The big debate about the future of work, explained
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 11. 2017
- Why economists and futurists disagree about the future of the labor market.
Subscribe to our channel! goo.gl/0bsAjO
Sources:
economics.mit.edu/files/11563
www.aeaweb.org/full_issue.php...
voxeu.org/article/how-computer...
www.opensocietyfoundations.or...
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/...
www.vox.com/2015/7/27/9038829...
www.amazon.com/dp/B00PWX7RPG/...
www.amazon.com/Second-Machine...
www.amazon.com/New-Division-L...
www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/dow...
Clips:
• Honda's Asimo Robot bu...
• MIT cheetah robot land...
• Atlas, The Next Genera...
• Mohammad Al Gergawi in...
• Are Robots Hurting Job...
• Humans Need Not Apply
• The Rise of the Machin...
///
Recent advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics have commentators worrying about the coming obsolescence of the human worker. Some in Silicon Valley are even calling for a basic minimum income provided by the government for everyone, under the assumption that work will become scarce. But many economists are skeptical of these claims, because the notion that the the economy offers a fixed amount of work has been debunked time and time again over the centuries and current economic data show no signs of a productivity boom. Fortunately, we don't need to divine the future of the labor market in order to prepare for it.
///
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com to get up to speed on everything from Kurdistan to the Kim Kardashian app.
Check out our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H
Or on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o
“Just because cars are here doesn’t mean there won’t still be jobs that only we can do in the future”
~Horses in 1905
A .S banana
A .S b a n a n a s
This year the COVID-19 crisis showed us that some jobs that we have created over time are actually artificial and not essential in the economy, they are relevant only in a stable economy, an economy which has a surplus (example from transportation or services, there are so many individuals or small companies that act as an intermediary in the working process for the main companies or for individuals, by offering services mainly for convenience which when the economy goes south they are the first to get shut. Also, we see the food service industry one of the biggest creator of jobs in the economy is oversaturated, restaurants are at a tipping point right now, their future looks even worse when more automation will be implemented. What will happen for example with tourism when someone will decide to 3D map the cities or sites and offer virtual online VR tours? This is a big industry that will lose a lot in economic means.). No one is discussing this when thinking about the future of the labor market and on top of this, they don't take into consideration that the new technology they say it would create adjacent jobs by requiring workforce for development and maintenance will be increasingly automated and will need fewer humans to do them in time. This means that over time the massive job loss is going to happen but not as they expect to happen, it will be a longer process than they think, this is good in part because it will give us more time to adapt but the end is inevitable, unfortunately. And this is why that chart with labor productivity is poorly interpreted, of course is going to decrease in the short to medium term, because people who created those artificial non-essential jobs that I was referring to, they don't actually produce they just move money from one place to another, and a lot of people/firms find themselves in that situation and this trend will steadily increase until will become more noticeable, we will have sectors that will produce in the economy and sectors that will be created just to keep individuals busy with not much economic impact, but that can only work temporary, as this crisis showed us it will. ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEM in modern society is not the economic system itself or capitalism, is the political system because is a slow way to implement change, technology is going forward at an increasing pace that we cannot keep up with, we need something that will allow us to make more rapid changes, a way that will allow us to make decisions and implement policies faster, and that will happen only when we will eliminate the political game from the equation. WE NEED A TECHNOCRATIC SYSTEM that will eliminate all that time lost by playing the game of acquiring and maintaining political power. Wish you a good day!
@@a.s8897 That's completely missing the point of the metaphor.
@@a.s8897 Banana?
say "BANANA"
But AI is a whole different thing from Automation. Automation isn't 'intelligent' so this will be very different.
AI still depends on a huge pool of data to make "decisions" and at this point, a team of humans is needed to filter and validate that data to make sure it makes the "correct decisions". I mean last year, Microsoft's AI chat bot became an asshole within 24 hours of engaging with people on Twitter. A lot of AI bots right now aren't as sophisticated as a lot of people think. I personally still think of them as automation.
But one day it will be intelligent automation.
Jake Roosenbloom hey thats what i was gonna say but 100%AGREE
Automation is mindless, but AI could easily take up jobs that make a human necessary. With the current state of capitalism and corruption, it is very very likely that AI technology will be poorly regulated, and would make many many humans UNEMPLOYABLE.
AI is also automation, but in terms of thinking and design.
The video's 'ok Google' activated my Google home at the living room, which has started screaming the information about autonomous cars out of sudden.
Thank you
It should be illegal for any show to use the word google. Happens to me all the time
Lol
r/thingsthatdidntactuallyhappenbutipostedanywayforlikes
Well, that's your problem 😂😂
This argument reminds of the "Oil isn't running out, because we keep finding new oil reserves". Is oil infinite? No. Therefore it will run out.
"We won't run out of jobs, because there are professions which aren't automatable". The missing word is "yet". Is there anything that a human can do and a robot can't? With AI and lab-grown tissues, the answer is no. There will be a day when robots will even give warmer hugs. It's not this generation's problem, but the day will come.
That's not a bad thing in itself. It just means that the current design of our society, where everyone has to work in a market to earn a living, will simply become outdated. Capitalism will have to be replaced. The real problem is that the people with the power to change things are the ones who don't stand to lose.
Fantastic analysis, DarkMatter.
For me the future is incredible, spectacular, i just want live centuries to see that, Developed countries )First world) are going to become socialist? The people with power let that happened? will happen a social war for that? fighting for more equal distribution? And what happen with the undeveloped countries?
Ok, in more serious character, its so complicated. I think that in the end of our lives, we cant see the impact of that tecnologies, the real impact is going to happen in 2080 - 2100 in the next century XXII.
Pd. Dont be to rude (angry) for my english, good day.
Another point is that, this new technologies is going to help in your quality life. Can you imagine that you win more money and work less?, and the economic dynamics will be the same capitalism. You can have more time for leisure, shopping. (in other words you have the enough money for buy, and enough time for spend). Thats look impressive. Well, US can improve your quality life, but the ratio is not equal, the high income people (have power) improve their economy in a super ratio that the rest, like normally was.
Then the idea is that all can be the same, continue the capitalism, different growth ration for the rich people in comparative with the rest, the crucial change is that you win more that never before and work less that any period in the US history. But that marvelous idea, bring so massive problems, the principal, like u can imagine is the migration, but is a different migration (high quality migration-educated people with University grade, at least ) they see the bright opportunities in US.
In the same direction of my idea, I say that the growth of US will be more fantastic that is actually, US with my arguments is going to be a super developed country, a totally different country, a superior country, inclusive remarkable superior that developed country. America the first country in the Super First World?.
Aclare, all that i write is supposed to happen in the next centuries, maybe XXII or XXIII, but sound so factible and a next reality.
We will turn into robots....
當AI取代了人能做的事情，甚至到更未來的時間機器也有辦法理解情感，人的存在會變成問題; 因為人類一直在讓系統人性化，能讓人類社會更加便利，讓機器滿足人類需求
所以人類到更長遠的時間後或許真的會被取代
但真的要想"被取代"之問題的話，可能要去思考非人類世界觀所能想到的事情
不過依照這種思維模式是很難想出答案的，幾乎不可能(而且這樣想出來也屬於人類世界觀)
your last statement is wrong because noone will buy from them if theres no jobs so who will they actually sell to. but many corporations are like a man sitting on a branch which they are slowly sawing away at eventually they will fall
Back in the 1920, machines took over the jobs with hands. But today, computers are taking over the jobs with brains. That’s why it’s different today.
It is slightly more complicated than that. Machines most easily replace repetitive jobs, wether it be physical or mental, having people do repetitive tasks is waste of human potential. The human brains greatest ability over machines is our ability to adapt, to consider complex variables, and to imagine things based on irrational connections. AI just simply isn't capable of meaningful imagination, so any new jobs will be in the creative market.
What you mean is AI isn't good at creative thinking yet. But what about when it is? They are already increasing their abilities in those area, so the idea that they will never be able to have those skills are absurd. It is only a matter of time before an AI is better in every possible task than a human is. Unless you believe humans have magic brains that can't be duplicated, why would you ever think it is impossible to overcome them?
hit the nail on the head. now that computer programs can best lawyers and doctors in their fields to a certain extent its a whole new board game to replacing longshoremen and ticket attendents.
TheJaredtheJaredlong that's funny. What about that AI that composes music? Or ones designed specifically for creativity in art? CGP grey made a good video on this.
Lilitha11 this video is arguing against your claims about artificial general intelligence
That's what the robots want you to think
But what if the IA wants you to think what you just wrote?
Ur profile pic though
I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE CORRECT. I HAVE A 86.649% CONFIDENCE IN THAT ASSERTION.
Vox has been taken over by the robots. They're using it to spread disinformation. Now is the time to fight back
IA the vocaloid?
Someday someone will automate the job of finding and automating other jobs.
Okay, but I come from a family of farmers and longshoremen and other workers from MD who took great pride in their work. And it's not just that these jobs leave, it's that almost no jobs return to those areas to replace the ones that get killed. So areas become more economically depressed, which always affects people varyingly along racial/gender lines. This is why it's deceptive to listen to economists, because they look at things in such an idealist macro level, their assessments often fail to account for the lived experiences of real people.
Gerard Miller actually economist cares about equality and equity. Politicians and the rich don’t care. In fact, economists have different views and politicians pick the economists they like.
Economists are far too varied to generalise like this--but even macroeconomists are not "idealists"--I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Economists, despite the variance that occurs under that umbrella term, study the economy quantitatively. They're scientists, not idealists.
@@user-sf4fy8bq1h Humans have free will so economists are not scientists.
@@izdatsumcp Uh--the fact that humans have "free will" hasn't negated any of the other sciences, so I'm not sure why it'd negate economics. It sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about, so I suggest you figure that out first before running your mouth on the internet.
You're not giving me anything to work with, so I won't be reading your replies or responding any further. Best of luck.
@@user-sf4fy8bq1h It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. All economic activity is human activity and since, humans have free will, it follows that all laws in this so-called science are contingent. Toodle-oo!
ok, let them take the f***ing jobs, as long as the resulting increase in revenue comes back to society and not to a few shareholders
Well too bad, because that's pretty much always how it goes, the resulting wealth that's supposed to trickle down to the working class usually ends up in Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, or some Swiss bank account.
When everything is automated there will be a universal income, that is a fact, the world *can not* work with out it at that point. But the problem is between now and then. Somehow we need to transition to that. My guess is that as we transition and people are loosing jobs, everything will get cheaper to the point where the current welfare system can buy everything you need. Then the income from all these company's will start to drain into the universal income until everyone is rich. Yes there might be a few stubborn shareholders that will not give up their money but who cares because the universal income is so high and everything is so cheap.
Ninja1inblack not if they simply eliminate the dead weight
Jonny Ace how would they do that? Murder? Illegal. Bribing the government? Counter productive. Also what good is money if there is 50 people in the planet. Your idea is flawed.
if you ask me, it's really time to buy stock in Tesla's now wholly owned robot company, that German one, whatever the name of it was
I'm sorry but you say 'economists' disagree with technologists. I have a masters in economics, I'm mis-represented by that statement. That one economist (Heidi) you spoke to has a differing opinion. She's also only here talking about measurable trends to date across the entire labour market due to existing technology increases, whereas the concern from technologists is about specific technologies that are not available yet disrupting specific labour markets. For example, when a touchscreen kiosk replaces the staff of a fast food chain, the labour market as a whole might not shift dramatically, but the transitional employment disruption to frontline clerks may be cataclysmic.
Additionally, the labour productivity measure may not shift at all in the wake of this sort of automation - an iphone may increase productivity over not having a phone to check emails or take calls anywhere (an increase in labour productivity to current employees) - but replacing that employee with an automated kiosk would not improve the productivity of the other human clerks. If you want to measure that, you need to measure the number of total transactions per employee by Macdonalds before and after installing automated kiosks. If the location receives 1000 customers per day, and has 10 employees (6 clerks, 3 chefs, and a manager), the transactions per employee before installing kiosks was 100 per employee. Replace those 6 clerks with kiosks, and it's 250 per employee. This is worth stressing with another example. A microscopic surgery robot today enables a surgeon to perform difficult surgery faster today than before it was installed, lets say an 8 hour manual surgery now takes 4 hours due to better vision and precision robotic arms: the surgeon is twice as productive due to new technology. Now, once the robot has recorded enough surgeries it can perform the same surgery without the surgeon. The surgeon may go find a job somewhere else that can't afford a surgery robot, he may still be able to perform that surgery in 8 hours by hand, or 4 hours with the machine but without automation - but his job at his current location was replaced (transitional unemployment) by a machine. His labour productivity hasn't changed, by his desirability in the labour market has declined.
Technologists (and economists like me) are not afraid of iphones replacing workers - and that's the sort of technology shift Heidi is implying as parallel. A better example isn't email or iphones - it's horse drawn carriages. How many horses are employed in the transport industry after the introduction of cars? Allowing a human to drive a car in 50 years will be a quaint novelty of a bygone era - just like horse drawn carriages are now. Will humans sit around doing nothing when robots take all the current jobs? No, this was never about permanent unemployment - but the transitional unemployment wave that's coming due to new human-replacement technology is just as dangerous: it will require use to redesign society, just as if it was permanent unemployment. Just as Heidi suggested - the benefit of new technology is shifting all the wealth to the top 1% of the top 1%. We'll all still find things to do with our time, basket-weaving and painting and writing video games - but we're going to need a whole lot of new Starbucks locations to provide seating and lattes for the billions of amateur writers we're all set to become when the value of our manual labour, or intellectual labour, or knowledge - approaches zero.
The 99% of the 1% will save us if anything goes wrong, after all many of their fortunes are intertwined with society's.
Excellent comment and for typing it all out. You really contributed and I completely agree
Also agreed. Can Vox just have you make their videos?
Yvaelle: Excellent comment, thanks for sharing. And yes, the big question is what to do with all of us unemployable humans. We're known to get anxious and revolt when we become useless :/
Yvaelle Hello! My name is Malik Charles and im really just tryna get support for my music! I write music about Love,pain and life..please take a listen czcams.com/video/JXZgl62f0dA/video.html
Problems with this video:
1. Something not happening in the past doesn't mean that it won't happen in the future
2. Job automation DID cause massive job losses and suffering. Laborers protested, rioted, and died over this.
3. Job automation is already wrecking havock on the labor market, it's just not something some ivory tower economist will see looking at bullshit statistics (eg. unemployment rate) from his/her cubicle. Just look at all the unemployed/underemployed college graduates working retail jobs (my neighbor graduated from a top 3 public university with a STEM degree and is currently waiting tables at a restaurant), or the decimated areas in the rust belt. Everybody knows that free trade shipped factories overseas, but what doesn't get enough attention is that automation is responsible for a huge percentage of those jobs being lost. Again, you're not going to see this from some doctored unemployment figure.
4. The question isn't just about # of jobs, its about QUALITY of jobs. Unemployment rate can remain flat, but if 3 million truck drivers with middle class salaries start working minimum wage retail and personal care aid type jobs (the jobs with the most projected growth), then that's an impending disaster.
5. People need money to buy things. If they lose their jobs, then they can't buy things.
I'm glad you're raising attention to this enormously important issue, but to suggest that we should carry on as though everything is ok while millions of Americans are in danger of getting their careers automated away is incredibly irresponsible at best, incredibly selfish at worst.
No one hear you they are idiots
We just need to ignore the droves of homeless overflowing from our public parks and, look there are jobs for everyone!
What is it about economics that makes every average Joe think he is qualified to talk about? You don't have access to or training to accurately interpret any of those statistics. All you are doing is indulge in headcanon. Building upon fallacies.
5:32 that study is bullshyt, old black and white sony ericsson phones in the 1998s had voice commands, "Open contacts..etc"
Waiters in the US earn way too much money, that's the problem with the tip culture, why would i get a job at a starting office or scientist position if i can get more as a waiter? Think about it, how much do you tip? 20%?, THATS HUGE. 20% of income not even revenue going to a fraction of the staff in a business is a crap ton of money.
When you replace farm hands, factory workers, and fishermen, you’re replacing muscles. Those jobs then shifted to service and intellectual work. The difference this time is automation is replacing service and intelectual work, the havens got replaced workers. What do we do when robots cut our hair, drive or cars, make our food, teach our children, and make our entertainment as well as build our homes and cars, and work our farms and factories. This isn’t the invention of saddles making horses’ jobs less rough, it’s the invention of the car, make horses’ jobs obsolete.
true
not problem unless automation makes u obselete with no way to pay bills and u starve to death.
we don't have an answer to this question. humanity is on the verge of the biggest economic and social crisis in its history
We won't even need Vox presenters anymore .
Not if it's Joss. I would pay extra for her videos lmao
I c h o k e d 😹😹
SuperMechguy what're you talking about? The vox presentors are robots
WE NEED JOSS
They will have to learn to code like the rest of us.
I'm no expert but the HUGE contrasts between these examples of the past and the present is that automation is now replacing a different skill set. After the industrial revolution, human labour shifted from mostly physical to mostly mental. Now that the robots are becoming better than us mentally, where do we shift to?
Another minor difference with this new automation, ie. AI, is that once set up it will take little hunan labour to run. With large physical machines, large numbers human engineers and technicians are required to build and maintain these machines. With AI, sure a large team of coding whizzes may be needed to set it up, but after that it can be duplicated with no extra cost and that human labour is no longer needed.
The other difference is the scale and pace at which this is happening. Society may adapt to AIs , but it will not adapt as quickly as the technology is being produced. We need to come up with a solution fast or humanity will be in dire trouble.
Also 5:16-5:51 was literally the most badass 'YESS HUMAN PROGRESSION' thing I've ever seen. Even if it will ultimately be out downfall lmao
"Now that the robots are becoming better than us mentally, where do we shift to?"
Creativity. That's the last bastion and maybe one that we'll get to keep all to ourselves. I'm not sure you can base an entire economy on that though. The world needs jobs for ditch diggers too.
Super Kang That's actually SUCH an interesting idea. A world in which bots run the world and human efforts are focused on creating art sounds like my kind of utopia. Though if it were possible it would be transition phase that would scare me more.
Exactly. Automation will be developed, the profits brought about by increased productivity will continue to go to fewer and fewer people. The poor will get poorer. The conclusion is war.
"Robots " replace the human body. "AI" replaces the human mind. Its about to get REALLY interesting
Ai will never replace the human mind.... we can think outside of the box...
Waladoopa Not too sure about that. Go is a board game that has been played for over 2,500 years. A couple years ago, an AI system that could play Go was created and played against the best player. It did a move that no experienced player had ever seen before in history and unexpectedly defeated the human player. This is only the beginning of what AI could be capable of
@@waladoopa2667 And what makes you think AI will never be able to "think outside of the box"? Technolgical naysayers always look at everything from an anthropocentric viewpoint.
It's like how people are controlled by their own ideaoligy of flags and the power and dominance it brings....yet no wisdom washes over our minds and flesh because when we turn into robots and machinery we will be controlled and brain washed further more-
@@ss-tz6fj What?
I think the bigger problem is that we live in a society where more automation (less human labor required) is even potentially bad for people doing the work. Just think about that for a second and let it sink in how little sense that actually makes. Try to forget about the fact that we live in a system that requires work to get money to live. That idea is so ingrained in us that its hard to see past it, but try to question it or at least put it out of your mind for a few minutes.
Isnt doing less work the fundamental driving force of human ingenuity? If a job is fully automated, then the work that people were doing isnt necessary anymore. As a collective whole we literally have to do less work to maintain our situation. And its not as if people *want* to work, especially not in the menial types of jobs that automation replaces. We want to work because we want money. And why do we have to work to make money? Because if we didnt work, those jobs that produce the things that we spend our money on wouldn't get done... except that they would... because they are automated, they dont require people working to function.
As automation increases, the entire system collapses at a philosophical level. When all the jobs that produce our needs are automated then why do we work 8+ hours a day so that we can meet our needs? I realize that this is not the case yet, but think of how much less work is required now to meet basic needs than about 50 years ago. Why do we still work the same amount?
Because in the current system we dont work for the product of our labor (in a collective/societal sense). We work so that we can buy the product of work (both human and automated) from the people who own it because they own the mechanisms through which that work is done (either by hiring human labor or buying automated labor). This is the problem
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what people are freaking out about is not so much a philosophical concern, but more of the possibility of powerful people in our country, i.e. the owners of large businesses, not providing enough jobs to ensure the well-being of all people that are in need of jobs.
The development of automation would leave the employment/well-being of many working class people in the hands of higher up managers of large companies, even more so than it is already. Once a lot of blue collar jobs become obsolete with the development of new tools and technology, it'll become increasingly difficult for working class people to start their own contracting businesses that have the potential to grow overtime and instead, will have to resort to finding work when the owners of the new and most likely very expensive tools, decide to create enough jobs for everybody, which could potentially never happen.
Justin Choi u missing the point he is saying money shouldn’t be the driving force behind humanity anymore once ur basic needs are met excess isn’t necessary in fact it’s greed how u spend your free time after that is up to you work overloads shouldn’t be necessary anymore we have to grow as a species in other ways
@@ks0ul2 yes main point
Yep, the actual cancer is not automation, its capitalism. Communism is a different kind of cancer. We need something completely new. No need for money because of abundance and humans consuming only as much as they need without being greedy and trying to have more than others. This is immaturity of our species.
YEAAAH NO MORE CAPITALISM!
Unemployable is the right way to put it. Machines have been replacing base tasks for a long time, but this new era can replace even very complicated tasks. All of the service industry, all of the transportation industry, all retail, will be very easily replaceable in a decade.
There are even artificial intelligences now able to make research for new cancerous substance and other stuff. They even beat the actual doctors at it. When they relace doctors and ingineers what will we do.
Within less than 20 years. *All* human labor will be superfluous, if current trends continue. We are on the cusp of truly understanding how to make consciousness work, even if we still can't answer questions like "but how do qualia exist at all". A few more iterations of Moore's law, and a few more breakthroughs in machine intelligence, is all it will take to replace human intelligence completely.
@Aleknildeveloped nations like the US have bigger salaries compared to developing nations, some countries have10 times less salary than the minimum wage earners in the US. Ordinary Americans can afford to own a car, rent a solo apartment, having government subsidies when they lose jobs. If the US industries still the same as two decades ago with more manual labors and less production, there will be more unemployed and homeless Americans on the streets and most probably without government subsidies. Countries like the US will not be able to compete in the global market if they will not employ automation in the industries.
CGP Grey has excellent counterpoints to the claims in this video. The main problem is that automation is different this time. Automation started with machines doing physical work for humans, directed by humans (think printing press). Then it became machines doing physical work with much lower human guidance. Then humans were not needed to run the machines. That's fine, because people can ascend from physical labor to mental labor. We can make a robot arm to lift 1000x as much, 100x as fast, and 10x as often, so the displaced people found work in the next breakthrough. They used brainpower to do things a dumb robot could not.
Now, human brains are being replaced in the job sector by self-learning AI. Humans will be replaced in both physical and mental fields, but since the AI is self-creating, *there is no rung to move up on the ladder.* Machines and AI will totally eclipse humans in capability, with the only jobs left being centered on neither brains nor brawn. What is left for humans to do? Maybe therapists will exist for the human touch, to help over 25% of the workforce come to terms with being unemployed and entirely obsolete within the next 100 years.
seconded! and for anyone wondering, CGPGrey's vid is titled "Humans need not apply"
In Japan there are brothels with sex dolls. Although while brainless
How will these automated companies be profitable if no one has any money to buy their products?
Anyway the human brain is still way more advance then any A.I. to date so it's gonna be along time before anything like that happens.
Sup, there are two (very obvious) answers to your question. The first answer: Robots can buy their products. The second: Welfare. Although there's also a third: The richest, being the only ones left with significant wealth can buy them too.
It's also possible that it could go a different way more like what you suggested: If automation ever became so sophisticated and widespread, that it leads to a world without jobs for anyone but the richest, it's possible money itself would become so devalued (since the richest people would have nearly all the money at that point, and would use so little of it), that it becomes virtually worthless, and thus, obsolete.
But I have my doubts, and I think that, at least for the near future, if this abomination of technology is not stopped dead in it's tracks, or properly accomidated to the benefit of workers, *then it will rob humans of our sense of purpose in life, because whether you want to admit it or not, humans live to work.*
Sup 2030 according to ray kurzweil. A.I. is exponential.
And they don't need an economy, they can make things for the owner. The machine will complete the task without complaints faster and more efficiently for the owner. The idea of an economy will become outdated.
Google Andrew Yang. He’s the only 2020 candidate thinking about the future.
The only one, huh?
DuckDuckGo Andrew Yang. He’s a 2020 candidate thinking about the future.
Yandex Andrew Yang he is a 2020 candidate thinking about the future.
Baidu Andrew Yang he is a 2020 candidate thinking about the future.
Nah, we gotta fight fire with fire, we need to automate bosses and politicians see how they like it.
Anyone watching this in 2023? This vid feels a hole Lot more like the near future then it did 5 years again.
A robot created the title...nice try.
lol
lol 😀
Funniest comment here so far xD
Did not happen in the past --> Will not happen in the future... That seems like a pretty weak argument. Until now jobs have not been eradicated, because humans could shift from physical to intelligence jobs. And that is the last refuge that is now being tackled by AI.
Ai shall rule us all
Except humans still work in physical jobs...
Yup going to buy that shotgun
Mimir Fonten no
yes, but 80% of future jobs in 10 years haven't even been discovered yet.
In the 20s and 30s there was the Great Depression... it lasted 10 years... FDR was elected made Social Security and welfare. UBI is needed ... Yang 2020!
czcams.com/video/GhArPPmHjCs/video.html
No
Hopeless fools believing in politicians 🤣
Gibs me dat fo free
FDR also made opportunity for a lot of jobs as well. He gave the south electricity, he made many state parks as well as commissioning random artists to make things just so the government had a reason to pay them. Money doesn't circulate if money fails to enter the system.
that economist is out of touch with technology and automation. It's like watching a climate denier.
No, hes not. Its basic science. You're thinking about the present. Cars will change especially with Tesla's new self-driving option, its 100% guaranteed that cars and other motor vehicles will fall out completely.
How so?
The most populous professions on Earth, currently:
- retail salespersons, cashiers
- drivers and movers
- secretaries, accountants, clerks
Is any of those NOT on the list of intelligent solutions Google is developing and beginning to market to businesses, as we speak?
self driving trucks have started off! I read a Wired article recently that makes an interesting point- apparently there's a shortage of truck drivers that will increase if not fixed. This sort of shortage means there's both demand for more labor and demand for more wages both which can be fixed with automation. And as drivers quit/retire, those jobs will just vanish rather than be "taken".
Idk if retail salespersons are really threatened... I mean we've had self checkout in grocery for years but humans have to watch it. I guess amazon will keep growing though. Driving/transit really comes down to a huge legal and cultural shift that will take a while. Accountants will probably always be with us because someone will have to check the numbers for confidence/safety reasons however useless they may be... Think air traffic controllers.
Musk is right about job loss and our potential destruction by AI. The majority of jobs can and will be automated. What may happen afterwards is what I'm interested in. Will the hierarchies that created the technology finally allow a universal basic income? Or will there be a revolution caused by massive job loss and the subsequent destitution? After that question is answered another may pop up: What happens if the robots take over said hierarchies?
Eugenics started by AI. Sweet dreams. lol
The most mindless and boring jobs also.
This time it's different. Before automation was only able to take over repetitive jobs; robots on a car assembly line simply need to repeat the assembly steps over and over, doors on subway trains only need to be opened and close etc. Now we are reaching a turning point in artificial intelligence, it is no longer robots just taking over repetitive tasks they are now able to challenge humans in intelligent and creative tasks. When a robot is as intelligent or more so than a human both logically and creatively, what jobs could there possibly be left for us to do?
I like your comment, but I don't think that robots can (for now) take over creative jobs that easily. Some creative works are so innovative that machine could not replicate it. Take mathematician or designer for example. But I agree with you about that musician or painter are in danger.
Tomáš Janoušek Even designers are in danger... You may heard of Neural Network...
Those more 'creative' or 'innovative' jobs may be safe for a while longer, sure. But how many designers exactly do we need? That's already a horrendously saturated market, and it really isn't *that* much down the line that AI very much will be able to do that kind of work. Or at the least, may be able to assist human designers so one can do the work of 20.
Tomáš Janoušek I wouldn't even agree that the painter/ musician is in danger- at least not from ai- no the thing that's endangering them is development of newer entertainment - an art gallery or singer at the local pub, doesn't get the same kind for traffic or distribution as an animated short, a music video does, or video game does. That's because of the development of the internet, not some Hal4000 CZcams bot. And it's not all bad- social media and net neutrality means every artist can promote their own work- the danger is from bigger richer companies snuffing them out. I'm more worried about the constant Coperate greed of the 1% buying more and more of visible internet space and disrupting the net to gate keep for profit vs. Future Ai
give evidence on which robot can do that
Andrew yang is trying to adopt policies for this changing world in the face of technology.
He's running as a presidential candidate in 2020.
We need Donald J Trump dummy.
@@arizonabarb51 uh no we don't he's the least qualified president to tackle that issue
@@blakelol8002 wake up.
Wow u are og
@@arizonabarb51 Don. T the failed "business" man is part of the reason we're in this mess. People like him have sacrificed the well-being of normal people for profit, to the point of no return.
We need someone prepared to move us into the future, not someone who tweets their frustrations frequently, and thinks we can buy northern countries without their approval...among other unfortunate displays of dumbassery.
My dad worked at a oil rig…. Was able to make enough money to buy a house,support a family, and fund his retirement, with benefits and a pension
Me age 28…. Same job same company, i make 22 dollars a hour , no benefits, no pension , retirement savings lol, i cant afford a house, rent is super expensive , i cant afford anything. I’m lucky to save 200 dollars a month, and my parents ask me, why i dont want kids.
"Imagine a pair of horses in the early 1900s talking about technology. One worries that all these new mechanical muscles will make horses unnecessary. The other reminds him that everything so far has made their lives easier. Remember all that farm work, remember running from coast to coast delivering mail, remember riding into battle? All terrible. These new city jobs are pretty cushy, and with so many humans in the city, there will be more jobs for horses than ever. Even if this car thingy takes off, he might say, there will be new jobs for horses we can't imagine "
You're being the second horse right now.
and after 1916 the horse population fell down and only down... now look at horses. completely useless outside of giving rides to little kids
Paging @CGPGrey
Exactly. The video is so short term in it's thinking. Sure there will be some jobs left, but the gap will colse until there isn't a gap at all.
6 people control more wealth than half the world combined and that is not a typo. They own everything, including your thoughts and beliefs if you watch or read anything connected to the 5 media corporations that own every channel on TV. What do you do with a lame horse? Make it your pet? Set it free and forget about it? Take it out back and shoot it? But if you have billions of horses...well that might require something entirely different.
+laser325 Don't blame em since the more ignorant and poor you are. The more likely you are to have a load of kids. Never understood why people have 6 kids yet can't feed them.
Robots will create new jobs, correct, but they will also be able to do those 'new jobs' as well. That's the entire issue
What are exactly those new jobs that they will create? They always say that but never talk specifics, i can talk spesifics about the jobs we won't do because the robots will take over them.
Dave C R mostly programming I suppose
I actually really don't think that 'with machine learning, robots can learn to program themselves.'
At least, not for a very, very, very long time. We don't have any way of machine learning abstract problem-solving skills, and we also don't have any way of communicating to a robot what sort of thing we'd like programmed. In order for that, it'd require robots learn to fully comprehend the English language first, which I don't predict we'll even begin to see in the 21s century. Beyond that, the size of the neural net (the huge number of convolutional layers and nodes per layer etc) at that point would be so large that it'd almost not be worth doing. (Can't speculate too much about future technology tho)
imo the biggest problem is that we're soon approaching the point where all of one person's needs and most of their wants can be satisfied from just one job's worth of labour hours. Productivity increases mean there is a lower job-to-consumer ratio, supposing the consumer had enough money to fully satisfy themselves. Even now, the job-to-consumer ratio where we consider consumers restricted by their income level is probably almost less than one. Some wealth redistribution could keep the robots at bay for a while, but not indefinitely.
I know what machine learning is, and sure, it 'reprograms' itself, but only based on a fitness function/the training data provided for it. I don't doubt that with a large enough neural net you could do programming autonomously, just that the neural net would have to be unfathomably large. (Particularly because it requires a mechanism for us to be able to tell it what to 'program'.)
I think you are under estimating the tech that is already in existence. I would look into alpha go zero, an AI that started with only the rules of the game. It in essence programmed itself to be more effective then the previous champion, alpha go, beating it 100-0.
deepmind.com/blog/alphago-zero-learning-scratch/
You dont need to tell a AI what you want it to do, you just need to be able to give it inputs and explain what you want the output to be. While it will probably take some time for AI to be able to proficiently create stuff, I dont expect that it will be that long. After all, we already have AI capable of writing music and books, and we have not been at this AI problem long.
I always thought we'd reach a point where it is faster to teach it to a machine (program it) than to teach it to humans, so that it wouldn't matter how many more jobs you create, it will always be more advantageous to do it with robot
This video is legendary! Really helped me to write my Global Perspectives report. I love vox, its the best place for news, it prioritises quality over quantity and doesn't involve any sort of annoying adds! On top of all that - IT'S FREE. These guys deserve at least 10M subscribers. Although, please make more Shift Change videos, the topic still has a lot to be covered. Consider bringing in Keynes' "Economic opportunities for my grandchildren" along with some Ray Kurzweil and Jeremy Rifkin books like "The End of Work" and "The Singularity is Near". Thanks a lot for all that you have done!
The argument that technology won't cause job losses because people have been wrong about automation in the past sounds a lot like the argument that climate change isn't happening because scientists were wrong in the past about an impending ice age.
Also, and this is just speculation of course, but; where in the past technology might have driven productivity allowing businesses to expand, thereby creating new jobs for low-skill workers in retail, field work, warehouse work etc.; modern technology will no doubt soon be replacing those jobs as well -- regardless of any productivity boom it might achieve. It may pave the way for more highly skilled jobs, but you can't retrain everybody who's been displaced to work those new jobs, and even if you could, many people just don't have the aptitude for it.
Exactly!
The automation is different this time around though. Machines are smarter and are constantly learning thanks to AI, meaning they can potentially learn whatever new jobs humans get displaced to, and creating unemployment.
On the other hand, if this automation leads to decreased production costs and end-consumer costs, we won't need to work for money in the traditional sense.
Really hope it works out that way :)
Exactly. Saying "automation" during all the video completely misses the point.
We're talking AI. Thinking (feeling?) machines. This is gonna be very different if we get there (more when we get there).
It's way more disruptive than dumb robots programmed by humans to make cars.
This may be a good thing. AI could cause productivity to skyrocket with little to no human labor input. Society may essentially run itself with all our basic needs provided for by robots. This seems dystopian, but imagine "working" an hour or two a day in something you're passionate about, because there's no need to do actual labor. People could just explore their hobbies, and we could all just be bros.
Jk skynet will destroy you all
I really hope it works that way too, but AI is created by corporations, and most are not open source. Why would they share their bounty if they could just reduce our population using AI and live happily ever after? Multi-nationals are more powerful than governments at this point, and our brain interfaces aren't networked in order to stop them yet.
Communism?
This. The thing that is taking most of the jobs isn't robotics, it's AI and machine learning. There are no jobs for humans to move to.
Okay, but they cant really automate construction. The process of making construction materials is automated, the actual construction itself, such as roofing, or electrical wiring, or plumbing would probably require an incredible amount of work to automate. I think it would take more work to automate a crane then to operate the crane itself.
Arthur C. Clarke once asked why we're obsessed with the unemployment rate...we should be working on reducing the employment rate. We are a post-industrial nation, with not nearly the need for a huge population that we had during the industrial wars (Ww1, WW2). This is the absolute core reason for our present problems. We don't have lots of great jobs, so some people just won't marry under those circumstances. People without good jobs or prospects tend to give up. No one has any solution for this, either. Some think-tanks thought war might solve this with war, but Vietnam did nothing positive for us...
Yes new jobs will apear but who will do it? AI of course
You must go on TOP :D
IMMIGRANTS!
Right! It's obvious!
Nah, ai doesn't have a sense of humor.
Not necessarily
You cant compare a cement mixer to where AI is headed. AI doesn't replace a job, it in time replaces and supersedes the human mind.
Historically we have never had something on Earth smarter than us that can work independently. It's not about will it take all the jobs, its about if it will take over as the ruler of the system.
Alberto Klocker well said
i mean even pass automation has hurt alot of people before in the united states you could had a job without a university degree and live a decent life.
Vox staff work very hard to publish very accurate and informative pieces. Thank you from Kenya.
I will eat my hat the day economists predict any future events accurately. Don't worry infinate exponential growth will work. Ya right. This time is different. Yanggang2020
Ya the field of economy is so politicised that ideology is more important than facts.
Well he’s out now so people have to think about different solutions.
I miss yang
GC C F
the automation of the past is NOTHING like it is now. comparing the two is myopic af
Sherman Herritt How is that myopic in any way? This level of computation is unprecedented in human history. The growth of computation power is exponential, and you can't deny that progress is now runaway in its rate. You can't just dismiss that because other people have said the same thing in the past. The crux of the argument really is can the rate of job creation keep up with exponential rate of job destruction? It's only going to get harder and harder to replace jobs as more and more disappear.
Because IT IS DIFFERENT NOW. Remember how she said there aren't any longshoremen nowadays? Yeah, because their jobs got given to the machines. Now imagine if the largest employment sectors in the world were having the same done to them. Just in America alone, by 2021, >7,000,000 jobs will be lost. 3 and a half million from the transport industry alone, and another 2.1 million from the service sector.
We have always developped tools, more complex and more powerfull, that's all progress have done so far. Tools that still had to be directed by humans.
But what we are developping now, are tools with a mind. Tools that won't need to be directed by humans -in fact, tools that will be better than any human at directing itself.
It's an unprecedented event , and it will have unforseen consequences. Indeed, History cannot help us in this case.
I dont think these economists understand how fast robotics advancements have gotten lately
dude what are you talking about? this has nothing to do with Immigration
Here's a thing that always strikes me about this near-total-automation scenario, where people are no longer employable:
who will buy the goods and services that these robots and programs provide?
Enthused Norseman thats not what the greedy corporations will be looking at , when it starts out. They will be looking to maximize their profits short term by removing humans from their companies and Ultimately, the economy will crash leading to war & chaos, before a new system is established with more regulation or perhaps more socialist in nature
Everyone will buy the goods and services, because they will be cheap. You don't need a ton of money to live when everything is cheap and automated. If it takes one day for a robot to build you a house, with materials created or harvested in one hour by automation, you no longer have a 30 year mortgage, you have maybe a car loan, or less.
If you mean there will be literally nothing to do, then no one will be able to buy the robot's products, and they will hence stop making products for nothing.
Thus, humans will then have work to do.
But it won't get to that point anyway, not without making productive activity illegal. There is always something to do.
You could buy the stuff you need from basic income
That money would come from robot taxes
Or even better: humanity finally accepts that capitalism isnt going to workout, neither for the huge majority of us or for our planet (e.g. exploitation of the rain forest, polution of the environment,...)
Visda58 I hope you're right but a disturbing trend is the increasing consolidation of companies and increased monopolization. What you're saying only happens in an economy with healthy competition.
Oh easy, no one will. All human will be lazy crackhead = end of human race because they are too stupid
This is a really good way of showing both sides of the situation. It's unrelated to the video topic really, but the way this video was put together really does a good job at showing both sides without much bias.
05:45 I love that smirk. It reminds me how much we've come from the last decade alone. I can see my own self from the past doing the same gesture in a mix of excitement and surprise.
You're such a beauty, too.
Ah, and about the topic. The key is not to confuse automatisation with artificial intelligence. And the pace of automatisation is growing more and more. There are less and less fields of work that cannot be taken by robots. And when an AGI comes, it will be our last invention, either because it will make our life better with its vastly superior mental speed, or because it will annihilate us. Either way, that's our last step.
The argument "we could find replacement jobs for like, 10'000 elevator doormen, so finding replacement jobs for the 6 million employees of the driving industry (buses, taxis, truck drivers, train drivers) that will disappear in the coming decades should be easy." seems a bit far fetched to me.
And the argument "the claim was made before, and last time, it was wrong" seems to hold no water... The fact that 20 times before a guy called wolf makes HIM less trustworthy but people crying wolf today are not the same as in the past.
Exactly. The whole point of The Boy Who Cried Wolf is that at the end there really is a wolf. (Er, spoiler alert, I guess.) The previous waves of mass displacement with automation came with increases in productivity which allowed those displaced to find new work. This new wave of automation has been different in that it has not come with a corresponding gain in productivity. There is a real risk that those displaced will have nowhere to go.
We found jobs for 8 million farmers so
MrTheMiguelox yeah, the whole idea was move half the country into cities. Now that robots are gonna take city jobs what’s your take ? Half the country to mars ? :D
My problem with this video arises where you give seldom rebuttal from the guy who agrees AI threaten our jobs. This rise in technology is not even comparable to that of the 1920s. While yes, automation did arise, but they rise mostly still required a human operator. But when the day arises (and I say when, not if) that a machine is better at the job than the human, the corporations will toss people aside and go for the machines.
what is wrong with "tossing humans aside" in itself?
Offensive Scientist Hello! My name is Malik Charles and im really just tryna get support for my music! I write music about Love,pain and life..please take a listen czcams.com/video/JXZgl62f0dA/video.html
MBG exactly my point, in the past, machines substituted manual labor, but the thinking was still done by a human, now we have artificial intelligence that are smarter than humans, the thinking is no longer required, so whats next? We either fuse with the machines, and become one or something fundamentally changes about humanity, im still not sure what
Thank you for putting together these videos - Vox is doing a fantastic job beating mainstream media, by providing better content supported by more facts & historical figures. And the visuals are top-notch!
3:50
nonononono. Imagine all those New Jobs squares are being done by robots. Because they can and will be.
100% man.
Exactly 💯
This video was made by evil robots
Yeah and when you ask for their oats they will decline.
Joss isn't an evil robot!
Haven't you seen Blade Runner?
Joe Capo you're right stay woke
While i'm sure you're joking you aren't wrong. Everyone who works for Vox is robot of some sort.
Is it really a bad thing if humans have to work less?
@Dropped There is more to life other than working.
It is when the wealth is not distributed among them.
Well it won't be bad as long as you don't mind the 10x10 "house" they will store you in where you will get a "meal" sent to you twice a day, but remember don't leave until you are given permission to go see the replicated "grass" in the community front yard. Now just take your pills like mother government wants you to and you will feel no pain, no nothing.
back to the nature.
For the people in power; yes. They will do whatever they can to keep the masses who allow them to uphold their positions blind and dumb enough to continue doing so
Republicans are waiting to see what Democrats think about this issue before taking whatever the opposite stance is.
Modern republicans are mostly retarded people.
Democrats will support this because AI’s help corporations
"When companies can do more with less...and they can lower prices to compete"
OK.👌
Companies depends on consumers. If you eliminate all consumers. What is the point of having the company in the first place. I think automation will create a job that requires higher education. It will eliminate jobs that doesn't require higher education.
i love how yr icon pic totally matches what yr saying
I think one of the biggest problems with automation is A.I. and it's ability to self-learn. Unlike robots of the past which just complete repetitive work, this new generation of technology is much more advanced than just automation.
cc3493 you are wrong. AI is not as advanced as you might think. There are robot arms in factories to assemble stuff like cars. But that's not an AI. Even Google Assistant is not a true AI. We are very far from having a true AI. Most of what you see today is machine learning, deep learning or automation. Even Tesla's autonomous driving isn't AI. It's a sort of simulation based on constraints of the real world.
Here is how its different this time around, it threatens to do this to almost all industries at almost the same time, not just a few industries over a large period as in the past. How will new jobs be created if the extra money and extra productivity is also serviced by robots (robot chefs, robot barbers, robot caretakers, etc.). Sure a store may open more locations, but it is no use if the interface to that store is now also a robot. If robots can service cars, why wont they service themselves? The things humans can do better than robots are shrinking quickly and never before has it been on such a large scale. Economist of all people should know past behavior is not an accurate predictor of future behavior.
Exactly, you can add the going wage stagnation and you have guarantee here : www.epi.org/publication/causes-of-wage-stagnation/
Imagine yourself living in the mechanization or industrialization eras, and ask yourself what percentage of jobs were replaced and had to move on to previously unknown territories, and would you really be able to 'predict' the manifestation of new jobs that eventually replaced them. Seriously.... you are peasant in the early days of agricultural mechanization, by the end of which the percentage of farm workers went from something like 80% of all people to 10. Would you really be able to predict what we'd move on to?
There's this claim that its different this time because there is nothing left for humans to do better than robots. This is the problem with that approach. All the 'wonderful' things that ai is doing through machine learning are based on identifying and reproducing patterns. This would mean that any thing that requires creative problem solving is still ways away. The AIs that beat humans in chess and Go aren't being creative, they developed a neural 'scheme' to follow, that is for now, better than humans. And they did this by playing against themselves thousands of times. And this initial phase of learning will take a few orders of magnitude longer as we move from simple turn based, extremely well defined games to more complex problems. Technology doesn't improve "on its own", it improves when a lot people put in a lot of hardwork, and we don't hit a scientific dead end / limiting circumstance. That is why moore's "law" fizzled out.
Love this.
Username checks out
I worked hard for the country i wanted. America is not what I worked for. I was tricked to work for a future that is not mine. I'm pissed
An interesting counter argument to points raised by CGP Grey's "Humans Need Not Apply" & Kurzgestagt. Although, 7:08 - labour saving innovation is being counterbalanced by the structural shift to the knowledge economy occurring in the most developed nations.
As a greater proportion the economy reaches the Tertiary and Quaternary sector, labour productivity is decreasing because most firms are structured in a counterintuitive manner for productivity in the knowledge economy.
Additionally, new technology, such as social media, is eroding the average adult's ability to focus deeply creating a decrease in productivity within the knowledge economy.
The book 'Deep Work' by Cal Newport explores this in greater depth and I would recommend it to anyone.
Sidenote: God bless Vox for putting sources in the description.
Great comment, very well put :)
KhanStopMe yayyyy some one else who has watched Kurzgesagt and CGPgrey and vox too! Nice comment as well.
problem is, most people are NOT "intelligent".
they need menial work.
not everyone can become "knowledgeable".
so learn, it's our natural selection, smarter people win
20 years in the future, and you know that ice cream machine gonna still be broke
Just don't go to McDonald's 😂😂😂
onlawd
gosh i love this cahnnel so much. if only i could give you all hugs for making such awesome contents
What sucks is there are jobs which a individual loves doing but it ends and now this individual has to work on this new job that he/she hates, you killed a person's happiness
Hey all - thanks for watching our first episode of Shift Change. We'll have another one, produced by Christophe, next Monday. To read more about this topic, check out the links in the description. -joss
Love this video
Nice to see Joss running an episode again. Keep up the good work!
So just to clarify, in the video you said this is the first time in history ai is doing complex "human" tasks better than humans, but we have seen this happen before?
Hey Joss, have you seen CGPGrey's video on AI? Do you think that is different from automation?
Hey Joss, good video and looking forward to the next ones. This is a really interesting subject that needs to be looked at even more.
In the future people will make money vlogging and entertaining each other
Comedians, Actors, singers, writers....
If tecnology was used properly and the wealth was divided fairly, we would have to work less than two days per week... So, yes.. We will dedicate more to social sciences and entertainment :)
Eduarda gameiro too many people already do that though, I even forgot to mention the VAST amount of youtubers, twitch streamers, etc
Why do you think robots and AI in 50 years can't mass produce infinite amounts of vlogs indistinguishable from human vlogs?
David Reyna scary
Not all jobs are equal though a manufacturing job is a stable job, a Server in the US earning 2.63 and tips is not equal
My father was a TV repair man. You've probably never heard of one of those. That's because in the 1980s, solid state electronics made televisions cost more to fix than to replace. Progress is a wonderful thing and raises all of our standard of living.
We should have a progressive minimum wage, 1-49 employees = $0/hr, 50-99 emplyees = $7.25, Over 100 employees = $15. Small business could compete with labor savings against large corporation's economies of scale. Also, people not yet worth $15/hr could get jobs as apprentices at low wages but it would be equivalent to free college.
That's a pretty good idea
You could even have a steeper curve something like 11-50 14/per hour 51-200 15/h and 200-1000 18/h and last bracket is 1000+ 23. Keep in mind I am thinking in terms of Canadian dollars
Don't worry AI will take over journalist jobs too.
They've already done so in some cases, actually.
KnightOfTheUnholyApple egg Zack Lee
It already has. Not necessarily the talking head though.
In a populated country such as mine (India) it is surely gonna be an issue as unemployment due to politics is a grave issue.
unemployment isnt such an issue if you give the people a Basic Income.
India is a shithold sorry bud.
Mr IY well our prime minister don't care about population at all.
proudblackjynx so you are saying its not gonna be an issue cause it already is....right?
ILOVEGAMES I mean maybe people need jobs to lose them :P
If you're watching this in 2020, check out Andrew Yang, he is the only presidential candidate that addresses these issues and provides sensible solutions.
UBI is the future = I'm too lazy to work
The bigger question is: would we even work if it wouldn't be because we need money to survive and what would we do if the money wasn't the problem? Robots taking over routine work and people getting basic income would solve a lot of problems and actually give people time to work on things they are passionate about. Without having to work for survival, many would enjoy their life much more and be more creative than they are today after 8-10 hours of work they don't like.
Quick Fix that's what teenagers tell their parents. Lazy selfish people dreams
And a lot of retirees kill themselves becuase they have nothing to do.
FortuitusVideo why tf would they kill themself?!?
They would do what they LIKE they wouldnt kill themself they would enjoy their life
It would also be financial possible if we would raise a robot tax so the state would have the money to finance a basic income
Retroman That is not what empirical reality shows.
hey vox, we will talk again when an automated program creates all of your content for you, and then tell us how many of your employees stayed employed there.
Deal! in the meantime, my job exists because people made the internet, editing software, and digital cameras -- all technologies that displaced previous methods and workers. -joss
Richard Clarke's response about Cassandras is that "we've heard that before" or "the boy who cried wolf" is not really a good argument. It's in fact a logical fallacy
Hey look, Vox already has a bot answering their questions.
Narrowed view of liiiiffffeee.
yes, sure, I concur with you, new technology brings new stuff true, but we are talking about a new revolution in technology, we are not watching a boom on new inventions, but we are watching technology "technologizing" it self if I'm making my self clear, true intelligence will not be artificial, it will be very conscientiously of it self and others like us humans, any editing software or content creation will be easily done by it, and the level of content it self will be hundred times better, if learning algorithms show us already the power they have imagine with combination of quantum computers, the moment that infrastructures like shelter, food and electricity goes in charge to a super conscience, everything will change.
2:50 *laughs in Oregonian* (we still have service attendants here) ⛽️
To add, learn to hunt, learn to make a tent. Learn how to forge for food. How to purify water, how to make weapons from things in the environment.
*Automation needs to happen quicker, it may be painful at first but then its all comfy.*
Problem is, the government will likely not adapt fast enough to the changes, leading the majority of public being at poverty line. Automation is inevitable and lawmakers aren't catching up fast enough.
the problem is that "painful" could cost a vast number of lives.
It doesnt have to be painful if its done in the right system # TheVenusProject.Com
kurzgesagt disagrees
[Yoshikage_Kira] aka Handy Man, Duwang Man, *chew* CGPgrey does too
you can't compare making an automated door to an automated *human*
They aren't. They are saying the same just from another perspective. Have you watched both videos in full?
They actually showed a kurzgesagt video in the beginning xD
Agree with Jan nis here. Watch though all of this video. If you just watch the start of the video it may seem like there is nothing to worry about. But if you watch the second part it does mention that that this time, thing might be different.
The most worrying development I see here is actually that the benefits are not shared. We are not adapting to this change like we have before. Automation should sever us, all of use. Not the few.
Technological unemployment will lead to a financial crisis so bad that it will cause humanity to second guess the monetary system itself... we need a resource based economy and we need to END THE LABOUR FOR INCOME SYSTEM!!!
btw, the reason the rate on productivity isn't going up is the over regulation in it. They've built a system to suit some and don't want to have it evolve by itself and put them out of the ruling position
Hey Vox, remember that time you predicted Hillary Clinton would win the election?
This is another one of those times.
Duskears Hello! My name is Malik Charles and im really just tryna get support for my music! I write music about Love,pain and life..please take a listen czcams.com/video/JXZgl62f0dA/video.html
Duskears Wow thanks for telling me! I'm really interested in how you found this out.
LEONIDAS MARTEL it's already been stopped for the most part, illegal immigration that is
We need to overthink the system we live in. Jobs are going to be lost, mostly the repetitive ones. I know that there are people who define themselves by these jobs, but at some point we have to ask ourselves, does working in a office give my life an actual meaning. People are afraid of a time where they don't have obligations, where they don't know what to do. That's the real reason.
Our money based world won't work either. It needs a whole other system.
Ariana right on the nose
Ariana
I disagree.
Finally someone gets it. Vox is old thinking.
Ariana Don't you think materialism is at the heart of the anxiety? The possibility that one won't have the means to buy the latest gadget or pair of shoes?
overthink? rethink!
WORK is a part of MEANING. Whether it's creative work gratis or repetitive work that puts food on the table, exertion is necessary or we all die from diabetes. lol Most people don't have gym memberships and a lot of people don't go if they do have one.
If all our needs are met, wants will still exist, and hence the persistence of money. No society is going back to the barter system for products in that situation. So, a cryptocurrency will need to be stored in our brains or another part of our person. We would wirelessly exchange funds for products and services, but hacking will still be a problem.
Thankyou so much! This video helped me a lot in writing my essay!❤❤❤❤❤❤
Amazing viewpoint. You should definitely include it in next Netflix' "explained"
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments and debate! For those recommending that I watch CGP Grey's video on this, I have of course seen it already! To understand the key difference between our arguments, consider his 'humans are the new horses' analogy. The point of my video is: Horses don't buy things. Consumption rises with productivity growth, and it expands into weird unpredictable places, and that's what the futurists of the past couldn't imagine. They thought we'd work 15-hour weeks by now. Instead we're buying smart phones and apps, watching netflix, and eating at restaurants.
That said, I hope nobody takes this video to mean we shouldn't worry about the future. It's not that there won't be challenges, it's that we need to diagnose those challenges correctly and precisely. If we sit around waiting for mass unemployment to show up so that we can pass a basic income, we may find that those conditions don't arrive any time soon. The idea is to shift the focus from the number of jobs to the quality of jobs, the prospects for mobility, access to education and opportunity. That's not as sexy as daydreaming about a robot jobpocalypse, but it's truly the task at hand. We'll be discussing some of these topics in future episodes, so stay tuned. And thanks for watching :)
-joss
Vox counterpoint: you said in this video that productivity growth *isn't* actually growing. Slowing productivity growth and accelerating job replacement might mean an end to the Luddite fallacy, especially if Grey is right that eventually technology will become both faster and cheaper than humans at everything. Which is sort of an inevitable consequence of a technological singularity (if one does indeed occur)
SidV101, if we were seeing accelerating job displacement on a big scale, it would show up in productivity growth. it's not there, but if/when it comes, it will raise productivity - they're intimately connected. We're not anywhere near technology becoming faster and cheaper than humans at everything, that's simply too far out and too speculative to be useful for making policy choices today.
I think we have to consider horses wouln't pay taxes either. There is a production system that will still need humans as consumers, but there will also still be a state that will need the worker as a taxpayer.
Vox very interesting, I'd never considered looking at labor productivity as a potential bellwether for technological unemployment. Makes sense!
Traveel they've seen it. Pause the video at 0:45 and you'll see they even included it in this video lol
I agree with the last part. It actually shows evidence (Productivity is not on the rise, as it should be if "Robots making better than us faster" was true), and it proves a point I always claim: better AI and technology and automation IS NOT the solution to everyone's problems. "Robots doing our stuff" won't bring a workless heaven on earth, because the capital produced by those automated machines doesn't get redistributed, it goes to the top 1%'s hands. Capital (worldwide) has been concentrating in the hands of fewer and fewer people, that has been proven multiple times. So bigger productivity means more capital for less people. They are the ones owning the machines. They have less people to pay and more products to sell, while we have less jobs to do.
And here I make my criticism of the video: this time IS different. Yes, some Transhumanists are obviously a little crazed up and believe that by tomorrow we will be basically living on the Sun and be Immortal and a perfect Utopia, but the point here is:
-Just because people were afraid once, doesn't mean it's always false. I mean people theorized ways to go to the Moon even before Rome was founded. And they were always wrong. And yet, we went there. Same goes for automation: they feared an incoming automation too soon, doesn't mean their fear was wrong.
-"More productivity" argument doesn't work when you consider how automation will also delete those "other jobs".
Automation is not one sided, this time. It's attacking force jobs and intellectual jobs, of all kinds. Yes, not all of them will go to the same pace as others. Yes, some will still require a lot of Human work for a very long time. But point is, no job is safe on the long run, and all jobs (some more than others) will be affected, and a lot of "side jobs raised by productivity" will be automated as well, that's more profit for less expense.
So, how do we reconcile the last part with the first one? That's because Automation is indeed fast, but NOT THAT FAST as Transhumanists like to believe.
Yes, google cars are a thing and they work. But they are not a player on the market yet.
Yes, we have Cloud computing, virtual reality, AI that think about cancer, but they have not been deployed on the market on a big scale yet, and they won't be for a very, very long time. They are very expensive, they are not perfect yet, there is popular skepticism and many other factors slow down how technology will affect us.
How do we solve this problem? Simple. Automation is a thing, we can't stop it, and we don't want to.
We can't just "move to other jobs" cause Tertiary won't have enough jobs for everyone (we can't have an entire planet of CZcamsrs, Writers, Actors), and they also will be automated. But what we can do is make intelligent policies, Wealth redistribution, Wellfare and Planned Developement to ensure these technology are deployed for the good of the economy (not for the few's interests) and that the wealth is redistributed. Some people think "Well if the top 1% owns all the machines, they will still have to give us stuff for a very low price. If no one buys, no one sells, and they will also die out". But that is false for two reasons:
1) They can live without us. They can automize entire self sufficient communities of robots taking care of all their needs and their economical necessities, some sort of "Robotic Horizontal Monopoly", they will have all the robots they need, so they won't need us to give them money to survive,
2) And also because without jobs, we still won't be able to afford a thing. They would should (and we should pretend it) give us part of that wealth, it should be redistributed, so that we can at least buy. Not only that is necessary for us, it's also fair.
Think about that: imagine 1000 years later, fully automated society. We have a top 1% of the population that lives in total luxury, cause they inherited the ownership of the Machines and the Capital from their ancestors (they did no effort to deserve or earn that), and the other 99% of very skilled and more intelligent people left with nothing. That's basically Aristocracy, some people ruling the economy and living better just because they are born into that. How is that fair, moral, or healthy for an economy? It is not.
So we will need to redistribute wealth, so that we can buy those products as jobs die out and society becomes fully automated. Eventually AIs will decide what to produce and what to do, since they know better for us, so Ownership of the capital will be useless and not necessary to advance. Machines will be subdued to the Good of the Community, and their products will be redistributed for the needs of the people. That is, effectively, Fully Automated Luxury Co-ownership of the means of production-
I love your pointttt
You have a UBI or completely end capital. It’s not needed
Your comment is three years old but I will answer anyway. A couple of points:
1.) There won't be a couple of people who own all the robots and the AI. Because why shouldn't other people/institutions code their own AI and build their own robots? A patent has a duration of 20 years. After that time people could build cheap copies of these robots. Software like AI can't really be patented. So everybody could mimic existing AIs. Most AI-reasearch takes already place at state-sponsored Universitys. And this brings me to the second point:
2.) As long as there is competition, AI and robots are a HUGE net positive. Because it automates and lowers prices. And there WILL BE competition. AI and robotics will be a trillion Dollar business. The US, Europe, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea all of them will push their own robotics and AI companies (and already do so). And competetion lowers prices of these robots and AI. It'll be the same as it is with smartphones. There isn't just one smartphone manufacturer that rules the world. There are dozens of companies that build smartphones. And so smartphones arent just tools of the ultra-rich, no, everybody owns a smartphones. Because competition drove prices down so far that manufacturer like Xiaomi have profit margins of less than 7%.
3.) If prices for goods and services are going down because of automation and competition then people will have more money left to also spend for more services and goods. And this will create more demand for goods and services hence create jobs and tax revenue.
@@MrNikoback But by then, as a lot of jobs will have been extinguished, the poor and less educated won't be able to get employed
@@Arthur-hn5yk nope. Just look at the US labor force. It increased from 125 million (1990) to 163 million (2019) (+30%!) while the unemployment rate even decreased from 5.6% to 3.7% (-34%!). And this while simultaneously millions of workers were replayed by software and machines.
What do people do if the price for fast food decreases because of automation? They spend more money for example on services. Or for a bigger house. So more people work as masseurs or as bricklayers. You dont have to create new professions. You will see that existing professions will hire more people.
"You're naive! this time it's different! the past doesn't predict the future! Your 100 years of data including 2000-2019 (the "start" of "exponential automation") is short sighted!"
- CZcams commentators responding to the opinion of literally a professor in labor economics.
I would argue she's complete right and completely wrong at the same time. People are afraid of their jobs being replaced and having to find a new one. That transition is really hard.
So her new jobs will be created argument doesn't even address the economy. Her argument is purely addressing sci fi nerds that read too many novels about techno utopias.
Joss literally shows in the video a book by two economists who spent their careers studying automation being laughably wrong. Maybe this economist knows something we don't, but as she didn't make these points, what she did say is easy to refute.
This is fantastic journalism, thank you!
This is wishful thinking. Going forward, automation will eliminate most low or unskilled positions. Not every one is suited to be a college educated or white collar worker(many of those jobs will also disappear). If(for example)fast food chains replace their workers with robots, you have a huge number of people immediately unemployable. The number of new jobs created(like robot mechanic or programmer) will never equal the amount of jobs lost. You'd need laws setting artificial quotas of human workers. When consumers can choose between a robo-burger that is always made perfectly for $1 vs. human error at an ever increasing cost to support the human workers' lifestyle, people will take the lowest price. If anything, the current political climate in which coal and factory workers think their old jobs can come back is a perfect example of those who will be left behind.
It's already happening, Shake shack, Cali-burger, Yum Brands(which includes taco bell, pizza hut, KFC and others)and other restaurants are already experimenting with this technology in their stores. A few specialized robots that work 24/7/365 with occasional maintenance and only an initial purchase cost, which will continuously decrease as the technology and demand improves, versus literally dozens of human workers and managers whose cost of labor increases every year. How high of a minimum wage can a fast food restaurant support before it's not a viable business? Employing just 6 workers for 35 hours at $20/hour costs over $4,000 in wages only each week.
Humans need/want; time off, health insurance, reasonable working hours and conditions, breaks, and other benefits. They require job training and have the right to quit their jobs and in some cases, they are just inefficient workers. As silly as it sounds, a robot is not going to spit in your hamburger, get your order wrong or be forced to come to work sick and spread diseases. That alone might influence a lot of customers. Robots don't need to be perfect androids to replace workers, they only need to do the specific tasks they were built for at a slightly lower cost.
Its called investing in newer technology, which is what all corporations do to reduce the minimum wage and increase profits..
A CEO would rather hire robots with a few times to be maintained and doing production labor a lot faster then a average human is more profitable in the long term..
Ofcourse production robots are going to be expensive at the start, but its worth every penny in the long term..
Could always tax companys that replace human labor with robots and use that tax money as a basic guranteed income for everyone? Company still gets its profits and becomes more efficent while society as a whole becomes more equal and wage disparity lessens.
bongo155 what? you may not be aware, but the automation of fast food has begun. the technology already exists. autonomous fast food Restaurants are already open - there aren't that many, but they exist and soon most restaurants may become automated as well.
Right, we just need to see what low wage workers are willing to tolerate. The bad ones will die or become homeless. and the good ones will stick with us.
I'm a simple man. I see Joss Fong, I like the video.
Cockey Hello! My name is Malik Charles and im really just tryna get support for my music! I write music about Love,pain and life..please take a listen czcams.com/video/JXZgl62f0dA/video.html
No worries ...
They won't replace journalism.
Love the thoughtful perspectives presented by VOX
Nice try robots, but I know you made this video ;)
Waffles m Hello! My name is Malik Charles and im really just tryna get support for my music! I write music about Love,pain and life..please take a listen czcams.com/video/JXZgl62f0dA/video.html
Humans Need Not Apply - Don’t underestimate the ability of Robots to do jobs that humans can do better, cheaper, why would you expect a human workforce?
AIRburst95
This is what I said
Burg Skeletal Universal Income is just a workaround though.
Also, good luck with that.
If you think elites will tolerate resource wasting, pollution generating, unproductive population, you are sadly mistaken.
There will not be "universal basic income" but rather "universal extermination".
Georgia Guiding Stone 500 Million is not a joke, it will happen.
Awesome stuff! But I had to skip back a bunch because I was listening, thinking to myself, reading, and admiring Joss Fong's beauty all at once. JF's gorge.
Well thought out presentation with opposing views and intelligent commentary backed with statistics and research. Everything I hoped an educational video would be that has the hope of sparking peoples right to make their own decision on the topic.
*ONE QUESTION* ........
*CAN THEY SING REESE'S PUFFS BACKWARDS?*
SFUPP SESEEER
*sffuP seseeR
.file 1 ""
.section .mdebug.abi32
.previous
.nan legacy
.module fp=32
.module nooddspreg
.abicalls
.section .rodata.str1.4,"aMS",@progbits,1
.align 2
$LC0:
.ascii ")pu me' tae ,pu me' taE( sffup s'eseeR ,sffup s'eseeR\000"
.section .text.startup,"ax",@progbits
.align 2
.globl main
.set nomips16
.set nomicromips
.ent main
.type main, @function
main:
.frame $sp,32,$31 # vars= 0, regs= 2/0, args= 16, gp= 8
.mask 0x80010000,-4
.fmask 0x00000000,0
.set noreorder
.cpload $25
.set nomacro
addiu $sp,$sp,-32
sw $16,24($sp)
lw $16,%got($LC0)($28)
lw $25,%call16(__printf_chk)($28)
sw $31,28($sp)
movz $31,$31,$0
.cprestore 16
addiu $5,$16,%lo($LC0)
.reloc 1f,R_MIPS_JALR,__printf_chk
1: jalr $25
li $4,1 # 0x1
lw $28,16($sp)
addiu $5,$16,%lo($LC0)
lw $25,%call16(__printf_chk)($28)
nop
.reloc 1f,R_MIPS_JALR,__printf_chk
1: jalr $25
li $4,1 # 0x1
lw $28,16($sp)
addiu $5,$16,%lo($LC0)
lw $25,%call16(__printf_chk)($28)
nop
.reloc 1f,R_MIPS_JALR,__printf_chk
1: jalr $25
li $4,1 # 0x1
lw $31,28($sp)
lw $16,24($sp)
move $2,$0
j $31
addiu $sp,$sp,32
.set macro
.set reorder
.end main
.size main, .-main
.ident "GCC: (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.1) 5.4.0 20160609"
Bring it to YTP guy, that one is unreplaceable.
sffuP s'eseeR ,sffuP s'eseeR ,sffuP s'eseeR ,sffuP s'eseeR ,sffuP s'eseeR ,sffuP s'eseeR emit no srovalf etalocohc dna rettub tunaep dna mhtyhr siht deripsni sffuP s'eseeR yM ,ot pu ekaw I tahw s'taht od i woh wonk uoy ,oot etalocohc dna rettub tunaeP ,rovas I rovalf eht sti MA eht ni sffuP s'eseeR ,sffuP s'eseeR ,rovalf etalocohc rettub tunaep ,sffuP s'eseeR ,sffuP s'eseeR ,llor a no mI taht ekil tsuj dna lwob ym ni sffuP s'eseeR tog I ,lortnoc esiurc no syad ym woN ,lwob ym ni sffuP s'eseeR tog I ,pu me tae ,pu me tae ,pu me tae ,sffuP s'eseeR ,sffuP s'eseeR ,pu me tae ,pu me tae ,pu me tae ,sffuP s'eseeR ,sffuP s'eseeR
time to watch "humans need not apply" by CGP grey.
it's not if, but when.
0:32, they already have.
QWERTY man listen to actual economists not random youtubers.
Erik Nielsen except he's not just a 'random youtuber'. His content is actually well known as one of the best polished among educational youtubers. Additionally, he always contacts experts to look over his scripts.
QWERTY man yea same here bro
Erik Nielsen i trust his research and sources.
Are you not defending "random youtubers" as well right now?
These comments show why it’s crucial to make sure everyone has easy and affordable access to higher education. The jobs that will be automated first will be low skilled labor, so, humans will need to respond by increasing their skill set, so, that’s where the new jobs will be. I agree with the expert in the video who isn’t concerned with this issue. Humans are just resistant to change which will be a factor in them falling behind and not improving themselves to find new work. If they don’t make the effort to learn and become more skilled so they can work new jobs that’s their own fault. You must adapt to survive. Nothing is wrong with low skilled labor, but we must be realistic in what we must do to sustain ourselves moving forward, and that includes continually educating ourselves enough to preform high skilled labor that automation/AI is not able to replace (at the moment, at least)
What is the name of song playing at the end?
No need to be replaced by machines... Most of us are grinding our lives away like machines anyway.
Wouldn't you rather have a machine do the grinding for you?
1:19 hearing it before won't means it will never happen,
3:24 First adding new products or locations won't always make new jobs."How about cashers?" Most likely there will be less cashers as supermarkets get new technology that will make cashers obsolete by letting the customer walk out with the item and scan it on the way out without having to stop, just charge the person later, it is more time effective.Amazon is trying to do this right now.Why open up new locations if you could just buy it online and have it ship?
New products won't always mean new jobs, they may employ people into they can figure out how to automate that job.
3:33
All the people that get layed off can't all go to those jobs. There may still be air left in the glass but in a matter of time the water will spill over with no where left to fill.
If your thinking why not go into the stock market, as I think right now that is one of the only jobs that won't be allowed to be automated, not sure if it is illegal to have a bot trade stock for you.
Grammar Police Even then though the stock market will absolutely be run by bots. The thing is the bots will most likely be identical to humans aside from 1s and 0s instead of GATC.
Wouldn't be hard, the stock trends are pretty predictable on stocks above 2$.
The majority of stock trading is already done by bots (= algorithms). Look up the flash crash of May 2010. Also automated ETFs have better results than human hedge fund managers.
Grammar Police Hello! My name is Malik Charles and im really just tryna get support for my music! I write music about Love,pain and life..please take a listen czcams.com/video/JXZgl62f0dA/video.html
Anthony Pauwaert Well, then what other jobs will there be in the future. Or will three just be a automated utopia when no body has to do anything and can just relax.
We are basically being turned into batteries for robots. The matrix was right all along.
Hahaha
Literally the 1st thing I thought of.
you're right! The increase in temperature has also seen exponential improvement!