The Third Problem!

Frank Apisa · Feb 17, 2016

In that last thread, I suggested the inverse relationship between maximizing productivity and unemployment…how each of those two “problems” can be easily be corrected, but only at a significant cost to the other.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...en-maximum-productivity-and-unemployment.html

Replacing humans with machines may not be the only way to significantly improve productivity; but it seems to be the most expeditious way—and by far the remedy most frequently used these days. Conversely, while there are instances where using humans rather than machines may not result in a major negative for productivity, almost always it does.

As I mentioned in one of my replies earlier, there are some jobs a machine just cannot do (make a hand-tailored silk suit or tie); or, for esthetic reasons, cannot do as well as a human (serve-up a martini and sympathy with the same panache as a friendly human bartender or TLC like a competent human nurse). But for the vast majority of jobs for which an efficient machine exists or can be devised, the machine will win out handily in competition with the humans.

You may not be in love with that idea, but it is so—and what the heck, the machines are our creations.

In a sense, this all resolves itself into a third problem; or more exactly, into a single problem in place of those original two. They, as has been suggested, are both relatively minor problems with either easily cured.

The real problem (the third problem or the replacement problem) is that the things you do to improve the condition of one…makes the other get worse.

I suggest, however, that we can deal with that easily also.

But first, some considerations from anyone reading on what I suggested here.

Leading up to this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/246300-observation-human-predicament.html

(Things are not like they were for the middle class back in the 1950’s)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...n/246482-observation-2-human-predicament.html

(The more productive we are...the more there will be of everything.)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/246719-there-never-again-enough-jobs.html

(There will never be enough decent-paying jobs available for all the people who need and/or want one)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...en-maximum-productivity-and-unemployment.html

(As you improve productivity…human unemployment rises/as you improve human employment...productivity decreases.)

PoS · Feb 17, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
You may not be in love with that idea, but it is so—and what the heck, the machines are our creations.

In a sense, this all resolves itself into a third problem; or more exactly, into a single problem in place of those original two. They, as has been suggested, are both relatively minor problems with either easily cured.

The real problem (the third problem or the replacement problem) is that the things you do to improve the condition of one…makes the other get worse.

Not only is this a really stupid statement but it is also completely untrue.

Improved automation has not only made human productivity greater but it has also improved human lives in general, more people have been brought out of poverty in the last one hundred years than at any other time in history.

Frank Apisa · Feb 17, 2016

PoS said:
Not only is this a really stupid statement but it is also completely untrue.

Sorry you think it is stupid.

It is not untrue.

The machines are our creation...and the rest of what you quoted me saying...is spot on.

Improved automation has not only made human productivity greater but it has also improved human lives in general...

Absolutely. I agree.

But how does that make ANYTHING I wrote...stupid or untrue?

...more people have been brought out of poverty in the last one hundred years than at any other time in history.

Okay, if you say so.

But that also does not make anything I wrote untrue or stupid.

Dittohead not! · Feb 17, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
In that last thread, I suggested the inverse relationship between maximizing productivity and unemployment…how each of those two “problems” can be easily be corrected, but only at a significant cost to the other.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...en-maximum-productivity-and-unemployment.html

Replacing humans with machines may not be the only way to significantly improve productivity; but it seems to be the most expeditious way—and by far the remedy most frequently used these days. Conversely, while there are instances where using humans rather than machines may not result in a major negative for productivity, almost always it does.

As I mentioned in one of my replies earlier, there are some jobs a machine just cannot do (make a hand-tailored silk suit or tie); or, for esthetic reasons, cannot do as well as a human (serve-up a martini and sympathy with the same panache as a friendly human bartender or TLC like a competent human nurse). But for the vast majority of jobs for which an efficient machine exists or can be devised, the machine will win out handily in competition with the humans.

You may not be in love with that idea, but it is so—and what the heck, the machines are our creations.

In a sense, this all resolves itself into a third problem; or more exactly, into a single problem in place of those original two. They, as has been suggested, are both relatively minor problems with either easily cured.

The real problem (the third problem or the replacement problem) is that the things you do to improve the condition of one…makes the other get worse.

I suggest, however, that we can deal with that easily also.

But first, some considerations from anyone reading on what I suggested here.

Leading up to this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/246300-observation-human-predicament.html

(Things are not like they were for the middle class back in the 1950’s)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...n/246482-observation-2-human-predicament.html

(The more productive we are...the more there will be of everything.)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/246719-there-never-again-enough-jobs.html

(There will never be enough decent-paying jobs available for all the people who need and/or want one)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...en-maximum-productivity-and-unemployment.html

(As you improve productivity…human unemployment rises/as you improve human employment...productivity decreases.)

Machines have been freeing people from drudgery for a long time now, starting with Fulton and his folly, perhaps. No longer would wind, water, and muscle power be the only source of energy.

And, yes, the down side is that there isn't as much for humans to do as there once was, therefore, not as many jobs available.

So, there may never be enough jobs in areas that produce a profit for someone for everyone to work full time.

Therefore, let's start doing the things that have needed doing for a long time. Let's not just sit back and let machines do all of the work, no, instead let's start doing a better job of those things that machines can't do.

Frank Apisa · Feb 17, 2016

Dittohead not! said:
Machines have been freeing people from drudgery for a long time now, starting with Fulton and his folly, perhaps. No longer would wind, water, and muscle power be the only source of energy.

And, yes, the down side is that there isn't as much for humans to do as there once was, therefore, not as many jobs available.

So, there may never be enough jobs in areas that produce a profit for someone for everyone to work full time.

Therefore, let's start doing the things that have needed doing for a long time. Let's not just sit back and let machines do all of the work, no, instead let's start doing a better job of those things that machines can't do.

Certainly one of the things we have to consider, Ditto. Doing the stuff machines cannot do...as best as can be done. I'll talk about that in deptth in one of the future installments. Suffice to say here that any of the stuff that HAS TO BE DONE BY HUMANS...should be done by the most productive humans. If not...someone WILL create a machine to do it...or come close enough to doing it...better.

Thanks for the comments.

Visbek · Feb 17, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
You may not be in love with that idea, but it is so—and what the heck, the machines are our creations.

Well that's comforting

Frank Apisa · Feb 17, 2016

Visbek said:
Well that's comforting

Good pix.

Question (just as a matter of interest): As an avatar for the notion of machines, which in your opinion, is better:

HAL from 2001, A Space Odyssey...

or the cyborg T-800 from The Terminator?

eohrnberger · Feb 17, 2016

opcorn:

Nilly · Feb 17, 2016

Visbek said:
Well that's comforting

I prefer to be a little more optimistic:

Oozlefinch · Feb 17, 2016

Frank Apisa said:
As I mentioned in one of my replies earlier, there are some jobs a machine just cannot do (make a hand-tailored silk suit or tie); or, for esthetic reasons, cannot do as well as a human (serve-up a martini and sympathy with the same panache as a friendly human bartender or TLC like a competent human nurse).

And what exactly is the demand for a hand tailored suit? Damned small, because very few people can afford them. The same with pretty much any hand tailored clothes.

And there are already robot bartenders.

These 11 Robot Bartenders Will Get You Drunk | Popular Science

And remember, the bartender is also the cashier and waiter-waitress in most cases. But if the cost to employ a bartender was ever to rise to where they are more expensive then robots, expect a robot to take that job as well. Even DJs are being replaced in many establishments (in the same way DJs largely replaced live entertainment). A single person is cheaper then a band, and now a machine you can set up to play specific genre of music is cheaper then paying a person to play music from their own collection.

And yea, many times in my career I have seen "DJs" that were so bad that a Pandora feed (or even a local radio station) would have been preferable to the trainwrecks they played.

Frank Apisa · Feb 18, 2016

Oozlefinch said:
And what exactly is the demand for a hand tailored suit? Damned small, because very few people can afford them. The same with pretty much any hand tailored clothes.

And there are already robot bartenders.

These 11 Robot Bartenders Will Get You Drunk | Popular Science

And remember, the bartender is also the cashier and waiter-waitress in most cases. But if the cost to employ a bartender was ever to rise to where they are more expensive then robots, expect a robot to take that job as well. Even DJs are being replaced in many establishments (in the same way DJs largely replaced live entertainment). A single person is cheaper then a band, and now a machine you can set up to play specific genre of music is cheaper then paying a person to play music from their own collection.

And yea, many times in my career I have seen "DJs" that were so bad that a Pandora feed (or even a local radio station) would have been preferable to the trainwrecks they played.

Yes, indeed. Even the jobs I suggest are probably best handled by humans may become scarce.

But there is a point to be made with all this...and I think it a significant one. We'll see. I'll post another thread tomorrow.

The Third Problem!

Frank Apisa

PoS

Minister of Love

Frank Apisa

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Frank Apisa

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Frank Apisa

eohrnberger

Nilly

stb

Oozlefinch

Frank Apisa