Technology Automation

dowie · 27 Jan 2015 at 00:21

I don't see why the govt needs to do anything... the idea of the govt somehow enforcing the retention of roles that are no longer needed seems ridiculous...

while they're putting a halt to all this technological progressions perhaps they could ban tractors/combine harvesters and we'd be able to create/reclaim a bunch of manual jobs in farming - I mean more jobs that we don't actually require is supposed to somehow be a good thing (in the eyes of a luddite at least).

perhaps remove cash machines too, create more jobs for people in bank branches... in fact perhaps discourage people from using direct debit too - we should all queue up at the local post office on a monthly basis to pay bills because saving time/resources is bad if there was a human doing a job involved previously

adolf hamster · 27 Jan 2015 at 06:51

I recall reading there was a study done that said robotics/automation actually created an average of 2.2 jobs per robot, mostly as some companies would have gone under if they hadnt automated wheras losing a few staff was better than losing them all.

What will likely happen is the loss of lower end menial jobs replaced by more skilled jobs. For example the advent of robotic welding didnt kill off the welding profession, in fact it made it stronger as the majority of human welders are highly sought after if theyre quoted, as humans can still do a better job than machines.

Same goes for factory work, the robots do the dirty jobs and the humans who once did them are now looking after the robots.

Tl;dr robits make jerbs better

StriderX · 27 Jan 2015 at 07:18

The ultimate problem is that University level education becomes a requirement, i of course ignore the useless degrees that so many people seem to take.

If the world were to automate (and it damn well better), then that obviously means more programmers and maintenance engineers are needed, these people apparently need bosses, so managers come in and so on.

It is a fact that humans cause most accidents ( i should say incidents...), especially in transport, people are a liability and need to be removed from harming their clients and the business itself.

Quite frankly to underestimate a fully autonomous quantum processor, is asking for a slap.

SexyGreyFox · 27 Jan 2015 at 07:41

Working on assembly factories for 33 years I saw technology taking over peoples jobs all the time so it isn't new.
The earliest example for me in 1974 were the Michelin cars. These were 4 cars with 3 drivers each that were drove around all day wearing tyres down so they could be checked. I actually spent a little bit of time in a department that put those 4 drivers out of work.
Also in the same department (Technical Development) they were making a machine that would put dozens of women out of a job in the bicycle tyre shop.

scorza · 27 Jan 2015 at 08:12

Smokey Deza said:
Driverless cars work, make less error than human drivers.

When did this happen? http://www.businessinsider.com/googles-self-driving-cars-dont-work-in-rain-or-on-roads-2014-9

An MIT Technology Review report ... said that the cars rely so much on maps and detailed data that they can't drive themselves around 99% of the USA. It's not a promising outlook for Google's new project.

Although the vehicles have already driven 700,000 miles safely, there is clearly still a lot of testing still to do. The cars have yet to drive in snowy conditions and it's not yet safe to drive in heavy rain either.

If they can't even drive yet in 99% of the USA where everywhere is laid out in nice simple grids how the hell are they going to cope with a quaint village in Devon, or some European city? I think driver-less cars are a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, and one that won't be technologically viable in my lifetime (should have another 20 years in me hopefully). Google have too much money and are sinking it into white elephants like this and Google-glass - at least they've pulled the plug on the latter.

Freakbro · 27 Jan 2015 at 09:11

And it's not just at the manufacturing level that automation will hit, but creeping into the classical 'middle class' jobs, such as....accountancy.

No reason why a computer can't do my job, it's perfect for it to be honest.

I read an article about this some time ago, can't find it in full but this touches on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24058389

dowie · 27 Jan 2015 at 09:59

adolf hamster said:
I recall reading there was a study done that said robotics/automation actually created an average of 2.2 jobs per robot, mostly as some companies would have gone under if they hadnt automated wheras losing a few staff was better than losing them all.

What will likely happen is the loss of lower end menial jobs replaced by more skilled jobs. For example the advent of robotic welding didnt kill off the welding profession, in fact it made it stronger as the majority of human welders are highly sought after if theyre quoted, as humans can still do a better job than machines.

Same goes for factory work, the robots do the dirty jobs and the humans who once did them are now looking after the robots.

Tl;dr robits make jerbs better

well quite, people become quite short sighted with this, despite the fact the job market has shifted dramatically across generations there are some who seem to still make the same flawed assumptions about technological progress as people were making a few hundred years ago

I mean it could affect any area - how about mundane things in care homes... carers currently rushed of their feet mostly doing some pretty mundane tasks, responding to buzzers when people need to do simple things like going to the loo... if you could automate basic hygiene and going to the loo it would probably work well for both the elderly and the staff. You'd still require staff but they'd perhaps need more training and be in more of a monitoring role.

dowie · 27 Jan 2015 at 10:06

scorza said:
If they can't even drive yet in 99% of the USA where everywhere is laid out in nice simple grids how the hell are they going to cope with a quaint village in Devon, or some European city? I think driver-less cars are a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, and one that won't be technologically viable in my lifetime (should have another 20 years in me hopefully). Google have too much money and are sinking it into white elephants like this and Google-glass - at least they've pulled the plug on the latter.

They didn't even exist a few decades ago - you don't suppose they might improve/develop over time?

You could also initially start with a semi-automated scenario - certain roads, main motorways where you use the automated functionality and then switch to manual when coming off at a junction. It is after all things like long journeys where the automation is more useful and motorway driving is where it could prevent accidents - way too many people overtake badly and/or get too close to the vehicle in front.

Judgeneo · 27 Jan 2015 at 10:59

Automated driving will take over long distance haullage first, and probably sooner than most people think, but only for the motorway driving. I imagine that you will end up with stations at major cities around the world, where drivers pull into, get out, and let the automation drive the 300-3000 miles long distance, and the end of this the vehicle will pull into another station, where a driver will take over for the city driving, ensuring delivery etc..
Eventually, the drivers role will be replaced all together for most routes, but this is a long way off.

Its worth pointing out though, that the idea of "menial" and "low skilled" jobs being replaced by machinery/automation first isn't really true. Most of that has already happened.
The jobs that are likely to be replaced now are the complicated, process driven, jobs, as it costs a lot of money to pay people to do them. This is already happening, for example in web development, where improvements in technology have drastically reduced the skillset needed to create a decent website. In electronic engineering, most computer chips are designed in a large part by computers, reducing the skill needed by the average engineer.
There has been a lot of talk of welding as an example in this thread, welding is a skilled, process driven profession, it is still paid well, but imagine how much better paid they would be if the car industry still needed the thousands of welders that robots have replaced.

scorza · 27 Jan 2015 at 11:01

dowie said:
They didn't even exist a few decades ago - you don't suppose they might improve/develop over time?

You could also initially start with a semi-automated scenario - certain roads, main motorways where you use the automated functionality and then switch to manual when coming off at a junction. It is after all things like long journeys where the automation is more useful and motorway driving is where it could prevent accidents - way too many people overtake badly and/or get too close to the vehicle in front.

I remember seeing on Tomorrow's World (that long ago - in the pre-Google world) a company in California was developing driverless cars like you describe. The idea was that you'd join the freeway, move over into a special lane reserved for other driverless cars, then switch to automatic mode where you'd join a "train" of other driverless cars, the idea being that they could go at faster speeds with less space between cars thus reducing congestion. I suspect Google's efforts will ultimately change the world as much as these cars did.

dowie · 27 Jan 2015 at 11:10

scorza said:
I remember seeing on Tomorrow's World (that long ago - in the pre-Google world) a company in California was developing driverless cars like you describe. The idea was that you'd join the freeway, move over into a special lane reserved for other driverless cars, then switch to automatic mode where you'd join a "train" of other driverless cars, the idea being that they could go at faster speeds with less space between cars thus reducing congestion. I suspect Google's efforts will ultimately change the world as much as these cars did.

difference is google has developer driverless cars already... and a bunch of other manufacturers are too, give it a few years and rather than just cruise control you'll essentially switch to auto-pilot for motorway driving

Terminal_Boy · 27 Jan 2015 at 11:12

How many pages of legal caveats would the Owner's Manual need?

scorza · 27 Jan 2015 at 11:47

dowie said:
difference is google has developer driverless cars already... and a bunch of other manufacturers are too, give it a few years and rather than just cruise control you'll essentially switch to auto-pilot for motorway driving

No because this outfit had developed their driverless cars as well and were actually trialling it.

dowie · 27 Jan 2015 at 11:59

scorza said:
No because this outfit had developed their driverless cars as well and were actually trialling it.

name of outfit? link? source?

what happened to them - did they just dissapear, how far did they get in developing this or was their progress slightly exaggerated since this all seemingly happened on some TV show you watched a while ago?

Orionaut · 27 Jan 2015 at 13:24

Terminal_Boy said:
How many pages of legal caveats would the Owner's Manual need?

I doubt very much that anybody would ever privately "Own" a driver-less car. I suspect they will all operate under lease schemes and remain owned by (And therefore the legal responsibility of) the companies that manufacture them like the Robots in Isaac Asimovs world.

A really very dull and boring vision of future motoring IMO.

I just hope they never become compulsory.

dowie · 27 Jan 2015 at 13:53

Orionaut said:
I doubt very much that anybody would ever privately "Own" a driver-less car. I suspect they will all operate under lease schemes and remain owned by (And therefore the legal responsibility of) the companies that manufacture them like the Robots in Isaac Asimovs world.

doubt it very much - there are multiple companies developing these, no reason not to sell them - would be strange to actively want to retain liability too