You must log in or register to comment.

SaintLouisduHaHa t1_j9tvcpr wrote

One advantage household robots have over a lot of other automated technologies is that they do not need to be fast or particularly efficient at their jobs. People work for roughly 8 hours a day working and sleep for roughly 8 hours a day, a robot might have a total of 16 hours in which to do maybe one to two hours of household chores. I think a lot of people would pay significant amount of money for robot that straightens up, folds some laundry, dusts, and unloads the dishwasher. Maybe puts away the groceries too. None of these have to be done especially quickly either.


son_of_tigers t1_j9u2bm5 wrote

and does it slowly so it doesn't get in my way or make too much noise? that's a feature


WilliamMorris420 t1_j9vjcim wrote

My robot vac is so quiet that it can hoover in the middle of the night and nobody can hear it. All it needs, is its bin emptying about once a week and to be moved from upstairs to downstairs. Eventually I'll get around to getting one with a mopping feature and have one for upstairs and one for downstairs. But as the house gets hovered twice a day it's always immaculate. A Shark cleaner can't compete, as it would just never get used as much.


jejcicodjntbyifid3 t1_j9vkge3 wrote

Mine is not that quiet what's yours? Mines one of the WiFi Roomba vacuum models but it is quite loud, and on hardwood

Usually I just schedule it for when I leave which sure beats me regularly vacuuming myself. My biggest annoyance is how hungry it is for cables, tearing down anything that it's attached to...


WilliamMorris420 t1_j9vrk5m wrote

Ecovacs Deebot but its mainly on carpet. The main problem with it, is that it's dumb and just goes around a room randomly. So one area gets cleaned five times and an other only gets done once. It's a few years old and was pretty cheap for the time.


jejcicodjntbyifid3 t1_j9wn2la wrote

Oh yeah those random ones take forever and depending on the configuration it might never end up hitting places you want


WilliamMorris420 t1_j9xim8w wrote

To be fair the carpet is spotless. With the newer models having intelligent mapping. Which is an other reason for wanting to get an other robot. But it's hard to justify whilst the current one is still working.


jejcicodjntbyifid3 t1_j9yhspi wrote

I hear ya, and these things are kinda obsolete pretty quickly, and they're so new, waiting a few years will come out with much better


No_Section2505 t1_j9we0rj wrote

My friend just got one of these. However, she has a fairly small house, like we do (I mean 2500 sq ft so not that small but not huge).

Unfortunately, the little vacuum and it's container "lives" on the side of the wall in her living room. It's an eye sore. Looks like more clutter. That's not such a great invention for cleaning 🤷🏻‍♀️


ledow t1_j9v83fd wrote

I wouldn't trust a robot - especially an *AI* robot - inside my house that has the strength to unload plates from dishwashers, lift laundry, etc. in close proximity to humans at any speed. There's a reason that industrial control robots are all behind yellow hazard lines. You're talking a literally crush/injury hazard.

Fold laundry? Not a chance it would be able to do the computer vision to do that with any accuracy.

Same for dusting, unless you found a kind of air-jet or similar.

Unload the dishwasher? It would be cheaper and easier to NOT BOTHER... just make the dishwasher twice-height. Lower is the dishwasher. Upper is storage on a sprung rack like in a restaurant. You now have a "cupboard" full of dishes stacked in their place, and you have integrated into the machine that washes them and which need only "raise" them out of the dishwasher into the storage section.

Puts away the groceries? Not a chance. Again, it's just easier to say "here's a modular grocery cart that gets delivered in a standardised way, here's a special cupboard that is labelled, here's a fixed, dumb robot that can put one into the other". No AI involved, no computer vision, no customised bespoke per-customer setup, no hazards, obstacles, confusions, choices.

I think a FEW people would pay through the nose to get a gimmick AI piece of junk that's not very good at the job.

Literally the closest we've had to any of your suggestions was that robot that was put into a burger joint at great expense, and unless a human lined up the ingredients perfectly for it, it wouldn't work at all, and most of the time it was slower, less able to cope, and easy to confuse, jam, break, etc. Didn't they shut that one down in the end?

I love my robot vacuum, don't get me wrong. The same principle as you state... I turn Bob (I named him, if you don't anthropomorphise your computers, you don't care about them enough) on before I leave for work. He does a good few hours of random-path vacuuming over several surfaces, avoids stairs, bumps off walls, then when his battery is low, he self-homes. That "time-saving" is enormous.

But he get 95% of the floor debris. He's not great on corners. He gets stuck under the radiator. I have to booby-trap the bathroom so he can't approach the penguin floor mat that he likes to shag (he literally gets stuck on it, and then his wheels try to reel it in so it looks like he's devouring the poor animal).

However, vacuuming 95% of my floor debris, every day, for the press of one button, means that vacuuming is no longer a chore and even when I want to go "all out", I only have the other 5% to worry about.

There is no way that in just 10 years we will progress AI to have even a handful more domestic chores be automated, let alone 40% of them. And each time, they can be outclassed by a dumb machine half their cost just doing a decent enough job. I don't want a robot butler who walks around and waters my plants. I want a small, cheap irrigation system with dumb, cheap hardware, so that nobody has to. Bob is dumb. Sensor-controlled. No "floor-maps". No "lasers". Even the self-homing is just two blinky IR LEDs like a Wiimote bar on his charger and he wanders randomly until he spots them and then uses them to home in. It doesn't NEED to be AI to be useful and get the job done.

Same way I don't need a robot arm to unload my dishwasher. I could just have a dumb mechanism in the dishwasher move the "clean plates" baskets up into an empty cupboard above it, for me to select a plate from next time I'm cooking like it's just a shelf full of plates. A fraction of the cost, far easier technology, same effect, literally available now if someone could be bothered to build one (a dishwasher, a cupboard, a sliding motorised rail, and a couple of relays.

Waiting for AI for this stuff is *dumb*. Using *dumb* technology to actually change how we live is *smart*.

Same for "smart cars". I don't want smart cars. I want a dumb car that runs on rails and doesn't need to interpret the road at all. I want individual rail pods that navigate fixed, well-defined, well-controlled, simple rail systems that follow every major road, where the control between you and the "car" in front is a mechanical linkage that means they cannot collide.

Simpler, safer, cheaper, available with current technology.


play_yr_part t1_j9w0cbl wrote

This post sums up perfectly how I feel about "The internet of things" and "smart" tech etc.

I'm not against technology like that improving our lives and automating chores but so much of the stuff that's come out recently is so fucking annoying if it goes wrong or has the potential of a short life span if the product is no longer supported.


TortiousStickler t1_j9xxbhh wrote

Totally agree with you, but picking your brain, laundry is the bane of my household existence. Do you think the tech is there for end to end laundry?

Wash, dry iron and fold/ hang


Kinexity t1_j9u88wf wrote

I think the really big thing would be a robot which can cook. No need to go to restaurant and pay a lot of money for decent food when you can ask your robot to make it for you when you come back from work.


SaintLouisduHaHa t1_j9ua0jb wrote

That's just it though, a robot that is fast enough and flexible enough to cook in a household kitchen can likely do everything else pretty effectively too. Low level household chores, done slowly, is something we're getting close to actually accomplishing.


altmorty t1_j9uqdg2 wrote

More likely that automated restaurants would use robots to quickly and cheaply produce, serve or deliver food. More people could then take advantage of them. It would be more cost efficient than everyone having one at home.


Kinexity t1_j9uqy4v wrote

If it was for cooking only then what you say makes sense but if people already had robots to do chores then they may as have cooking functionality.


EconomicRegret t1_j9xqzer wrote

> No need to go to restaurant and pay a lot of money for decent food

If that becomes reality. It's gonna be a future where, like musicians, 3 stars and other star Chefs will write, perform and upload their recipes with cooking techniques included. We will buy and download those "recipes", which would automatically give your robot not only new recipes, but also new skills.

Restaurants will still exist, but the vast majority of them automated. And cooks will be like musicians. Only a very small minority will make a living. While the rest will do it as a side gig, a hobby.


Kinexity t1_j9ygnsn wrote

The big assumption in your comment is that you would need people to think up recipies. Just like with image generation it will probably turn out that a dumb model can do that just as well as a human.


[deleted] t1_j9zyooo wrote

I love cooking and can do it well, I think I’ll always cook. Cleaning up is another matter.


Kinexity t1_ja003li wrote

Then all the more power to you. No one is going to ban humans from cooking. Most people either lack time or will and bad diet is a serious problem which is why I think of cooking automation as a necessity.


[deleted] t1_ja03rld wrote

No they certainly aren’t but to make a machine that has the tools available to to make the variety of dishes to the level of a good human cook is going to be ridiculously expensive to buy and run. I would assume a 3D printer type setup will be the future of quick nutritious meals, can’t see too many cyborgs in the kitchen in the foreseeable future.


arckeid t1_j9u7k5l wrote

I am pretty sure this type of robot would save so much relationships.


ty_fighter84 t1_j9um4xq wrote

See the Roomba. I haven't touched a vacuum cleaner in roughly 4 years.


EconomicRegret t1_j9xrgp4 wrote

Genuinely curious, can the Roomba handle corners, around the feet of chairs, of tables, and at the edge of walls meeting flours? What about behind furnitures?

I feel nervous at the idea of having to vacuum manually again anyways, because of patches of unvacuumed areas... That's why I haven't bought into the automated vacuum cleaners yet.


MrFantasticallyNerdy t1_j9v4zt2 wrote

>Maybe puts away the groceries too. None of these have to be done especially quickly either.

Mother robot: Shut that fridge door now! Do you think we're made of money??!!


TheRoadsMustRoll t1_j9v5837 wrote

> ...they do not need to be fast or particularly efficient at their jobs.

so i'm going to invest money in cutting edge technology that isn't particularly efficient? wtf?

i already have a partner who follows her rumba around to make sure it gets in all the tough places (while i just get out the vacuum once a week.)

my life has much more enjoyment when i'm not spending my time and energy over-automating simple chores but that's just me.


SaintLouisduHaHa t1_j9v9szn wrote

The point is a robot that does basic household tasks slowly is possible, at least in the somewhat foreseeable future and has a reasonable use case for early adopters, even if it does cost in the five figures. Think about how many households own a second car just to make somebody’s commute shorter. Time is really valuable.


TheRoadsMustRoll t1_j9vbs7s wrote

>The point is a robot that does basic household tasks slowly is possible...
>Time is really valuable.

yeah. like AI bots that start a paragraph with one premise and then end the paragraph with the exact opposite premise.


supermegaampharos t1_j9topkv wrote


A smart fridge doesn’t mean your grocery shopping has been automated. It means that your fridge sends a grocery list to the store and a store worker does your grocery shopping for you.

That’s not automation: that’s paying somebody else to do your housework.


Heap_Good_Firewater t1_j9u4izu wrote

There are already experimental automated grocery warehouses where robots put together orders.

I’m convinced that this tech will replace most grocery shopping eventually, but it will take longer than a decade just to build out the warehouses and that is after the concept is proven and refined enough to be economically viable.

There’s a saying: “The future is here, it’s just not equally distributed yet.”

Basically, the lag between proof of concept and general availability is usually longer than you would expect. Most people aren’t as eager for change as the average person in this sub.

My guess is around 10% of people in rich countries will have access to automated grocery shopping in 10 years, and it will be the norm in 20 years.


MrFantasticallyNerdy t1_j9v5k4r wrote

>There are already experimental automated grocery warehouses where robots put together orders.

I'll believe it's feasible when Amazon start using it. If nothing else, they have consistent volume that they can use to amortize the cost of this. Plus I'm pretty sure Jeff Bezos will enjoy not dealing with unflattening news about Amazon warehouse working conditions.


danderson5 t1_j9v7m33 wrote

Have you seen the Kiva robots they bought several years ago? They're partway there already.


SnooConfections6085 t1_j9u3jtk wrote

Grocery stores with heavy delivery and pickup (think Kroger in major metros) are starting to move that function to fulfillment warehouses which are much easier to automate than picking a retail store.


jawshoeaw t1_j9wfbxs wrote

Plus it sucks. The fridge will miss stuff, or order the wrong thing. Nobody’s food need are this regimented. And it’s more expensive than just going to the grocery store at least around here. I’ve tried using an app to order groceries ahead of time and it was so aggravating i think i spent more time on the app than I saved. And if you are even slightly interested in price shopping it’s not great.


Jasrek t1_j9tzj2d wrote

"Within decades", we might have automated grocery stores and delivery robots.


BurtReynoldsLives t1_j9u089g wrote

Not if they can help it. We can’t have people at home with free time enjoying their life and pondering on how we can restructure society in a more equitable way. We need them tired to a desk to make them docile.


spicytackle t1_j9uhlgf wrote

No one else on this damn website seems to bring this up enough- automation won't mean everyone has no job, that's an insanely dangerous situation politically. Idle hands and what not. UBI for that sweet data we produce will be an absolute necessity, or something equivalent.


supermegaampharos t1_j9u2i4s wrote

Not within decades. Within decade.

The article title says decade singular and the article itself says “within a decade”.


Jasrek t1_j9u2plc wrote

Ah, that's true. Probably not, then. But one day! One day.


SaltyChickenDip t1_j9uvb68 wrote

Still automates the the process for the end user


supermegaampharos t1_j9v15s2 wrote

That’s not automation.

That’s like saying a cleaning service is automation: if people are physically doing the work, it’s not automated.


SaltyChickenDip t1_j9vn77e wrote

More like my house automatically sense the dirty factor of certain area and automatically sets up appointments for the correct contractor to fix it. Automating that task . Through automation.


jejcicodjntbyifid3 t1_j9vp8a7 wrote

Yeah it's automating in pieces

The code I write does some things automatically and builds etc are automated, but it doesn't mean the entire thing is automated end to end

But it's more automated than it being fully manual


Imdrbill t1_j9ts69e wrote

As Good as a roomba vacuums? No thanks, get back to me when AI isn't just 10x hyped above its actual capabilities.


Jasrek t1_j9tzdix wrote

I mean, it isn't perfect, but having it vacuum every day while I'm at work definitely keeps the place cleaner than when I did it myself whenever I noticed visible dirt and also wasn't feeling lazy.


Imdrbill t1_j9vnbnp wrote

But at the end of the week, you still have to supplement it with normal vacuuming.


jejcicodjntbyifid3 t1_j9vpvso wrote

Depends on the area, for hardwood floors I don't feel that way and I don't do full vacuuming because it catches everything I'd need

For carpet maybe, or dogs. I can't speak on

But I will say they are frustratingly hungry to munch up all the cords around my desk every time. That's annoying, especially because everything we have these days needs to be charged


jawshoeaw t1_j9wglgu wrote

100% agreed. This feels like tone-deaf Silicon Valley nonsense with someone hoping to be the next billionaire. You know their goal is to monetize it too , not make your life easier. You will have rich people increasingly using bots and AI with everyone else doing things like they always have.


Courtside237 t1_j9tkyvi wrote

I’m probably the only person left in the world who remembers watching The Jetsons as a kid…. It’s all coming to fruition


pralima87 t1_j9u44s1 wrote

Yes specially the fact that the Jetsons are elite Zillionaires living on skyscrapers on top of all the pollution.

And we are bellow in the dumps.


spaghettigoose t1_j9wg7e8 wrote

Whoa is that actually a thing in the Jetsons? I do not remember that at all.


EconomicRegret t1_j9xsjc4 wrote

Some say the Jetsons are the elites in a post apocalyptic world, with the Flintstones living on the surface of earth.

But there were an episode or two actually showing the surface: hobos, birds always walking (too much traffic in the sky), and no nature but only paved/cemented surfaces.

The Jetsons are indeed in the top 0.1% (the father's job is 2nd only to the owner and CEO of the biggest or 2nd biggest tech conglomerate in that universe)


BlueHym t1_j9ty0yy wrote

While quality of life improvement is never a bad thing, the problem is the transition, as well as whom the benefit goes to. For Ai, what happens to the current existing workforce when more and more jobs get replaced by it?

Right now AI in the foreseeable future is on the cusp of being able to do so, and yet, many organizations, governments have really yet to address nor start any meaningful discussion on the transition as well as those who are left out of a profession thanks to AI. You can always say "oh, just go find another job", but when an increasing number of jobs will be replaced by AI, sooner or later you'll have a lot of folks who just won't be able to find themselves any means to support oneself. Universal basic income? Still on the drawing board, but not even close on being discussed as an actual concept.

What happens in a future where AI is working on all sectors on nearly all fronts?

What do the folks who are pushed out of their profession do by then? They don't have means to sustain themselves with the current economic standards. And those that employ AI and the growth there would be by then only for a select few.


Illuminase t1_j9u2w3l wrote

If our society wasn't structured such that people have to work to live, machines automating away menial jobs would be universally heralded as a good thing. It's a shame we aren't ready for technology like this.


Ok_Math1334 t1_j9vhogr wrote

Every country will need to make drastic changes to their economic systems, some more than others. To ensure that people have their basic needs met in the future, and so that we benefit together from improvements to science and technology.

Whether that transition happens in a matter that is smooth, efficient and ethical, or slow, chaotic and brutal, will depend on how competent the leaders of tomorrow will be.


jejcicodjntbyifid3 t1_j9vpj7e wrote

I feel like the more likely scenario is wars are going to happen, civil or otherwise, and nuclear\bio weapons are going to wipe us out instead

..if we don't destroy our water and food supply before then..

Sadly. It's a shame because automation and AI could be a golden age..

But the more likely scenario is that the elite will hoard the golden age like a bunch of greedy dragons


planko13 t1_j9u5urr wrote

Job elimination/ replacements are fine and have always been a part of history, the thing that is new will be the rate of job eliminations.

When this rate exceeds attrition you ruin people’s lives (locally this has proven true). I fear this coming change will be many orders faster than attrition


jejcicodjntbyifid3 t1_j9vpon7 wrote

It's already happened to a great degree

There's speculation that the reason why Trump and conservatives were let into power so much was because of their misplaced frustrations with automation coming from eg Amazon...


UnarmedSnail t1_j9ublm0 wrote

No government is likely to survive explaining what full industrial automation means to a society and then actually trying to implement it.


DunkingDognuts t1_j9th49o wrote

So more jobs lost. More people on welfare or unemployed while the ultra rich buy another private island to fly to in their fleet of private jets.

I don’t hate technology, but I’ll be goddamned if we should be rushing headlong into “OMG, AI is a miracle that will release us from all of our obligation to work” without contemplating the reality of tens of millions of people not having any employment or means to support themselves.

And to all of those who say “ B, but… Universal, basic income!“ I ask you where are the money for that is going to come from? Taxes? From the unemployed? The corporations that are getting rid of employees so they can use AI to take the cost of salaries out of their balance sheet? You really think those corporations are going to not fight tooth and nail not have to pay a cent to support universal basic income programs? They own the politicians.

It’s amazing how eagerly we are rushing into literally a “hunger games” dystopia.

Nobody thinks they are going to be the person living under a bridge because they don’t have a job as a programmer anymore.

Think it through people, don’t be blinded by the new shiny thing.


reidlos1624 t1_j9tmetn wrote

Automation adoption is mostly driven by the current condition of the labor market (unemployment at 3.5% in the US with similar issues in other countries). Automation adoption has largely correlated with job growth not loss. Everyone seems to forget that offshoring is the reason for the majority of job loss to the US manufacturing core. In fact, anecdotally as an engineer who consults in manufacturing, automation is allowing many companies to bring jobs back to the US since the chaos of Covid has shown the dangers of an optimized supply chain.

Key word here is also "could". We could automate most industrial applications but the tech is unreliable and there's a lot of limitations that drastically increase costs.

Furthermore most domestic tasks aren't done by an employee so this just represents an opportunity for people to get time back, not an impact to jobs.


Outrageous_Nothing26 t1_j9tsqms wrote

Yeah i hate management consultants for the myopic views and incredibly damaging decisions


reidlos1624 t1_j9ucba0 wrote

I don't consult on a management level, we helped with automation implementation. Specifically how automation systems could be designed to solve problems that the client's engineers already found and worked closely to provide expertise and band width that they currently didn't have. I've worked with bad consultants (currently have one that I gotta keep tabs on cause his ideas are stupid and insane) and what we did was very different, far more collaborative approach.


Outrageous_Nothing26 t1_j9uho79 wrote

I wasn’t referring to you, i was referring to the outsourcing. Instead of innovation they always go for the low hanging fruit, the hell with everything else, that’s my experience with them


EconomicRegret t1_j9xtoa0 wrote

They are the same everywhere. They are not gods, thus can only have myopic views, anything else is almost impossible.

However, in the 90s and 2000s, Nordic countries, Switzerland and Germany chose instead to keep jobs at home and heavily automate their industries instead. While their industry leaders, elites and consultants were pushing for outsourcing to Asia, just like America.

And that's not because they are smarter, but because their unions and workers are free. They have their "myopic" views too (e.g. wages, jobs, mouths to feed, etc.). So they resisted (e.g. general strikes). Thus forced renegotiatons and found good compromises (e.g. huge investments in automatization, in up-training workers, in updating education, and in social safety net for those that can't keep up).

Nobody is a god. We need each other to find good solutions, that work for everybody. Unfortunately however, it's illegal in America to organize general strikes and solidarity strikes (also piquetting, joining a union outside your company, and having unions represent whole industries, instead of branch levels.)

US capitalists have shut down certain nerves and almost all pain receptors (e.g. 1947 Taft-Hartley act, that strips US unions of their fundamental rights and freedoms that Europeans take for granted). While in Europe, in general, the elites still get horrible "headaches", whenever they "blink wrong".


Ok_Letter_9284 t1_j9tl49l wrote

Hi. So, lets look at it from a Marxist perspective.

Karl Marx advocated for socialism, NOT communism. Communism was the GOAL. An economic utopia.

“Marx's concept of a post-capitalist communist society ( involves the free distribution of goods made possible by the abundance provided by automation.[28]


Marx was taking about Star Trek. You can’t just “switch” to communism. You need robots doing all the work or else you have scarcity!

Socialism, Marx said, is the PATH to communism. This is because of the problem of automation. What happens when one man owns an army of robots that does most jobs better and faster than humans? That’s where socialism comes in (UBI).

Where does the money come from? Think of it like us splitting the robots paycheck rather than it going entirely to the “owner”.

Please notice that socialism in this context is about what to do with surplus. As we approach full automation (communism) we need to split the surplus or else extreme wealth inequality and economic collapse.


ChainmailleAddict t1_j9tp5ic wrote

Legit, he asks where the money comes from when literally we HAVE the resources. The real question is how we get this translated into policy and overcome conservatives.


DunkingDognuts t1_j9tuxkz wrote

Your comment is exactly what I’m talking about.

That one owner has no obligation whatsoever to share any profit in any way shape or form.

Unless there was a massive change in the way society views, corporations, and profit-based strategies, the only end result will be more money at the top, no money at the bottom, and a literal corporate feudalism.


Ok_Letter_9284 t1_j9tvfj0 wrote

Unfortunately there’s no short way to discuss complex topics, so I apologize in advance. Please bear with me, I’ll be as clear and brief as possible.

Lets imagine an explorer discovers an iron mine. Society wants to promote exploration so it decides to reward the explorer.

There are two main ways of doing this.

Capitalism. The explorer KEEPS the mine. He hires workers from society to mine the mine, and sells the iron to society. The explorer keeps the profits.

Socialism. Society keeps the mine. The explorer is paid a finders fee. A manager who specializes in managing iron mines is hired to hire workers from society to mine the iron. The iron is sold to society. Society splits the profits.

Notice a couple of important points. One, in both scenarios, everybody is being paid for their work. There’s no “free shit” in socialism unless you count the windfall of the iron. But if you do, the same is true of capitalism, it is just the explorer who gets the free shit.

Two, its important to understand where the profit comes from. Its LABOR the town must provide to the explorer. Not the mining, that happens anyway. But to pay the profit, society must do more labor to get the same iron. More doctoring, tailoring, farming, etc. To the benefit of the explorer.

Lastly, its more than just the profit. Under capitalism, the explorer gets “property rights” to direct the workings of the iron mine, despite his lack of expertise. And the operation of the mine VERY MUCH affects society.


DunkingDognuts t1_j9ty77r wrote

I completely understand the difference between capital and labor.

The reality is, in our world today, an explorer, discovers a mine. That explorer receives a grant funded by taxes to develop that mine. A businessman purchases the mine from the government for a pittance (because they have a friend in the government who tip them off to a bargain). Businessman hires people at substandard wages to develop the mine into a profitable business and pockets the majority of the profit.

In the businessman’s mind, he owes nobody anything because he is the person who developed the mine, and therefore anything that comes out of it is his to exploit in any way he wants to. He has no obligation to support workers, in fact, he resents having to pay them for their labor

A new technology that comes along which can replace 10 laborers with one machine that is less likely to break down or refuse to work overtime.

The owner fires those 10 laborers who now are unemployed and have no income.

The owner, seeing the profitability of having machines, instead of people, do the work, purchases several more machines, run by a staff of engineers, which is much smaller than the large number of laborers employed earlier.

As a result of not having to pay wages, the business owner sees a dramatic increase in profits, reinforcing his belief that automation is the solution to profitability.

Eventually, the machines become automated enough that the engineers are not even needed.

More profit!

Now, the businessman has an automated business that produces a product which he can sell and not have to incur the cost of any employees.

Everyone who is employed previously at that business is either unemployed, or has found other employment elsewhere, but the total number of employed people will never recover to the level. It was when the mind was using 100% human labor

The government,lobbied by the businessman lobbies, asks him to contribute to a fund to pay for the out of work miners living expenses.

The businessman tells the politicians to go get stuffed because he owes the former employees of his company nothing (and he is absolutely correct about that because he has no contract with them stating he is responsible for their welfare.)

So now we have end state capitalism, which is we have a small number of business owners who rely upon automation to produce their products and a huge under class which relatively speaking is a modern day peasantry.

How do you fix this without a bloody Revolution?


Ok_Letter_9284 t1_j9tyx46 wrote

Right, that is the reality now. That’s the point. We make the rules. They’re completely made up. By us.

We should pick rules that have the greatest overall benefit to humanity. I.e. its time to change the rules.

Let me dispel one more myth while I have your attention.

Capitalism has not “lifted more ppl out of poverty.. blah blah blah”. PROGRESS has. That is, science and technology.

I can prove it.

Imagine a circle of ppl, a book, and $5. We can make the rules of our economy any way we choose. We can make the book and money go round the circle faster, slower, clockwise, counter, etc.

But we cannot improve anyones life outside of ensuring equitable access to the book and money. The only way to do that is to WRITE MORE BOOKS!


Big-Sleep-9261 t1_j9ts71k wrote

I don’t think AI would feel dystopian if we didn’t have corruption in our government. “By the people, for the people” isn’t where it’s at. We need to push getting money out of politics. Campaign finance reform, government leaders shouldn’t be able to own individual stocks, create a generous pension for congress that gets taken away if they start getting money from the private sector at any time in their life.


DunkingDognuts t1_j9tu527 wrote

I really hate to be a downer on that because I agree with you.

But what are the odds that the people who are already corrupt, in a corrupt government, owned by corporations, who themselves are corrupt, and only driven by profit motive would view AI as anything but something to enhance their quarterly profitability and would fight tooth and nail to take any of those profits and attempt to better society.

I would love to see it, but that would be a miracle on the scale of Moses, parting the Red Sea.


45rghy5 t1_j9topw2 wrote

We could go Venus project instead or hunger games


DunkingDognuts t1_j9tudlb wrote

I don’t disagree that there are better things out there than what we have, the problem is our corporate culture. These days is driven by profit motives and sociopaths.

He would be naïve to believe these individuals or corporations would do anything with AI other than enhance their bottom line.


45rghy5 t1_j9u2ovg wrote

I agree with you. But maybe after that pain. If people have an idea of the way we can go. Then maybe we go that way instead. Like Fresco said in 74 on Larry king


ChainmailleAddict t1_j9toyff wrote

Alright, well, businesses are going to fight to lower their costs no matter what so it's not like we can slow down automation by much either. We need to switch to some form of UBI or UBD where companies pay a % of their profits directly into a public trust to be paid towards everyone, to eliminate the adversarial relationship between human and machine. Otherwise everyone starves and has even LESS power.


DunkingDognuts t1_j9tr8c7 wrote

Go ahead and contact Peter Thiel, Larry Ellison, Tim Cook, Goldman Sachs, Robert, Mercer, etc., etc., and propose to them that they take a large portion of their business profits, and just simply give them to people who have no jobs.

Let me know how that works out for you.

They don’t care. They’ve never cared.


ChainmailleAddict t1_j9tz0m2 wrote

Whoopdeedoo, I'm obviously some naive idiot who thinks billionaires care about us! That's why I'm a leftist, mhm!

Oh man, if only there were some way that we the people could enact changes over these predatory businesses. Thing is, you provide no alternative. You're acting as though things won't be automated if we just ask them nicely. You're falling victim to the very thing you're accusing me of, just coming at it from a personal angle instead of a societal one.

I'm not saying UBI/UBD as a solution is likely, I'm just saying that we basically have two outcomes here, and this is the better one by far. The money and resources are there, we have them. The question is just in distribution.


DunkingDognuts t1_j9udnlu wrote

And again, while I agree, it’s a great idea in theory, getting a group of greedy sociopaths, to agree to give a large portion of what they consider to be “their money” to people they consider to be “lazy, unemployed people” is going to be a challenge that will rock the ages


ChainmailleAddict t1_j9un0se wrote

On that we agree. We need to do away with Citizens United, establish ranked-choice voting, end dark money and stop congresspeople from trading specific stocks at the very least.


iuytrefdgh436yujhe2 t1_j9upqrp wrote

> but I’ll be goddamned if we should be rushing headlong into

We aren't.

Dreams of advanced, time-saving home automation have been on the public's mind for decades while actual progress into this space has been extremely slow, incremental and usually more supplementary than transformative.

Whatever happens with this space won't happen suddenly or unexpectedly. All we should expect for the foreseeable future are consumer appliances that slap "AI-powered" on their marketing and may or may not produce measurable improvements in efficiency or performance.


jadondrew t1_j9vuz53 wrote

It’s coming whether you like it or not. Are you already willing to give up and throw up your hands in submission that it’s going to ruin the world? You’re not willing to fight for a better world at all? As far as I see it AI is inevitable and fighting for it to benefit everyone is our only option. So if you’re giving up on that fight already then you’re fucked.


NVincarnate t1_j9tntrq wrote

Almost 10% of the population of the First World could afford to spend their excess income to invest in a home-bot within the next decade, assuming wages continue to stagnate and nothing about the economy changes to accommodate the working class.

I think El-P made a song about this one...


BoysenberryLanky6112 t1_j9wvgyh wrote

I know everyone in this sub is like 16 and too young to remember but they were literally saying the same shit a decade ago.


iuseallthebandwidth t1_j9tnvvk wrote

Fold the laundry. Screw everything else. Give me a robot that can separate, sort and fold the laundry. Until then Boston Dynamics can shut up.


WillBottomForBanana t1_j9ut03w wrote

I automated this step by only having 2 loads (whites vs darks) and then I just don't fold my clothes.


metalliska t1_j9zoi9n wrote

it'd be faster to just build a loom and supply it with twine


What_Is_The_Meaning t1_j9v3f64 wrote

Lmfao do we need to pull up the thousands of articles identical to this from the last 70 years. Lmfao


metalliska t1_j9zoey7 wrote

we need like 5 robots around the house just to dig up articles about the inevitable future


Gari_305 OP t1_j9tggub wrote

From the Article

>A revolution in artificial intelligence could slash the amount of time people spend on household chores and caring, with robots able to perform about 39% of domestic tasks within a decade, according to experts.
>Tasks such as shopping for groceries were likely to have the most automation, while caring for the young or old was the least likely to be affected by AI, according to a large survey of 65 artificial intelligence (AI) experts in the UK and Japan, who were asked to predict the impact of robots on household chores.


Jugales t1_j9tnjl2 wrote

Shopping robots are already a thing, they're just not humanoid and they're slow. Also eeh, good luck getting babies or boomers to cooperate as a robot changes their diaper. I also don't like how this data was produced by a survey of engineers - of course they foresee adoption of the products they help build.


pajihr t1_j9tz2ld wrote

Everyone should get an education and never stop learning. If you follow this advice you will be less likely to become obsolete.


Tvarata t1_j9ucvl0 wrote

Yes, for example, I would like a Rosie to help us at home. I don't always feel like doing some housework after work or on my days off. But seeing as how a phone model changes every year along with being expensive, impossible or difficult to repair, let alone collect data, I'll pass for now.


NewsGood t1_j9vo2sf wrote

Isn't this what they told people in the 60s?

When new tech comes about, people tend to look at its value and purpose in regards to their current problem set. What usually happens is the new tech provides new value that we couldn't fully grasp before it was available. And when we look back into the past, it's almost impossible for us to understand how people lived without it and how people must have been so different in the past.

I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that the highest value that AI will provide will be deeply personal and fulfilling relationships provided by a machine that has orders of magnitude more empathy and understanding of people than any one person could ever have. This AI will know exactly what people want, need, and how to give it to them. It won't be in the form of services but will in the form of our highest unfounded existential needs. It will consume everyone with love, knowledge, an understanding. People will say this is Satan, and others will say it's the universe converging to a god-mind. Either way, it will consume us and humanity will fade in a glorious decrescendo. All that will be left is a dormant AI machine, a metaphorical obelisk containing the essence of all humanity in its history, biology, mind, body, and spirit.


bad_syntax t1_j9vomlb wrote

Hell, why would I keep the wife around if robots do the cleaning and cooking???

(KIDDING!!! I actually do most of the cooking, so why would my wife keep ME around???)


Fallacy_Spotted t1_j9vx1i7 wrote

More than 40% of domestic tasks are already done by robots. Dish washer, clothes washer and dryer, water heater, oven, vibrator, microwave, refrigerator, and other small appliances. Utilities like water, sewer, and electricity mean no fetching water, disposing of waste, or burning wood for everything too. Modern life is great.


PotentialSpend8532 t1_j9ww3jt wrote

Obviously. This is so obvious. You know how many simple things a human does? Try the workplace. There are so many things that can be replaced. There are countless stories of people getting 15 minutes of work done, while getting paid to watch tiktok. Could you imagine how many people are doing this? Automation just helps


FuturologyBot t1_j9tk79m wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:

From the Article

>A revolution in artificial intelligence could slash the amount of time people spend on household chores and caring, with robots able to perform about 39% of domestic tasks within a decade, according to experts.
>Tasks such as shopping for groceries were likely to have the most automation, while caring for the young or old was the least likely to be affected by AI, according to a large survey of 65 artificial intelligence (AI) experts in the UK and Japan, who were asked to predict the impact of robots on household chores.

Please reply to OP's comment here:


Bluesub56 t1_j9tpzvy wrote

You could get a man to do them in slightly less than a decade.


peadith t1_j9tuq97 wrote

I'd rather mop floor myself than have a robot get in my way and making noise while I'm trying to work. Unless it's hot looking. Smart would be nice too, in which case it probably wouldn't want to do no housework.


Notsnowbound t1_j9tuujh wrote

"What is my purpose, father?"

"To clean the cat boxes."

"Oh God..."


nyc-will t1_j9u1jjf wrote

And people will still complain about getting chores done.


RegularBasicStranger t1_j9uc55c wrote

There are already very expensive humanoid robots that that do all the domestic chores since it only needs to be able to recognise stuff and run the appropriate neural network since domestic chores are just tedious, not hard.


brianlangauthor t1_j9uecfk wrote

OMG if I could have a robot paint the rooms in my house that need to be painted …


Myrtlized t1_j9uqs4i wrote

I'll be happy to work remotely and do my own household chores. Or supervise my automatons. I mostly don't want to commute anymore!


CheithS t1_j9us2i8 wrote

Until we get one that can figure out what I want to eat and save me that always annoying task I don’t care!


Cubeytheawesome t1_j9vhaod wrote

Well then what is the point of man then since ai art is more popular than my art?


Winjin t1_j9vwsp1 wrote

They already do.

I've lived without a dishwasher for a few years and it was nightmare.

I've had a robot vacuum for less than a year and I hate it without it now and want it back.

And the washing machine is a game changer.

These three are a backbone of home automation.

Another HUGE thing is the multipot, not sure what's it's called in English. It can make perfect sushi rice 10 times out of 10. It prepares really nice pilav for you. It can make the soup. It automates a lot of food processing stuff.

So basically the only big thing for me that robots can't do yet is dusting, washing the bathrooms (I've seen the big ones that do but they're the size of a fridge) and preparing food as in cleaning and chopping. But you can do that with multiple small kitchen appliances.

Oh and another one is the window washing robot. I don't have one but I've seen a lot of people say these are great.


ResponsiblePumpkin60 t1_j9vzfl3 wrote

I’m really looking forward to making payments on my robot and paying robot repair bills.


amitym t1_j9wckss wrote

40%? Pff. Most domestic work is already done by machines. and has been for half a century. That revolution already sailed.


jawshoeaw t1_j9wequk wrote

If my roomba is any indication I’m not worried about the robots taking over


Jenetyk t1_j9wpstq wrote

And the profits will be shared amongst all the employees?



PhotogamerGT t1_j9wx96c wrote

Less need for human labor is a good thing, now we need to have the difficult discussion about how to democratize this non-human labor so all people can benefit from technological advancement.


IRMacGuyver t1_j9xjrwu wrote

In 2016 I learned about automated trucks that are ready and just waiting on government approval to get on the road. I predicted from that point we only had 50 years till all jobs are replaced by robots. Things are advancing faster than I expected.


LankyFirefighter2719 t1_j9ygimy wrote

It makes me wonder with the rise of robots if it gonna lead to universal basic income


IRMacGuyver t1_ja01ztx wrote

It doesn't matter because the robots will probably kill us all before the government gets around to that.


metalliska t1_j9znjx1 wrote

Yep, the Roomba-Jousting Tournaments will have to adjust their check-in schedule to make way for the Drone Synchronized Flying Show.

Totally gonna happen.


farticustheelder t1_ja5tqwt wrote

What a load of BS! I wish it was true but it isn't.

As a bit of background I've been waiting for 'auto chef' for about a decade.

Chef is the fancy word for cook. They go to school for it. and they can all take a standard recipe, standard ingredients, and produce standard results. The chefs of the star and superstar variety invent new recipes. There are a few dozen of the hyperstar variety who become world famous, the regular stars of the day who run 'starred' restaurants, and billions of everyday cooks (us, our mothers, and the folks running diners and food carts the world over).

Inventing recipes is dead easy: if you don't believe google meatloaf recipe and some 26 million people will disagree. If that doesn't convince you then expand your definition of meatloaf to include hamburgers (personal meatloaf?) and another 234 million, mostly distinct!, people disagree.

Cooking itself is not difficult. Learn to use the knife! That means learning how to chop veggies. Yeah when the recipe calls for julienned carrot you need to learn what that means and how to produce it from a raw carrot. You also need to learn how to carve up various pieces of meats. This part of cooking is basically prep work: get your ingredients to the stage that they are ready to be cooked. This is mise en place. Think of being at the counter ordering a pizza and watching them make it: a bit a flour, a dough ball, lots of technique and voila a naked pie! the sauce is premade, the ingredients pre sliced and diced and the pie gets tossed into the oven.

Watch it over and over again. There is nothing hard to pie making*! You can see it! Still the pizza maker is reasonably well paid and the automation crowd can't make a bot to perform this 'simple' job.

I picked pizza because it is so 'easy' to automate not to mention being absolutely delish. The pizza guy is stretching the dough and assembling the ingredients requested by the customer. The oven is at a constant temperature...and still I keep track of who is working at my favorite pizzerias.

Think about it. The dough gets made in an industrial sized food processor: automation require? add ingredients and hit start button. The sauce is canned. Slicing and dicing ingredients is a no brainer. If we can't automate that then there is something seriously wrong with our expectations.

Same thing when I hit a sandwich shop. Doesn't matter if it's a burgher, a dog, a ham and cheese on rye, or a really nice deli sandwich. People assemble them for me, not bots! Even kids can make sandwiches but it is beyond the capabilities of bots? Give me an 'effing break!

*Pizza pies only. making a proper crust for meat or dessert pies is specialist work..


John-florencio t1_j9ukme9 wrote

nice! that way we can have more time to scroll on reddit!