Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Peter Zeihan || Will Automation Save the World?" video.

@Seastallion I imagine that instead of drivers, self driving trucks will need armed guards to protect the cargo from unemployed-workers-turned-hijackers. So I guess if you want job security, get advanced weapons training. 😅
5
@JohnSmith-bg4hu What will happen (is already happening, in case you didn’t notice) is that for every 20 of you, 19 will get laid off, because automation can handle 95% of your job. So if you’re lucky and/or you outcompete the 19 other coworkers, you’ll keep your job. Basically, to whatever degree you can work from home you’ll be redundant in that job. The history of work is filled with unemployed irreplaceable workers. You didn’t ask anyone’s advice, but I’ll give it anyway. Learn a trade having to do with home repair as your plan B. If I’m wrong, at least you’ll have a useful hobby. Good luck in our brave new world!😅
4
@hohenzollern6025 You’re ignoring some key facts. The set of “jobs only humans can do” is shrinking. Perhaps economic growth has masked this fact, but what happens if the global economy enters a long period of shrinkage? With regard to finding technicians to operate the means of production, the socialists would say, “there are always people willing to work for altruistic motives” (or perhaps for the fun of it). The capitalists might say some people will be willing to work for more than the UBI if there is still a profit motive. And a cynic might say, in either case, there are plenty of people who will seek power, advantage and ways to manipulate the system for their benefit, and they will take over whichever system you put in place. Just like always. The real question is not “Are humans 100% replaceable?” The questions are do we need to restructure society? How should we do it? Also, Hard AI is probably impossible, so you needn’t worry about skynet or your Abominable intelligence war. What we call AI is a tool, a human prosthetic.
4
@michaelrunnels7660 he’s the John Wick of neckties.
4
@Tommeadowcroft Even if true, it doesn’t address the hundreds of workers that were replaced. The people arguing that automation won’t replace 100% of workers are missing the point. The fact that his dad was the last irreplaceable employee ignores all the rest, and the fact that the plant lay idle for a year raises questions about surplus capacity. If the company could let the plant stay idle for a year, does that indicate increased efficiency at other plants it had automated? The real issue is does automation decrease demand? And that issue raises a host of other issues, from the practical to the philosophical.
3
@RustyStringz They kept you on, but did they keep everyone on. If they did keep all your fellow machinists, did they have to hire replacements as workers retired, or did they just increase your workload? Was the company able to expand while hiring fewer workers and/or less skilled workers? Anyway, I think the real question is quite different than “are humans completely replaceable?” That question is missing the point. The real issue is “does automation decrease demand, and what happens if it does?”
3
@michaelrunnels7660 You understand the spiral. It goes both ways (down and up or contracting or expanding, however you care to think of it). Pete’s demographic trend analysis predicts we are experiencing long term contraction. Automation is not going to solve the problem. It will make it worse, if anything. The commenters arguing that humans will never be replaced 100% are missing the important point entirely. To them I want to say, “Imagine a factory with one worker and one dog. The dog is there to guard the machines and make sure the worker does his job. The worker is there to keep the dog feeding machine operating.” But the real issue is supply and demand and what happens to growth when consumer demand drops because there are fewer workers with money to spend. Where is the tipping point? (have we passed it?), where is the point of equilibrium? (Is there one?). Keep going and you might arrive at the philosophical questions.
2
@billweberx a friend of mine got a degree in computer engineering from one of the top west coast schools. He learned arc welding in one of his lower division courses. He’s never had to use his (low level) welding skills professionally. Probably the point of the exercise was applied problem solving, but the point is he learned a mechanical process not normally associated with software engineering (but with applications if he had gone into developing software for welding robots, I suppose).
2
You’re asking the right sorts of questions.
2
So what do you think are the implications of population decline? Do you agree with Pete’s conclusions? Why or why not?
2
There is a very humorous, provocative Marxist philosopher named Slavoj Žižek. He has suggested that the Fleshlight creates surplus value. I’m neither a Marxist nor a Socialist, but he makes an interesting point. 😂 It’s a 2 minute video extracted from some longer presentation: search “slavoj zizek fleshlight” and I bet you can find it. But anyway there’s your robot, pervert.
1
@garou5682 About that agility. To whatever degree an expert system can handle a customer request before it has to hand off to a human, customer service workers are made redundant. If the system can handle 60% of requests, the company can lay off 60% of that workforce. This has already been happening for decades. Does it make customer service worse? Yes, in many cases. But it improves the bottom line. Most customers put up with it in the end. Quick example: I was due to receive a package for which I needed to pay customs duty. I was able to track the package, but I was unable to determine the amount of the duty after it cleared customs. I couldn’t pay online, nor could I determine if the delivery driver could accept credit cards. In the end I was able to estimate the duty and make sure I had cash on hand. But the moral of the story is that the shipping company didn’t provide good customer service, saved money on payroll, and forced me to do the foot work (which was ultimately unsuccessful anyway). I’ll complain, which will create an infinitesimal pressure for them to improve their system which they were going to do in a few years anyway.
1
@johnbuckner2828 An AIO 3-D printer? Meaning it can print, copy, scan, and fax? 😊
1
You don’t need consuming robots to drain off surplus value and maintain or generate demand. You just need virtual/digital products and services. Which is already here in some form.
1
Yes, you’re thinking about this the right way imho. I don’t know if sustainability is an achievable end state, but it’s a helluva lot more desirable than some of the alternatives. One of the basic questions is “how much do we need?” And then it must be asked, “how many workers are needed to fulfill that need?” And there are different implications, depending on how that question is answered. If you take an abstract high level, global view you might notice that there are perhaps a billion people that could vanish and it wouldn’t affect the economy negatively. (I realize that it sounds terrible to say that from a moral p.o.v.). Depending on which chain of implications you follow, what happens if that number increases by another billion? Two billion? What happens if 7 billion people become “redundant” in terms of sustaining the economy? The Marxists and quasi-Marxists talk about “late stage capitalism”, but (maybe) they ain’t seen nothing yet. Capitalism: Hold my beer. War, Famine, and Pestilence: Sure thing! Now, I don’t really want to personify these man-made and/or natural forces. But they highlight certain questions, such as “what is capitalism?” “to what purposes can it be harnessed?”. Maybe it’s just me, but such questions lead me to the rarified (and yet sophomoric) existential questions regarding the meaning of life. Oh, bother! (fwiw, I think of capitalism as a social technology, a tool similar to a motor that propels society forward, but forward towards what? To what end? Who decides?) Perhaps Plato was right, the ideal society is ruled by philosopher kings. 😆 I just Kant.
1
“Will automation completely replace human workers” is the wrong question. A better question is, “what happens to the displaced workers?” I think the limitations you mention (finding/training technicians) are solvable, but without economic growth, displaced workers have nowhere to go, and that becomes a drag on growth. So is there a swinging of the conceptual economic expansion/contraction pendulum, or are we on a downward spiral?
1
@michaelrunnels7660 We’ll be fine as long as Mexico remains Catholic. 😂
1
@coryturke7336 But when AI equals “biological”? I suppose you mean when it reaches human intelligence equivalence. I don’t think you can assume it will happen, at least not within our lifetimes. It might not be possible at all, because the mind/body problem might never be resolved to the point where we can implement what we have learned. Simulating consciousness does not a conscious being make.
1
@LaFonteCheVi AI is just one component of automation. Automation is better, more efficient tools, meaning you need fewer workers to accomplish the same task in the same amount of time. With me so far? Fewer workers mean fewer consumers meaning less consumer demand. Less consumer demand means . . . what? What are the implications for the economy and for society? These are the real questions. “We will always need construction workers, linesmen, road workers, and robot repairmen” is the answer to the wrong question.
1
@travisadams4470 You first. 😛
1
@renaissance17 are there no urban hunter/gatherers in your society?
1
Not to mention the zombie apocalypse! But seriously, let’s rise above and look at the 100,000 meter view of electronic Armageddon. Any estimates of how many people die and how quickly? Can society be rebuilt to our current levels and how quickly? I guess we’ll find out if/when it happens. Meanwhile, I’m not sure how a society prepares for that. Living on the “fault line”, as you put it, is unlikely to change. We know that “The Big One” will hit the West Coast someday in the future, but that knowledge hasn’t caused people to move to another state. Maybe a Carrington event is so far out that we will have learned how to harden our electronic infrastructure against it. Maybe not.
1