You must log in or register to comment.

Quealdlor t1_iuh79us wrote

Good. Less people will be needed for harvesting fruits. More people to do other things or just enjoy life. Fruit prices will go down.


CoachAny t1_iuheybh wrote

Only with UBI implemented.


Quealdlor t1_iuhscie wrote

Why? Prices of stuff have been dropping for centuries now and there has not been any UBI. Things like the cost of lighting, transportation, sending a message, iron, steel, bricks, glass, containers, bed sheets or clothes have been getting cheaper for a long time. I don't think that without UBI we won't see lower prices. That's a baseless assumption. It does not mean I wouldn't want an UBI.


CoachAny t1_iuhtymp wrote

Because unless socialism wins somehow such as with the example of UBI, conservative politics might turn the market more exploitative than necessary. Just because automation frees people from labor the monopolies which own the robots might still demand the same price as a tendency. Neo feudalism is the goal of the enemy or in other words economic desperation. Liveable UBI is the antidote as a safety net.


Ivan_The_8th t1_iui2v50 wrote

But then what stops me from buying those robots and selling the product for slightly cheaper?


CoachAny t1_iuiblis wrote

Monopolization would stop you, unless you start to influence your environment to support laws against monopolization so it won't happen.


avocadro t1_iui4z1h wrote

Lack of startup capital and/or anti-competitive legislation are two good examples.


Wassux t1_iui3hka wrote

I feel like people always forget that UBI isn't possible at all. Let me explain.

The price of things we buy is determined by the cost of materials and labour, among other things like marketing. But for food these don't really apply except for materials like fertilizer, land, seeds, water, and labour. As long as there is scarcity of materials, removing labour will not remove all costs.

Even if we distribute those materials without costs, scarcity will always be there. If we somehow move past scarcity, the population will explode and we get back to scarcity again, as earth is of limited size.

So how are we going to divide the food? Who gets to have what? UBI will certainly not decide that. Even if we try to spread it equally, how will we limit people in not overusing/wasting materials? The demand will go up while the supply doesn't change. So the price goes up until we're back to square one. It's just pointless.


Economy_Variation365 t1_iuijxql wrote

I disagree with your assertion that the population will explode in a post-scarcity world. On the contrary, as a society's standard of living rises, the birth rate drops. This has been the rule throughout the developed and developing world, and there is no exception that I'm aware of. In fact, the US population would actually decrease if it weren't for immigration.

Even if we achieve almost zero death rate by reversing aging and reducing accident rates, the population will grow at most linearly (assuming each couple wants to have two children). A world population peaking at 10 billion will be quite easily fed, housed, clothed, educated, medically attended etc. by employing advanced automation.


Wassux t1_iuilhsg wrote

The birth rate drops when women get more educated and people become too busy. A high standard of living with low employment is not something we have ever experienced. In countries where workweeks are low we see large explosion of population. And which of the two it is we can only guess at. So I mean high standard of living vs low amount of spare time.

Agree with the last paragraph tho.


Bakoro t1_iuj6nik wrote

We have more than enough to make sure everyone has their basic needs met.

Once we get a guarantee that everyone gets the basics, it's not unreasonable to instill procreation limits to two per family, and adjust as materials allow.
People who bypass the limits can be put to extra work.

The point is to eliminate needless suffering and waste. The amount of wasted energy and effort in the world is phenomenal.


CoachAny t1_iuiawe3 wrote

UBI is not the distribution of food. It is the distribution of money. Also whatever is a scarcity can be automatized, synthesized, or omitted with a better alternative. Once everything is fully automatic a lot of jobs turn into hobbies as long as the people's lives aren't in danger. Conservatives want people to be pushed by the fear of starvation, so they can feel powerful, its unnecessary for the civilization, tho, as we can automate everything.


Wassux t1_iuif3od wrote

But the materials my man, where do we get them from? How do we produce more food if we have no land to grow it on?


CoachAny t1_iuiiaw7 wrote

Aeroponics and vertical farming takes care of the space problem, while rare materials can either be mined by automated machines, recycled from trash, or switched for abundant materials in many cases. If these don't work out, let's just hope that the future's ASI can design a nucleosynthesizer. Lmao. BTW there have been lots of experiments with UBI and it works. Conservatives don't like it because they like to be on a pedestal even if it means to sabotage everyone else. That simple.


Wassux t1_iuil2q3 wrote

Aeroponics and vertical farming takes care of the space problem for now. That's the issue, what do we do when it doesn't anymore? And where do we get the water from? Because if we keep that up no other animals will ever be able to live on the planet with us.

BTW there have been lots of experiments with UBI and it works. On small groups not entire countries which omits the problem


CoachAny t1_iuinwcj wrote

Vertical farms can take the shape of towers and reach to the sky and they can also be built underground. Animal agriculture is definitely something our civilization should cease to pursue. It consumes too many resources and is barbaric. However, lab grown meat seems like the way to go. As for water, it can be made from thin air: all you need is to either wait for temperature to drop and collect the water before the temperature raises in the morning by letting the dew condensed on a mesh which you can shake it out of or you can cool the air down artificially. We should try to imitate termite castles which are passively cooling themselves. Desalination is also an option. BTW good models are meant to test life sized systems.


Wassux t1_iuita2k wrote

That's a very naïve way to look at it. I'm a nuclear physicist and I can say with complete certainty that collecting water from the air will never, ever be enough to feed 50 billion people. I can prove it if you want. Won't even be enough to feed anyone.

Vertical farms can be towers and reach the sky, but what I am asking you is what if you run out of space? Not when. Because we will eventually have to choose by making more space for farming or humans, how will we choose on a global scale?


usaaf t1_iuiv22u wrote

I think you're proceeding from a false, Malthusian assumption, that is that population will grow without bounds given unlimited resources.

Would you say the developed world is richer than ever ? With more food than ever ? With more stuff, more resources, more technology than ever ?

Most would.

Yet, where is the ever-expanding population growth ? It's not there. Countries like the US have to import people to show any demographic growth. Japan is facing a shrinking population because it does not do this.

The link between 'more food' and 'more people' is not, probably has never been, as clear as the Malthusian approach to analysis would suppose. So the idea that UBI is going to lead to ballooning population just doesn't seem viable, considering the resources humanity has developed in the past two centuries.

Also, the goal of post-scarcity needs to be redefined I think. Most people think it means freedom from want, but it would better proposed as freedom from need. Because as some joker always says "huk huk who gets all the beachfront property," we're clearly not going to solve that kind of scarcity. But we can make sure we live in a world where no one is starving nor do they have to work three jobs to achieve that goal, and then worry about how we'll divide up all the luxury shit later.


CoachAny t1_iuize5q wrote

A hydroponic system is best if is airtight and recycles the humidity. As the extreme weather conditions of climate change results in desertification, in general humanity has to build it's habitats similarly to Mars or Moon bases. This way the water conservation is absolute and the collection of additional water is just for surplus and backup reasons. Not to mention reverse osmosis is a perfectly viable solution around oceans. It's a technology which works.


Bakoro t1_iuj7iph wrote

Water is a very simple problem to fix, and only doesn't get fixed because greed.


Bakoro t1_iuj6whc wrote

The point of UBI is making sure people have their basic needs met. It's functionally a food and housing distribution, just indirectly.

When instilling UBI, it must be codified that it cover all basic needs, or else we'll end up with the same issue of minimum wage not covering basic needs.


CoachAny t1_iujblbg wrote

Thanks for pointing that out. I concur.


Bakoro t1_iuiunf2 wrote

Lower prices mean nothing if people don't have income to buy goods.

AI is not like other past technologies where it will create more jobs than it takes. It will create a small number of initially higher paid jobs while taking ten or a thousand jobs for every one created. Then the competition for those jobs will reduce wages. The capitalists who own everything will keep the profits.

We've already seen this past pandemic that the mass inflation we've seen is due to corporate greed, far more than anything. They will continue to suck the blood out of people if nothing changes.


Quealdlor t1_iujcje8 wrote

In 2022 there are more job openings than people willing to take them. There is a shortage of workers, despite what Singularitarians were writing 10 years ago. There's no technological unemployment. That's just science-fiction. And cheaper stuff doesn't come from UBI. The whole idea of the soon incoming mass technological unemployment is mistaken. Change doesn't happen so fast. Just look at Tesla Optimus. It's just a one robot and it's so far from doing everything a human can, but better.


Bakoro t1_iujkg0f wrote

In 2022 there are lot of shit-tier jobs no one wants, and a lack of workers because millions of people died, retired, or otherwise left the work force.
There is an ample supply of workers for higher level jobs, the corporations don't want to invest in training and paying people.

What's going on now is not relevant to the conversation about the very near future where AI replaces tens of millions of workers.

If you don't understand that, then you haven't been paying attention to anything but headlines.
Change doesn't happen so fast? Change is happening on the daily, I can't keep up with the pace of improvements. Literally every single day I am reading about new technologies and techniques. New specialized hardware is coming down the pipeline that will put AI on steroids.

Change isn't going to just happen fast, it's going to be so fast you won't see it coming. When the corporatists make a switch, maybe you'll hear about some test cases, but a lot of it is going to happen literally overnight. People will show up to work and learn they've been replaced.

The near future is not about one robot that does everything, it's about a thousand robots tuned to a thousand different tasks.

Manufacturing, transportation, and warehousing are already on the chopping block, and AI is coming for just about all of our jobs. Even a shift of a few percent is enough to collapse the modern economy, and it's not going to be just a few percent.


just_thisGuy t1_iuj6ekm wrote

Higher prices after pandemic are because we have less stuff, because we shutdown stuff (does not matter if you agree with shutdowns or not), some people think stuff just comes from stores, people need to make stuff, less work less stuff, period. Yes we get more efficient, producing more stuff with less work, but we just want more stuff so we end up working even more. Higher prices are also because governments printed money, the money is not what is important it’s stuff. Yes we will need UBI, when we actually have robots to do much of the work, right now it’s mostly just humans who actually do the work.


just_thisGuy t1_iujdrcc wrote

Wow, I must have triggered you, repeating the same thing over and over and calling people names, is that how you talk to people and try to convince them? I got news for you, that’s not going to work. Btw, sure there is a bunch of corporate greed, I never said otherwise. But you seem to be a child.


Bakoro t1_iujenjj wrote

I didn't call you names, I said to get fucked. Totally different.

I don't need to convince you, I'm leaving information for people who are actually interested in what's going on instead of spewing corporate propaganda.


muchcharles t1_iujojqr wrote

> there has not been any UBI.

The earned income tax credit (EITC) is pretty close.


ledocteur7 t1_iuhkoas wrote

whish isn't gonna happen anytime soon unfortunately, but if automation continues at the speed it's going, we are gonna need it very fast.


GenoHuman t1_iuhpdxb wrote

I think we'll need it in the 2030s already.


Ezekiel_W t1_iui87co wrote

We are going to need it this decade, probably within a few years.


ExtraFun4319 t1_iuj390m wrote

That is one hell of an extreme position to take, considering that the US unemployment rate today is 3.5% and while technology has made significant amounts of progress the past few years, especially in AI, technology today is still nowhere near capable of performing the entirety of a large chunk of the workforce's jobs and thus creating the need for UBI; fully replacing an employee's complete set of tasks is a much higher bar than merely augmenting the employee.

And that's not even taking into consideration that mass adoption of new technology takes a good while and in many cases has to go through legal hurdles before being adopted at all.


Ezekiel_W t1_iuj5rgz wrote

I do a lot of research into these topics and this is a guestimation based on what I currently know about the state of automation as a whole. I also prefer the U-6 unemployment numbers as they give a more complete picture.


ExtraFun4319 t1_iujlz0m wrote

Do you mind providing me a few links to sources that you've found while doing research that support your guesstimation, if you can and don't mind?

And why do you prefer the u-6 numbers, if you don't mind me asking?


Ezekiel_W t1_iujuzbm wrote

The U-3 is flawed for many reasons and here is an article explaining some of them

As far as automation goes, I don't keep a treasure trove of links to articles or sources that I have gleaned info from. I can tell you that most of the companies that are automating are doing so quickly and quietly much like what Mcdonalds is doing with their drive through AI.


Artanthos t1_iuimaoi wrote

Most of those people are migrants that have no other source of income.


Johnny_Glib t1_iui9yco wrote

>More people to starve to death as they don't have jobs to buy said fruit anymore.


Wiggly-Pig t1_iuhga90 wrote

This is great, but I did have a chuckle at the size of that arm delicately holding one little strawberry


sheerun t1_iui8fl9 wrote

I feel like it's designed for ripping arms off, not picking strawberries


Cryptizard t1_iuhi4wy wrote

How much does this thing cost though?


ledocteur7 t1_iuhktjv wrote

a lot, but certainly less than paying employees to harvest manually.

(well, that's assuming they are being paid at all, modern slavery exists unfortunately.)


Paid-Not-Payed-Bot t1_iuhku96 wrote

> are being paid at all,


Although payed exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:

  • Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. The deck is yet to be payed.

  • Payed out when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. The rope is payed out! You can pull now.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.

Beep, boop, I'm a bot


archetypaldream t1_iuhn9dl wrote

I have a friend in California who leaves his competitively paid tile job every year during harvest just to pick strawberries. Apparently they make a pretty penny.


perceptusinfinitum t1_iuhwrbk wrote

This friend of yours was harvesting cannabis and lying to you about strawberries. They grow 8 inches from the ground bending up and down being paid by the weight. If you buy strawberries for $5/pint retail, the pickers are getting maybe a .25 piece. It is an insanely low paying job for the simple yet back breaking job.


archetypaldream t1_iuii7ea wrote

No, he wasn't lying. Where we worked at the tile/granite shop was within walking distance of the strawberry fields, and there's no reason to think he was lying. There is a difference between the estimates you make sitting on your couch and real life involving real people. I did not pick the strawberries so I can't tell you exactly how its done or the profit margin or whatever, but I doubt he came up with this cockamamie story for fun every year. Also, there were plenty among us involved in the marijuana industry and zero shame surrounding it. No one would have cared if he was trimming christmas trees instead.


avocadro t1_iui5bva wrote

Wouldn't 25 cents apiece be an insane rate for pickers? Pick one every 15 seconds and make $60 an hour?


Arne-lille t1_iuhocvg wrote

In Denmark the farmers enjoy exploitation, and so pick up the phone, and calls the slavetraders in Poland each year.


Octaeon t1_iui1fd7 wrote

That's cool and all, but I can't help but wonder if it's worth it.

How much does it cost up front? How does it perform in less than ideal conditions? How often does it need maintenance or repair? How much is repair? How much electricity does it consume, and is the yield worth more than the electricity cost?


Geneocrat t1_iuilvsx wrote

There is no way in hell that thing is scalable.

The energy required to recognize the fruit, the place to pick it, what to do if it’s windy and moving… all that would be very energy intensive, like mining bitcoin server farm type of energy.

Then you have to believe many stems break and the fruit drops, or the fruit isn’t ready yet and you need to judgmentally follow up with a second crew in 2 days or whatever.

The machine would have to cost at least a million and any repair would be expensive as well. For a million dollars you could have a city of decently paid seasonal workers (ok well 250 workers with monthly expense of $4,000, so maybe a small village).

So initial cost plus energy plus upkeep plus net product gain loss (I’d like to the video of this machine working in rain or less than ideal conditions), I’m guessing the prospect of replacing humans is way down the line.

Disclaimer; I’m not a farmer.


muchcharles t1_iujosdj wrote

> The energy required to recognize the fruit

Have you actually worked this out? ML inference is much less energy intensive than training.


-ummon- t1_iuiddrx wrote

It would certainly be nice to know that. Also, can it run at night?


tatleoat t1_iui7zco wrote

Something natural and even kinda birdlike in the way it moves that feels substantially smoother than what these procedural robots looked like even a year ago


the68thdimension t1_iuhymdy wrote

That looks extremely energy intensive. But it sure is nice to free humans from such laborious, manual work.


Wassux t1_iui3sbg wrote

Why? It's just one arm and a computer?


[deleted] t1_iuitqcf wrote



Wassux t1_iuivs76 wrote

Yeah but heavy doesn't mean it uses much more energy, heavy is just a problem if you're changing speed a lot, which I don't think they do.

Nothing a few solar panels can't provide


sir_duckingtale t1_iuis83i wrote

“They are not born,

But grown in massive fields…”


Black_RL t1_iuhwyyq wrote

This is spectacular!!!!



TheKonan t1_iui5gwv wrote

This looks nice and is manufactured well but also is probably inefficient and prone to many malfunctions.


Anen-o-me OP t1_iujjpun wrote

Not really. The motors on these are robust, used in manufacturing for decades now.


Thorusss t1_iuj0zgg wrote

And while the camera arm is there already, with a small upgrade, it could also remove unwanted insects physically.


Anen-o-me OP t1_iujjbeq wrote

They could hit insects with a laser for chemical free pest control.


Happymachine t1_iuj9zxe wrote

Interesting, but how is a multimillion dollar robot like that going to be profitable for farmers?


Anen-o-me OP t1_iujj6so wrote

It's not that expensive for one thing.


ihateshadylandlords t1_iujclm0 wrote

Very glad to see this in production, although some migrant farm workers may not be happy to see it.


SilkyEnchilada t1_iuivlth wrote

Nice to see. Robots taking yet more jobs. Sheesh.