The Future of Work Is Going to Be More Human

As automation takes on more routine tasks, work will become more about creativity, ethics, and empathy
Robots can already build cars and defuse bombs, but they can’t love. As work becomes more automated, economist Richard Baldwin looks at the different, unique form human labor will take.

[@xiaoranmo7308]

"Or apply ethic," I don't think human can do that either

[@vaibhavgupta20]

funny and sad.

[@isreal7772]

This is a paradigm shift of human life. Technological advancements in robotics and AI will phase simple human beings out. The Singularity is near.

[@marciamartins1992]

I don't regret never having children....and that's sad.

[@mannysemidey6049]

Andrew Yang is the only presidential candidate talking about the future of work. Vote for Andrew Yang! #Yang2020 #YangGang

[@k14pc]

interesting talk. I'm wondering why he didn't mention UBI as one of the possible solutions. I'm very skeptical that given the breadth of automation and the nature of jobs that are likely to replace old ones that most people will be able to transition into a new role. Millions of truck drivers, retail workers, food prep workers, admin workers seem unlikely to make a timely transition to coding or nursing or VR experience engineers. I worry that a prescription of retraining and sheltering will not be enough.

[@assemblyofsilence]

Andrew Yang has a very well thought out platform with UBI as one of his main planks. Probably the most intelligent presidential candidate we’ve had in decades. yang2020.com

[@marsmotion]

@@assemblyofsilence ubi just turns you into a techno serf dependent on govt hand outs.

[@calorus]

@@marsmotion Capitalism plus automation does this by itself; i.e. Companies will always choose the lowest cost option of the requisite efficacy. AI will, unless we want human contact per se, be out competing humans across the board. The question is, what do we do about humans afterwards. And the only options will be UBI and mass starvation.

[@assemblyofsilence]

@marsmotion: @calorus is right. We are confronted with a set of bad options. AI and automation are going to create a massive underclass that cannot be ignored. Global civilization has already been struggling for decades with unemployment and dispossession. You think people should just be cut off from life support? A transition period is necessary - and what society gets in return is the preservation of the humane aspect of humanity. What will humanity become if we don’t take care of those left out of the technological revolution? Best way might be to offer a higher level of UBI to those willing to retire their reproductive capabilities...tricky, but it’s a tricky situation.

[@marsmotion]

@@calorus not if the goals of the society shift from greed to a more expansive vision. something we have never really had other than more wars. those have been expansive. the whole idea of money needs to change and frankly be gotten rid of. the machines and the resources need to start serving humanity instead of the reverse. in other words its time for non psychopathic goals and leadership....good luck right...ubi in our current pol will just crash the currency to "0"

[@Nameeejz]

Okay, so if the biggest companies are digital and rely on data could we have them pay individuals to use their data? (And of course compensate us all for the data they have already collected, if that's measurable at all.) I feel like the right to own your own information/data/identity/privacy, including the (possibly false) commodification of it, should be enforced and allowed.

[@calorus]

It's a nice idea, but how do you manage the fact that that free data is the main currency we use to pay for "free" services. If we get paid for our data once, but have to pay a fee everytime we search, watch a video or post a message to our friends, will we be any better off? Without any idea of a tariff, or any practical means of measurement, how do we create a fair economic valuation of a non-scarce, resource? Especially one we are incapable of harvesting for ourselves.

[@Nameeejz]

@@calorus I wasn't considering paying a fee to use online sources. The way I see it is that a user's interaction with information is more valuable than the information being interacted with (although that probably depends on the user, you'd probably pay more to see how a professor interprets than a highschooler for example). I'm thinking more like an open source knowledge system where you get paid for learning/interacting/contributing. But this idea still is half-baked, I really don't know how we'd get a fair salary for data creation. You're right in that valuing a non-scarce resource is hard. I still like the idea of compensation for data creation though.

[@noahway13]

E V E R Y T H I N G used to be a human task; digging ditches, playing chess, doing our taxes, being a cashier, accounting, flying a drone, etc. Now technology does it. To think there are things that technology won't be able to do in the future is a joke. And to think that ALL humans will be artists and poets, and dancers, is laughable. Trouble ahead in paradise.

[@benjaminpohl8067]

Really good conversation. But there is a really big problem: Do we want to make the things humans are good at into jobs? How do we measure these things? Wouldt that not put wrong incentives on human interactions? I get the feeling the whole thing isn't really thought through. Universal Basic Income is a better, market based solution compared to Employement Protection Legislation etc.

[@stndsure7275]

This is unreasonably optimistic. It underestimates the amount of social unrest and potential totalitarian consequences. We had better make a decision about who actually owns the economy and distribute it fairly - fast. Most modern humans know nothing about ethics or morals which they believe are merely social constructs and matters of convenience - guess we will have to drop math from the curriculum and teach philosophy including ethics- aesthetics - teleology (meaning) !!!

[@JinKee]

Sounds like that if you want to retrain for the global robot revolution the only job left is the oldest profession.

[@calorus]

This is close to my opinion. What is left after the 4th Industrial Revolution will be places where we want to interact with humans. Yes prostitution, but also care professionals, restaurant and bar workers, live musicians. No-one cares how their computers were made, so those jobs are currently exploitative and will as soon as possible be automated. Everyone wants human contact when they are sick, irrespective of the medical or sanitary services - they want to feel a connection. So yeah, Truck Drivers, Manufacturing, Secretarial, Engineering... We may want to do some of these jobs, but because we don't care who does them for us we'll struggle to compete.

[@geoffgriffiths3381]

They are making sexbots that don't bitch and fight.

[@pablo_brianese]

Sex workers are already complainig about automatisation.

[@marciamartins1992]

Gezz if you can't count on a human to look out for you, (you know, realize that you have a mortgage, and a family to sustain) are we to count on machines to be benevolent? Yes you can run a machine to the ground, but not a human. There are laws against that. It's only when the copier prints the entire ream full of mistakes, that's when you wish you had a real secretary around to stop it. My favorite quote from Logan's run was, "but now it's happening to me!"

[@stardappledgreen]

If universal basic income and free college were implemented, people could be shifted around and retrained to new jobs as needed without having to slow down the adoption of new technology or fight to protect obsolete jobs

[@kchennessey8781]

This is why we need free college as a society. The "head jobs" right now are only accessible to the wealthy and those are the jobs that are most in demand. An entire generation is being lost to the selfishness of the rich.

[@calorus]

A lot of the head jobs are as vulnerable as everything else as well. Where did all of the accountants go? The lawyers are next.

[@kchennessey8781]

@@calorus CPAs are still doing very well. My brother-in-law is an accountant and he's never had trouble finding work. He also makes a 6 figure income.

[@lyndatregoweth3036]

Thank you. Interesting, important points you make. Thank you for your work.

[@ferriswhitehouse1476]

AI OF COURSE can manage people, educate people, apply ethics, be creative. People need to let go of there attachment to the idea of "jobs." Stop making excuses for market capitalism and let it go.

[@noahway13]

That guy is an idiot.

[@noahway13]

Well, maybe I spoke too soon. As I listen, he is OK>

[@GeorgeKaoCommunity]

This video was in my Watch Later list from years ago and just came up today. It didn't age well 😆

[@Shlooomth]

Hey, maybe we could accomplish a truly Socratic education system. Make most people teachers. Teach them how to teach how to teach

[@SolidAir54321]

Baldwin's whole discussion is in the context of a capitalist economy remaining the same as it is, where the elite still own the means of production. It's ironic that he says people are mistakenly using lessons of the past to project into the future because that's what he seems to be doing. The assumption is that new and different jobs will appear as they have in the past and it's up to us to figure out what those are. But what if the capitalist owners are finally able to replace workers so that all the products and services that society needs can be made by a small fraction of the people but it is totally owned by the elite capitalists? So the capitalists just don't need a large section of the population. Sure there will be some "human" jobs, but how many? What will be the value of the few jobs that are left? The capitalists like to paint the government as the bad guy. But as soon as people need jobs they don't go to the companies. They run to the government for help. And Baldwin is jumping aboard this train---it's not the responsibility of the companies or capitalism to fix the problem, it's up to the government or every man for himself. Companies just pull in the profit and fire people when they want. And he also doesn't mention anything about taxing the companies as a way for them to contribute to this transition process. Baldwin completely fails to face the problem that was pointed out by Marx. You will still have the undemocratic class division of employer and employee. The employer still has complete control. Baldwin talks a lot about how the government will manage the transition. But corporations now control government. What's going to change that? And as long as they do, the government's not going to bother. Just like they're not right now. We're now going in the opposite direction. Regulations to slow the transition period? Trump is busy abolishing as many regulations as he can. (Calling them "job-killing regulations".) Unless Baldwin accompanies his predictions with some fundamental changes in the economic system I think he is way off base.

[@marciamartins1992]

Yes, capitalism is a snake eating it's own tail. Who is going to buy your product if everyone is poor and can't afford it.

[@vaibhavgupta20]

there are very simplistic arguments being promoted in this video like decline of the workers because of technology. Well technology is being advanced for many decades before 1970's, no computer chip but technology nonetheless that increased worker productivity. So, why no backlash back then but there is now? The reason is the productivity gains were not shared by workers because of complex set of policies like labor union suppression, free trade etc.

[@consciouscrypto3090]

The key difference this time is that there will be no one to unionize b

[@vaibhavgupta20]

@@consciouscrypto3090 unionisation is just 1 part, there are many other things like taxes or regulation.

[@calorus]

No, that's because there was always something that people could do that technology couldn't do. When you automate the mind, a human has to compete with a larger intellect working for pennies a day, with infinitely greater precise memory, which can be intrinsically linked with any number of physical manipulators.

[@vaibhavgupta20]

@@calorus I'm not denying that however what I'm saying is you can't blame Trump or brexit on automation. There were complex set of trends which led to these things.

[@johnstewart7025]

Perhaps we need much smaller countries -- this would increase the number of government jobs and -- in a fair world economy -- more private jobs in each country. Economic growth might not continue to be material or in terms of human population. Perhaps it could be in terms of the quality of work humans do. Baldwin summons a vision of the future where the experts aren't on site. They are available only by email or phone. All those on site will be not qualified to make decisions.

[@barehandedspank]

This guy doesnt seem to comprehend what being human is. He thinks too much. Life isnt about the evolution of industry. It's about the next generation. And we continue to destroy the future by ignoring the real human side.

[@gigsrouiy8080]

Future to me it looks like a return to the plantation, any thoughts on that?

[@phil488pista9]

Not yet......

[@richardouvrier3078]

Polanyi, the Great Transformation; Weber, Modernisation.

[@derrickcooper6685]

High Tech, low wages, you right!

[@vaibhavgupta20]

cyberpunk.

[@gigsrouiy8080]

Well I'm not here to promote corporatism, monopolies over economy's that benefit the few at the expense of the majority. However all this automation has come in to mitigate forced higher wages in the economy, such as increasing minimum wage. I believe for as long as we have Monopoly over the economy by corporations then we should have increasing minimum wage. But they are going to mitigate that with automation oh, so we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we demand higher wages. Argue that a business has to risk the capital and so they should be able to make all the decisions as it relates to financial and economic sustainability of their company, but by the same token economy is monopolized so we have no other choice but to employ some morally hazardous tools such as minimum wage increases as an attempt to mitigate little effects of the Monopoly over the economy. But if you really want to solve the problem you would remove corporations ability to influence government policy and their attempts to maintain their Monopoly over the economy oh, and you would allow the people to express their Universal right to participate in an ancient free markets. The ancient horse and cart and vegetable stand free economics based on people's ability to sell the fruits of their labor participate in the economy without molestation or endurance as well as Government policies to try to prevent the individuals participation in the economy on an equal Level Playing Field with that of monopolists. This way people can be their own boss make their own hours and their own rules, after all they're going to be the ones that are going to risk the capital, their time and energy and everything involved was making a personal investment. We see some very crafty tools being employed by Jeff Bezos for example, who is delighted about increasing minimum wage because he's going automated and his competition isn't, this is a crafty method by which to eliminate your competition through government regulation. And in the case of Jeff Bezos we see how he has been able to establish and maintain Monopoly through the very government regulations that were put into place that supposedly help the poor. But tonight show ality it does nothing to help the poor but only sustain them how's the plantation worker of modern times. I would go on and on but I think this, this is going to be censored. So unless I hear comments from others thumbs down thumbs up so that I know this comment was not removed I will refrain from adding more supporting data to this comment. Please give me thumbs down thumbs up or reply so that I know this comment was not removed thank you

[@kchennessey8781]

Hey there! It's totally fine to have long comments but I would advise a little editing. Break it up into paragraphs and make sure your prose is easy to read. I'm interested in what you have to say, but the way it's written, it's hard to tell what your argument is.