in that level design.

I also have to hand it to the designers of such things. It might not be terribly upgradeable if you ever want to produce something else, but finding parts won't be a problem. Finding "real" RS-232 and parallel ports is getting to be a problem (and don't ask about the time this guy designed something assuming a "real" IBM-PC keyboard controller...), AND gates/opamps/555 timers will always be available.

This looks sadly right. In terms of office/IT automation, they sit on the biggest wealth of "free" tools (open source and the like) but as far as I can tell they use Oracle for the moderate jobs and MS/Access/VB/C# for the smaller jobs (the big jobs might as well be classed with commercial software and are roughly as small a proportion of total software output). I really can't argue with their choice of tools, even though they "should" be able to find an open project that does 95%+ of the job.

Most of my argument centers around the idea of "Chinese offshore factories" being today's "automated factory". This completely ignores the lack of NRE due to simply low labor costs for doing anything that would be expensive to automate. I'm pretty sure that modern tools should be adjustable to remove a ton of automation and labor (mostly by using 3d printed molds), but will only reduce it so much. I guess it comes down to the "if you only have a hammer" problem: how good a product can you produce using only non-custom tools?

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Zamfir » Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:26 pm UTC

It's not really low-level electronics. It's more boxes that snap on a DIN rail with a very clearly defined function. Like a relay that switches on if two voltages go over a setpoint, with two screws to set the set points and a dip switch to change from voltage to current-based signals. Internally, such boxes can be surprisingly complicated, with microcontrollers and all. To correct for temperature, to debouncde a switch, monitoring, perhaps they smooth the incoming signal, etc. But externally, the function is very simple. Turn on X if both these sensors are high. Simple, robust, testable. Browse around on Rs-online for example to get an idea.

You do see more and more PLC based solutions even in simple setups, with a microprocessor running a program. But quite often, those programs are hardly more complicated, it's just neater to have 1 PLC box than 4 AND gate boxes. Of course, once that switch is made, it becomes attractive to add more functionality. More complicated control logic, remote monitoring and networking, etc. You feel the bugs already? Once you go too far down that feature-rich path, soon you'll find yourself in that Accenture-consulted hell where the office people already are.

An example I like: the national railway here is (obviously but not officially) preparing automate away the train conductors. If you listen to some people, you might think that such automation is driven by progress in robots and AI. Of course, they are just building turnstiles at all the stations, and they are switching all passengers to a chipcard system that works with the turnstiles. And in the background, they have whittled away for decades on the functions of a train conductors. More and more decisions taken centrally, passengers are supposed to look up their questions on the internet, trains are getting more reliable with less small-time problems. so the ticket lu ching remains, until the turnstiles are finished.

Turnstiles are simple things, but all the stations have to be redone so that the exits are covered. It's a slightly different design for every exit on every station. Lots of work to plan, design, execute and maintain. A lot of automation works that way: you do not make highly intelligent systems, you adapt the environment until a fairly simple system will do. Then you make a robust simple system.

The turnstiles do have networking equipment to talk to the central chipcard server, and the system that runs chipcard system is in fact a stereotypical IT nightmare. That's the complicated software in the story, but even that is not anything intelligent or AI-light. It's a tangle of databases and connections and interfaces etc., digital plumbing more than digital brains.
Last edited by Zamfir on Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:30 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:27 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:IMHO the problem with computers creating art has more to do with the fact that computers can't (yet) make associations with real-world things or ideas. Computers can make art, but they can't make art with any intentional meaning or message unless explicitly programmed to do so by a human.


They can certainly make associations with real-world things, usually via a camera. As for intent, well...does that really matter?

I believe he means real world ideas not images.

Computers are being programmed to create things that we view as artistic: music, drawings etc.
However they are not likely to soon be creative in the sense that they can create an new idea, let alone an original one.


Why does that matter? What exactly seperates a "real world idea" from a computed task?

Originality is overrated. Not every human has original ideas. Plus, there's no particular reason to suspect that computers will never be able to do this.

quantropy wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm not aware of any philosophy of economics that says there should be NO unemployment. Which system of economics are you referring to?

Classical microeconomics. A can make 5 units of X or 2 units of Y in a day. B can make 4 units of Y. C owns a machine that can make 10 units of Z. You know the sort of thing. Everyone is better off and all resources are used optimally if there is a free market. What's not to like? Except it doesn't work that way, so we have to introduce macroeconomics, which of course everyone disagrees about. The surprising thing is not so much that we don't get the optimum of the simple free market model, but that we are so far from it, despite the fact that it would be preferred by most people.


Ah, gotcha. Well, using micro-economics to describe everything can end up being simplistic. Elements like frictional unemployment may not be important to describe a small example set, but are necessary in practice.

I also dare say that "the simple free market model" is something of a simplification as well. When people speak about a free market, they may not even be describing the same system.

CorruptUser wrote:Automation currently requires large efficiencies of scale. Nothing says that in the future a small workshop couldn't be automated. And it's perfectly possible to set up a tax structure that doesn't cause the factories to just move overseas. For starters, you could tax revenue instead of profit, or tax based on where you sell rather than where you claim the money is made (eg, you manufacture in Germany but sell in France making $50m profit, France declares your company made all that $50m in France not Germany).


You can, it's just not efficient. If it takes 100 man/hours to build a machine that makes widgets, and 1 man hour to manually make a widget, there's an obvious lower bar for automation, and efficiency rapidly increases with scale, because a significant amount of expenses are fixed.

wumpus wrote:Interesting. I still wonder how much could be replaced by CNCs and other "general purpose" automation if that was sufficiently mass produced. Are there that many jobs for low-level electronic design? I'm in the market for a job and am old enough to have experience in that level design.


Effectively none. I run a business, and keep one of my 3d printers there. It gets plenty of attention, and I use it extensively. I also allow others to use it, provided they cover materials consumed. Everyone seems enthused about it, but yknow how many people have followed through and come back with a model file? None.

The issue isn't access to hardware. It's spending the time learning how to design stuff, and then spending the time actually designing stuff.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby Yakk » Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:32 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:An example I like: the national railway here is (obviously but not officially) preparing automate away the train conductors. If you listen to some people, you might think that such automation is driven by progress in robots and AI. Of course, they are just building turnstiles at all the stations, and they are switching all passengers to a chipcard system that works with the turnstiles. And in the background, they have whittled away for decades on the functions of a train conductors. More and more decisions taken centrally, passengers are supposed to look up their questions on the internet, trains are getting more reliable with less small-time problems. so the ticket lu ching remains, until the turnstiles are finished.

Sure, but turnstiles are a kind of robot. Chipcards are a kind of AI. Train control remotely is a kind of AI.

Every piece can be really simple, but in some cases it is simple because we've done it dozens or hundreds of times before and have whittled it down to something simple.

AI is simply the set of tasks we have figured out how to teach computers to do for us.
A lot of automation works that way: you do not make highly intelligent systems, you adapt the environment until a fairly simple system will do. Then you make a robust simple system.

The turnstiles do have networking equipment to talk to the central chipcard server, and the system that runs chipcard system is in fact a stereotypical IT nightmare. That's the complicated software in the story, but even that is not anything intelligent or AI-light. It's a tangle of databases and connections and interfaces etc., digital plumbing more than digital brains.

I consider automation AI to be the automation of tasks that, without computers, you would require an intelligent human to do: ie, that could not practically be done with mechanical or "simple electric" solutions.

So turnstiles probably don't count as AI, as you can create a mechanical or mechanical-electric turnstile that even takes a token and ensures the token is of the right kind before letting it turn.

Turnstiles that report their own malfunction would be a kind of automation AI: without that, you'd have to have someone regularly inspecting them.

This isn't sexy AI, like a doctor that orders (and maybe performs) tests from video and audio description of symptoms, but it is an artificial replacement of an intelligent actor with a computer program/electronics system.

Hence calling it "automation AI", or "automated intelligence": the point is what it replaces, not what it is. ("real intelligence" always ends up moving further away as we find "simple" ways to solve problems with computers anyhow)

The sweep of "automation AI" is what can move the marginal cost of doing a task with automation below the marginal cost of feeding a human (the price floor for human competition against automation). If the task needs be done often enough to pay the setup costs, that task becomes no longer economically viable for a human to engage in.

Automation in computer programming hopes to lower said startup costs. High level languages which are far less efficient where the code meets the metal attempt to make programming such tasks easier, which then reduces setup costs, which allows more things to be automated. Frameworks on top of such language allow categories of tasks to be automated much easier as well (or so we hope).

In practice, such automation will occur at the bleeding edge of what is economically viable. Which means our tools to enhance the automation will be buggy, attempts will fail, and everything will be a shit storm. Things that where easy to automate will, under the efficient automation hypothesis(tm), be already automated. So what we are always left with is tasks that are annoying to automate, and whose ROI is marginal especially in the short term. People will search for low hanging automation fruit, and will claim with confidence they spotted it, but such claims should be looked at with caution.

The question becomes what the pace of change is. If the pace of efficient automation outpaces the ability for people to find and learn new tasks that people with money want you to perform in exchange for enough money to keep you content, then things go poorly.

You can cheat by changing who the people with money are. In theory, our monetary system is built around creating new money whenever employment demand (as proxied by inflation: "inflation" as far as the central bank is concerned basically means "wage pricing power of labor" if you read between the lines: core inflation ignores "volatile" things that depend on non-labor goods (energy, food) and is what they mainly care about) becomes soft. So long as we give that money to people that want the kind of things the now-unemployed are able to do, things work. Things go poorly when the people you give the money to don't want anything the now-unemployed can provide (see the above automation limit), or that the now-unemployed can "provide" by proxy in either sense (by freeing up people who are now employed doing something else, but can transfer to tasks that the money was given to, or by doing tasks that the people the new money flows to).
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Converting to Post Scarcity

Postby leady » Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:25 pm UTC

I'm starting to sense a lot of "I've never worked in the real world of IT & computer networks" in this thread

I've been waiting for my natural language simplified 4G languages since the early 90s


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests