How Canada’s oilsands are paving the way for driverless trucks — and the threat of big layoffs - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Big Johnson;47936940]You can't replace human creative thought. New ideas and new inventions, new theories, new methods. Simply irreplaceable. Until a machine can be capable of creative thought, which I'm pretty sure has a lot of ethical issues. [/QUOTE] Hey mate, I've got news for you: [URL]http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html[/URL] The 'Humans need not apply' had a quick slide with it where he says that explaining how general purpose robots work are out of the scope of the video. I'll give you two different things to look at that are exactly what makes emulating human creative thought possible: (wikipedia ftw) [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm[/URL] Combining the two of these you have a perfect working copy of a human brain. Read the waitbutwhy article and you'll see there's a lot of researchers in this field that believe we get a 'general intelligence' AI that is so much more intelligent than humans in this century. We already know how to create an artificial brain, what we have yet to solve are the ethical issues that arise. So yes, human creative thought is very possible to replace. Creativity is not a unique human trait, it stems from intelligence. When superintelligent AI becomes a thing and it produces the world's first ever nanotechnology, we are completely worthless. It can invent things that we could never even dream of and with the nanotechnology, it could build every single atom you could ever dream of, from any other matter. Turning garbage into food? Yep.

[QUOTE=Capsup;47937949]Combining the two of these you have a perfect working copy of a human brain.[/QUOTE] This is completely wrong, though. Human brain might work with neurons and the biological parallel with neurons and classically arranged neuron brains works when we try to apply it on brains of insects and other nonsense like that. It doesn't explain capability of abstraction (which we can already achieve through different things). Genetic algorithms are completely unlike anything human thinking uses as well on any major level. So if you combine these two, you get a perhaps perfectly working artificial intelligence capable of solving tasks given to it, and it may be universal, but saying it's "copy of human brain" is like saying that the linear pumps they can implant into people instead of hearts is a perfect copy of human heart. It's not a copy at all, not even on algorithmical level. It might have similar functionality, but it's not alike, which heavily implies the functionality will be at the very least very different, if not inferior. BTW, neural networks have been the rage a while ago, but in last decade or so, artificial intelligence research has been straying further and further away from it because of how horribly inefficient and resource intensive it is, and it's entirely possible that once we build something people will be willing to call "true AI", it won't use any of neural networks nor genetic algorithms, perhaps outside of some limited levels. And by the way I am saying this from the authority of somebody who's catively striving to participate on this research and development and genuinely hopes we will get to that goal, quickly.

[QUOTE=_RJ_;47936859]I'm interested in knowing which jobs automation couldn't "replace." I also like to think that humans are the irreplaceable catalyst to advancements.[/QUOTE] We will always need programmers to program robots, so there's at least one that came up to my mind.

[QUOTE=Big Johnson;47936940]You can't replace human creative thought. New ideas and new inventions, new theories, new methods. Simply irreplaceable. Until a machine can be capable of creative thought, which I'm pretty sure has a lot of ethical issues. [/quote] What do you consider to be a creative thought? Because I have firsthand worked with implemented algorithms that found "creative" solutions to problems, and their mathematical basis could be described on two or three sheets of paper. For example I worked with a tiny little binary program you gave a problem in so called STRIPS notation, for instance defining there's bananas at point A, a monkey at point B, and a box at point C, with the monkey being in need of bananas and only being capable of reaching them if the box is there. All you have to do is define the domain the problem is in, and the problem itself, and it finds you a solution to a completely abstract problem it doesn't have to have any further understanding of. This also further works when you for instance define a network of cities with roads between them and cargo strewn about the world. The algorithm very easily, on a standard PC, finds optimal ways the cars should take to deliver the cargo. Is that creative thought? Well, computers are already having a field day with it (and are significantly beyond in that kind of intelligence over pretty much all non-human animals). [quote] Hell if we can barely trust eachother how would we ever trust a nonhuman capable of creative thought[/QUOTE] Honestly? I can easily imagine trusting a non-human I understand (and ideally participated on creation of) than trusting a human, who might as well be perfectly impossible to understand. [editline]12th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Dark RaveN;47938065]We will always need programmers to program robots, so there's at least one that came up to my mind.[/QUOTE] Until we teach the robots to program (which is something that's being actively pursued in research).

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47936905]when the only real jobs left are incredibly specialized jobs you need extensive training for or education for, how will that EVER be enough for everyone? Let alone how do we deal with the unemployment issue as it comes to pass that those jobs are replaced, how do a slightly aged population who didn't prepare for the age of automation manage to make it through those years? Service jobs aren't going to last forever.[/QUOTE] Maybe people will finally realize that workforce exploitation free market is not the way to go in a long term (which it isn't with or without robots anyway, with income disparity skyrocketing every year etc) and that the economical-social system has to either adapt or be replaced. It's the only way, really.

[QUOTE=Antlerp;47937024]no human should have to waste their life away by driving a truck for most of their life[/QUOTE] 1. Some people enjoy that job. 2. Better than poverty.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;47935656]I mean, great, it's less lives in danger, but I feel like these aren't jobs that need to be automated. Someone will tell me that it's OK because it makes new jobs. Sure, it makes [B]new[/B] jobs - a few supervisors, a few maintainers, but in the end you have [B]less[/B] jobs. I believe in the right to profit margins but things like this give me pause. How many families won't be able to put food on the table as drivers and other crew members are laid off?[/QUOTE] Tax automated businesses and give more money to unemployed people. Automation of the workforce and people having to work less (or less people having to work) is a good thing for humanity as a whole. It's only a problem because our system is making it into one.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;47936210]I don't see that working, why would someone just give you money for work done by a robot made by someone else? I think that removing money entirely should be the end goal.[/QUOTE] Because we currently live in a society where if you do absolutely nothing productive, whether it's your fault, or not you're considered shit. (in the US anyway, shit's sad as hell. "Disability?! Put some glue on it and get back to work, slacker! Fuckin' welfare leeches!!! Nanny State amirite ladies and gentlemen?!") But since we also practically worship people who make shitloads of money with next to no effort (ie CEOs who inherited everything and did little else) having an exploitable robot labor force make money for us might be seen as acceptable considering they're more or less doing the same with people now.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;47936226] But something like that can only happen if EVERY job was done by a robot. What about until then?[/QUOTE] That is what the basic income is for, to keep people out of poverty during a very long transitional period. When I said end goal, I mean a long long way down the line, way out of our lifetimes. There are more problems than just automated jobs that we would need to overcome before it's possible. [QUOTE=Antdawg;47936340]No. Jobs change. If they didn't, 90% of people would still be working out on the fields just like in the old days. Primary and secondary industries in western countries have been declining for a long time but unemployment has generally been stable, close to the natural unemployment rate. Jobs will go into aged care and related industries as our populations get older.[/QUOTE] Except robots capable of looking after the elderly are in development right now. Practically every job can be replaced eventually, if you don't think they can then you aren't looking ahead far enough.

This is kinda sad for me since I was thinking of getting into this line of work. Call me weird, but I love working in remote and hostile areas, and you can bet your as I like driving massive trucks.

[QUOTE=Radley;47938813]This is kinda sad for me since I was thinking of getting into this line of work. Call me weird, but I love working in remote and hostile areas, and you can bet your as I like driving massive trucks.[/QUOTE] Well ur flagdog sorta explains it I guess

[QUOTE=squids_eye;47938747]That is what the basic income is for, to keep people out of poverty during a very long transitional period. When I said end goal, I mean a long long way down the line, way out of our lifetimes. There are more problems than just automated jobs that we would need to overcome before it's possible.[/QUOTE] Even when everybody would have basic income, I think mentally people wouldn't be able to handle being "irrelevant". You can't expect everyone to just have "fun and enjoy life" forever. I think for many it would be an empty, unfulfilled life with no goals, that would lead to depression.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47936864]The people on top won't find themselves on the other side unless civilization totally collapses, and by that point they won't be able to fix it. [editline]12th June 2015[/editline] Farming Jobs were replaced by machinery, so people moved onto factories. But factory jobs were out-sourced and those jobs were replaced by others, namely service and transportation. But those jobs are slowly becoming automated too now, some fast food restaurants have kiosks and some stores have self-checkout, and Google has proven that driverless vehicles [I]are[/I] possible. So once automation is cheap and reliable enough to replace 80% of these jobs, where are these people gonna go?[/QUOTE] Anywhere else, of course. Who could tell? As machinery has replaced human labor in all those fields you mentioned, humans have created tons of new industries and careers out of literally thin air. Think of marketing, journalism, programming, graphic design, fashion, psychology, elderly care and many other health related occupations, etc.. These are all mostly 20th century occupations, that popped up because as automation enabled the improvement of the life quality of more and more people, these people moved on from more basic needs like 'getting 3 meals a day' or 'making sure we have access to water' to commodity 'needs' like wanting better clothing, more specialized health care, entertainment, yadda yadda. "but these are skilled jobs!" -Well, access to education (and particularly, advanced education) also increases, therefore you end up having more and more skilled workers. Automation gives us more productivity, more time and saves money. When people have more of these, usually they don't just sit around and do nothing. They take advantage of it and move on to something new, which in turn sparks more innovation and more occupations for humans to take over.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;47938847]Even when everybody would have basic income, I think mentally people wouldn't be able to handle being "irrelevant". You can't expect everyone to just have "fun and enjoy life" forever. I think for many it would be an empty, unfulfilled life with no goals, that would lead to depression.[/QUOTE] There is nothing stopping people from creating their own goals, you just have to shift the dedication that goes into a career into hobbies instead. I think the attitude of feeling a need to work is a consequence of modern society's obsession with everyone pulling their weight, when that isn't necessary anymore it won't be as much of an issue but there will need to be a period of adjustment.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;47939026]There is nothing stopping people from creating their own goals, you just have to shift the dedication that goes into a career into hobbies instead. I think the attitude of feeling a need to work is a consequence of modern society's obsession with everyone pulling their weight, when that isn't necessary anymore it won't be as much of an issue but there will need to be a period of adjustment.[/QUOTE] I think you are being too optimistic. How many examples do we have of rich and famous people who have it all and got completely messed up, or live pointless lives no matter how glamorous they seem from the outside ? Let's say it's just 1% (and we know it's more), not much, but on a population of few billion, I think it will be a huge problem. I think no hobby can replace a feeling of contributing and having a place in this world. The adjustment you are talking about were we don't feel the need to contribute sounds to me it would turn us back into animals who do nothing with their lives.

Heh, I live in Fort McMurray. I can confirm the brutal weather here. But we also have 3 stinkin' hot months of summer, too! Which is nice. Also just got laid off due to the lack of work up here from the falling/unstable oil prices. :<

[QUOTE=OvB;47936070]The moment you're wage is more that keeping a robot for the same time that can do the same work, you're gone.[/QUOTE] So glad I'm going to take business and entrepreneurship.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;47942272]So glad I'm going to take business and entrepreneurship.[/QUOTE] We've had calculators for a while. Its only a matter of time.

Automation has been coming for close to 100 years now- welcome to the Industrial Age. Transportation is just next of the low hanging fruit trees. Trucking, taxi, shipping, and soon personal vehicles will all be automated. And to be fair the whole automation took our jobs thing has been going on for close to 100 years as well. Look toward the future or be left behind...

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet in the thread but automation is gonna hit us like a freight train in the next 10 years max, the second that the US automates their trucking industry you're talking a minimum of a few million drivers laid off and that alone is an unemployment crisis. Then on top of that you have all the amenities built up specifically to service those folks like all those diners in the middle of nowhere, all the fuel stations that are there purely to cater to long haul truckers and shit like motels. We're talking a significant number of people in the US alone will be out of a job within 10-20 years. This IS going to happen whether or not you believe it and we need to address it as a species as soon as possible.

I doubt the US government will be willing to adapt to this in time. But I am pretty sure that the resulting crisis will force their hand.

wooh robots will replace everyone and then we'll have some cyberpunk shit on our hands to deal with

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;47942462]I doubt the US government will be willing to adapt to this in time. But I am pretty sure that the resulting crisis will force their hand.[/QUOTE] If not then at least all the super rich finally get to use their little hideaways to make sure they're not strung up from the lamp posts.

[QUOTE=barttool;47938991]Anywhere else, of course. Who could tell? As machinery has replaced human labor in all those fields you mentioned, humans have created tons of new industries and careers out of literally thin air. Think of marketing, journalism, programming, graphic design, fashion, psychology, elderly care and many other health related occupations, etc.. These are all mostly 20th century occupations, that popped up because as automation enabled the improvement of the life quality of more and more people, these people moved on from more basic needs like 'getting 3 meals a day' or 'making sure we have access to water' to commodity 'needs' like wanting better clothing, more specialized health care, entertainment, yadda yadda. "but these are skilled jobs!" -Well, access to education (and particularly, advanced education) also increases, therefore you end up having more and more skilled workers. Automation gives us more productivity, more time and saves money. When people have more of these, usually they don't just sit around and do nothing. They take advantage of it and move on to something new, which in turn sparks more innovation and more occupations for humans to take over.[/QUOTE] But this entire concept is flawed, we can't just take the "it'll fix itself" approach, even though I'm damn sure that's exactly what we'll do, and we'll see the consequences as a result. We're doing the same damn thing with global warming, we have multi-million dollar propaganda campaigns just to tell people it's not real, so we don't have to fix it. We can't even provide our people with basic healthcare, because we believe if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it. It's horrible. Today, right now, lots of people are already struggling to find jobs, struggling to get education. People go to college for years, then work at McDonald's because the field they went in for won't hire them because they're not experienced, or because older workers haven't retired yet. People who haven't gone to college are of course in the same boat. I know people who have 2 jobs and an empty fridge, because the hours are short and the wages are shit. I honestly have little faith that we'll get our shit together and enact a universal wage for people, because that money has to come from above, and the people above will be damned if the people below see more than a few cents of their cash. So instead we'll just pretend there's no problem as millions of people slowly lose jobs we either don't replace, or we replace 1 in 30 with a highly specialised job instead.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;47938729]Because we currently live in a society where if you do absolutely nothing productive, whether it's your fault, or not you're considered shit. (in the US anyway, shit's sad as hell. "Disability?! Put some glue on it and get back to work, slacker! Fuckin' welfare leeches!!! Nanny State amirite ladies and gentlemen?!") But since we also practically worship people who make shitloads of money with next to no effort (ie CEOs who inherited everything and did little else) having an exploitable robot labor force make money for us might be seen as acceptable considering they're more or less doing the same with people now.[/QUOTE] Its especially bad in the US. Its pretty shameful that we are pretty much the [i]only[/i] first world country that doesn't require employers to offer maternity leave or PTO. They are viewed as things that will destroy businesses and hurt the economy.

[QUOTE=Demache;47942899]Its especially bad in the US. Its pretty shameful that we are pretty much the [i]only[/i] first world country that doesn't require employers to offer maternity leave or PTO. They are viewed as things that will destroy businesses and hurt the economy.[/QUOTE] A bit misleading as maternity leave can be taken under FMLA laws. As for the question of if paid maternity leave, paid time off, or sick pay would hurt businesses (and by extension the economy)- how could it not hurt? You're asking for employers to pay employees to not work- of course that's going to have financial repercussions.

i don't see basic income happening ever, with the exception of the odd case(like switzerland), too many people hate anything "socialist", unless shit gets so bad it starts affecting most of the middle-class(which eventually will), then you might have change. i think you guys are too optimistic.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;47943154]A bit misleading as maternity leave can be taken under FMLA laws. As for the question of if paid maternity leave, paid time off, or sick pay would hurt businesses (and by extension the economy)- how could it not hurt? You're asking for employers to pay employees to not work- of course that's going to have financial repercussions.[/QUOTE] [quote]The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take [b]unpaid, job-protected leave[/b] for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave.[/quote] I mean its better than nothing. You'll at least keep your job. But even that wasn't a thing until the 90s and still had a lot of controversy surrounding it, despite not really hurting businesses at all in retrospect. The financial impact is a fair thing to discuss. It comes with the territory. And there probably should be exceptions for very small businesses. But considering tons of other nations have minimum PTO, I highly doubt its impossible to do in the US.

[QUOTE=Demache;47942899]Its especially bad in the US. Its pretty shameful that we are pretty much the [i]only[/i] first world country that doesn't require employers to offer maternity leave or PTO. They are viewed as things that will destroy businesses and hurt the economy.[/QUOTE] The only people that deserve free rides are corporations.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47942558]But this entire concept is flawed, [B]we can't just take the "it'll fix itself" approach[/B], even though I'm damn sure that's exactly what we'll do, and we'll see the consequences as a result. We're doing the same damn thing with global warming, we have multi-million dollar propaganda campaigns just to tell people it's not real, so we don't have to fix it. We can't even provide our people with basic healthcare, because we believe if you can't afford it, you don't deserve it. It's horrible.[/QUOTE] Well that's exactly what humanity has been doing for basically its entire existance, and it's pretty much impossible to "change course". Populations change, nations come and go, new technologies come along so disruptive they change fundamentally the way civilizations work, things collapse and we end up re arranging ourselves over and over again. This automation problem is not a matter of "it'll get fixed" or "can we fix it" but whether our current society (as it exists today) can endure it.