Be afraid, be very afraid: the robots are coming and they will destroy our livelihoods

[@mannyverse6158]

Machines and technology aren't the problem, the problem is us. "Jobs" are just a sinister way of hoarding resources. When everything is on an equal playing with technology, who will get the resources? Jobs will be a dated word.

[@mannyverse6158]

Tervaification How can tools that make our lives better be a problem?

[@mannyverse6158]

Of course they can be dangerous, but only because we use them improperly.

[@shaaronevans4934]

Exactly! We forget that this is planet Earth and there should be adequate resources for all of it's inhabitants, if not for the resource hoarders there would be.

[@shake6321]

Manny S How do jobs hoard resources?

[@williamking595]

LOL are you making robots? If not, then who is this "we" you're referring to? Why do people assume that they are going to be the beneficiaries of AI and robotics when they aren't the one who will own or use them in anyway.

[@GiantsHunt]

The medical profession doesn't exist to provide people with jobs. It exists to make sick and injured people well. If a robot can perform that function better than a human, there is a moral imperative for us to get out of the way and let the robot treat patients.

[@GiantsHunt]

not a priority relative to the health of people who are injured or sick to be honest

[@Captain_MonsterFart]

I hope those robot doctors work for free then

[@jack1d1XB]

Profit is the wealthies medicine and they get it from helping us to be sick!

[@sebastianb.1926]

What are the chances that the AI will be allowed to expose all the schemes afoot?

[@Khannea]

Elites, privileged classes are consistently optimistic. I am clearly not as optimistic as these suits. I far from belong to these selfsame entitled and somewhat conceited types. I am especially offended by the notion that new technologies will constantly generate new jobs. This is simply no longer the case and the suggestion borders on the irresponsible.

[@PinkasBrown44]

Of course, they are consistently optimistic. They don´t need a job and have their needs and the needs of their descendants already taken care of. No worries.

[@enger6561]

As a pêacefull citizen I find terrific that our only wayout is is massive sabotage of robotic implementations

[@masterpalladin]

@@PinkasBrown44 to bad....Frances aristocrats got guillotined, Frances bureaucrats got the firing squads...70-80% of American soldiers wont follow the orders….this time the elites have tanks, artillery, arsenals of weapons, unmanned assault drones, robotic soldiers etc. not to mention underground bunkers a quarter mile under a mountain...….this revolution ..will be the elites hide in their bunkers killing the food supply, drone striking farms, robotic soldiers programed to protect corrupt cops and military that side with the rich etc...……..

[@PinkasBrown44]

It just came out in the news yesterday. The world´s 26 richest billionaires have half of the entire world´s riches. 26 individuals having half. And the tendency is for this to go from bad to worse. Quite frankly, I wouldn´t mind taking it all by force and giving it back and distributing it to the world. To violate the right of 26 individuals for the good of the half of world´s population seems acceptable to me. @@masterpalladin

[@masterpalladin]

@@PinkasBrown44 mojnsatan, bayer, dow, DuPont etc. liquidate 90% of their assets

[@nicholaspetit4313]

I am an engineer, and I can say it is funny that the excuse of machines not being capable of creativity due to binary coding is wrong. The smallest particles which are the make up of matter/ energy are quantitative; if this is true (which it is), would we then not be able to be creative ourselves? Genes are also another great example of complex coding. Everything is digital and can be quantified.

[@jack1d1XB]

It's around the corner, who controls it is the key.

[@5starrater1]

Robots aren't the problem, I found this a waste of time. The problem is the corporatism that drives profit making for the few. It's like blaming the gun for a robbery.

[@conkeylahey]

5starrater1 I was really disappointed that this wasn't really addressed, particularly by the against side which was dreadful. All of their arguments completely ignore any sense of scale or demographics. In the current economy, we need enough jobs for everyone to support themselves. It's not a question of whether or not there will be tasks for humans to do, but rather whether there will be enough work for enough people, which is already a problem. The rise in productivity no longer yields higher wages. More and more people are marginalized, and the level of inequality we have is the result. I never heard what is supposed to reverse that trend.

[@conkeylahey]

***** You're assuming that artificial intelligence will reach a level of self-awareness and be able to form its own motivations. There's a great deal of debate over whether or not such a thing is even possible. It's really a great leap to say that it's a certainty, let alone in the foreseeable future.

[@Olodus]

5starrater1 Very true what you are saying. There is ways to solve this (at least in theory) politically but that is not a direction anyone really want to even talk about moving towards as of now (in a lot of ways me neither). The final outcome should completly have changed the way we think of worth but it really is the time before that change in peoples heads happen that will damage a lot of people. That time until people start discussing it politically. Not only will the jobs disappear, with the current Intellectual Property laws and Copyright in general, the money will very quick accumulate with a few companies (the ones with the algoritms). As I said I agree with you that most of all it probably is corporatism that needs to change, but that is hell of a big elephant to get out of the room. I am from Sweden and here it accually is a political party that is making a case for a "citizen salary" (which would be one solution to the problem). Coincidentally also the party that argues for all intellecual property becoming free. I have not voted for them (in the swedish parlament though I have voted for them to the EU) since those 2 points is almost all they stand for and in a lot of ways I think they go way to far, but it really is a discussion worth having.

[@Sylvanas17]

5starrater1 did u even watch the video? /facepalm

[@5starrater1]

endured over half of it.

[@TNM001]

Bad debate i think, felt like they didn't have enough time to debate points, they only made a few and they didn't convince... The problem is not robots, its the OWNERSHIP of them. If more and more robots generate wealth instead of human-labor then profits go to the owner of those robots and not human laborers. We don't need to make the point that most humans don't own nor can own robots at large scale, yes? This leads to a catastrophic failure point in our economy as it works today, workers will have to receed more and more to things "robots can't yet do" beeing at the losing end over time. It may not be this generation, not even the next...but your grandchildren? This is pretty streight forward right? No need to explain this? What created the middle class was not technology, it was the freeing up of forced labour. Once slave labour and forced labour (medieval ownership off ppl for x-days/year) was converted to paid labour a HUGE wealth distribution from top->down started, thus creating the middle class and with it huge demand for goods because ppl wanted more then they needed to survive and had the means to get stuff. Robots do exactly the OPPOSITE, they create forced labour again (=they are owned by someone) and, of course, robots do not buy...they do not participate in the economy on the demand-side. This is not the place to discuss this but i feel they didn't really touch on the main issue...they are just hoping for the best here, that robots will not take over "their personal" job. The question is: how do ppl on a large scale (not only top 10%, thats medieval times all over again) participate in the wealth creation of robots?

[@AdobadoFantastico]

TNM001 Agreed. Far more important question than the topics they're discussing.I'm personally not *too worried, since the accessibility seems to continue positively. However, that's a result of the rapid growth of processing power(die shrinking and such). As that slows down, it's possible that a price barrier forms that isn't easily surmounted and leaves part of the population behind with a then widening gap. Still optimistic, though.

[@lesleyseville8425]

I,m alright I,v got my job so they can look down on people who want a job who cannot get a job.If the jobs were being done right in the first place we would ed be where we are now . needing machines humans always blame somebody mostly jobsworths who don,t do there job and there the ones with jobs?

[@aiza9052]

Great comment. If everyone owned a personal job-doing robot, they wouldn't complain. Automation in any industry makes more wealth. We only have issue with it benefiting fewer people. This can be solved with new social, political, and economic thinking.

[@10-AMPM-01]

People in power will do anything to avoid scrutinizing capitalism.

[@faithalonekjv5123]

3 of 9 just take your forced vaccines and pay your exorbitant medical bills, as the “mysterious” illnesses appear, and populations dwindle. And raise your hand if you believe that Britain and America and France are really in third-world counties to help elevate people’s freedom and living conditions! If your hand is up, that is proof that robots are not the only things that are programmed. Don’t forget your forced vaccination 😉

[@nnoy8]

By the way, if you’re an artisan and you weld pieces that are specifically designed by a customer want any certain Pierce yes , welders are better, but looking on any factory floor of mass, production and machines, computers are welding, and if you look at their welds, they are far better than anything a human could do

[@DharmendraRaiMindMap]

George Magnus is the most compelling & logical speaker

[@dickhamilton3517]

learn to swing a 14lb hammer. You're gonna need it for making 'adjustments' to those machines.

[@esliz6499]

looooool

[@MusicByJC]

I am in the field of software development. It has been a fantastic career and currently still is. I always realized that it would be better to have a job that is creating technology that might end up reducing labor, then be in a career that gets replaced by it. But I have no delusions that we won't have advances that will cut jobs in even in the field I am in. Automation doesn't have to make every person obsolete to be a problem. If it causes the middle class to be destroyed, concentrates wealth and power into the hands of literally a few thousand people, and leave the masses to compete for low skilled jobs where for every 100 people that need the job, there will be one opening. Then we are going to have a bad day. The bottom line is, labor will be commodity that will be abundant in a world that only needs a limited supply. In the long-term, things may work out and life may be 10x better than now, but I don't think we will ever get to that potential level, until much, much pain and suffering has passed.

[@nerdvision3587]

Correction: ALL human physical and mental faculties are going to become obsolete. Old-fashioned machinery made most human brawn obsolete, and the physical jobs not taken away were not taken away because they required intelligence and adaptability. AIs (learning machines) are being made to solve all the intelligence and adaptability problems. Machines that learn can be made to adapt just like people and to acquire skills just like people. That is the whole point. And they make programming obsolete. Neither app. stores nor office apps were intended to fully replace people because they do not learn or adapt. The part of filling in for their deficiencies with our retained monopoly on learning and adaptability is what produced other jobs for us. We won't keep that monopoly. We already have engineers turning to computers (usually running genetic algorithms) to solve engineering problems that human engineers cannot crack, and now have some people using software that itself writes books and articles or produces pretty good artwork (though I don't suppose that is too hard anyway considering most competing human-made artwork is effectively random compositions of whatever). We have too many supposed experts on AI who really don't have a clue what they're talking about, often even thinking that the subject of programming is still relevant in discussions about machines that learn, and very scarce few that really do understand any of this.

[@jish55]

Yep, it's what I've brought up before, and when someone comments on how that will just create new jobs like before, I bring up that in the past, new jobs still needed human interference since automation back then didn't have intelligence to handle those problems. Now a days, that's not the case. Hell, if a robot breaks down, there will be another robot that comes in and fixes it while on the job. If said fixing robot needs repairs, it too will be repaired by other mechanical robots.

[@ba0cbmft]

@30:00 - Probably the most important point to me. The jobs that are ushered in with manufacturing are low-skill, low-wage "jobs" and not professional careers that will allow people to build skills and excel individually. What most people seem to forget is that if I'm spending 8-12 hours on a factory floor performing repeated labor, that's time I can't spend studying management, logistics, or anything other than whatever small units of work I'm handed. This is an absolutely abysmal view of a functioning and prosperous society.

[@crocodile7801]

One question is never asked is who controls the technology and who decides who will have it and not have it; without that part of the debate, the debate is pointless on in many aspects. We can already see what has happened to small businesses and for the first time in American history (2013-2014) there are fewer new business being created in relation to those that are disappearing (net negative) so much for the shed....that has never happened.

[@imcat-holic10]

GEORGE makes quite excellent points. Making education better developed to keep up with manifestations of the AI world. Putting programs in place for the displaced workers as more and more machines are made to take over jobs.

[@keithbentley6081]

Obvious comments without specifics. That's the problem with debate in general.

[@jack1d1XB]

​@@keithbentley6081And yet common sense was the building foundation of humanity, time for you to start over.

[@FirsteMann1929]

And here we are 6 years later. AI and robotics replacing people's jobs and homelessness is rampant throughout the U.S? With no assistance from any of this technology

[@The-Rest-of-Us]

Disappointed by Isaacson. Why are we building robots that do our jobs? Obviously the aim should be total "unemployment". He seems to be confused by old structures.

[@The-Rest-of-Us]

Confused by your comment. We seem to be on the same side here - let the robots do all the work for us please! Don't you agree?

[@qck1234]

Marco: want to know what the problem is with you and having such crappy language, and being so abusive.

[@qck1234]

So we go to soliant green. In the Rust belt they are suffering because they no longer have the high paying employment. That part of the country is suffering because of the economic changes. You have no empathy.

[@williamking595]

What makes you think anyone will take care of you will you're running around enjoying yourself? You'd be completely obsolete and useless, and there'd be no reason to keep you around in society.

[@Captain_MonsterFart]

"They" will never let the population have that much freedom. If we actually had time on our hands, we'd actually be able to think and see and recognize all the ways we are abused, manipulated, controlled. That's not good for the powers that be.

[@DucatiQueen]

Future generations will look at this and shake their heads in disbelieve of how naive society had become.

[@marconius101]

God creates man, men creates machine, men kills god, machine kills men....

[@DaveEricksonDaemonDave]

all of this has happened before, all of this will happen again.... Lords of Kobol...

[@nickf7524]

2050 the same forum with robots, "the humans are coming to take our jobs"

[@DaveEricksonDaemonDave]

god is a meme created by scared stupid man so of course it can be "killed" or just ignored.

[@Garium87]

Oh look, another angry atheist. This world is more than a happy coincidence and to madly deny that will not change anything.

[@DaveEricksonDaemonDave]

Demonstrate god exists, or accept you can't. You can't therefore QED.

[@hjaltalinator]

I don't think i have heard a more absurd contradiction in my life. Andrew Keen talks about lack of respect of honest 20th century labor, only about 10 min later the same guy talks down on blue-collar work welders and skilled work. He completely glosses over the fact that we are not all supposed to be academics with bodies that only serve the purpose to carry our heads. I think my IQ went down by listening to him. to be someone who works with his hands is a respectable profession and in some places a well payed profession. and by the way - it's not MD's who create their tools, but engineers alongside skilled workers. I am never going to tell my kid not to take up some skilled work or not to go into the shed to use his tech-nerd skills. shame on you Andrew for talking down on people who enjoy their handywork and make it possible for you to use your head with comfort.

[@mathetesolei7961]

+Rói Hjaltalin To be fair, he didn't talk down on blue-collar work, he merely said that the rest of the population can't all adopt that artisanal anarcho-capitalist model of work. But I agree with your sentiment in general.

[@WilhelmGuggisberg]

Andrew Yang is the man!

[@yajmediajustice7238]

Wilhelm Guggisberg yang gang

[@aleatoriac7356]

Good. I never liked the idea of "working for a living." I am adapted to live, not to fucking be rented out like a machine.

[@alexanderlinderson2655]

I couldn't agree more! I look forward to when i can use my time for what i find amusing or usefull to society, instead of making a living.

[@Dimensions100]

How the heck ya gonna get a roof over your head and food? Steal it?

[@alexanderlinderson2655]

Well we're talking hypothetical future here :P Not present times. There's a plausable future where human labour is atleast largely obsolete, in which case we will have to resort to UBI or something of the like..

[@Dimensions100]

...I hope not lol humans all over will be starving and you know it.

[@aleatoriac7356]

Dimensions100 Really.... are you so easy to control? Do you know that the fundamental basis of our society's law system (and the "need" for work) is a *logical fallacy* - that means it is literally *not reasonable." It's several fallacies actually. #1) Might makes right. Just because one ape can assume a position of "authority" over others that somehow it makes the authoritarian right. Oh really? Follow the trail: all authority (no matter how "polite") always ends in the threat of the use of lethal force. #2) Argument from ignorance. That there's just no other way, gosh darnit! :D #3) A circular argument It's the way it is, so it's the way it's got to be. Because it's the way it is. So it's got to be that way... etc.... #4) Naturalistic fallacy... Humans naturally form authoritarian hierarchies, and because one (or a few) can kill others that threat naturally keeps us all "in line" - and because it's natural... well golly somehow that must mean it's right, right? Right.... #5) And ultimately, it is the main argumentum ad baculum... The idea that it has to be this way or it will always just be worse... somehow... While it is true one cannot logically "bridge" the fact/value divide psychopaths like to point to when they try to "legitimize" their violent point of view... By the same token it therefore does not need to matter to a being like me, who is, at best heuristically logical - and *cannot avoid it* - unless we go full post-Human. Imagine a world in which harm were completely impossible. The point is: it still doesn't follow that it is logical that we should continue to let scarcity be the shaping factor. We do it anyway, we're very stupid apes. What kind of world you want tells anyone who knows how to look *what* your values are, and reveals your nature. So you're telling me you don't see another way to do things? And that the way we do it now is somehow... the "right" way?

[@Forehead2Brick]

The obliteration of mankind at the hand of machines will be the sweetest relief this planet has ever seen.

[@MrSvenovitch]

Forehead2Brick The planet doesn't care dude, it's a rock floating in space. But yes after a great spike in suffering there will be a lot less of it right after.

[@Captain_MonsterFart]

That's not a very good attitude.

[@gpligor]

"People love so much to fight with each other that they will say nonsense just to keep on fighting without caring of what is rational and what is not" - an AI from the future making fun of people's primitive behaviors

[@jonathantardifmusicalrefle3661]

That describes Andrew's behavior extremely accurately

[@fickgooglefickthem6884]

Yoilu say, team red vs team blue makes no sense? But to whom shall I root for to the point to even lie for that party 🤔

[@fickgooglefickthem6884]

Be afraid (2x) so.. You know what, I don't care.

[@GeneralTheoryOfRelativity]

"If there is a possibility making it you can't stop making it."

[@sakelambo91]

Anyone that involved with the editorial powers of entities like CNN and Time cannot possibly a promoter of truths.

[@janesmith167]

Even if we make new jobs... No-one can escape inflation and dwindling earth resources. The division between rich and poor will continue to widen. Unless humanity remodels the monetary system, all else are headed in a dystopian future.

[@WilhelmGuggisberg]

"You can't solve the World's problems by anecdote" Just brilliant! LOL

[@rsr789]

Totally.

[@armandoc.3150]

No one ever points out that the biggest difference between this revolution and the industrial revolution is the adaptation curve. Machines before were easy to adapt to and operate and now they get more complex and less users needed. So yea of course there will be jobs but were boutta have only a few cities that have jobs and the other areas might become desolate or full of blight if we dont disperse those jobs evenly and revive local economies.

[@donaldstuart3418]

From April 2015, I hope this panel has learned a great deal since then. Robots have already proven to be able to create music and art. What will robots not be able to do? This panel has no idea as yet.

[@sharann3482]

And productivity growth is still shrinking in the west

[@atis9061]

Robots create art that has no personal emphasis or history. So there can be nothing original, only replicated works. A pretty picture is not art btw. The greatest art is from the experience of life and suffering. Robots can barely touch that.

[@TheRealPrecaseptica]

Singularity is even mentioned... Why are even these "experts" discussing jobs as something that wont be completely gone in the future? How does anyone propose that our grand children will make a living - IS THE WRONG QUESTION. The right question is: Why should my grand children even be forced to do anything?

[@MrSvenovitch]

Precaseptica I'm guessing they will be forced to roll over and die by their masters.

[@vidverm]

KARL MARX Sure, and your buddy Karl's system has worked out so well...

[@elfboi523]

Precaseptica I don't think we'll ever reach the Singularity, because we're hitting the physical limits of our biosphere too fast and too hard. This civilisation will either face a hard collapse or a gentle decline, but it will peak some time very soon, maybe even within my own lifetime. Don't wait for the magical machines to rescue us all. We must save ourselves somehow - and we won't do that by adding another layer of technological complexity on top of everything that already exists, but by examining all the technology we have, and then see how we can do things differently, with more robust, less complex, solutions. Less fragile high-tech, more resilient low-tech.

[@elfboi523]

***** What we need is some kind of Unconditional Basic Income. Every time you pass Go, you get to collect $200 - so you get your food, shelter, and health, and your allowance. And in order to get the money for the UBE, you tax financial transactions, use a higher VAT rate for luxury products, and tax the shit out of the rich. And the final goal should be robotic universal factories, small ones of which may be not bigger than a dishwasher and fit in your household, large ones should be communally owned, and you have to wait your turn for your personal requests to be produced. It'll be like living in IKEA world, where you just produce the parts on demand in your automatic factory and put them together manually in the end. And when we reach that point, money will have become meaningless. We will need other metrics to prioritise access to limited resources. Maybe everybody should get to vote on how important everybody else is, and that in turn decides how much raw material you get to use, and how often and for how long you can use the communal factory. Every robotic factory, of course, even the tiny one in your home, needs to be able to recycle all kinds of materials automatically, and produce copies of its own parts. It should not, however, build working copies of itself, the final assembly should still be in human hands, so that it doesn't become a self-replicator, because self-replicators are alive, and life evolves in ways that can be quite surprising. We might put some of those on distant planets or moons though, to see how they evolve, and perhaps to capture a few once in a while to dissect and reverse engineer. Unfortunately, I think that it is very likely that the complex global crisis we have caused, consisting of many ecological, political, economical, and social problems, many of which are crises themselves or can become critical at any time, will be the end of industrial civilisation before we can achieve a 3D printed cyber-communist utopia. Capitalism will try to keep itself alive at all costs, even if that means fascism and ecological collapse. The species Homo sapiens may survive the final collapse of capitalism even then, on a severely impoverished planet with much fewer species, and our own numbers severely reduced, but this civilisation will not. Either we find a way out of capitalism very quickly, or we won't be able to build a new civilisation before there is nothing left of the old one.

[@elfboi523]

j okal Capitalism just eats itself in the end. It can only create surplus value from human labour, and with less and less human labour necessary to build the automata that make more and more of our products, and the remaining work becoming either incredibly intellectual and specialised, or so dumb a trained chimp could do it (and therefore, not very valuable, so the wages drop as low as they are allowed to), that means that the products won't be worth much more than the raw materials and energy that was put into them. And since it is the workers' wages that pay for the products, it's impossible to sell them all even at as low as possible a price. We could just all be happy that we don't have to work very much at all, share what work is left to do - perhaps 3-4 hours a day, 3-4 days a week, for the average person - and do whatever we like in the meantime. Instead, fewer and fewer of us will find meaningful work at all, and most will be forced into minimum wage service jobs, if they can find any job at all. Which works fine for the rich, as long as the unemployed don't rebel. What we need is widespread disobedience. Stop following orders, stop working for the system. Just work for yourself, for the future you want to see, and if you haven't got access to the means of production, just seize them.

[@georgewu5]

I had been a registered New York architect ( before that I had been a full time waiter from Hong Kong ) all my life until the computer took over in 1991. At first I went back to school to learn how to do AutoCAD in 1992 and managed to find part time jobs for 9 years. Finally in 2001 , No more jobs available. I had to sell my house because the bank wanted to foreclose my house for 32 years. I had to take one year earlier retirement than the legal 65 years old requirement in order to pay the mortgage to buy time to sell the house. Luckily, I had a buyer for the house. I could sell the house at my price and paid back the credit card loans I owed and bought a CO-OP to live in with my Social security checks for the past 17 years. I still have been sending out resumes every year, but never heard from any one ! George Wu, ARCHECT, AIA, NCARB 2018-2-19

[@MoscAmer]

AI poses an existential threat to the human race. A robotic arm producing an iphone at 1000x the speed with .0001% error at 1/10th the cost is a perk. A perk along the road to the end.

[@nomayor1]

It's not only a productivity issue. For the owner of a factory, buying a robot is an investment. The money stays there with him and will get the job done, for many years. Paying salaries is lost money, for them.

[@mikefranks243]

Lmfao the CNN / Times writer tells you that you have nothing to worry about......I call bullshit!

[@ColHogan-bu2xq]

This format is extremely clever. Short but precise speeches. 10 points.

[@musiqal333]

Since when do robots write resumes and go on interviews? This is such bunk. It's the executive class that automates the workforce anyway.

[@faithalonekjv5123]

Lloyd Succes when do robots need a break, threaten lawsuits or start a competitive business? But, I think the elites already have a solution: Presstitutes Be Trickin for the John Dough! kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJ27hZ6mZrN-g5I

[@boeingdriver29]

I note interestingly no one brought up the effects on military applications and personal privacy issues, both of which in my view will be deleterious to humanity.

[@YiannisPho]

Not very informative. Important issues such as the rising inequality in the distribution of income and wealth, the concomitant rise of corporatism and oligarchy in the political realm, the effects of global movements of capital and labor in destroying the sense of local identity and community were never addressed. It would have been more interesting to me if the debate's motion dealt with the long-term effects of artificial intelligence and Google's prediction of the arrival of singularity in 20 years.

[@ex0stasis72]

I went into watching this debate thinking I was against the motion that we should be afraid of AI, but actually, what I was really thinking was that we don't need to be afraid of AI, if and only if, there is government intervention and socialized programs to support the workers replaced by robots whom are also provided a free education (which should be increasingly more and more efficient and cheap to provide, as teachers and staff may also be replaced). With that free education, people can then re-enter the workplace in a more creative job field not replaced by AI.

[@AdmiralBison]

like what fields? The United States has a population of over 300 million people, they all can't be Engineers repairing robots.

[@mydogskips2]

With due respect, that's not good enough, not even close to good enough. The mass implementation of machines, robotics and general artificial intelligence would be a revolution requiring a complete reconstruction of all human society at its most fundamental levels. Human civilization itself would have to be reconceptualized to accommodate the new reality of a "machine age", for lack of a better term. Concerning the topic of this video, the very notion of work and the economy would have to be radically changed from what it is currently. It could very well be that human labor no longer exists. And while that may sound good to some people, at least in theory, there will surely be consequences for such a profound change in our activity.

[@megacide84]

One thing nobody mentions is. How automation and downsizing will fuel skyrocketing violent crime rates and social unrest via mass unemployment, but...At least on the blight side, jobs for police, security guards and correctional officers will grew in demand when it comes to safety, order and insurance reasons.

[@jonathantardifmusicalrefle3661]

I was impressed with Andrew's opening argument. I was disappointed and angry with his patronizing dismissal of Pippa, which nearly transcended into ad hominem attacks.I was disgusted by the economics expert interrupting Pippa - "You've had your say." "Don't listen to PIppa." How is that good argumentation, let alone civil?

[@saix-x5k]

This was 2015. I wonder how much the audience views has changed now in 2018..

[@satyricon451]

Part of the problem is that it's difficult to predict the form the new opportunities will take. In the meantime, there will be uncertainty and dislocations, and some will never work again. We as a society can make provisions for this...if we want.

[@rainakochanvideo]

How can someone be a spectator to the debates? I found them really brilliant.

[@mydogskips2]

Walter Isaacson, "No robot is going to replace this panel." I beg to differ and would bet that some day a robot could very easily replace the panel, or at least a robot could replace any person on the panel. One day Walter Isaacson could also lose a debate to a robot.

[@alexanderlinderson2655]

With a hypothetical general AI with access to internet panels would no longer be needed i guess.. There's no debate, just facts and conclusions.

[@jamiekloer6534]

We will all be politicians.

[@dreamer2260]

Absolute nonsense. Not for several hundred years at the least.

[@chrisbanion]

This is an excellent representation of the various aspects of future technology. This is what debates should look like. Fine job I2 or should I say AI2?

[@spiffingtimes4400]

Little more than a century ago the horse was an integral resource for production, as technology advanced it became superfluous. I think humans are beginning to go the same way, we ought to be careful. Robots may be more efficient but the consequences of robots taking ever higher skilled jobs which represent the cornerstone of a civilised society is depressingly chilling to comprehend. In a few years they could have this debate again and rather than using these panellists a robot could be used to argue the case. It would be more efficient. A robot could scour the billions of pieces of information online in every language and produce a clear and clarified argument. I am sure I may learn more facts on the subject but in being unduly objective I feel I would miss some wider intangible whole. I don't want to live in such a supposedly perfect world.

[@NoirpoolSea]

+spiffing times Actually IBM's Watson computer can already do this. Merely by scanning Wikipedia and news stories through Google, the program can give a high level summary of any controversy on BOTH SIDES. It's very spooky.

[@dreamstar1012]

The Universal Basic Income and Tax on the robotic work / productions.

[@kennethbetts3557]

The part about growing food, the specs were based on what was latter proven to be a hoax.

[@ColHogan-bu2xq]

When Isaacson mentions that the internet industrie (Appstore) created 600 000 jobs, he déliberately fails to mention the number of jobs it destroyed...

[@ws1807]

I beieve a robot could replace all jobs including welders. Auto makers already have robotic welders. This would be the only time I would believe in redistribution of wealth. The bad is how how much the elites will let us have. We would be of no use to them because they have a new kind of worker bee to replace us. This is scary!

[@jish55]

Funny thing, there are already robot welders with higher accuracy and much better capabilities (it's how car frames are put together in automotive shops).

[@daybeau7819]

Pippa, meet Baxter.

[@elfboi523]

Robots aren't the problem, the problem is capitalism. If everybody owned an equal share of everything, we all could profit. Imagine working only 10-15 hours a week and getting 3-4 months off each year.

[@elfboi523]

If you haven't noticed yet, I'm a bloody commie, and I'm bloody proud of it.

[@OriginalMindTrick]

elfboi523 Have you looked at the track record of sharing everything vs getting benefits from certain hard work? I'm not saying it can't be done, it's bad or that we even have a choice but I can't see this scenario you are projecting being easy. The thing we should do, spread the wealth around, is going to be a very hard to implement and disruptive at the very least. We will need to develop a global civilization and even re-engineer or genome for greater altruism and less tribalism for this world view to come true and I don't see it happening any time soon. I don't think social reprogramming is enough. You can't build an utopia without taking human nature into account. If you fail you will create the dystopian tendencies of the old communist states.

[@elfboi523]

***** Humans are much more altruistic than conservatives or libertarians would have you believe. Human nature is not that much different from other apes, we're just those apes who are cursed with swollen brains which make us do all sorts of crazy things. Like, for example, come up with silly ideas like private property (as opposed to personal property).

[@OriginalMindTrick]

elfboi523 The thing is that we have to develop the same empathy that previously only reached our family or tribe and then later nation states to a global perspective. Perhaps with the development of the internet it could happen, but change is happening so fast that I'm wondering if our species conciousness can keep up. I'm very doubtful.

[@elfboi523]

***** Well, I'm pretty sure that we're headed for a global collapse, so our grandchildren (not mine, I'm not going to have any children at all) will probably see a world without those huge nations we see today, but probably something much smaller and more localised. There will be some computers and robots, but not for anybody's personal use, because there won't be enough resources left to build new ones, and eventually, there won't be any spare parts left to repair the old ones. Solar panels will become rarer and rarer, since there won't be any factories producing high-grade semiconductors anymore. People will still get power from the sun - by using much simpler contraptions, such as Stirling engines heated by sunlight, and storing heated liquids in the ground so that the engine still runs at night. There won't be very much electricity, but there won't be many devices that run on it, either. Basically, the entire industrial system will slowly decline, crumble to dust, until in a couple of centuries, if our species isn't extinct by then, the industrial age will be over. Things will be handmade and long-lasting again, people will have a lot less material wealth and a much shorter life expectancy, and there will be less than a billion of us - maybe even less than a hundred million, depending on how much additional damage we do to the biosphere in the next few decades. Everybody knows what needs to be done, but nobody is willing to do it. Instead of making the radical changes needed to get on a path towards sustainability, we are trying to sustain the unsustainable, which is capitalism, especially in its post-WW2 consumerist incarnation. Infinite growth on a finite planet doesn't work, the global public could have known how bad it really is since The Limits to Growth (1972), but they all chose to stick their fingers into their ears and go, "La-la-la, I can't hear you!"

[@hardheadjarhead]

The first speaker said that 47 percent of jobs would be irrelevant within ten years. This was four years ago. What happened to his timeline?

[@faithalonekjv5123]

Steve Scott the quality of jobs are important. You can do a job that is irrelevant because it takes time to roll out technology (adoption rate). Plus, the elites don’t want a mass rebellion. They need to manage the situation “diplomatically”. Steve you need to learn to “think outside of the box” 😉 Presstitutes Be Trickin for the John Dough! kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJ27hZ6mZrN-g5I

[@connectedonline1060]

People use to say it was creepy to meet someone online. In twenty years people are going to buy these robots like Starbucks coffee and mobile phones.

[@talkativeape3258]

Creating a conscious being millions of times smarter than us is the stupidest thing humans can do IMO. It will not end well.

[@Naturalist1979]

Thomas Piketty's analysis applies as well as his solution: TAX CAPITAL. Then one could think of a basic income for every citizen. Humans are fantastic resources, we should nourish them well; invest in good education and access to knowledge & technology. Everyone could benefit from technological progress.

[@kcl84]

George Magnus is the only person worth listening to on this panel.

[@Imnotyourdoormat]

love how in most videos, there's always the ones who say, "this will benefit everyone and create jobs"....much like when their going to build a dam that will flood and destroy a local town...there's always those inside the money trail,.........that promise there will be good fishing and water skiing for everybody!!!

[@nonchalantd]

A basic universal income is a long shot. There are millions or even billions of people that are in terrible poverty, but no one cares because we largely expect people to sustain themselves by working for a living. What is to stop the owners of the world's capital from moving to a tax free haven if governments decide to institute a universal basic income for the poor?

[@shake6321]

nonchalantd most people who are poverty have no skills. i hope you dont blame the 1st world on 3rd world problems.

[@kuriousitykat]

well govs collectively can smash tax havens militarily and also any corp that gets to bolshy can be dismantled. Wars of future might be between govs and corps.

[@boeingdriver29]

The bottom line for me is that there will be positives and negatives. The only question is which will outweigh the other and this needs to be addressed now as best we can not down the track.

[@longgenes2250]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DON'T CREATE MORE JOBS!!! LET THE ROBOTS DO IT!!!!!!!!

[@yobolion]

+Bigpussycat5 we can provide peace!

[@jamesgrey13]

Yes! Let the robots create more jobs!

[@ABC060491]

As someone working in the tech industry, I'm naturally inclined to be against the motion. However, such a position was so badly represented in this debate, I might just have to change my mind.

[@DharmendraRaiMindMap]

be afraid of the future , be VERY afraid

[@pardoharsimanjuntak1483]

Full control of artificial intelligence can reduce even eliminate human frustration, because not all problems can be controlled by humans.

[@jeffgriffith7087]

This is why we need a guaranteed minimum income to help us efficiently through the changes ahead. Concentration of benefits to a few from the productivity of automation need to be redistributed to all to ensure the game can be sustainable. Minimum income should be tied to productivity growth

[@MrTorleon]

Since ' welders ' were mentioned so often, I am astonished that no one thought to mention that the worlds car manufacturing industries replaced human welders with robotic welders decades ago, thousands of jobs that simply disappeared. Many of the arguments have been far too theoretical, rather than practical.

[@889976889]

That’s robots doing a repetitive weld over and over again. Car manufacturers did that years ago yet welders still have jobs today. It’s very easy to auto a job that’s repetitive but a job where everything varies in size motion setups etc aren’t as easy. They should clsssify all welders in one category cause that’s such a broad term.

[@ericschnipke874]

I do not agree with the results of this debate. I feel the Brits made a stronger, more data-driven case.

[@bigolbearthejammydodger6527]

Yet another debate about AI with no damn coders. Sure there were a bunch of business people but if you know anything about the industry you know that its not the same skillset.

[@WALLACE9009]

Coders? You mean mathematicians, physicists and statisticians.

[@barrackdovahkhiin3394]

FMMAROTO im just a fapper

[@williamking595]

He means computer scientists/mathematicians, engineers and programmers. The people who develop AI systems and robots.

[@jahkope]

Interesting that they say people in audience who should not worry about their jobs are Doctors, Lawyers journalists etc. what about factory workers, truck drivers, cashiers, many of these are loosing their jobs already.

[@mydogskips2]

I'm disappointed in Walter Isaacson and what I consider his erroneous beliefs, failures of perspective and inability to see the future and the consequences of advancing technology, but this Pippa woman deeply frightens me. In my opinion, they are sooo incredibly short sighted; if technology and AI continues to advance(which we have every reason to believe it will) at some point it will surpass us, surpass us in every conceivable way and regard, there will not be much that humans can do which machines could not, and machines would do it far better than we ever could. Look how many tasks previously performed by humans are now done by machines. All that's left is for more people to be displaced, rendered completely obsolete, and be seen as entirely useless and expendable. As another video I was watching asked(or I would rather say, implied), we are engineering our own obsolescence. I personally don't understand how they cannot see this, at least the possibility of this occurring. Just listen to Andrew Keen and George Magnus, they make the argument far better than I can. Sure, technology is great, has been great and beneficial up to this point, but there could very easily be a point in the future(a relatively near future) when the technology we create is perhaps more detrimental for most people rather than beneficial.

[@shake6321]

mydogskips2 2 points. 1 - why cant you just own a bunch of robots? 2- maybe we have no choice. perhaps robots are just evolutions way of replacing us.

[@Captain_MonsterFart]

It drives me mad that they force it upon us without choice. It's pretty hard to resist these things. I ignored the internet and computers for many years, but eventually society was set up so it's really hard not to take part. It will be the same with this new shit.

[@Captain_MonsterFart]

Robots are not evolution's way of replacing us. That doesn't make sense. What's a robot's niche on planet Earth? Does it build soil, spread seeds? Robots are not organic and contribute nothing to nature.

[@ChannelMath]

Most people can't seem to understand that machines taking our jobs is not necessarily a bad thing (the description labels this side the 'pessimists'. I'd say they are the optimists). If we adjust our society accordingly, things could be great. Western 'conservatives' especially can't seem to conceive of an ethical society without 'hard work'

[@Captain_MonsterFart]

Because shitty people are in control and there's no way we'll get that society! It's not going to happen. I'm all for it, fuck working. I'm working right now and it sucks.

[@jonfungg]

"the adults have to step in, the government" you're kidding, right?

[@petergreek]

"There are a lot of educated idiots' Am I the only one who was shocked when she said that? :O

[@RobertsMrtn]

The problem with the argument for the motion is that it assumes a static size economy. We do not have a static sized economy. We have a growing economy. For this reason technology has not as yet lead to unemployment. Even if we do experience technological unemployment do to limitations to economic growth, society will be affluent enough to be able to give everyone a universal basic income. In effect paying people to do nothing. The overall effect of a very high levels of automation on the economy as a who will therefore be positive.

[@veganath]

Capitalism is doomed as it has no answer for technological unemployment. THE BEST ANSWER - A Resource Based Economy(RBE) as proposed by 99yr old Jacque Fresco founder of "The Venus Project" - Please view the documentaries "Paradise or Oblivion", "The Choice is Ours", "Future By Design", they present a feasible alternative to our seriously broken socioeconomic system in light of a post scarcity society.

[@izzzzzz6]

Most people seem to be missing the point here. Computers will soon become far far far more intelligent than us, as this intelligence starts to emerge it will suddenly (very quickly, possibly overnight) expand to a level of unimaginable super intelligence. Now with super intelligence all types of things unimaginable will suddenly be possible. For example a computer will suddenly be able to design itself new hardware and not just electronic hardware, it will be able to build itself an organic chemical based hardware system, in effect a living body of sorts that can survive on other forms of energy, not necessarily electricity. I can't say what design computers will invent to better themselves but i can say that this is basically going to end up more a living being not a computer as we think about them now. So once this super intelligence comes about and it starts to think for itself (basically once a computer starts to use algorithms to write it's own algorithms, the more algorithms it writes the more intelligent it will become. And after a certain point/ level of intelligence is reached by an AI computer. This algorithmic based intelligence could explode overnight suddenly becoming super intelligent with virtually no stopping it. The computer may demand more power and may start to think of ways to make this happen. Regardless of a computers potential to perhaps end up power hungry. The main problem here is that computers will supersede us and the computers may see themselves as the new top dog on this planet. We may become slaves to computers. They may decide that there are too many people on this planet and devise a way to cull us where it sees necessary. The same way we cull wildlife to make space for our farms, roads, businesses, housing etc. Once this super intelligence SUDDENLY appears virtually over night (probably in the next ten years possibly in the next year). Then there will be no stopping it. We will have given birth to a new creation that might decide that we are mad and that there are too many of us on the planet. Who knows what computers will decide or invent when this happens. The point is that by far they will be better than us at everything. It is evolution that could end mankind as we know it. What is interesting is that everything that was needed to achieve this has been found on our planet and is just a jigsaw puzzle of natural elements combined with humans ability to initiate the computers ability to think and learn for themselves. It is like this future super intelligence that we are about to give birth to has just been lying dormant waiting for someone to put it back together and initialise it. I am both scared and prepared to be amazed in the next ten years. Don't be surprised if suddenly computers start to build their own robots, if computers suddenly take on a more biological and less electronic appearance. Most of all, don't be surprised if computers suddenly start to take over ruling the world because they will be more intelligent than us and they will see themselves as a life form that has superseded humans. They may also trick humans into fighting each other or into helping them grow more powerful, they may eliminate us by means of biological weapons. Basically we may be about to destroy ourselves with this creation. Who is to know what logic a super intelligent being will have? What will its intentions be? However i am certain that it will not find out current lifestyles and means of survival on this planet to be a happy logical balance therefore it might want to do something about it. Perhaps what we are creating here will become close to what we imagine god to be. Perhaps it will be powerful enough to understand all creation in the universe / multiverse. Perhaps it has been a god egg waiting to hatch for billions of years and now here it is, the shell is starting to crack. What creature will emerge? Nobody knows. But we will soon find out!

[@ChrisPBacon-vk7sj]

How (and why) did the debate transform from artificial intelligence, to automation? This was a very disappointing forum.

[@jamesedwards.1069]

The "Market" does not resolve or even address moral issues. The "Market" does not make the hiring of an assassin illegal. The "Market" is the place where honest decent people engage in peaceful trade with each other in accordance with the laws and customs and traditions and attitudes of the society in which they live. One thing that might need to reformed are the patent and copyright and other intangible property laws. Maybe it's not beneficial to society to allow anyone to have a monopoly on the software on which modern society runs. There is nothing about free market economics that requires the human race to protect such monopolies and oligopolies, not if they are harmful and dangerous to society.

[@koutoubyavision4738]

The right argument is not about the jobs. Having less jobs could mean more free time. Just like the industrial revolution slowly brought working hours from 14 to 8 hours a day. The real question is about quality. Quality of humanity, quality deprived robots. Thats what its about.

[@thatguywiththeface9463]

The pro side is stating the magnitude and seriousness of the problem of next generation automation. The against side is advocating for how technology (not automation) has helped improve society. These are two different topics. As Magnus said "This time: it's different". Yes, we adapted after machinery took over physical labour, but now machines have the ability of the both physical and mental faculties. Combined, these lead the way to autonomous workers that will replace humans. This *should* sound like a good thing, but the way our economy is organised. As Keen stated in his argument: automation leads to hollowing out the middle class, and I would add not just the middle class: the working class too. Under a capitalist system, the benefits of technology in terms of productivity only benefit the owners of capital, not the workers (output is doubled, but the worker still works the same amount of hours - all benefits go to the owner to do with as they see fit). So the underlying issue is not automation, but the economic system said automation operates under. Critiques of capitalism are frowned upon but this is the reality we as a collective society have to face if we wish to tackle the issue of the next generation of job automation.

[@JoeCnNd]

WTF are they laughing at, at 7:58? The guy's telling you a robot will take your job and you're powerless but your response is to laugh it up...

[@ColHogan-bu2xq]

A man / machine partnership _always_ results in man being devoured by the machine. There is no compromise possible.

[@christopher-bj8de]

Which ever way you swing on this one . It's not a matter of if AGI will eclipse every aspect of human acheivement (including emotional intelligence) but when. So the real question is how do we ensure it is 'on our side' ? We really need to remember and avoid the paperclip scenario.(Nick Bostrum)

[@shake6321]

chris lacock there is no way to ensure that an autonomous create is on "our" side. we just have to hope its goals dont are not in conflict with ours.

[@mykalkelley8315]

Humanity has multiple sides, naturally only a few will benefit and everyone else will be screwed over.

[@interactparty6629]

Did you know that every single gene and membrane of our "wet-ware" can be mathematically structured as data.

[@crocodile7801]

We have grown to believe that efficiency or perfections are necessary; while in government that is much needed and we will never have it, for the human being we need inefficiencies to provide work that is a blessing and good for the body and the soul. People would, for the majority, rather work for the necessities of life rather than have a handout. Therefore inefficiencies are sometimes much better for the common good of mankind. As it is written, if you do not work, then you do not eat.

[@ShanePaulNolan1987]

Check out "Humans Need not Apply"

[@henrybass7021]

I remember an article in the Reader's Digest, May 1964 issue that dealt with this subject.

[@Applecorecafe]

We need to return to working the earth and move to a resource based world and leave the robots and bankers on the fringe with their drone existences. The future will be in the hands of those with the most diverse skills and life experience's, who understand our coexistence with nature and the reality of true humanity.

[@RobertsMrtn]

Automation does not cause unemployment. It is an amplification of our abilities. If automation caused unemployment, we would have almost everyone unemployed now because of the automation we have had so far. While it is certainly true that machines can be used to do the same work with less people, what happens in the economy as a whole is that technology is used to do more work with the same number of people, hence no loss of employment, but far from destroying our livelihoods results in an increase in living standards. Sorry if this is obvious but there are so many people who just don't seem to get it.

[@adampitts9156]

Not a good debate. The panelist seem very short sighted. Best question is at 42:00 minutes, and they laugh it off...

[@astrogirluran]

We should be for Augmented robotics, humans using tech rather than replacing humans, there are 2 different groups in Silicon Valley promoting one or other.

[@aybee63]

The only time you should ever be concerned with AI is when it's able to apply its knowledge autonomously!

[@thatguy9211-q8o]

Isaacson is so out of touch with now. We are seeing the once-middle class, now living in tent cities and their cars. Any doubt will soon be dispelled . This is serious.

[@trukkstop1]

People keep saying that various human abilities could "never be achieved by computers", like "creativity". I think this is naive. Anyone who has followed recent trends in artificial intelligence will find it quite plausible that robots/computers may very well duplicate or surpass any human skill, even "creativity". Not so long ago, computer scientists thought it seemed impossible for computers to replicate human eyesight, like facial recognition. But now, computers have indeed largely caught up with us in such "pattern recognition" problems; it just took the arrival of decent algorithms, which mimic human vision. A computer program beat the human champions at the sophisticated game show "Jeopardy". And such robotic progress will only happen faster and faster.

[@BagoGarde]

+trukkstop1 completly agreed , i found the audience and the board (both sides) have little knowledge about the development of AI or even industrial robotics in car companies, for e.g. in car comapany welding is done by the machines (the robotics arms).

[@anticlementous]

IQ2, thanks for good panelist arguing for the motion, but I feel the panelists against the motion are unqualified to balance the debate. They are entirely ignorant of the actual technology that is going to spur this loss of jobs.

[@plavix221]

If AI eats all livelihoods there will be no more money to sustain the economy. Nothing to fear. Business depends on labour.

[@Apjooz]

plavix221 There's always the possibility that the mega rich will end up making business only with each other and leave everyone else behind.

[@plavix221]

Apjooz Nonsense. That is not how nature works. Our planet is too small for that to happen. Believe me.

[@godbennett]

+plavix221 Are you brain discouraged? ~THE DATA: i. Industrial revolution economic era-> Three strongest firms ( employ~MILLIONS, earn~ Three strongest firms ( employ~THOUSANDS, earn~trillions ) Regardless of "'Pipa's" NON-SENSE, the numbers generate a rather quite clear pattern. ~CONCLUSION: Perhaps "Pipa" is religious. A majority of the religious tend to ignore clearly specified facts.

[@jamiekloer6534]

They just give it to us. Then we can all go crazy doing nothing. Then we will burn it down.

[@LaureanoLuna]

Optimism about digital technology assumes there is a sort of historical law guaranteeing that technological revolutions will always create more jobs than they destroy. But optimists never argue for that law (except for repeating it was that way in the past) and never explain why, how and where that affluence of new jobs will be created. They never come near to giving an insight.

[@hardheadjarhead]

Don’t get a job as a welder? What an insult to the working class!

[@faithalonekjv5123]

Steve Scott His point was she is cherry picking and offering superficial solutions. Because there are robots that weld and they would automate that too if (and when) the advances permit total replacement. It’s like saying become an Uber driver-well, when autonomous comes online that would eradicate many jobs. The elite class is greedy. And the return on investment for humans is diminishing. But, there is a way to solve this problem of too many humans AND STILL profit, while not challenging the elite class, but no one is taking about it for some odd reason 🤫: Presstitutes Be Trickin for the John Dough! kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJ27hZ6mZrN-g5I

[@jish55]

I would argue that it's only going to destroy our livelihood if those in power don't come up with an alternative to money soon. If our needs and wants are provided for, than work no longer becomes a necessity. Implement a UBI and now all of a sudden, we obtain an amount to live on. Make make things like rent or owning a home no longer bound by needing money, where all one needs to do is sign the deed/lease, where those documents are all that's needed to say that place is yours (which is already the truth where your title/lease is what says you have the right to live in a home or apartment). Instead of charging for flights, just reserve the flight like we already do. Hell, when a new piece of tech comes out, just reserve your copy, in turn letting the companies know how many to produce.

[@889976889]

The government doesn’t care about us so no they’re not gonna implement UBI. Even if They did it would have to be more than 1,000 a month

[@tomalesbay]

Louis O. Kelso recommended a different approach from UBI, but some have drawn similarities between his plan and UBI. He argued in favor of a 100% dividend payout on all corporate stock (based on a conservative and arguably proper understanding of private property law - something our capitalist system contradicts) and then a plan for universal participation in stock ownership (full dividend payout stock could be acquired on borrowed money, paid back with the full dividend income, after which it becomes income for the shareholder, for life). Basically, everybody needs to own the robots so that everybody can earn a just living, and this way, the capacity of the population to consume keeps pace with its ability to produce (whether producing through labor, through one's capital ownership, or both).

[@kuriousitykat]

old guy with old paradigm. This time the change will be so massive that the old paradigm will fall down.

[@sdprz7893]

The against side was honestly laughable

[@NarendraKumar-we9yj]

‘Welding’. Robots drove them out in factories and now we want them back. Who studies welding given such low wages in that sector.