Submitted by altmorty t3_11ay25h in technology
Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9uymys wrote
Reply to comment by PEVEI in Almost 40% of domestic tasks could be done by robots ‘within decade’ by altmorty
Yeah, an and it took about 50 years for washing machines to become "automated" and another 40 to become a household staple (post-WWII).
Dishwashers were invented in the 1850's, electric dishwashers were invented in the 1910's, and it took another 40 years until they became commercially viable to anyone that was not extremely wealthy. Same thing, post-WWII.
A modern (as we think of it today) PC was not viable to the middle class range until the mid-90's.
Shit, I grew up in the 80's and I can vividly remember seeing the price for a Macintosh in 1984 was $2500 not adjusted for inflation. That amounts to almost $7,200 today. The first computer in my house that my middle class parents could afford was the Tandy model in like 1988, and that was still like a grand at the time.
So yeah, sure. Push the timeframe out long enough and all technology will inevitably become commercially viable for the middle and even lower class.
But 10 years? Bruh. ChatGPT is out there right now saying that Walter Mondale beat Jimmy Carter in Democratic primary in the 1980 Presidential election.
altmorty OP t1_j9v1vzq wrote
Tech moves far more rapidly than it did back then.
>Shit, I grew up in the 80's and I can vividly remember seeing the price for a Macintosh in 1984 was $2500 not adjusted for inflation. That amounts to almost $7,200 today. The first computer in my house that my middle class parents could afford was the Tandy model in like 1988, and that was still like a grand at the time.
That's weird. There were plenty of way more affordable home computers back then. The ZX Spectrum was £125 (~$188) in 1982.
sooprvylyn t1_j9vt96h wrote
The spectrum was barely more than a gaming system, and it was not particularly useful for business/home office related tasks. Home computers started to become a bit more popular in mid 80s, but they did cost like $2k+ in 80s dollars. When we got one around 87ish it was a big fucking deal. It had a monochrome screen, a dot matrix printer with punched paper feed, took massive floppies and didnt do shit other than some spreadsheets, word processing and was command prompt based.
Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v2pqd wrote
Tech absolutely does move faster, but to assume that we have ever gone from "nothing" to "viable enough in the modern middle-class home that it fully replaces tasks" is not a 10-year mark. Never has been.
PEVEI t1_j9v01r4 wrote
So what's your point? Cease technological process because there's a lag between invention and mass adoption?
Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v0pxr wrote
I need a whoosh gif for you. I really do.
I'll break it down for you here, step by step:
- The article says that 40% of household tasks could be automated in 10 years.
- I comment that the timeline is ludicrous because that tech this is going to be too expensive for this timeframe to be realistic.
- You bring up 3 technologies that people said would be too expensive to own.
- I show that all three examples of technology absolutely in no way went from hypothetical to middle-class reality within 3 generations, let alone 10 years.
So my point is, and I hope you've made it this far...
The idea that 40% of tasks in a home will be automated within the next 10 years is bullshit.
PEVEI t1_j9v0wz1 wrote
Got it, so you just disagree with the timeframe on the basis of evidence from... the Industrial Revolution.
Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v122h wrote
I just used the examples you laid out, hoss.
Oh, and the PC isn't from the Industrial Revolution. And it still took nearly 40 years.
Here. Let's use something more modern. Self-driving cars. That's almost a thing now, right? Almost commercially viable? Probably what, 10-12 years away before it becomes possible on a mid-range sedan like the Ford Fusion?
Wanna know how long the self-driving car has been a theoretical "just around the corner" innovation? They've been talking about it since the mid-50's.
PEVEI t1_j9v15o5 wrote
I think you may be struggling with what "PC" means.
Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v1eph wrote
I think you may be struggling with what "commercially viable to the masses" means.
In 1984, when the Macintosh came out, less than 10% of homes had any version of what can be known as a PC.
PEVEI t1_j9v1mnl wrote
Not really, it's just that mass adoption has to start somewhere; you object to that in principle, I don't.
Oh sorry, I mean... you object to the time frame in the headline.
Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v1y2b wrote
Please point out where I have said that I object to mass adoption.
Seriously. Point it out. I wanna see where your disconnect is. Because all I have said... Since this has started... And I will say it again... Straight copy/pasted from my previous posts...
The idea that 40% of tasks in a home will be automated within the next 10 years is bullshit.
How does that equate to my objecting to mass adoption?
PEVEI t1_j9v2424 wrote
> Oh sorry, I mean... you object to the time frame in the headline.
You missed that? Not sure I can help if so.
Putting aside your objection to the 10 year mark though, what's the issue?
Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v3b44 wrote
Have I said I had an issue outside of that? The article is garbage because of the headline and it's inference that this can all be done in that timeframe.
Beyond that, the headline is even MORE garbage because the researcher says nothing specifically about "robots". She talks about automation.
The best part is that in the article... And this really is the best part...
The researcher says essentially the exact same thing I did in my first comment.
Here's the quote:
> But she told the BBC that the expense of technology meant the use of household robots could also lead to “a rise of inequality in free time” - with only richer households able to afford the technology.
Huh... With only richer households able to afford the technology.
PEVEI t1_j9v3ikh wrote
You just seem very agitated about a mundane part of life: technology takes time to move past the realm of early adopters who can afford it, until it becomes ubiquitous and life changing for everyone.
Mister_Jay_Peg t1_j9v3x58 wrote
If that's what you think I'm "agitated" about, then man... You should go back and re-read it all.
I've said the article itself is garbage a number of times. I've never said anything against the fact that tech takes time. In fact, it's been my number one point as to WHY the article is garbage.
Heijoshinn t1_j9wh4ka wrote
Lol and now you're agreeing with the guy you've been debating with who first made that exact same statement through example?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments