A future without jobs

Submitted by cummypussycat t3_zy918g in singularity

A many people here believe a future where jobs are not a necessity is a good thing. Everyone can just chill and do whatever they like. Rainbows and sunshine.

I disagree. I think that belief is naive. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it will happen. We already have the tech to end world poverty. There are very rich people who can improve entire cities without spending a huge portion of their money. What holds then back? Humans have a propensity to make others lesser. Just because they have everything, doesn't mean they will like seeing every one happy.

I don't know how will a vast majority of jobs becoming automated will affect economy. I searched few economy subreddit and most people on those subreddits don't even know what machine learning is.

I think a couple of corporations will automated everything and gain majority of money of people. They they will stop those businesses because people don't have money. Then they will start giving a monthly living package to people that will barely be sufficient to survive. I think the only job that future will hold for many people is prostitution.

A few countries will bring regulations tax majority of those corporations and give people a satisfactory living package. But only on countries that care about their people. I think that will only happen in a few European countries.

Anyway, do you guys know if any sci-fi books that talk about machine learning and automation and ai(not agi)? . I haven't found any.

Edit - oh hey, what happens if a human like robot gets a brain powerd by a machine learning models that learned from every porno in existence? Yeah, my prostitution job is also fucked

1

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

pre-DrChad t1_j24htcy wrote

I find it funny you say all this doomer shit, and then end with asking for sci fi book recommendations. Sci fi is the reason everyone thinks so negatively of the singularity. Try reading science, not fiction. It’s better for the mind

20

cummypussycat OP t1_j24jnor wrote

Hey man, it's just a discussion post. Comment why you think future will be better. I'm not pessimistic about tech. My only doubt is human nature.

Also this is not a echo chamber right? Only by thinking about bad shit, can we take measures to prevent them.

And no, there exists many sci-fi books that talks positively about science. I don't think we would even be at this point I'd not for sci-fi

11

pre-DrChad t1_j24liai wrote

Why the future will be better? Well you mentioned poverty. I think you should acknowledge the fact that poverty has been decreasing as technology increases.

Medical advances due to technology will greatly reduce suffering in the future.

And no this sub is not an echo chamber but I don’t want it to be another futurology which is just filled with a bunch of ignorant doomers.

11

bluegman10 t1_j24stk5 wrote

>And no this sub is not an echo chamber

Yeaaaaaah, I'm going to disagree with you there. I mean, technically, every sub is an echo chamber, but some subs just go above and beyond.

5

cummypussycat OP t1_j24refl wrote

Is puberty being decreased? Yeah may be in developed countries, but not in mine.

But yeah, crime rate is lower and medical advancements and human lifespan have improved, they will improve even more with ai.

I'll check out that subreddit

4

Cuissonbake t1_j26cto1 wrote

I lurk in a lot of places online. It's kinda impossible to avoid doomer thoughts. A lot of people are feeling that way. Hope it gets better.

3

dasnihil t1_j24ptv2 wrote

to get it straight, you do want the "rainbows & sunshine" society, but you're just negative about the rich ppl letting it happen, yes?

as humanity has progressed, rich people have become outliers, what majority wants will eventually happen, although there will be billionaires and corrupt governments exploiting the system, i do see a ray of optimism that humans will converge to end the suffering one way or the other.

3

gantork t1_j24hjy3 wrote

Rich people/corporations/whatever not spending their money now to end poverty "makes sense" because money and resources are still limited so they are hoarding something of value.

Once everything is automated this might become truly meaningless and economically there would no difference between keeping everyone poor and angry or in great living conditions.

11

cummypussycat OP t1_j24iuct wrote

Once everything became automated, a few megacorps will get very very rich. I think they will very quickly spend those money to buy all the resources they can. Islands, cities, militaries.. before money become obsolete. (I read somewhere bill gates owns a large percentage of farmlands?) Then they and theirs will live happily ever after, forcing others to live in poverty, for their satisfaction.

Maybe governments will bring regulations and massive taxes before things get to that level

3

4e_65_6f t1_j24n7n7 wrote

>forcing others to live in poverty, for their satisfaction.

Think of it like this, would you rather have everything and be liked by everyone. Or have everything and be hated by everyone?

Humans are a social species, there's no profit from elon shitposting on twitter (in fact it costs him money) yet he still does it every day.

8

aeblemost t1_j24qm1b wrote

But he could have finansed something filantropic instead of buying Twitter. He can still do that right now. Why would rich people not just continue hoarding wealth? Elon Musk is choosing to be ridiculed instead of being seen as a 'saviour'. I think you are putting a lot of faith on human rationality.

2

4e_65_6f t1_j24rgi8 wrote

>Why would rich people not just continue hoarding wealth?

Because without labor there's no costumers, without costumers the meaning of wealth itself changes. You're not gonna be able to sell the stuff afterwards and even if you did there's no point in it because your factory is the one making everything.

The only reason I could think of for a person in that situation to continue uselessly hoarding is if they're stupid. If that's the case then we're truly fucked.

3

Shinyblade12 t1_j24s7gc wrote

i have bad news for you

4

4e_65_6f t1_j24t6p6 wrote

In the worst case scenario where a single moron has access to ASI on his own, I think that any ASI worth a fuck would tell them there's no point in hoarding resources further.

3

timespender t1_j24rn5h wrote

What powers would these governments have in that scenario, after all assets have been turned private?

0

MasterFubar t1_j24xyq2 wrote

> forcing others to live in poverty, for their satisfaction.

Seriously, you should seek a mental health expert ASAP. The fact that you started this whole discussion shows that you're suffering from depression, but this comment here is much worse, you're paranoid.

Go seek a psychiatrist before you break over and do something that could harm yourself and others.

0

Clean_Livlng t1_j26nx5g wrote

>The fact that you started this whole discussion shows that you're suffering from depression

You're probably joking, but it's a joke in bad taste.

Using an accusation of mental illness in a 'point scoring' way to argue against what someone's said isn't the best thing to do.

Accusing someone of being mentally ill isn't a good habit to have when debating someone.

​

Edit: I agree with you about them being incorrect in a big way, and out of touch with the way things work. As we all are (or most people), when it comes to different subjects.

3

MasterFubar t1_j28bze4 wrote

It's not a joke, I've met people who were diagnosed with clinical depression and their thoughts are exactly like what OP is posting.

"A Future Without Jobs"... Lets see how reality works. Two hundred years ago, 95% of the people worked on farms. Today only 5% of the people in industrialized countries are farm workers. 90% of the jobs we had back then disappeared, are we living in a future without jobs?

And their attitude towards rich people. "People who are rich are people who enjoy seeing the suffering of the poor". Really, how paranoid can you be. Rich people are people like anyone else, they are rich because they are interested in markets and investments and businesses. I'm not rich because I'm not interested in those subjects, they bore me. If you like a subject and study it a lot you'll become good at it, that's how you become rich.

This sub is a magnet for the depressed and the paranoid, they post their crap here and they think they are right because other depressed and paranoid people come here to agree with all this bullshit.

0

Clean_Livlng t1_j28ftst wrote

"a future without jobs" is usually based on the idea that AI will be able to do anything humans could do for work, or enable one person to do the work of so many others that there's a major job shortage.

It's one way things could go, I guess. But it's also possible that we'll just have new work to replace the old. I don't know nearly enough about it to know which is more likely, as it depends a lot of how quickly we're able to improve AI.

If we have a fuel shortage due to peak oil in the future, manual labour for agriculture could be an important job. But that's not a certainty, and lack of fuel for farm machinery might not happen due to various reasons.

Some might call me naive for this, but I think a lot of rich people aren't that bad. They don't want society to collapse into chaos with most people starving, that'd be hell for them. Those are their customers, and the thought of their customers not having money to buy their products might be an unsettling thought for rich people.

The breakdown of order is rarely a good thing for the rich if it happens in their own backyard. At best, it'd make them prisoners of their own estate. Unable to go out in public because it was so lawless that they'd be at risk. That's what would likely happen if the majority of people couldn't get jobs, and also weren't given the money/resources needed to survive. Nobody important wants that.

Rich people like playing the game of wealth. The masses being out of work and starving is a threat to their lives and property. They could spend a fraction of their income on keeping the people fed, stop society collapsing, and bask in the praise of the people.

This is a far out hypothetical, but if jobs ceased to exist and the government wasn't giving people a UBI or food to live, corporations might step up and create the new job of 'consumer'. Everyone gets a corporation funded UBI, with or without strings attached. People have money to buy products, the system keeps working.

Or maybe something else happens. What do you think is most likely in terms of the job situation in the future? What kinds or categories of jobs could there be that most haven't thought of?

Just as a farmer hundreds of years ago couldn't have imagined someone would make a living doing commentary for Esports games, perhaps we can't imagine what jobs there might be in the future.

​

Whatever happens, we will have plenty to eat, and my gut feeling is that things are going to be awesome.

2

cummypussycat OP t1_j27shkq wrote

How out of touch with reality are you? When bad things happen, first to break down would be naive, privileged assholes like you.

And no, I'm not depressed. And I don't think you are suitable to diagnose me or anyone else. In fact, your comment reveals you own deep rooted mental problems

Again, my doubts are not ai, it's human asswipes in power that use those ai. Asswipes like you

1

Affectionate-Food912 t1_j24icnw wrote

I think all jobs we currently know will slowly be automated, but there will be a whole new sector of jobs and places where people can find meaning in virtual worlds.

Probably in 20 years or so, minimum-wage level UBI will be a thing in most European countries. And virtual worlds will be where people will go to try and get rich (not prostitution). Almost anyone will be able to afford a VR headset and live a much more enjoyable live in virtual worlds compared to real life. Graphics will probably be almost up to par with real life.

There will be rich and poor but I think life as a poor person in 2040 or so will still be quite enjoyable.

5

cummypussycat OP t1_j24kj9j wrote

Yeah it's possible. 20 years back, nobody predicted machine learning, not ai, will be this much of a game changer. In 20 years, it's possible there will be many jobs we cannot even comprehend now.

2

rixtil41 t1_j24yjft wrote

Why does there always have to be jobs this is a big fallacy to me.

6

turnip_burrito t1_j2785nr wrote

There will likely still be jobs people make for themselves in order to exchange goods and services of value (time with others, personal products), but not necessary to recieve basic life necessities plus basic luxury allowance.

3

rixtil41 t1_j279cwh wrote

But if can make everything my self self-sufficiency why would I need to go to others ?

1

turnip_burrito t1_j27a6y8 wrote

There's still scarcity of authentic human goods and services, even in a world where AI can provide any physical good or service. For example, if you wanted to buy a new statue or art piece a famous artist made or spend time with them, you could pay them money for it. This is a way of keeping tabs on how much people in the optional society of goods owe each other. This economy still has scarcity (there is only ONE authentic item or experience), and many people value that authenticity over a copy. It's the same reason why a copy of the Mona Lisa is worth much less than the real Mona Lisa.

2

rixtil41 t1_j27dxrn wrote

So there will be scarcity it just won't matter in the long term. I dont value authenticity if it's close enough.

1

turnip_burrito t1_j27ekih wrote

That's fine, not everyone values the same things. Other people may value it though, so there would be a marketplace for them.

2

Mihrcelium t1_j24tjwc wrote

>Yeah it's possible. 20 years back, nobody predicted machine learning, not ai, will be this much of a game changer.

This is offensively false. The AI field has existed for 40+ years, and there absolutely have been those knowledgeable in the space who have made predictions about the possible impact(s) of machine intelligence on human society.

5

Clean_Livlng t1_j26mlu9 wrote

By 'nobody' they might mean 'most people'...possibly. Not literally 0 people making the prediction. But they could also mean nobody, in which case they're incorrect.

1

Cryptizard t1_j24m0x0 wrote

I think you are confused about what it means to be an ultra-rich billionaire. They are not sitting on billions of dollars of cash and just choosing not to use it to help people. They are “worth” billions of dollars because they own companies that are worth that much. The companies are doing things that are valuable to society, which is why they are worth that money in the first place.

Yes, Elon Musk could try to liquidate Tesla and use that money to feed the poor or whatever, but then nobody is making electric cars, thousands of employees are fired and lose their income/health insurance, research on battery tech stops, etc. It’s not clear this is even a net benefit.

4

commandersprocket t1_j24zui4 wrote

While this is true for Musk (who has started a list of innovative companies) it is not true of most ultra-rich billionaires. The top 20 list (the top 20 of the Fortune 400) is the Mars, Walton, and Koch families (all inherited wealth, all funding reactionary political agenda), Serge Brin and Larry Page (no longer with Google), Bill Gates (no longer with Microsoft), Larry Ellison, Phil Night (no longer with Nike), Micheal Dell, Micheal Bloomberg, Steve Ballmer, Jeff Bezos and ex-wife Mackenzie Scott and Warren Buffet. As a group, they ARE 100% "sitting on billions of cash" (most have largely divested of their initial companies) and choosing not to use it to help people (with the notable exception of Mackenzie Scott). Musk via SpaceX/Tesla/Boring company/Neuralink IS the only one creating additional value to society...the rest are just milking their wealth via financial advisors and buying yachts/mansions/sports teams/congresspeople to show other wealthy people how wealthy/power they have.

2

Cryptizard t1_j251li2 wrote

Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomburg and Warren Buffet have pledged to (and already started) give all their money away. Bill Gates has almost single-handedly eradicated polio around the world.

Anyway, none of these people are holding onto cash. They have investments in other companies, which if they just liquidated would, again, cause a lot of damage to those companies, their employees and the other investors. Those companies are doing something helpful to society or else they wouldn't be making money.

1

NinjaRapGoGoGoGo t1_j24fsn7 wrote

Yeah it'd be nice if we could reorganize society in a positive way but I think it's far more likely the powers that be let a good majority of us starve to death, homeless.

3

cummypussycat OP t1_j24l07l wrote

Unfortunately, that's what I too see. They say history repeats.

I think one thing that might be able to change something like that, is the creation of agi

1

CesareGhisa t1_j25upqb wrote

in my opinion only jobs in the digital domain will be affected (banking, office jobs, etc). jobs done entirely or almost entirely on a computer. all other physical jobs will be impacted by ai in the sense that they will use ai as an additional tool, but the job will still be performed by a man (electrician, plumber, builder, etc.). I dont think millions of walking robots will take over all physical jobs in the next decades.

3

[deleted] t1_j24n6g6 wrote

I can't imagine either.

That we use technology for the first time to create work, or how we should distribute resources without work -> money.

2

cummypussycat OP t1_j24p68k wrote

Me neither. There needs to be more discussion about things like this. I don't know how or why people refuse to even think about it. Specially smart people. Economists.

2

[deleted] t1_j24ridt wrote

I have no answer as to why people refuse to think about it.

But with more topics like this, it starts.

Perhaps in the last few meters before the goal, it will become clear that humanity must agree on a goal. Otherwise, progress will stagnate.

Do we want to maintain gainful employment and the allocation of resources over it, or not? If not, how do we distribute? According to which system?

If we keep gainful employment, what is the value of a job that exists only to give a person employment?

How do we justify differences when any person with access to ki assistance can do any work, especially interlectural work?

I have no answers.

1

rixtil41 t1_j24xwj9 wrote

Because if they do a bunch of responses will be about how capitalism will live on in someway and what we have today will stay forever.

1

timespender t1_j24rij1 wrote

You are absolutely right and it is already happening

2

Rocketsloth t1_j251au6 wrote

That's why Billionares push the UBI idea so hard. UBI is capitalism on life support. UBI would be very wealthy institutions/states paying the absolute bare minimum to workers for survival (so as soon as you are given UBI you have to spend it on necessities). The money goes out to you the consumer and almost immediately goes back to the institution as profits. Workers keep working even in jobs that are redundant, but corporations keep making profits in an endless cycle. Most people would see that living just on UBI sucks. At that point, many people would then be coerced into contracts where a corporation would be willing to pay an individual more than standard UBI, but the terms of employment would be extremely favorable to the employer and harsh on the employee. Like the company basically controls your life for the duration of the contract. If you complain or resist, the company simply fires you, you go back on UBI, and the corporation hires another desperate sucker to replace you.

2

Ortus12 t1_j26pxbz wrote

The percentage of the world that is undernourished decreases over time, as the total wealth in the system grows.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/mdg1c-hunger

When we have a fully automated economy there there will be so much wealth in the system that the Uber rich won't mind being taxed. They'll still have their mega rockets to take vacations on mars, palaces under the ocean, and whatever else they want.

Think of it like this, the government could tax the uber rich enough to get five robots. Those five robots could build a robot factory and have a thousand robots in a year, and a billion robots in two years, building more robot factories, running and building vertical farms, building and running apartment buildings that go down underground for miles and are hundreds of miles wide, all with plumbing, electricity, internet, and sever farms capable of running super intelligence.

Some countries give all their citizens a house now, but eventually they'll be so much wealth in the system that every person could live in any city or anywhere they want and move whenever they want and Ai could just find an available place. You wouldn't even need to own a house, just lock up where-ever you are staying. When there's a hundred houses per person and that rate is growing exponentially, who cares.

More food than you could imagine. Anything you want, it's yours free. You won't need cars, just press a button in your phone and a nearby car picks you up and drives to your location and if you make a mess, another robot will clean it up.

And we'll have even more digital wealth in cyberspace, but that the physical wealth even the poorest have will be unimaginable.

When there's a million robots per person the idea of scarcity is gone. Tax the rich 1%, it doesn't matter, these robots will be replicating themselves at an exponential rate while self improving, and redesigning themselves.

We're living on the surface of the earth. The entire earth will be turned into one big apartment building essentially, and we'll be going out to other planets. The percentage of earth matter that is currently in human form is miniscule and already set to level off or decline, all that extra matter will be converted into services for us and the energy of the sun will be harnessed.

2

ActualPhilosopher862 t1_j29dqsi wrote

I think it will be what it has always been. We will get more efficient/productive, maybe even exponentially so, and that will mean there will be a lot more wealth. Everyone will be better off than they are now but everyone will keep complaining they don't have enough. Someone 100 years ago looking at the world today would think there is so much wealth and abundance that everyone must be happy. Someone lower middle class today had more comfort, art, access to knowledge, access to entertainment, etc. than the king of England did 500 years ago.

2

TheSecretAgenda t1_j24ojpg wrote

Kurt Vonnegut Player Piano.

The Expanse though it isn't the focus of the series it talks about people being on "Basic" a very minimal level welfare system and getting into training for the few remaining jobs being by lottery.

1

Desperate_Food7354 t1_j24v8g2 wrote

Even if that's true there's nothing that can be done about it. You yourself said it's human nature, at least someone will benefit.

1

rixtil41 t1_j24wvjo wrote

There's a huge difference between 1% of the population struggling and 90 % struggling. Poverty just isn't a big enough of a problem to be sloved right away even though it will get better.

1

musicofspheres1 t1_j25b00a wrote

Incentive fallacy. Jobs currently keep everyone from pursuing their passion. If jobs were automated, there would be more competition and time for people to develop themselves far more effectively than with what dismal amount of time is allotted after a grueling work week

1

Lawjarp2 t1_j25baxz wrote

You are right and wrong. You are right that it will probably not be rainbows and sunshine, things rarely are. You are wrong to assume that rich vs poor being the biggest threat.

By removing all jobs, you also remove all real power people have. You go against the government and want to protest. The worse is not them cracking down on you but just ignoring you. They don't care how long you do it. It doesn't matter anymore. No value is lost by some jobless people on strike. Try rioting and the robot police will clear you out efficiently.

Trade doesn't matter. Neighbouring or distant countries don't matter. You can demonise them and invade them to occupy and expand your machine population and resources. Imagine CCP in china gets AGI first, they could literally invade all their neighbours, take out every single enemy nation and even it's own dissidents and have no problem whatsoever.

1

Future_Believer t1_j25dtxw wrote

I think you are taking an unfortunate shorthand statement as a detailed analysis. It aint.

I don't think there will soon be guards outside of factories to fend off the hordes of humans wanting something to do. What I think will happen is that capitalism, as implemented in the current idiom, will cease to be a desirable influence. The book, Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber should help understanding my position. For those that just have to go to a place and do a thing, that will remain an option. But no one will indulge them in their fantasy that human society or environment actually needs them to go to a place and do a thing.

As a general rule, all of evolution is reactionary. Something changed whether anything wanted it to change or not and the evolution is the response to that change. We will evolve away from jobs because shit will change - whether we want that change or not.

1

Sieventer t1_j25lcfv wrote

Obviously prostitution will be automated. There are many ways. Not only by android robots, but also by Full-Dive VR.
The monopoly of the women's sexual market is in great danger, and it is one of the most urgent needs to be covered, therefore, one of those that will be replaced first.

1

TheDavidMichaels t1_j27aeod wrote

It is natural for people to fear change, and technological advancements can often be met with concern and uncertainty. However, the history of technological progress has shown that, while there may be temporary disruptions, the overall impact of technological change has been positive, leading to increased productivity, economic growth, and improved standards of living for many people.

The Industrial Revolution, the rise of automation, and the rise of the internet and digital technologies are all examples of major technological revolutions that have had significant impacts on employment and economic growth. While these changes have certainly led to some job loss, they have also created new job opportunities and led to overall economic growth.

Looking towards the future, it is likely that technological change will continue to shape the job market and the economy. While it is important to consider and address any potential negative impacts, it is also important to recognize the potential benefits of technological change and to invest in education and training to ensure that people have the skills needed to succeed in a rapidly changing job market. Despite any temporary disruptions, technological progress has the potential to improve our lives and create a brighter future for all of us.

1