• InternetPerson@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    TL;DR:
    The misuse of technology in capitalism threatens jobs and financial stability. Affordable robots and AI could either enhance our lives or lead to unemployment and misery. Proposals like an automation tax could fund education or basic income. We need good legislation to ensure technology benefits everyone, not just profits. Recent steps like Europe’s AI act offer a little hope, but a lot more political action is urgently needed.

    Long Version:
    From my perspective, the core of the problem is not the technology, but the reckless way we use it in our capitalistic system. Or let’s say, let it be used.

    For example, a light load robotic industrial arm costs merely 1k to 5k € nowadays. The software for it is cheap as well.
    What the business owners and managers see, is not an awesome new invention which could help to propel humanity into the future of a robotic utopia, but cheap labour force, aiding them to cut jobs in order to maximize their profit margin as human labour is expensive.

    I am sure AI and robots are our future, one way or another, whether we want it or not.
    But I would like to see a future where AI and robots help us to increase our quality of life, instead of making us unemployed and endagering our financial survival.

    There are various ideas how this could be achieved. I don’t intend to go way too in-depth here, so just as an example:
    an automation tax: estimate to which amount a business can be automated and then demand a tax proportional to how much the business was automated. Such a tax could then be used to finance higher education for people or a universal basic income. Maybe at first just an income for those who can’t get a decent job due to automation.

    We had similar developments as those we see now with virtually all technological advances, where human labour was replaced by more and more clever machines. Jobs where lost due to that but it could still be seen as a good thing in general.

    An important difference is the level of required skills though. Someone who’s job it was to go around a street and light gas lanterns every day, extinguishing them some time afterwards, was replaced by electric light grids. A switchboard operator at a telephone company, who connected people manually, got replaced by clever hardware. And so on. Those people didn’t require high skills for their job though. They had it a bit easier to find another one.

    This becomes increasingly difficult as AI and technology in general advances. Recently we see how robots and AI are capabable of tasks where higher skills are necessary. And it’s probable that this trend will incresingly continue. At some point, we will have AI developing new and better AI. An explosion of artificial intelligence can then be expected.

    It’s less a problem as long as people have job prospects in higher skilled work levels. But that will, for a while at least, not be the case. This has different reasons:

    As I see it, we have a “work pyramid”, where the levels of the pyramid represent the required skills and the width of the pyramid levels represent the amount of available jobs. In other words, there is a way higher demand for low skilled work than for high skilled work. (BTW, what I mean by work skill is the level of specialisation and proficiency, often connected to more intense and long training and education.)

    As recent developments in AI now slowly creep into higher and higher levels, people may start investing in their own education in order to even get a job. But higher skilled work is less available making it increasingly tight and problematic to get one.

    There may of course also be an effect observable where new jobs are created by enabling more even higher skilled jobs due to the aid of AI, but I think this has limitations. On the one hand, the amount of jobs created that way might be insufficient. On the other hand, people might not want to or can’t get an education for that.

    The latter needs to be emphasized from my perspective. There are a lot of people who simply don’t want to study for a decade in order to get a PhD in something so that they can get some highly specialised job. Some people like the more simple jobs, those requiring more manual than cognitive labour. And that’s totally fine. People should be happy and like the work they do.

    Currently, not all people even have access to that kind of education. Be it due to limitations in available places at universities / colleges, or due to financial reasons or even due to physical or mental health reasons.

    You may now understand, why I see that we are going to create more misery if we don’t change the way we handle such things.

    I would like to see humanity in that robotic utopia. No one needs to work, as most work is done by AI and robots. But everyone can get a fair share and live a happy life however they would like to live it. They can work, take up some interest and pursue it, but no one needs to.

    But currently, this is probably not going to happen. We need good legislation, need to create a system where advancements in AI and robotics can be made without driving people into financial ruin. We need to set those guarding rails which help to guide us towards such a robotic utopia.

    That’s why I am advocating for putting this topic higher on political priority lists. Politics worldwide don’t have it even set on their agenda. They are missing crucial time frames. And I really hope they’ll wake up from that slumber and start working on it. I’ve got some hope. Europe recently passed their first AI act.
    It’s a start.

    Sincerely,

    A roboticist working in AI and robot research.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      There are roughly two possible outcomes of automation in general:

      • The utopical one is that as the robots, AI and so on, do more and more of the work, people in general get more free time: i.e. the productivity gains of automation are distributed and benefit people in general.
      • The dystopical one is that automation just leads to fewer jobs and more people suffering because they can’t afford a roof over their heads or food on their plates: i.e. the productivity gains of automation are kept by the people who own most assets, including the machines that do the automation, hence most people will just lose their livelihoods

      For all we’ve seen so far, in the current political and economic system we have - were the gains of work (be it automated or not) mainly end in the hands of asset owners (and, remember asset ownership, which is a curve that pretty much follows the wealth one, is incredibly unequal) - we’re well on the dystopia track.

      I don’t think this is at all something that can be solved from the side of Technology, nor do I think that the consequences of natural improvement in automation technology being dystopia are the responsability of the Techies, though I would not at all be surprised if the Techies are, along with other groups (for example, immigrants), be made scapegoats by the people who made automation productivity increases lead to dystopia rather than utopia.

    • octopus_ink
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      A roboticist working in AI and robot research.

      Thank you for representing your field better than the other guy in this discussion. This gives me some hope that there are folks involved who can see the forest for the trees.

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yes but the artbro luddites will not read this. They are narcissists who are upset that some kid with a computer in Argentina can now generate anime titties instead of paying $300 for them to draw it and they are fighting the realization of how bullshit their industry was from the get-go