Jump to content
 

A rathery scary vision of the future from "Trains" magazine


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I never said there would be a one-one transfer of jobs. 

 

The reduction of the need for human labor has been going on for hundreds of years.  Those that adapt, survive.  Those that don't, don't.  The will, resources and environment to adapt is not evenly distributed.  As far as technology goes, once its possible, its probable.  You can't put the poop back in the donkey.

For hundreds of years available labour was a big limiting factor for even getting a sufficient supply of the basics for everyone, and so increases in efficiency that freed up more labour were beneficial. The world has changed (or at least the developed world has) but the "fewer people needed for a job is good" attitude has not. This is a problem. Increases in technology, whilst beneficial in the short term for the businesses introducing them, until everyone else does too and they're back to square one but employing fewer people, start becoming more change for the sake of change.

 

Higher productivity, instead of providing the basics we were struggling to have, starts simply burning through resources ever faster (I'd hazard a guess that levels of economic activity and resource consumption are very closely linked, to the point where you can argue the former is simply a measure of the latter). Adapting to survive means being able to keep up with the herd as it gallops towards the cliff edge instead of stopping and getting trampled.

 

I am suggesting that the last several hundred years of history shows that #1 has never worked, #2 will work for a while, #3 will work for a while, but #4 is ultimately what happens.  Those that choose #4 (which is the hardest choice) early are more successful in the long run.

And things are very different now to what they were several hundred years ago. So what was a good idea several hundred years ago can also change. Your #4 is what happens simply because those who stay ahead in the arms race triumph. Historically some (sometimes a lot of) good has come of that as a side effect. If everything else changes why should the assumption that it is overall beneficial remain unchanged?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It's more of a social problem than a technological one. How can quality of life be maintained / improve for the average citizen whilst implementing these changes ?

Definitely. I'd argue that (in the UK and probably most of the developed world) our problems are pretty much entirely social ones, and I'm sceptical about attempting technological solutions to social problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that technology is developing faster than societies ability to cope with it and has been for some time. As an illustration, When my Great-Grandparents were born, the motor car had yet to be invented. By the time they died, man had walked on the moon and developed nuclear power. All in a single lifetime...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And things are very different now to what they were several hundred years ago. So what was a good idea several hundred years ago can also change. Your #4 is what happens simply because those who stay ahead in the arms race triumph. Historically some (sometimes a lot of) good has come of that as a side effect. If everything else changes why should the assumption that it is overall beneficial remain unchanged?

 

I'm not saying its all a bed of roses.  I'm not saying the new is better than the old.  I'm not saying that everybody ends out ahead.

 

I'm saying those are the choices regarding new technology.  I did leave out one option, the "null alternative", which is to do nothing and ignore it or hope it goes away.  It won't.  The question still remains, which option should we chose?  If you don't like those options, what other option is there?

 

Since we were single celled organisms our responses to change have been :  mutate, migrate, adapt or die.  Those are still our choices now.  You can say it was better before or that things are moving too fast or it will be worse afterwards, but the same options still apply.  

 

Which option should we choose for technological change?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had a driverless car I would ride in it to work then tell it to go home and collect me at the end of the day rather than pay to park all day in the town centre. This could potentially double the number of commuter journeys.

 

A broader vision is that most people won't "have" a driverless car: whenever someone wants to go somewhere they will call up a driverless cab to take them there.  No driver = cheaper.  Theoretically.  Overall, fewer vehicles would be on the roads - either on the move or parked - because utilisation would be much higher ie fewer vehicles would be left sitting around empty going nowhere waiting for their owners to need them again.  There would be more space on the streets because fewer vehicles would need to be parked up, and less land would need to be given over to off-street parking. Etc etc etc utopia beckons.

 

I've read in the past about people who had 'done the math' and worked out that even using old-tech private hire cars or taxis with actual drivers whenever they wanted to go somewhere was cheaper than owning a car.  Obviously it depends on an individual's particular circumstances and needs, but driverless technology may offer the possibility of moving the break-even point substantially in favour of hire vs ownership.

Edited by ejstubbs
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

History has generally shown there are 4 choices:

 

1.  Supress or prevent the technology from being pursued, or shared.

2.  Prevent the technology from being implemented.

3.  Require the jobs to be preserved regardless of the technology.

 

Or …..

 

4.  Adapt or change to figure out what to do if the technology is implemented.

 

I am suggesting that the last several hundred years of history shows that #1 has never worked, #2 will work for a while, #3 will work for a while, but #4 is ultimately what happens.  Those that choose #4 (which is the hardest choice) early are more successful in the long run.

 

Which option are you proposing?

There are other options.

Perhaps option five is "Things spiral out of control and go horribly wrong. Civilisation ends." It's happened plenty of times before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying its all a bed of roses.  I'm not saying the new is better than the old.  I'm not saying that everybody ends out ahead.

 

I'm saying those are the choices regarding new technology.  I did leave out one option, the "null alternative", which is to do nothing and ignore it or hope it goes away.  It won't.  The question still remains, which option should we chose?  If you don't like those options, what other option is there?

 

Since we were single celled organisms our responses to change have been :  mutate, migrate, adapt or die.  Those are still our choices now.  You can say it was better before or that things are moving too fast or it will be worse afterwards, but the same options still apply.  

 

Which option should we choose for technological change?

 

You present a false scenario. The reality is that we are not choosing our future - it is being shaped by multinational corporations and technological innovation, the latter usually funded by the former for its own benefit. The mechanism for choosing our future does not exist. It is certainly out of the hands of national governments these days. Their only function is to try to keep society functioning whilst the multinationals soak up the world's wealth, tax free.

 

So, Union Pacific can have driverless trains, or road hauliers can have driverless trucks, but all bets are off as to whether society will survive in a recognisable form long enough to see it through. All it will take is for antibiotic resistance, an attack on the internet, some natural catastrophe, or something else, to start the whole thing unravelling, and when it does, it will be very quick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm not saying its all a bed of roses.  I'm not saying the new is better than the old.  I'm not saying that everybody ends out ahead.

 

I'm saying those are the choices regarding new technology.  I did leave out one option, the "null alternative", which is to do nothing and ignore it or hope it goes away.  It won't.  The question still remains, which option should we chose?  If you don't like those options, what other option is there?

 

Since we were single celled organisms our responses to change have been :  mutate, migrate, adapt or die.  Those are still our choices now.  You can say it was better before or that things are moving too fast or it will be worse afterwards, but the same options still apply.  

 

Which option should we choose for technological change?  

Which option? Stay with the herd as it gallops towards the edge of the cliff or get trampled trying to stop are the options. I agree with locoholic, there is no meaningful choice, and that's why I don't like it. Everyone, even the largest countries and businesses are trapped by it (although they usually don't appear to be at all bothered). We're complete slaves to our own behaviour. Like the arms race scenario no-one can afford to stop it even if everyone wants to (and not everyone does).

 

Personally I lean more in the getting trampled direction, I can't stop it but I'm not going to help speed it along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work in Automation and Robotics.

 

Automation is bound to happen, and railways are ripe for it. 

 

But the following points:

 

1. Humans like to see people in charge, this is why the London Underground still has "Drivers" on four of it's semi-automated routes (In actual fact, these people operate the doors, and are there to assist in an emergency).

 

2, Automation is not an 'instant' thing. You don't wave a magic wand and poof! things are automated. Automation is carefully targeted through a cost-benefit analysis process. Railways being a incredible complex system, will need each process that is automated to be cost effective, and in terms of safety be more than or equal to current safety standards. Every change to a system, will have knock-on effects to other elements in the system.

 

3. Automation is highly suited to 'repetitive' tasks. The more variance within process, the harder it is to automate. As such cost of automation is an exponential increase in relation to the complexity of the process. Humans are highly suited to adaptable and varied job roles.

 

I've lost count of the number of times I have been asked 'what do your robots do', and I've had disappoint the questioner with the answer of 'Pick thing up, put it somewhere else'. or 'it does x to y'. A common misconception is that Automation will replace all jobs, this is only lauded by people who don't work in Automation. Automation generally increases quality and productivity at the cost of 'low skilled' jobs, often allowing businesses to grow and employ more people albeit in higher skilled roles.

 

Regards

 

Matt

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I work in Automation and Robotics.

 

Automation is bound to happen, and railways are ripe for it. 

 

But the following points:

 

1. Humans like to see people in charge, this is why the London Underground still has "Drivers" on four of it's semi-automated routes (In actual fact, these people operate the doors, and are there to assist in an emergency).

 

2, Automation is not an 'instant' thing. You don't wave a magic wand and poof! things are automated. Automation is carefully targeted through a cost-benefit analysis process. Railways being a incredible complex system, will need each process that is automated to be cost effective, and in terms of safety be more than or equal to current safety standards. Every change to a system, will have knock-on effects to other elements in the system.

 

3. Automation is highly suited to 'repetitive' tasks. The more variance within process, the harder it is to automate. As such cost of automation is an exponential increase in relation to the complexity of the process. Humans are highly suited to adaptable and varied job roles.

 

I've lost count of the number of times I have been asked 'what do your robots do', and I've had disappoint the questioner with the answer of 'Pick thing up, put it somewhere else'. or 'it does x to y'. A common misconception is that Automation will replace all jobs, this is only lauded by people who don't work in Automation. Automation generally increases quality and productivity at the cost of 'low skilled' jobs, often allowing businesses to grow and employ more people albeit in higher skilled roles.

 

Regards

 

Matt

I think it's the combination of automation and artificial intelligence that gets people really worried.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

From what I see happening in the supposedly higher echelons of businesses, any intelligence would be an advance on the egotistical opinionated arrogance that usually occurs instead of thinking and making decisions based on evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's the combination of automation and artificial intelligence that gets people really worried.

 

AI is another common misconception. Artificial Intelligence, does not exist. It's basically a buzzword.

 

What we have at the present, at most, is augmented intelligence. Which is basically a mix Machine Learning, and clever computer programming by a human.

 

Machines, as they currently exist, are very, very stupid.

 

Regards

 

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

AI is another common misconception. Artificial Intelligence, does not exist. It's basically a buzzword.

 

What we have at the present, at most, is augmented intelligence. Which is basically a mix Machine Learning, and clever computer programming by a human.

 

Machines, as they currently exist, are very, very stupid.

 

If we're talking about robots take over the world Skynet-style, that's a fear that still belongs firmly in the realm of science fiction. But the concerns about the impact on society of getting computers to do all sorts of everyday tasks that people do and relegating humans to creatures that should not be trusted with any hint of responsibility whatsoever if at all possible are genuine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You present a false scenario. The reality is that we are not choosing our future - it is being shaped by multinational corporations and technological innovation,

 

Like many things, it's not quite that simple.

 

While there is certainly a great deal of truth in what you say, the other side is that those companies are frequently doing what they do because the consumer (aka us) demand it - most often by our (as in society in general and not any once specific person) demonstrated behavior of making decisions primarily on price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the concerns about the impact on society of getting computers to do all sorts of everyday tasks that people do and relegating humans to creatures that should not be trusted with any hint of responsibility whatsoever if at all possible are genuine.

 

I've outlined why this premise is incorrect in post #35 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/134941-a-rathery-scary-vision-of-the-future-from-trains-magazine/page-2&do=findComment&comment=3213830

 

Regards

 

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every system requires a start/base point. Without that it ultimately grinds to a halt. A good example is the housing market. Whilst there were plenty of low cost homes which first time buyers could afford tobuy, the housing market prospered, but without that fueling it, it soon dies, and this is now starting to happen.

The big corporations running the systems up till now, have been careful to allow just enough technical advancement without putting out the fire which keeps them going. THe car indstry has until relatively recently being very conservative with advances A bit fot speed, a bit more glammour and everyone is happy. Now the applecart has been upset by outsiders have come in and design driverless cars and other technical innovations, not necessarily because there is a good business case(probably the reverse in fact), but because it can.

The spark for this is the internet. I suspect somone would have tried to stop it if they had realised what it was capable of, or tried to limit its developement at the beginning, but it was deliberately set free to allow it to grow.

Ultimately the big corporate model will implode, it is losing control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Nothing you said in that post demonstrates that my premise is incorrect. I'm not really talking about science fiction robot servants, or even necessarily autonomous cars (which I don't believe are as close as a lot of people claim, partially for the reasons you give). Just step back and think how the amount of necessary human interaction is going down in day to day life, and where there is any it's ever more impersonal as large businesses expect humans to act as robots. People might like seeing other people apparently in charge like your tube train example but even that attitude will change, and the commercial pressures of not paying that person will win out and he'll be gone eventually. We're not talking about a sci-fi world, we're talking about change that's already very much happening, and quite a bit has already happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Automated trains, operated by an all seeing eye, with total control over the stock movements without thought for the permanently empty passenger stock?

 

Sounds a lot like a hobby I rather enjoy  :jester:

 

RM

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing you said in that post demonstrates that my premise is incorrect. I'm not really talking about science fiction robot servants, or even necessarily autonomous cars (which I don't believe are as close as a lot of people claim, partially for the reasons you give). 

 

Except autonomous cars are here already - as I mentioned Waymo / Google already has it working in Arizona https://www.youtube.com/watchv=aaOB-ErYq6Y

 

People might like seeing other people apparently in charge like your tube train example but even that attitude will change, and the commercial pressures of not paying that person will win out and he'll be gone eventually.

 

But is a human "in control" really that important to us?  Take a look at the list of Grade 4 Metro systems that operate, many/most without any employee on board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems

 

And while it is unlikely the UK government would be willing to make the investment, at least in the short term, how many south of London commuters would refuse to ride a train that never goes on strike, never gets cancelled due to a lack of staff, etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing you said in that post demonstrates that my premise is incorrect. I'm not really talking about science fiction robot servants, or even necessarily autonomous cars (which I don't believe are as close as a lot of people claim, partially for the reasons you give). Just step back and think how the amount of necessary human interaction is going down in day to day life, and where there is any it's ever more impersonal as large businesses expect humans to act as robots. People might like seeing other people apparently in charge like your tube train example but even that attitude will change, and the commercial pressures of not paying that person will win out and he'll be gone eventually. We're not talking about a sci-fi world, we're talking about change that's already very much happening, and quite a bit has already happened.

 

I am not, and have not been talking about "science fiction", as I state in post 35, I work in Automation and Robotics as my field as an Electrical Engineering technician and a member of the Institute of Engineering and Technology.

 

Everything you keep alluding too is some foggy ill-defined fear mongering, which demonstrates you have a woeful lack of understanding of how engineering works, along with the slippery slope logical fallacy.

 

While some businesses employing low skilled labor roles want humans to act as "robots" (generally through the use of targets), these low skill highly repetitive roles will be replaced with automation. Right now, every Robot put into use in industry replaces one low skilled job, and creates three new jobs (System integrator, System installer, System Maintainer). Are you under the impression the skilled people employed in such roles don't talk to each other?

 

I suggest you also look at Co-bots (Collaborative Robots), I've done some work with both Universal and Kuka using their respective co-bots, which in interesting as 'hard' automation generally removes humans as much as possible from any process (primarily for safety reasons, every industrial Robot I've worked with is more than capable of killing a man). Co-bots actually allow humans much greater interaction with Autonomous systems, right now. 

 

If you want to be worried about something, be worried about how there are no current job roles suitable for people with an IQ of 87 of less, which is 10% of the population, That is going to be the challenge of the future, as Automation and Robotics erode the low skill labor market place.

 

Regards

 

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I wrote earlier, it's more of a social problem than a technical one., and the advance of technology will never be stopped.

 

Question is do the top 1 percentile care about the other 99% - if the answer is no (as it seems to currently be) then there are huge societal problems ahead, especially in the developed world (i.e.here).

 

Brit15

Edited by APOLLO
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I am not, and have not been talking about "science fiction", as I state in post 35, I work in Automation and Robotics as my field as an Electrical Engineering technician and a member of the Institute of Engineering and Technology.

 

Everything you keep alluding too is some foggy ill-defined fear mongering, which demonstrates you have a woeful lack of understanding of how engineering works, along with the slippery slope logical fallacy.

No, it most certainly does not. I am talking about things that I see looking around me now and finding the current world rather disagreeable and concerning. It manifests itself in all sorts of ways that people just accept - buying your train ticket online rather than from a ticket office for example, another person out of the loop (not that all ticket offices have closed yet), another little bit of human interaction replaced with machine interaction. Insignificant in its own right but lots of similar small examples add up, and this is now, not the future. That's not vague fearmongering slippery slope, it's seeing a change I find unpleasant happening right now, and it's doesn't look like stopping. You can have a different opinion of whether or not it's overall desirable of course. Your appeal to authority and attempts at insults ("woeful lack of understanding of how engineering works") are missing the point and appear to be based on the assumption that because I don't like what you like I don't understand it.

 

While some businesses employing low skilled labor roles want humans to act as "robots" (generally through the use of targets), these low skill highly repetitive roles will be replaced with automation. Right now, every Robot put into use in industry replaces one low skilled job, and creates three new jobs (System integrator, System installer, System Maintainer). Are you under the impression the skilled people employed in such roles don't talk to each other?

If that was the case the workforce would have expanded massively. It hasn't. The installation of robots has created those jobs, yes, but not in a now employs three people for every one there was before ratio. The commercial argument for the robots would be rather less convincing if that were the case, even with the robots' additional productivity.

I suggest you also look at Co-bots (Collaborative Robots), I've done some work with both Universal and Kuka using their respective co-bots, which in interesting as 'hard' automation generally removes humans as much as possible from any process (primarily for safety reasons, every industrial Robot I've worked with is more than capable of killing a man). Co-bots actually allow humans much greater interaction with Autonomous systems, right now.

That doesn't change anything I've said.

 

If you want to be worried about something, be worried about how there are no current job roles suitable for people with an IQ of 87 of less, which is 10% of the population, That is going to be the challenge of the future, as Automation and Robotics erode the low skill labor market place.

Yes, that is the big concern, much more so than for those at the other end of the IQ scale, since machines aren't creative and innovative and nor do they look like becoming so in the forseeable future. Edited by Reorte
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...