Some questions...Question #1:

[Ross Dolan]

How long until question 2, Frank?

Nifty, I still want to get a few more people here to comment before going forward.

My plan here is to discuss any possible, reasonable solutions to the dilemma created by a desire to maximize productivity (which most people seem to want) and a desire to keep jobs open for humans who need them in order to earn a living.

I will, however, try to adjust my second question so that it is possible to start getting opinions on that at the same time as continuing work here.

I'll post a link when I do...which will probably be today.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Seems like a really odd question. Of course it would be and there are countless examples of such. From building cars to ordering food.

It is "an odd question" Joe. One that does not get the attention I think it deserves. I will build on that theme in future posts, but I do want to get a sense of how people here feel about various aspects of what I have to say before I set that out.

So far, what I expected to be a series of "YES" answers to this question has failed to come. (I shouldn't be surprised.) There have been specific "NO' responses, however, so I am feeling I am on the right track.

Most people seem to see that technology easily increases productivity...that humans doing jobs that machines can do...decreases productivity.

You haven't answered it yet. If you are willing to do so, I would appreciate having your input.

If a machine can be devised to do a job...would it (on average) contribute to general productivity more than allowing it to continue to be done by a person?

If a ditch has to be dug across a pasture for some reason...would general productivity be greater having one guy do it with a backhoe (machine)...or having one guy (or several guys) do it with shovels? (Forgetting for a second that a shovel also is a form of machinery.)

If a machine can be devised (already is) to sort mail...would it contribute more to general productivity to use it...than to having the mail all sorted by people?

If a machine can be devised to generate a letter from a CEO...would it contribute more to general productivity by using it than have a secretary take dictation and then type up the letter? (Steno pools, a big industry in my younger days, are now gone completely.)

I understand that having machines do the work rather than humans would increase what we call "unemployment" greatly, but that is not part of what I am asking here.

 

[Joe]

It is "an odd question" Joe. One that does not get the attention I think it deserves. I will build on that theme in future posts, but I do want to get a sense of how people here feel about various aspects of what I have to say before I set that out.

So far, what I expected to be a series of "YES" answers to this question has failed to come. (I shouldn't be surprised.) There have been specific "NO' responses, however, so I am feeling I am on the right track.

Most people seem to see that technology easily increases productivity...that humans doing jobs that machines can do...decreases productivity.

You haven't answered it yet. If you are willing to do so, I would appreciate having your input.

If a machine can be devised to do a job...would it (on average) contribute to general productivity more than allowing it to continue to be done by a person?

If a ditch has to be dug across a pasture for some reason...would general productivity be greater having one guy do it with a backhoe (machine)...or having one guy (or several guys) do it with shovels? (Forgetting for a second that a shovel also is a form of machinery.)

If a machine can be devised (already is) to sort mail...would it contribute more to general productivity to use it...than to having the mail all sorted by people?

If a machine can be devised to generate a letter from a CEO...would it contribute more to general productivity by using it than have a secretary take dictation and then type up the letter? (Steno pools, a big industry in my younger days, are now gone completely.)

I understand that having machines do the work rather than humans would increase what we call "unemployment" greatly, but that is not part of what I am asking here.

I thought I answered in the affirmative so yes. For my money I'll take the machine any day.

Interested to find out where you're going with this............

 

[Ross Dolan]

I thought I answered in the affirmative so yes. For my money I'll take the machine any day.

Yup...my answer also. Thanks for answering it so clearly.

Interested to find out where you're going with this............

I've mentioned to Nifty above where I am generally headed. But I have got to clear up some of the more nebulous answers here. My second question will be with that in mind. Anyone I am still unclear about after this, I will just disregard...and go on to a more substantive question.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I think the nagging point brought up by the question
is that some of us don't really want to answer it
because we care more about people than the efficiency of manufacturing

and that's not the issue for which
Frank is seeking an answer.

 

[Walt]

If there is a job for which an efficient machine, robot or computer can be devised…on average, would the machine, robot, computer be more productive at that job than a human?

Let's take the job of moving a person from point A to B. A machine called a car can do that far more efficiently than a human trying to drag that person. Or take routing a phone call, having a dozen operators connect a phone call between NYC and LA is less efficient than an automated switching system. Or even a traffic light, where a human might be able to direct traffic better, but it seems like a waste of a human's time.

Both those are hybrid systems. The human still drives the car, and dials the phone number. Even with a traffic light, the human decides the timing, and where to place the traffic light. No one really knows if it is possible to take the human completely out of the picture. In theory, we have been reducing the amount of human involvement, sooner or later there will be no human involvement.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I think the nagging point brought up by the question
is that some of us don't really want to answer it
because we care more about people than the efficiency of manufacturing

I suspect it is POSSIBLE to "care more about people"...AND "the efficiency of manufacturing."

That is where I am heading.

and that's not the issue for which
Frank is seeking an answer.

Correct, for now. Dealing with that, however, gets a bit more involved.

So first, I would like us to agree that TOTALLY DIVORCED FROM WHETHER OR NOT IT CREATES INCREASED "UNEMPLOYMENT" ...if we can devise machines to do certain work...it will increase productivity if we allow the machines to do the work rather than letting humans do it.

If anyone disagrees and thinks that humans are a greater stimulus to productivity than machines, robots, computers...please state your reason here, and I will respond. I am not working on how best to propose the second question.

A machine can operate 24/7 if maintained

That depends on the job

If the machine robot or computer is "efficient" then the likely answer is "yes".

but I'm pretty sure you can make a machine to do

I'm with Sarah Connor. Kill the robots

While I'll never be with you moonbat since you're a radical leftist, I am totally behind Sarah Connor. KILL the Robots!

The answer is almost always yes, not just on average.

You must define productive

Yes

Every single time.

Seems like a really odd question.

New question coming. If this still interest you, please be sure to check back later to day.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Let's take the job of moving a person from point A to B. A machine called a car can do that far more efficiently than a human trying to drag that person. Or take routing a phone call, having a dozen operators connect a phone call between NYC and LA is less efficient than an automated switching system. Or even a traffic light, where a human might be able to direct traffic better, but it seems like a waste of a human's time.

Both those are hybrid systems. The human still drives the car, and dials the phone number. Even with a traffic light, the human decides the timing, and where to place the traffic light. No one really knows if it is possible to take the human completely out of the picture. In theory, we have been reducing the amount of human involvement, sooner or later there will be no human involvement.

Correct. Please see my response above.

 

[Walt]

Correct. Please see my response above.

I am playing catchup... Have some time off from work while computers do my job... That is not a joke, but actually kind of true.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I will be open minded with this discussion because it has fascinating nuance.

 

[Yakuda]

I suspect it is POSSIBLE to "care more about people"...AND "the efficiency of manufacturing."

That is where I am heading.



Correct, for now. Dealing with that, however, gets a bit more involved.

So first, I would like us to agree that TOTALLY DIVORCED FROM WHETHER OR NOT IT CREATES INCREASED "UNEMPLOYMENT" ...if we can devise machines to do certain work...it will increase productivity if we allow the machines to do the work rather than letting humans do it.

If anyone disagrees and thinks that humans are a greater stimulus to productivity than machines, robots, computers...please state your reason here, and I will respond. I am not working on how best to propose the second question.

























New question coming. If this still interest you, please be sure to check back later to day.

But I think ultimately one will have to defer to the other

 

[Walt]

I recall reading when I was a kid that robotics would replace factory workers in the future.

Within the last two years, we have discovered that some factory workers jobs are safer than many white collar workers jobs. It is far easier to replace a reporter with an AI program than it is to replace a garment worker.

It surprises me too.

Cloth moves in three dimensions, and worse yet folds in three dimensions, so as far as a computer is concerned is in six dimensions. What is easy for a "unskilled" Central American factory worker is nearly impossible for a computer.

Meanwhile, writing a news story is easy for a large language model. Even computer programming is looking like it might be easier than sewing.

 

[Ross Dolan]

But I think ultimately one will have to defer to the other

Okay, but I disagree.

I had asked, "I suspect it is POSSIBLE to "care more about people"...AND "the efficiency of manufacturing."

The above quote is your response.

So let me ask you this:

We agree that using more machines, robots and computers increases productivity (the efficiency of manufacturing)...

...and we also agree that if the machines do as much of the work as possible...humans will be able to work less.

Why is that a bad thing?

I cannot think of anything wrong with increasing productivity...and I cannot think of anything wrong with people having to work less.

Why not just figure out a way for both "greater productivity" and "less work for people" to both be great things...and to both be done simultaneously?

(Next thread deals with this seemingly silly question.)

 

[Yakuda]

Okay, but I disagree.

I had asked, "I suspect it is POSSIBLE to "care more about people"...AND "the efficiency of manufacturing."

The above quote is your response.

So let me ask you this:

We agree that using more machines, robots and computers increases productivity (the efficiency of manufacturing)...

...and we also agree that if the machines do as much of the work as possible...humans will be able to work less.

Why is that a bad thing?

I cannot think of anything wrong with increasing productivity...and I cannot think of anything wrong with people having to work less.

Why not just figure out a way for both "greater productivity" and "less work for people" to both be great things...and to both be done simultaneously?

(Next thread deals with this seemingly silly question.)

I guess it depends on what you value.

I don't think it's entirely good for people to have less work to do.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Here is another thread on this topic. I'd love for all of you to join me there...as well as here.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I guess it depends on what you value.

I don't think it's entirely good for people to have less work to do.

Okay. I, on the other hand, think it is a great idea for people to have less work to do, Yakuda.

Don't get me wrong. I think for some people it makes more sense to do work anyway, whether they need to do it or not. But NOT HAVING TO DO IT seems the better situation. Doing it because you WANT TO...rather than because you NEED TO...would be my choice.

You seem to be disagreeing with that. Can you expand on your answer.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Within the last two years, we have discovered that some factory workers jobs are safer than many white collar workers jobs. It is far easier to replace a reporter with an AI program than it is to replace a garment worker.

It surprises me too.

Cloth moves in three dimensions, and worse yet folds in three dimensions, so as far as a computer is concerned is in six dimensions. What is easy for a "unskilled" Central American factory worker is nearly impossible for a computer.

Meanwhile, writing a news story is easy for a large language model. Even computer programming is looking like it might be easier than sewing.

There is already 6 axis computer controlled machine tools

https://all3dp.com/2/6-axis-cnc-machines-simply-explained/

 

[Yakuda]

Okay. I, on the other hand, think it is a great idea for people to have less work to do, Yakuda.

Don't get me wrong. I think for some people it makes more sense to do work anyway, whether they need to do it or not. But NOT HAVING TO DO IT seems the better situation. Doing it because you WANT TO...rather than because you NEED TO...would be my choice.

You seem to be disagreeing with that. Can you expand on your answer.

I think everyone needs to work. Would I prefer not having to work? Yes but I doubt many of us would do it if we didnt have to. I think the farther away we get from knowing just how much effort is needed just to survive the less we appreciate what we have. I think it fosters an unhealthy sense of entitlement. I don't think thats good for people.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I think everyone needs to work. Would I prefer not having to work? Yes but I doubt many of us would do it if we didnt have to. I think the farther away we get from knowing just how much effort is needed just to survive the less we appreciate what we have. I think it fosters an unhealthy sense of entitlement. I don't think thats good for people.

I agree. An unhealthy sense of entitlement is NOT good for people...but I still think humanity would be better off if more people were able to partake of leisure rather than work as much as most of us do. Most families work more hours to keep up the household now...than families (usually just the male of the house) did back in the 1950's. That makes no sense considering all the robotic help we have now.

THAT, after all, is the reason for technical advancement. We build better, more useful machines...and not only does that give us the opportunity to have more product...but also allows each of us to have more leisure.

Unfortunately we are having lots of trouble figuring out how to navigate these waters.

I'm going to talk more about it. I appreciate your input.

Thank you for taking all this seriously.

 

[Yakuda]

I agree. An unhealthy sense of entitlement is NOT good for people...but I still think humanity would be better off if more people were able to partake of leisure rather than work as much as most of us do. Most families work more hours to keep up the household now...than families (usually just the male of the house) did back in the 1950's. That makes no sense considering all the robotic help we have now.

THAT, after all, is the reason for technical advancement. We build better, more useful machines...and not only does that give us the opportunity to have more product...but also allows each of us to have more leisure.

Unfortunately we are having lots of trouble figuring out how to navigate these waters.

I'm going to talk more about it. I appreciate your input.

Thank you for taking all this seriously.

I agree with you but with having nothing productive to do people would ultimately do more harm than good to themselves their families and their communities. Just my opinion.

Its an interesting topic.

You're welcome but when people engage in reasonable conversation I'm then happy to reciprocate. That may shock people based on my usual behavior but when things like this happen I'm more than happy to participate. Thank you for starting the thread and form the reasonable discourse.