The Robot Revolution-like the Industrial Revolution

[RosieTR]

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489490830/presidential-campaigns-are-talking-around-the-robot-in-the-room?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20160810&utm_campaign=npr_email_a_friend&utm_term=storyshare

This is the theory that robots and eventually perhaps androids will take over more and more of the jobs that humans currently do. If handled well, we eventually get to a sort of Star Trekian utopia where humans concentrate on their own self-improvement and enjoy family and friends (kind of a mustachian dream, really). If handled poorly, it goes more toward various dystopian worlds like Elysium (or the Terminator franchise at the extreme end). On the one hand, we survived the Industrial Revolution, but on the other, it was a rough ride.
Thought folks would find this interesting, anyway.

[Papa Mustache]

Yes, I for one want to hear more discussion about this.

I think we might free ourselves up but somehow various human flaws like greed will likely prevent this from happening. So many of the time saving technologies that our jobs have now just mean our hours and pay stay much the same while our productivity simply increases. Our employers are either pocketing the profits from these productivity gains or lowering prices - which is fine I suppose if I was in a position to buy our products - which I'm not. ;)

It looks to me like automation will likely effect the lowest paid members of our society the most and the soonest with automation taking their jobs.

Not everyone can be an engineer or technician. Some people are best suited to work the jobs that will disappear.

Then what?

[RosieTR]

The thing that's likely most difficult for robots but common for humans is creativity, and generalization with random exceptions. Unfortunately in the US there seems to be a decline in creativity-supported childhood experiences. Much of the kids' playtime is highly structured, like soccer or video gamong, rather than the freeform play that kids need to develop more creativity and problem-solving skills. Jared Diamond has some interesting writing on this in The World Until Yesterday.

Anyway, creative work and trouble-shooting where there's occasionally a random problem that's difficult to anticipate and thus program for, as well as human touch work (massage, childcare, animal work) may still be around for a long time. But the traditional lower wage, mindless stuff like grocery checkout and truck driving are on the way out.

[GuitarStv]

Given that we have repeatedly had technological advances to increase productivity with fewer workers but have made only the most minimal steps towards a work free Utopia (and arguably have made gone in the opposite direction for a great many people) . . . why exactly do you think it would be different with robots than every other piece of technology in the past?

[v10viperbox]

As a automation engineer I should have work for the foreseeable future. Lots of calls out to friends in the field to eliminate the 15$ a hour positions at fast food joints. IE iPad ordering and better automation on the back end to keep kitchen staff to a minimum. Same with banks though more software then anything else. Most of what a average humans can do for work is pretty easy to automate its a balance between costs of the equipment and the human.

Transportation is the big one, I bet 15% of the country works in transport or some sort of driving based job and honestly the software and hardware is already there to eliminate them. As soon as its a off the shelf buy, and the legal mess is worked out, for a company and the cost is cheaper then the human every single one of those jobs will start to disappear.

At some point guaranteed income is going to be required because we are getting close to the tipping point. Or we all go down to 10-15 hours a week of work except for the specialists with larger training time.

[bacchi]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/half-us-jobs-could-taken-121100344.html

Computer programmers are higher on the list than I'd expect but there are definitely some lower-end jobs in coding that can be automated.

I'd also think surgeons would be higher, given that we do have surgery robots, albeit controlled by a surgeon. And a physician is partially a very good expert system.

Reporters are low but that field is dead anyway.

Fast food cooks? It's pretty rote -- slap patty down, flip patty, serve patty.

[tonysemail]

a long thread on this topic if that helps-
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/robots-and-their-impact-on-the-future

[RosieTR]

a long thread on this topic if that helps-
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/robots-and-their-impact-on-the-future

Thanks!

[forummm]

Given that we have repeatedly had technological advances to increase productivity with fewer workers but have made only the most minimal steps towards a work free Utopia (and arguably have made gone in the opposite direction for a great many people) . . . why exactly do you think it would be different with robots than every other piece of technology in the past?

This is a good point. But somehow I feel like this time could be quite different. In the past our technological disruptions have been relatively concentrated and slower to realize. I think the rapidity of the change could be significant. We could lose 100 million jobs in the US within a decade of time once the transition starts. Nearly all transportation and logistics, most food service, etc. People have posted better summaries of how many people work in the various fields that are most ripe for automation. Anyway, this kind of rapid change could lead to a huge social transformation that could result in a UBI. With that in place, there will be the opportunity for a lot more leisure and creativity. A lot of people will still have jobs. But they would be more likely to be better fits for those people so that would move things more towards utopia as well.

It could happen differently. But the potential is there.

[2Cent]

If robots take all the boring simple jobs, those products/services will get cheaper. If we all start living as mustachians that will mean a huge job loss. However most people will continue to spend, so all the savings will go to other areas where it is now too expensive to hire people. Think servants, nannies, gardeners, etc..

The distribution of wealth might be something that the government could address, but if production becomes much cheaper, it could be that some get super rich, and the rest stay more or less as they are now.

[Jrr85]

If robots take all the boring simple jobs, those products/services will get cheaper. If we all start living as mustachians that will mean a huge job loss. However most people will continue to spend, so all the savings will go to other areas where it is now too expensive to hire people. Think servants, nannies, gardeners, etc..

The distribution of wealth might be something that the government could address, but if production becomes much cheaper, it could be that some get super rich, and the rest stay more or less as they are now.

That's what I would expect to happen (that's basically what has happened so far; how many more massage therapists are there now then 25 years ago?), but I have seen arguments that people really don't want to deal with personal servants anymore and that the people most likely to end up without a marketable skill are the type of people that professionals don't want to deal with and don't want in their house.   

[2Cent]

If robots take all the boring simple jobs, those products/services will get cheaper. If we all start living as mustachians that will mean a huge job loss. However most people will continue to spend, so all the savings will go to other areas where it is now too expensive to hire people. Think servants, nannies, gardeners, etc..

The distribution of wealth might be something that the government could address, but if production becomes much cheaper, it could be that some get super rich, and the rest stay more or less as they are now.

That's what I would expect to happen (that's basically what has happened so far; how many more massage therapists are there now then 25 years ago?), but I have seen arguments that people really don't want to deal with personal servants anymore and that the people most likely to end up without a marketable skill are the type of people that professionals don't want to deal with and don't want in their house.

Well, not like Jeeves and Wooster kind of live in personal servants. More like a neighborhood watchman, daycare, food delivered to the door, shopping items delivered to the door, etc. Also with smartphones you could have every thinkable service on call anywhere, so it would be like a specialized servant over the phone.

[forummm]

If robots take all the boring simple jobs, those products/services will get cheaper. If we all start living as mustachians that will mean a huge job loss. However most people will continue to spend, so all the savings will go to other areas where it is now too expensive to hire people. Think servants, nannies, gardeners, etc..

The distribution of wealth might be something that the government could address, but if production becomes much cheaper, it could be that some get super rich, and the rest stay more or less as they are now.

That's what I would expect to happen (that's basically what has happened so far; how many more massage therapists are there now then 25 years ago?), but I have seen arguments that people really don't want to deal with personal servants anymore and that the people most likely to end up without a marketable skill are the type of people that professionals don't want to deal with and don't want in their house.

Well, not like Jeeves and Wooster kind of live in personal servants. More like a neighborhood watchman, daycare, food delivered to the door, shopping items delivered to the door, etc. Also with smartphones you could have every thinkable service on call anywhere, so it would be like a specialized servant over the phone.

All these jobs are no education, no skill, highly competitive, low wage jobs. If I could get a full time nanny for $10k/year, I guess I would do that. But $10k isn't enough to live on for most people. The point is that it's possible that the good jobs will be drying up and we'll have 100 million people pushing down wages for whatever bad jobs still remain.

[Jrr85]

If robots take all the boring simple jobs, those products/services will get cheaper. If we all start living as mustachians that will mean a huge job loss. However most people will continue to spend, so all the savings will go to other areas where it is now too expensive to hire people. Think servants, nannies, gardeners, etc..

The distribution of wealth might be something that the government could address, but if production becomes much cheaper, it could be that some get super rich, and the rest stay more or less as they are now.

That's what I would expect to happen (that's basically what has happened so far; how many more massage therapists are there now then 25 years ago?), but I have seen arguments that people really don't want to deal with personal servants anymore and that the people most likely to end up without a marketable skill are the type of people that professionals don't want to deal with and don't want in their house.

Well, not like Jeeves and Wooster kind of live in personal servants. More like a neighborhood watchman, daycare, food delivered to the door, shopping items delivered to the door, etc. Also with smartphones you could have every thinkable service on call anywhere, so it would be like a specialized servant over the phone.

All these jobs are no education, no skill, highly competitive, low wage jobs. If I could get a full time nanny for $10k/year, I guess I would do that. But $10k isn't enough to live on for most people. The point is that it's possible that the good jobs will be drying up and we'll have 100 million people pushing down wages for whatever bad jobs still remain.

If Robots become cheap enough and skilled enough to put tons of people out of work, then life will become cheap enough that $10k will probably be enough to live on.  The problem will come from having some professions protected from competition by law (doctors, lawyers, other professional guilds and education/credentials) and also from competition for positional goods (primarily education I would guess).

[forummm]

If robots take all the boring simple jobs, those products/services will get cheaper. If we all start living as mustachians that will mean a huge job loss. However most people will continue to spend, so all the savings will go to other areas where it is now too expensive to hire people. Think servants, nannies, gardeners, etc..

The distribution of wealth might be something that the government could address, but if production becomes much cheaper, it could be that some get super rich, and the rest stay more or less as they are now.

That's what I would expect to happen (that's basically what has happened so far; how many more massage therapists are there now then 25 years ago?), but I have seen arguments that people really don't want to deal with personal servants anymore and that the people most likely to end up without a marketable skill are the type of people that professionals don't want to deal with and don't want in their house.

Well, not like Jeeves and Wooster kind of live in personal servants. More like a neighborhood watchman, daycare, food delivered to the door, shopping items delivered to the door, etc. Also with smartphones you could have every thinkable service on call anywhere, so it would be like a specialized servant over the phone.

All these jobs are no education, no skill, highly competitive, low wage jobs. If I could get a full time nanny for $10k/year, I guess I would do that. But $10k isn't enough to live on for most people. The point is that it's possible that the good jobs will be drying up and we'll have 100 million people pushing down wages for whatever bad jobs still remain.

If Robots become cheap enough and skilled enough to put tons of people out of work, then life will become cheap enough that $10k will probably be enough to live on.  The problem will come from having some professions protected from competition by law (doctors, lawyers, other professional guilds and education/credentials) and also from competition for positional goods (primarily education I would guess).

That's a huge assumption. Robots could just be somewhat cheaper than humans. They don't need to make everything free or near free. It's possible. But who knows. I think education is another area that will be significantly automated. You already can find hundreds of university courses online for free. They just have to figure out how to provide grading in an automated way that still ensures meaningful learning. With education so inexpensive, professionals requiring formerly expensive education will also have lower incomes. And doctors and lawyers are also going to get automated too. A lot of their work would be better performed by a machine.

[2Cent]

.....

That's a huge assumption. Robots could just be somewhat cheaper than humans. They don't need to make everything free or near free. It's possible. But who knows. I think education is another area that will be significantly automated. You already can find hundreds of university courses online for free. They just have to figure out how to provide grading in an automated way that still ensures meaningful learning. With education so inexpensive, professionals requiring formerly expensive education will also have lower incomes. And doctors and lawyers are also going to get automated too. A lot of their work would be better performed by a machine.

There are 4 things that you should look at: Cost of production, demand and devaluation of skills and distribution of wealth.
I think it is safe to say cost of production will be lower. So less work to satisfy the same demand or the same amount of work to satisfy a greater demand.
I also think you can assume demand for goods will go up if things get cheaper as most people want to have more more more.
Skill devaluation because things are easier to learn/do with computer help will mean that people can just be more productive, so they will remain competitive.

If becoming a doctor can be learned cheaply, the quality of doctor people demand will just go up, and the same number of doctors will just be better doctors(with less debt).

Where you miss the point is that you assume services are pretty good now and once they can be delivered by robots, there is no more work. But the people from the future will probably set much higher standards. Adaptation.

[Leisured]

Is automation a challenge or an opportunity? An opportunity, of course. The Good Life is a society which explores the furthest reaches of knowledge, art and experience, lives in surroundings and landscapes of beauty and grandeur, and is supported by an automated economy. Machines and human labour are interchangeable, and an advanced society will exploit machines to the full.

A Universal Basic Income will be essential, and the problem of funding it is less an economic problem, and more a social and political problem. If automation displaces vast numbers of workers,then the very rich will be in a similar position to the royal court at Versailles just before the French Revolution.  Once we have a UBI, then we can take advantage of automation, and live like nobles of old.

[forummm]

.....

That's a huge assumption. Robots could just be somewhat cheaper than humans. They don't need to make everything free or near free. It's possible. But who knows. I think education is another area that will be significantly automated. You already can find hundreds of university courses online for free. They just have to figure out how to provide grading in an automated way that still ensures meaningful learning. With education so inexpensive, professionals requiring formerly expensive education will also have lower incomes. And doctors and lawyers are also going to get automated too. A lot of their work would be better performed by a machine.

There are 4 things that you should look at: Cost of production, demand and devaluation of skills and distribution of wealth.
I think it is safe to say cost of production will be lower. So less work to satisfy the same demand or the same amount of work to satisfy a greater demand.
I also think you can assume demand for goods will go up if things get cheaper as most people want to have more more more.

Yeah, that's basic economics. But to what degree goods become cheaper is unclear; as is the elasticity of demand for many goods in the future when the economy and availability of employment changes so dramatically.

Skill devaluation because things are easier to learn/do with computer help will mean that people can just be more productive, so they will remain competitive.

If becoming a doctor can be learned cheaply, the quality of doctor people demand will just go up, and the same number of doctors will just be better doctors(with less debt).

Not necessarily. Robots will likely be much better doctors in many ways. And at least when it comes to doctors, people will probably demand the best. Human doctors make a LOT of mistakes. Their education is outdated as soon as they graduate. And they don't have the time to spend to give the best care. And they also can't follow you home and interact with you (cheaply) as needed for hours per day. This is true of many jobs. Even if humans using new tools can be better than humans today using today's tools, it doesn't mean that humans will always be better than just the machines. Humans bring in sources of error and variability/inconsistency that machines don't need to have.

Where you miss the point is that you assume services are pretty good now and once they can be delivered by robots, there is no more work. But the people from the future will probably set much higher standards. Adaptation.

That's not what I think. Some services are pretty good now, and some are pretty terrible now. And once they can be delivered by robots, it's unclear what degree of work by humans will be wanted. People will always want better quality (although the cost needs to be low enough for them to actually pay for it). It will likely be the fact that services are provided by machines that will enable rapid increases in quality. Thereby further reducing the need for humans to provide them. AI solutions will likely be able to learn and adapt and innovate much more quickly than humans in some areas.

[Jrr85]

That's a huge assumption. Robots could just be somewhat cheaper than humans. They don't need to make everything free or near free. It's possible. But who knows. I think education is another area that will be significantly automated. You already can find hundreds of university courses online for free. They just have to figure out how to provide grading in an automated way that still ensures meaningful learning. With education so inexpensive, professionals requiring formerly expensive education will also have lower incomes. And doctors and lawyers are also going to get automated too. A lot of their work would be better performed by a machine.

The grading is not an issue at all.  You could easily set up third party certifications that make the educational part of formal education vastly cheaper.  Education is not automated because it's largely an exercise in signaling. 

And doctors and lawyers are not going to get automated.  Technology is generally complementary to most skilled workers, and doctors and lawyers are no different.  You will see a reduction in some of their work that is only paid for at doctor's/lawyer's rates because of regulatory restrictions (that's already happened with a lot of discovery work for attorneys and attorneys can no longer charge expensive rates for what are essentially form contracts), but unless something changes politically, you will still see a lot of potential gains prevented by licensing restrictions.

[davisgang90]

Given that we have repeatedly had technological advances to increase productivity with fewer workers but have made only the most minimal steps towards a work free Utopia (and arguably have made gone in the opposite direction for a great many people) . . . why exactly do you think it would be different with robots than every other piece of technology in the past?

This video does a good job explaining why.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU&feature=youtu.be

[forummm]

That's a huge assumption. Robots could just be somewhat cheaper than humans. They don't need to make everything free or near free. It's possible. But who knows. I think education is another area that will be significantly automated. You already can find hundreds of university courses online for free. They just have to figure out how to provide grading in an automated way that still ensures meaningful learning. With education so inexpensive, professionals requiring formerly expensive education will also have lower incomes. And doctors and lawyers are also going to get automated too. A lot of their work would be better performed by a machine.

The grading is not an issue at all.  You could easily set up third party certifications that make the educational part of formal education vastly cheaper.  Education is not automated because it's largely an exercise in signaling. 

And doctors and lawyers are not going to get automated.  Technology is generally complementary to most skilled workers, and doctors and lawyers are no different.  You will see a reduction in some of their work that is only paid for at doctor's/lawyer's rates because of regulatory restrictions (that's already happened with a lot of discovery work for attorneys and attorneys can no longer charge expensive rates for what are essentially form contracts), but unless something changes politically, you will still see a lot of potential gains prevented by licensing restrictions.

I disagree about education being "primarily" signaling. Especially in some fields. But even if it were, there is no reason why it couldn't still be signaling but also be delivered in an automated fashion. You would still be signaling by going through all the work. Just watching a video of a human instead of having a live action human in the same room. Really not much difference.

I think if you did any research into AI you would quickly find discussions about how a lot of lawyering (like discovery) is highly automatable. A lot of what doctors do is scripted (i.e. automatable) as well. You probably won't have 100% automation. But still a lot of it.

[MoneyCat]

I've taken online college classes and real world college classes and there is no comparison. I learned so much better from interacting with a real live teacher in person instead of just emailing stuff back and forth, posting on a web forum, and watching video clips. Online learning is a great way to not have to pay people, though, so there are a lot of Republicans who like it.

[ender]

Not necessarily. Robots will likely be much better doctors in many ways. And at least when it comes to doctors, people will probably demand the best. Human doctors make a LOT of mistakes. Their education is outdated as soon as they graduate. And they don't have the time to spend to give the best care. And they also can't follow you home and interact with you (cheaply) as needed for hours per day. This is true of many jobs. Even if humans using new tools can be better than humans today using today's tools, it doesn't mean that humans will always be better than just the machines. Humans bring in sources of error and variability/inconsistency that machines don't need to have.

When I was in grad school, I remember reading interesting research where a computer algorithm predicted whether a patient was having a heart attack given input information better than human doctors. The problem in adoption was people apparently trust a human a lot more in spite of the contrary data.

Self-driving cars will be the same. A single death because of a self-driving car will be perceived much worse than thousands of idiot driver mistakes that happen on a regular basis.

[GuitarStv]

When I was in grad school, I remember reading interesting research where a computer algorithm predicted whether a patient was having a heart attack given input information better than human doctors. The problem in adoption was people apparently trust a human a lot more in spite of the contrary data.

I currently work developing software for rail control for large transportation systems around the world.  Our software drives the train flawlessly, always obeys the speed limits, accounts for variables much faster than would be humanly possible, etc.  The vast majority of our clients demand that there is a human in the cab of the train - whether or not he really serves any purpose - all the time.  Literally the only thing that a train driver can do with a properly automated system is put things into manual mode and fuck stuff up.

[forummm]

When I was in grad school, I remember reading interesting research where a computer algorithm predicted whether a patient was having a heart attack given input information better than human doctors. The problem in adoption was people apparently trust a human a lot more in spite of the contrary data.

I currently work developing software for rail control for large transportation systems around the world.  Our software drives the train flawlessly, always obeys the speed limits, accounts for variables much faster than would be humanly possible, etc.  The vast majority of our clients demand that there is a human in the cab of the train - whether or not he really serves any purpose - all the time.  Literally the only thing that a train driver can do with a properly automated system is put things into manual mode and fuck stuff up.

Both of you are correct. But over time that sentiment will change. The biggest short term driver will be cost. But eventually people will demand automation because of quality as well, and they won't be able to understand why the neanderthals of our day had humans doing important tasks.

[GuitarStv]

When I was in grad school, I remember reading interesting research where a computer algorithm predicted whether a patient was having a heart attack given input information better than human doctors. The problem in adoption was people apparently trust a human a lot more in spite of the contrary data.

I currently work developing software for rail control for large transportation systems around the world.  Our software drives the train flawlessly, always obeys the speed limits, accounts for variables much faster than would be humanly possible, etc.  The vast majority of our clients demand that there is a human in the cab of the train - whether or not he really serves any purpose - all the time.  Literally the only thing that a train driver can do with a properly automated system is put things into manual mode and fuck stuff up.

Both of you are correct. But over time that sentiment will change. The biggest short term driver will be cost. But eventually people will demand automation because of quality as well, and they won't be able to understand why the neanderthals of our day had humans doing important tasks.

Like governing?

[Jrr85]

I disagree about education being "primarily" signaling. Especially in some fields. But even if it were, there is no reason why it couldn't still be signaling but also be delivered in an automated fashion. You would still be signaling by going through all the work. Just watching a video of a human instead of having a live action human in the same room. Really not much difference.

  To be clear, I should have said formal education is about signalling.  Signalling about actual skills could just be accomplished by third party tests.  But you are also signalling a lot by going through highschool and college in traditional fashion.  You take a high school student that aces the SAT and ACT and whatever other tests and self educates himself using the internet, popping in on lectures, etc., and even if he has a convincing way to show that he learned just as much as the person that went through the formal process and got a degree, lots of peole will be wondering "what's 'wrong' with this guy/gal who is obviously extermely intelligent, but 'couldn't' just go through college like a normal person?  Do they not have interpersonal skills?  Are they always going to be causing a problem by their refusal to conform? Etc."

I think if you did any research into AI you would quickly find discussions about how a lot of lawyering (like discovery) is highly automatable. A lot of what doctors do is scripted (i.e. automatable) as well. You probably won't have 100% automation. But still a lot of it.

A lot of lawyering has already been automated.  It's one of the reason so few law school graduates actually practice law.  The stuff that people really get paid for is not close to being automated.  Like other high skill professions, automation is going to increase the productivity of the best while eliminating jobs available to the rest. 

I actually think most doctor's work will be automated before legal work, as I think much of the diagnostic work will be easier to program for than legal work, even though it takes more brain power to be a competent doctor than a competent lawyer.

[forummm]

I disagree about education being "primarily" signaling. Especially in some fields. But even if it were, there is no reason why it couldn't still be signaling but also be delivered in an automated fashion. You would still be signaling by going through all the work. Just watching a video of a human instead of having a live action human in the same room. Really not much difference.

  To be clear, I should have said formal education is about signalling.  Signalling about actual skills could just be accomplished by third party tests.  But you are also signalling a lot by going through highschool and college in traditional fashion.  You take a high school student that aces the SAT and ACT and whatever other tests and self educates himself using the internet, popping in on lectures, etc., and even if he has a convincing way to show that he learned just as much as the person that went through the formal process and got a degree, lots of peole will be wondering "what's 'wrong' with this guy/gal who is obviously extermely intelligent, but 'couldn't' just go through college like a normal person?  Do they not have interpersonal skills?  Are they always going to be causing a problem by their refusal to conform? Etc."

I am also talking about automating formal education. I am envisioning the same formal system of having a major, enrolling in specific classes, being graded on your work, etc. You would still have the same hoops to jump through. You would still have test scores and grades. Just the delivery of instruction would be automated. So things would be a lot cheaper. The rigor and standards for you to get a degree from a prestigious institution could still be high. Nearly everything could be identical except for automating the lecture delivery. There would likely be additional improvements such as interactive learning modules that would enhance the lecture's presentation effectiveness. I'm not saying that you would just drop into random lectures and then get a certificate.

I don't see any significant difference in signaling between someone getting their degree in the way I've indicated and someone going and physically sitting in a building. There's no cause for other people to think "what's wrong with this person". Especially in an environment where nearly everyone gets their education in this way (which is coming--college just costs too much when it can be provided for so much less).

[ender]

I disagree about education being "primarily" signaling. Especially in some fields. But even if it were, there is no reason why it couldn't still be signaling but also be delivered in an automated fashion. You would still be signaling by going through all the work. Just watching a video of a human instead of having a live action human in the same room. Really not much difference.

  To be clear, I should have said formal education is about signalling.  Signalling about actual skills could just be accomplished by third party tests.  But you are also signalling a lot by going through highschool and college in traditional fashion.  You take a high school student that aces the SAT and ACT and whatever other tests and self educates himself using the internet, popping in on lectures, etc., and even if he has a convincing way to show that he learned just as much as the person that went through the formal process and got a degree, lots of peole will be wondering "what's 'wrong' with this guy/gal who is obviously extermely intelligent, but 'couldn't' just go through college like a normal person?  Do they not have interpersonal skills?  Are they always going to be causing a problem by their refusal to conform? Etc."

I am also talking about automating formal education. I am envisioning the same formal system of having a major, enrolling in specific classes, being graded on your work, etc. You would still have the same hoops to jump through. You would still have test scores and grades. Just the delivery of instruction would be automated. So things would be a lot cheaper. The rigor and standards for you to get a degree from a prestigious institution could still be high. Nearly everything could be identical except for automating the lecture delivery. There would likely be additional improvements such as interactive learning modules that would enhance the lecture's presentation effectiveness. I'm not saying that you would just drop into random lectures and then get a certificate.

I don't see any significant difference in signaling between someone getting their degree in the way I've indicated and someone going and physically sitting in a building. There's no cause for other people to think "what's wrong with this person". Especially in an environment where nearly everyone gets their education in this way (which is coming--college just costs too much when it can be provided for so much less).

For what it's worth this is happening in a lot of fields already.

When I did my undergrad 10 years ago (where did the time go!) a lot of the grading was online and automatic already. I expect this is even more that way now.

[deadlymonkey]

I'll just leave this here.

http://nextshark.com/sex-robots-by-2050/

[forummm]

I'll just leave this here.

http://nextshark.com/sex-robots-by-2050/

Perhaps the world's oldest profession will lose its title.

[Metric Mouse]

I'll just leave this here.

http://nextshark.com/sex-robots-by-2050/

Perhaps the world's oldest profession will lose its title.

This fits nicely in with the other teacher pay thread. Both will be out of jobs.

[Jet711]

Is it just me, or has everyone forgotten what would happen to the environment with all these robots? Pollution levels rising, more (hideous) open mines, e.c.t

Honestly with the rise of technology and the decay of ecosystems around the world, am I the only person who sees a future similar to the one in the Disney Wall-E movie?

[deadlymonkey]

Is it just me, or has everyone forgotten what would happen to the environment with all these robots? Pollution levels rising, more (hideous) open mines, e.c.t

Honestly with the rise of technology and the decay of ecosystems around the world, am I the only person who sees a future similar to the one in the Disney Wall-E movie?

Why would robots automatically result in the decay of ecosystems?

If Futurama taught us anything it is that we can stop global warming and ecological destruction by periodically dropping a chunk of comet into the ocean to cool things off.

[Jet711]

However, in Futurama cyclopses exist. Not in real life. And where the hell would you get a comet from?

[dougules]

Is it just me, or has everyone forgotten what would happen to the environment with all these robots? Pollution levels rising, more (hideous) open mines, e.c.t

Honestly with the rise of technology and the decay of ecosystems around the world, am I the only person who sees a future similar to the one in the Disney Wall-E movie?

In the movie Wall-E was just busy piling the trash.  Wouldn't he be busy recycling it instead in a hypothetical future?  In really poor countries there are people who make a living off of going through trash and sorting out anything that can be reused or recycled.  Robots would probably make that economically viable everywhere else. 

[GuitarStv]

Is it just me, or has everyone forgotten what would happen to the environment with all these robots? Pollution levels rising, more (hideous) open mines, e.c.t

Honestly with the rise of technology and the decay of ecosystems around the world, am I the only person who sees a future similar to the one in the Disney Wall-E movie?

In the movie Wall-E was just busy piling the trash.  Wouldn't he be busy recycling it instead in a hypothetical future?  In really poor countries there are people who make a living off of going through trash and sorting out anything that can be reused or recycled.  Robots would probably make that economically viable everywhere else.

Side benefit - those poor people would then starve, so we don't have to feel bad about them any more!

[dougules]

Is it just me, or has everyone forgotten what would happen to the environment with all these robots? Pollution levels rising, more (hideous) open mines, e.c.t

Honestly with the rise of technology and the decay of ecosystems around the world, am I the only person who sees a future similar to the one in the Disney Wall-E movie?

In the movie Wall-E was just busy piling the trash.  Wouldn't he be busy recycling it instead in a hypothetical future?  In really poor countries there are people who make a living off of going through trash and sorting out anything that can be reused or recycled.  Robots would probably make that economically viable everywhere else.

Side benefit - those poor people would then starve, so we don't have to feel bad about them any more!

You're assuming we feel bad for them now, or even know they exist. 

[Jet711]

Last time I checked, people don't eat need to eat/drink/wear garbage to survive. However, it could be used to build houses/homes.

[dougules]

Last time I checked, people don't eat need to eat/drink/wear garbage to survive. However, it could be used to build houses/homes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_picker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving

[Jet711]

Last time I checked, people don't eat need to eat/drink/wear garbage to survive. However, it could be used to build houses/homes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_picker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving

Let's just save these people the hassle of eating contaminated food and give them our leftovers :D

But I finish all my meals and lick the bowl clean D: