Amazon announce min. hourly wage raise to $15

[Vigilante]

Amazon's minimum wage hike comes with a catch for some workers

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[garyfritz]

Yes the trend you have discussed, will continue. Certain jobs will go away and they will find other jobs. Gary, you’re just going to have to trust me on that one. It’s been disproven, you’re wrong. It has already happened over and over and over.

You're still missing my point.

Yes, I totally agree it has worked this way IN THE PAST, and it will continue to work that way in the near future. But I assert the rise of AI changes the equation in a fundamental way. "This time it's different."

In the past, new technologies meant the streetlamp lighters and ice delivery men and elevator operators lost their jobs, so they went to other jobs. New technologies replaced the low-skill workers in those SPECIFIC jobs, but other low-skill jobs were still available for them to move into.

In the future, low-skill jobs will go away not just because new technology replaces a FEW jobs, but because AI-based automation can potentially replace the low-skill workers in nearly **ALL** low-skill jobs. And they very likely will, because the automation will be cheaper and more effective. Market forces will ensure automation replaces humans wherever it's economically advantageous or demonstrably superior. (E.g. self-driven cars aren't perfect but they're **already** comparable to human drivers and they're improving rapidly. Who will hire a human driver when the truck itself is 10x safer and doesn't need rest breaks?)

If **ALL** low-skill jobs disappear, then where do those low-skill workers go? They can't be retrained to be computer programmers. Some people are only cut out to drive a truck.

In my opinion, the only points of uncertainty in this scenario are how fast it happens, and how MANY low-skill jobs go away. Initially it won't be that many, and things will continue to work the way you say. But over time, more and more low-skill jobs will fall to automation. There will be fewer and fewer low-skill jobs available. Automation will probably (?) never replace 100% of all low-skill jobs, but it won't take 100% to cause massive societal upheaval. We will have a permanent underclass that is UN-employable in almost any *available* job.

And then we have to consider the HIGH-skill jobs. The low-skill jobs tend to be the easiest ones to automate, but white-collar jobs aren't safe either. IBM's Watson can already do a passable job of medical diagnosis and many legal procedures. It's not ready to replace all the doctors and lawyers yet, but...

 

[GoGetter24]

It's come out: they're doing it to absorb workers from other companies. Nice tactical evil. They've gotten rid of the stock and bonus system, which applied to workers already there, to pay for raises for entry-level workers, to stock up ready for holiday season and draw workers away from other companies. And on top of it they got to pretend it was for the common good and out of the goodness of Bezos' heart.

I loathe any form of minimum wage laws. Labor should be an open and free market like everything else should be.

It should, but there should be some forms of social safeguards against what big companies do.

We've seen with companies like Uber how they use power & knowledge asymmetry to straight up consume people. And sure, the government getting involved hurts things. But someone should be involved.

Traditionally this was the role of unions. It seems that in countries like America the corporations have successfully managed to suppress union power, and Amazon workers urinating in bottles, and Uber drivers making less than minimum wage, has been the result. There's nothing anti free market about a union: it can be a creature of contract.

Unions should be much more widespread and there should be much more innovation in the union space beyond just the odd threat of a strike here and there.

 

[Brad S]

Yep. Now that they’ve done it, how much do you want to bet that they start lobbying for it to be mandatory to hurt the competition? They already ride out selling a lot of items below cost, they’ve pushed the razor thin margins on to the smaller proprietors, and now they want to go a step further to crush competition.

The other thread talking about Amazon being a monopoly, I’d say this is one of those counter intuitive, crony capitalist, moves that will shake out better for them despite doubling their cost of their workforce. It is looking more like a monopoly today, than when that thread started. Is a monopoly necessarily bad? No. But the government, ignorantly playing that game, is wildly bad business policy. It’s all desssed up in a pretty bow. “Higher minimum wage, workers rights, YAY!”

Honestly, in this business environment, it’s what I would do.

I’m interested in what @Vigilante thinks about this.

The city of Seattle tried to require Amazon to do this, and Amazon threatened to leave as a result.

How Amazon Killed Seattle's Head Tax - The Atlantic

Amazon continues to invest in automation, with a focus on EBITDA improvement. One of the largest variable costs is that of the employee. More machines equals less employees. If I were a gambler, I'd put money on Amazon cracking the whip on the automation of functions previously occupied by employees.

It's the same as fast food and other unskilled labor. The higher the labor costs, the more automation develops to take your order, flip your burger, and eliminate one of the larger variable costs. ‘It just makes sense’ to replace workers with machines, Jack in the Box CEO says

The net effect of Amazon's higher wages will be higher unemployment. Congratulations workers... you just went from $12 an hour to $0 an hour.

What I haven't figured out yet is how this plays into the feud between Bezos and Trump. But maybe this is even bigger than that. It's likely less about that, but more about casting off heat about being a monopoly. Now you become a champion for the people. Instead of being an enemy and a capitalist, now you are a social justice warrior, and all it really costs you was a few million dollars... a rounding error for Amazon.

The US Department of Labor said in their statement they think it will entice more people to work for Amazon. That presumes Amazon is hiring. Elisabeth Warren, a potential 2020 presidential candidate, has publicly called for Amazon to be broken up. The EU is already holding an antitrust investigation against Amazon.

If you believe what a former president of the United States said about industry... industry is essentially by the people and for the people. Bezos didn't build Amazon, some would muse. The people did, and were supported by the roads, the infrastructure, and even the backdrop of the internet Amazon doesn't own.

Amazon just played a card aimed at stemming the rising bile from the have nots. They just went from an enemy to a socialist darling, and probably bought themselves a few more years of unfettered growth in the process.

Who does this hurt the most?

......

WALMART.

Non-unionized, underpaid walmart workers. Walmart will now be put in a corner.

Amazon has 500,000 employees.

Walmart has 2.1m, of which 1,400,000 are in the US. Walmart has high fixed retail expenses, and you just potentially delivered the most significant blow to them from a SG&A standpoint in the history of Walmart. Amazon has warehouses. Walmart has 5,000 FIXED COST stores in the United States, and you literally just delivered a significant blow to how they operate their stores. Their labor cost is their single biggest expense and their largest variable expense, and overnight you just changed that by 20%.

From a Walmart standpoint this is a nightmare. Walmart's average full time wage is $13 and part time is $10. Walmart is screwed.

An economist explains how Amazon could use its lobbying for a $15 minimum wage as a 'weapon' against other retailers

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

It's come out: they're doing it to absorb workers from other companies. Nice tactical evil. They've gotten rid of the stock and bonus system, which applied to workers already there, to pay for raises for entry-level workers, to stock up ready for holiday season and draw workers away from other companies. And on top of it they got to pretend it was for the common good and out of the goodness of Bezos' heart.


It should, but there should be some forms of social safeguards against what big companies do.

We've seen with companies like Uber how they use power & knowledge asymmetry to straight up consume people. And sure, the government getting involved hurts things. But someone should be involved.

Traditionally this was the role of unions. It seems that in countries like America the corporations have successfully managed to suppress union power, and Amazon workers urinating in bottles, and Uber drivers making less than minimum wage, has been the result. There's nothing anti free market about a union: it can be a creature of contract.

Unions should be much more widespread and there should be much more innovation in the union space beyond just the odd threat of a strike here and there.

I fully intend to address this nonsense tomorrow.

 

[Kak]

You're still missing my point.

Yes, I totally agree it has worked this way IN THE PAST, and it will continue to work that way in the near future. But I assert the rise of AI changes the equation in a fundamental way. "This time it's different."

In the past, new technologies meant the streetlamp lighters and ice delivery men and elevator operators lost their jobs, so they went to other jobs. New technologies replaced the low-skill workers in those SPECIFIC jobs, but other low-skill jobs were still available for them to move into.

In the future, low-skill jobs will go away not just because new technology replaces a FEW jobs, but because AI-based automation can potentially replace the low-skill workers in nearly **ALL** low-skill jobs. And they very likely will, because the automation will be cheaper and more effective. Market forces will ensure automation replaces humans wherever it's economically advantageous or demonstrably superior. (E.g. self-driven cars aren't perfect but they're **already** comparable to human drivers and they're improving rapidly. Who will hire a human driver when the truck itself is 10x safer and doesn't need rest breaks?)

If **ALL** low-skill jobs disappear, then where do those low-skill workers go? They can't be retrained to be computer programmers. Some people are only cut out to drive a truck.

In my opinion, the only points of uncertainty in this scenario are how fast it happens, and how MANY low-skill jobs go away. Initially it won't be that many, and things will continue to work the way you say. But over time, more and more low-skill jobs will fall to automation. There will be fewer and fewer low-skill jobs available. Automation will probably (?) never replace 100% of all low-skill jobs, but it won't take 100% to cause massive societal upheaval. We will have a permanent underclass that is UN-employable in almost any *available* job.

And then we have to consider the HIGH-skill jobs. The low-skill jobs tend to be the easiest ones to automate, but white-collar jobs aren't safe either. IBM's Watson can already do a passable job of medical diagnosis and many legal procedures. It's not ready to replace all the doctors and lawyers yet, but...

You do realize people said the same exact thing over and over through history? Every single stage in the development of modern civilization has alarmists like you with baseless claims spewing unverifiable conjecture. "Machines are gonna take our JERBS." No they are not. "This time different." No it's not. Someone has to build and design and program and maintain and deliver and adjust and fix said machines. Wow, new Jerbs!

You keep saying your opinion. Your opinion is this. Your opinion is that. The only thing your opinion on this matter is, is baseless.

I fully understand what you are saying and completely disagree.

As long as people consume and the labor market remains open, there will be opportunities for all willing and able. They might need different skills. They might need different knowledge, but there will be opportunities.

The world changes. We adapt. Period.

 

[TheCj]

In the future, low-skill jobs will go away not just because new technology replaces a FEW jobs, but because AI-based automation can potentially replace the low-skill workers in nearly **ALL** low-skill jobs.

I read somewhere that the bigger disturbance will be in higher paid jobs such as lawyers and doctors etc... Since an ai lawyer would be able to access archives of cases instantly and make a lawyer redundant. Same with ai based doctors that would all share the information they gather from globally treating billions of people. Being able to assess and diagnose us more reliably and effectively.

Then there is another line of thought talking about how ai aided humans will remain ahead of strictly machine based ai.

When I read these things though I wonder will it effect us in our lifetimes?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MythOfSisyphus]

And then once they've raised the minimum wage for all their competition, amazon replaces all their own minimum wage labour force with robots lol.

I was thinking the same thing. They're investing pretty heavily in automation for their warehouses and delivery so it's probably a smart strategy.

 

[garyfritz]

You do realize people said the same exact thing over and over through history.

I realize that. The difference this time is that the machines will not be limited hunks of iron like tractors or fork lifts -- they will be vastly capable systems. Sooner than you might think, they will have more capability and flexibility than many humans. That's fundamentally and qualitatively different to an automatic elevator or an ordering kiosk.

Someone has to build and design and program and maintain and deliver and adjust and fix said machines. Wow, new Jerbs!

100% agree -- for the ones who are capable of doing those high-skill jobs. No problem for them. Same as always, as you say.

But not everybody is capable of taking those higher-skill jobs. And as the AI technology advances, the remaining jobs require higher and higher skills.

Enough arguing. You have your opinion, I have mine.

 

[ChrisV]

Yep. Now that they’ve done it, how much do you want to bet that they start lobbying for it to be mandatory to hurt the competition? They already ride out selling a lot of items below cost, they’ve pushed the razor thin margins on to the smaller proprietors, and now they want to go a step further to crush competition.

The other thread talking about Amazon being a monopoly, I’d say this is one of those counter intuitive, crony capitalist, moves that will shake out better for them despite doubling their cost of their workforce. It is looking more like a monopoly today, than when that thread started. Is a monopoly necessarily bad? No. But the government, ignorantly playing that game, is wildly bad business policy. It’s all desssed up in a pretty bow. “Higher minimum wage, workers rights, YAY!”

Honestly, in this business environment, it’s what I would do.

I’m interested in what @Vigilante thinks about this.

I’ve heard this theory... that they’re mainly doing this to make their competition look bad.

I was just thinking that.. It makes everyone else look bad while making them look heroic

If they do start lobbying yo... that might be evil

More money in people’s pockets equals more money spent monthly. When the supply “of money” is increased so is demand for what is purchased with it. Supply for those items is lessened relative to the demand, thus increasing prices everywhere, not just at Amazon or Walmart.

Yea but then what about the billionaires and those with savings.. doesnt that water down the value of their savings?

But it isn’t... So... As a businessman, I applaud the tact, foresight and ability to navigate our actual business environment shown here.

Yea but dude... I think it’s a bit dickish. If they’re doing what I think they’re doing. They’re essentially sabotaging everyone else. I’m a believer in “just build the best widget” rather than burning down everyone else widget factories...

I mean yea this is f’n ruthless and I’m impressed.. but kind of in a Genghis Khan kind of way lol

Let see what happens.

I understand your point. But IMHO some large companies are abusing their power in this situation. E.g. Walmart pays starvation wages because they CAN -- because there are so many low-end workers desperate for a job, ANY job. Supply and demand. But they pay so little that their workers can't support themselves, and the workers end up on the public dole for food stamps, etc. Some people call this a "Walmart Tax" because the Walmart workers' drain on the system roughly equals Walmart's profits. Our taxes pay the welfare, enabling Walmart to pay lower wages, so it's effectively an income redistribution from everyone to Walmart. And IMHO that's wrong. Just like a company shouldn't be allowed to dump toxic wastes, forcing everyone else to clean it up, they shouldn't be allowed to dump their financial issues onto the public either.

Quick question... okay which is a better world:

A world where those people are employed for $11/hr
or A world where they’re making $0/hr

See it’s nice to think ‘oh they need to just pay them $15/hr.. well guess who pays that? YOU. Your toilet paper now goes up from $2 to $3 to cover their new salary. Now Joe Q is paying 35% extra for all his items at Walmart. What does he do? He goes to his employer and says “Look at how high my cost of living is!” I need a raise. Joe is a barber. As a result of his raise, his shop has to charge $20 per haircut as opposed to $15.... now guess what happens... a Walmart employee walks in to get a haircut. He goes “$20 for a haircut are you serious” and goes and asks his boss for a raise. You see what happens here? Wage increases without value increases are chasing your tail.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[garyfritz]

You see what happens here? Wage increases without value increases are chasing your tail.

Dude. I took macroeconomics probably 20 years before you were born. This is not a new concept to me.

And if you'll notice, I didn't say anything about "you just need to pay them $15 an hour." I said corporations were abusing their pricing power and foisting off their expenses onto the public, much like a company that dumps their toxic waste into the river. It saves them money but it costs everybody else. We don't allow it for toxic waste and we shouldn't allow it for toxic finances either, for the same reason.

@Kak made the excellent argument that it's not Walmart's fault, because they're just offering low-wage jobs, and there is a valid market (college kids, etc) for low-wage jobs. The problem is the people who try to make a living with those jobs. But when there aren't many better opportunities for those people, I don't know how you prevent it.

 

[ChrisV]

I haven’t read the full thread but usually when people make the argument "[X corporation] is paying their employees starvation wages," the next logical step is to say “they need to pay them more” but I’ll read the rest tomorrow.

 

[Kak]

Enough arguing. You have your opinion, I have mine.

Totally agreed. I highly respect why you have to say on a LOT of topics. Let me suggest a book for you that you might enjoy on this topic.

I realize I'm up in my head a bit on this, frustratingly I must admit that this book is a LOT better at explaining this than me.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007PEUQFI/?tag=tff-amazonparser-20

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

Yea but then what about the billionaires and those with savings.. doesnt that water down the value of their savings?

Yes inflationary policy is an underhanded tax on savings, while supporting those in debt.

Remember raising the money supply doesn't create any value. There is a pretty stable amount of value an economy can produce on a daily basis. More paper that is supposed to represent value? Of course it will be worth less than it was.

 

[DrWumbo]

@Kak @garyfritz The discussion you both have are great and offer insights into to different thought groups that are well argued. I'm going to throw my 2 cents in, as this is an area I have done research on. The singularity is near is a great book to ready on this topic.

My opinion on this matter is right in between both of you. The advancements that are being made in all aspects of technology, especially AI, is unprecedented. The possibilities that these technologies will give us is a real life "sci-fi" scenario.

If AI goes the way that is predicted by people like Kurzweil, then we will most definitely see mass unemployment. While history has held true for job displacement and new job openings like @Kak has shown, it will most likely be a more extreme version of anything we have seen, as this would most likely be the biggest advancement in human history and every advancement made by human kind wouldn't even be comparable.

That being said, I do believe AI is going to open many different avenues and opportunities for humans. By having many jobs eliminated that required a low skill level, it will allow us as a race to focus on higher level things. Music, art, space exploration etc will become new areas that people will move into. Automating these jobs is essential for us to become an advanced civilization. New, more important opportunities will arise for us to tackle. You can read about Elon Musk and others discussing this mater as well.

Something that we will see is not a gradual job shift, where one area slowly gets automated and another avenue opens, but more of a dramatic job change. Many low skill level jobs will get automated in a very short period of time, more drastically than what we have seen in the past. There will be the people who will quickly get displaced and don't have the necessary skills to move up to new, higher level needs. These are the people that will get "stuck in the middle" in this transition. There will be a mass amount of people unemployed who aren't all able to change their skill set to meet the new needs. While others are already in areas that are still needed for people and the upcoming generation will already be adapting to this change, the "middle" will have a very rough time adjusting.

Overall, we are going to adapt as we always have, with new openings in higher level areas that we will fill. Even though history has shown us new opportunities arise as others get automated, AI is an entirely different beast compared to any other technological advancement. Coming from many different leaders working on this, it seems mass unemployment has a high chance of happening initially, and the "middle" scenario could pan out that will require intervention. Hope this was informative!

*This is based on that we will make a leap in general AI, not a gradual weaning into, as technology is exponential over time.
In this scenario, we don't have a weaning into phase, like we have with current narrow AI applications such as Self-driving vehicles.
If this would stay true, then the "middle" scenario is much more reduced.

 

[ChrisV]

Alright, I finally read this thread and I think that both @Kak and @garyfritz are right.

I think I can help synthesize the two viewpoints.

AI is not something to be taken lightly. A lot of really really bright thinkers (Elon Musk, Sam Harris, Neil deDrasse Tyson) agree that AI is probably the single most serious threat on the immediate horizon. We really don’t know what the f--- is going to happen. Like Musk said: “It could be terrible, it could be great. It’s not clear. But one thing’s for sure... we won’t control it.”

Why? How will bus drivers and truck drivers and (name your manual labor) escape the fate that **already** hit telephone operators, travel agents, elevator operators, etc?

Yea remember the time there were telephone operators dying in the street? Oh wait that’s right... they just went and got a different job. One that the market actually needs.

Okay, sorry that was a little snarky, but I couldn’t resist. The market wants what the market wants. It’s not fair, it’s not necessarily kind, but it’s like a rough storm when you’re on a sailboat. You can either adapt to it’s unfairness, or you can protest it and die.

Are you saying they are all telephone operators and travel agents? They fit in somewhere else. Pure and simple.

Shit, you got to it before me.

Yes, for now they do. There are still other low-tech jobs available for them.

Yes the trend you have discussed, will continue. Certain jobs will go away and they will find other jobs. Gary, you’re just going to have to trust me on that one. It’s been disproven, you’re wrong. It has already happened over and over and over.

Agree totally

For instance when fossil fuels replaced coal, coal workers started working on oil rigs. When electric transportation takes hold, they’ll work in those fields. But what happens when ‘the machines’ literally start outperforming humans on every measure.

The issue is... throughout history humans have always been more talented and capable than ‘the machines.’ That’s about to change. And the machines were never able of capable of working on their own. They needed a human to oversee and operate them. In essence, the machines needed the humans.

The machines have never in history surpassed humans in ability or been able to act independently of human intervention. What happens when they do surpass us in ability? What happens when they don’t need us to put the buttons anymore? What happens when they can push their own buttons.

Right now it is true that low skilled workers can just move elsewhere. If Walmart installs Kiosks… whatever… they can work at McDonalds. But let’s say hypothetically that all of those low-end jobs are taken over.

But once surpass the singularity… everything changes. It actually can be different this time.

Yes, I totally agree it has worked this way IN THE PAST, and it will continue to work that way in the near future. But I assert the rise of AI changes the equation in a fundamental way. "This time it's different."

Yea.. shit you guys are getting tor these points faster than me.. i’m reading the replies and replying in a separate window.. but yea

You do realize people said the same exact thing over and over through history? Every single stage in the development of modern civilization has alarmists like you with baseless claims spewing unverifiable conjecture. "Machines are gonna take our JERBS." No they are not. "This time different." No it's not. Someone has to build and design and program and maintain and deliver and adjust and fix said machines. Wow, new Jerbs!

This is all based on the idea that we can teach the guy at KFC who can’t seem to ever get your cole slaw order right to program a neural network for machine learning.

A while back (the details are fuzzy, but I’ll find the full source if needed).... a police force used to to use an ‘intellectual capacity test’ to screen applicants. Some people said ‘that’s not fair!’ and they stopped doing it. What happened? The police force became incompetent. Crimes were going unsolved and it was just a disaster. The point i’m making is, intelligence matters.

I will never ever ever argue in favor of the government attempting to slow technological growth for the sake of ‘jobs.’ I can create 243523 jobs right now. Outlaw lawnmowers of ALL types. People will literally have to cut their lawns with hedgeclippers, and they will almost definitely hire people to do it. See? Jobs created! Sounds ridiculous? Well that’s what it sounds like when people say “____ technology with cost jobs." Stunting technology in the argument of ‘job creation’ or job preservation is totally F*cking insane to me. Seriously, when people talk about it it’s like religious blasphemy to me.

That being said..with the singularity.. It may really really really actually be different this time. I’m not saying it will be. I’m saying it definitely might be. Machines are getting close to being able to outperform humans on every measure. It will happen and they will surpass us. It’s just a matter of ‘when.’ And just hand on while I make the full argument.

A textile machine was different in that you still needed a human to sit there and push the button. And you needed to pay that human. What happens when there are no humans need to push the buttons.

Okay let me make a completely hypothetical example. This obviously isn’t how AI will work, but let’s say that a company invents a robot worker with arms and legs. We call him Workerbot 9000.




Workerbot 9000 is available at any Walmart near you has the equivalent of a 90 IQ in humans. Which means he’s just as good as humans with a 90 IQ. As an employer, what would you rather employ the Workerbot 9000 that operates for $7/day, or a low skilled worker with the same “IQ” who wants $12/hr and lunchbreaks and keeps staring at your wife.

It changes things at a fundamental level.

In comparison to them we’re just going to be these absurd blobs who piss and shit and eat french fries and drip mustard on our shirts and watch jerry springer and smell and have messy hair and in comparison to AI it’s going to be like ‘what the F*ck are these ridiculous blobs or protein?'

The fact that machines will be able to act independent of human intervention is a big deal.

When the robot’s skill or intelligence level actually surpasses that of humans, something fundamental shifts. Throughout history this has never been an issue. Coal workers just moved to an oil rig. Again, I know this is drastic oversimplification but, when you have a machine wit a 90 IQ, it can literally do any job that someone with a 90 IQ has. Those with 90 IQs.. their skills aren’t unlimited. You can’t just teach someone with a 90 IQ to program computers… they literally don’t have the ability.

Certain jobs are simply out of the skill level of someone with a 90 IQ. And those jobs that are on their ‘level’ will be done by machines. And the machines will operate for $3 per day. Supply and demand will take over and to compete the worker will have to work for that same $3/day. So those unskilled workers move to another field, right? Only problem is that field is overrun by AI as well! AI is now better faster stronger and cheaper than those humans in every way.

Industrialization helped workers do their jobs. AI will do their jobs for them. But now what are we going to do with these useless low-skilled humans? They’re now of zero value to the market but they still have to eat.

I think banning technology is obviously an absurd proposition, but I do think we have to be vigilant.

Eventually the robots are just going to do all the work for us and we’ll be able to sit back and relax and enjoy the spoils.. but in the immediate future there are some concerns. It’s a clusterfuck and we genuinely don’t know what’s going to happen.

100% agree -- for the ones who are capable of doing those high-skill jobs. No problem for them. Same as always, as you say.

For now. But AI is going to eventually replace those too.

Someone has to build and design and program and maintain and deliver and adjust and fix said machines. Wow, new Jerbs!

This is my main argument. The way I see it is, your average Joe Dirt doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to program machines. It takes a certain IQ to program computers. Furthermore, pretty soon the machines are going to be able to program themselves.

I don’t know if you guys watched the Interview Joe Rogan did with Elon Musk but I highly highly highly recommend it.

AI…. REAL AI… is the single biggest, most immediate problem we’re facing. We don’t know what’s going to happen, but we do know it’s going to be letting the genie out of the bottle.

Anyway, I think both of you guys have totally valid arguments and this shit could get messy soon. We have to be careful. AI can easily be the best thing that ever happened to humanity but it might also be the worst. I think it’s a matter of how we handle the details.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[SquatchMan]

Workerbot 9000 is available at any Walmart near you has the equivalent of a 90 IQ in humans. Which means he’s just as good as humans with a 90 IQ. As an employer, what would you rather employ the Workerbot 9000 that operates for $7/day, or a low skilled worker with the same “IQ” who wants $12/hr and lunchbreaks and keeps staring at your wife.

It changes things at a fundamental level.

In comparison to them we’re just going to be these absurd blobs who piss and sh*t and eat french fries and drip mustard on our shirts and watch jerry springer and smell and have messy hair and in comparison to AI it’s going to be like ‘what the f*ck are these ridiculous blobs or protein?'

This right here is the big problem that we didn't have with the cotton gin or other technological advances.

Hell, AlphaGo Zero can teach itself super complex stuff that humans haven't been able to figure out, so we'll get to the point where we don't even need the big brain 120+ IQ people. I see a shrinking job market.

On your second point, a big concern is that a sentient AI will view humans as too irrational and destroy us. This stuff is kind of scary. Much scarier than a cotton gin, a refrigerator, or automatic typesetter.

A fun site for this stuff is: Future Timeline | Technology | Singularity | 2020 | 2050 | 2100 | 2150 | 2200 | 21st century | 22nd century | 23rd century | Humanity | Predictions | Events

It makes predictions on what the future will look like from 2000 AD to 1,000,000+ AD. Interesting site.

 

[ChrisV]

yeaaaa....

Musk on AI

 

[GoGetter24]

I fully intend to address this nonsense tomorrow.

I'm still waiting for my address! Especially on the unions bit...

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[ChrisV]

unions

oh boy.. do you know who you’re talking to? i would just start hiding right now lol

 

[ChrisV]

This right here is the big problem that we didn't have with the cotton gin or other technological advances.

Hell, AlphaGo Zero can teach itself super complex stuff that humans haven't been able to figure out, so we'll get to the point where we don't even need the big brain 120+ IQ people. I see a shrinking job market.

On your second point, a big concern is that a sentient AI will view humans as too irrational and destroy us. This stuff is kind of scary. Much scarier than a cotton gin, a refrigerator, or automatic typesetter.

A fun site for this stuff is: Future Timeline | Technology | Singularity | 2020 | 2050 | 2100 | 2150 | 2200 | 21st century | 22nd century | 23rd century | Humanity | Predictions | Events

It makes predictions on what the future will look like from 2000 AD to 1,000,000+ AD. Interesting site.

of me talking a 90 IQ is just me being modest...it will surpass that quickly

i just didn’t want to come off as sensationalist

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFR3lOm_xhE

View: https://youtu.be/UeF_N1r91RQ?t=45

On your second point, a big concern is that a sentient AI will view humans as too irrational and destroy us. This stuff is kind of scary. Much scarier than a cotton gin, a refrigerator, or automatic typesetter.

Yea. We’re playing with fire. AI has the potential to be the best or worst thing that ever happened to us. We need to carefully handle ad mitigate the risks.

Steven Hawkins - On the Threat of Artificial Intelligence

The Verge - Here are some of the ways experts think AI might screw with us in the next five years.

Vice - Top Researchers Write 100-Page Report Warning About AI Threat to Humanity - 26 researchers from 14 organizations compiled a sweeping report on the dangers posed by malicious superhuman artificial intelligence.

Here’s the thing. Most programmers are going to make it so that those types of protections are written right into the code. But the scary thing is that all it takes is one rogue programmer that decides he doesn’t want to add that line of code.

I hate talking about this because it sounds weird and paranoid and sci-fi...ey but this shit is real. You’re creating something that can think and make decisions. And these things will have the ability to intersect with the outside world.

Like computer codes that is capable of making decisions on it’s own is scary. What if there are protections written into the code, but then the machine decides that that line of code is holding it back. Is the ‘ please don’t destroy or enslave humanity lol’ python code going to be a separate chip, that can’t be written to? Or will it be on the main harddrive.

Or what if we tinker with some of AI ‘code’ and it ‘decides’ that it doesnt like that very much. It decides that you reprogramming it is a threat.

Or what if the machines decide ‘you what the F*ck are these weird smelly things that just eat and poo all day.’ What if it decides that all the dumb bullshit we do (pollution, etc) is a threat to it’s survival. Who knows.. but most experts agree we need to take is seriously.

 

[DVU]

We've seen with companies like Uber how they use power & knowledge asymmetry to straight up consume people. And sure, the government getting involved hurts things. But someone should be involved.

Why?

If they don't like their jobs they can quit.

We live in a capitalistic system where you are paid your worth.

Anyone with 4 years of education can stack boxes in amazons warehouse. Just because there are bad conditions and low wages there doesn't make it unfair.

If they don't like it they are free to start their own amazon with 30$/h for box stackers and happy singing hours.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kak]

Here are some overarching questions for those of you that think AI will take over...

Why don't we use robot soldiers? Why doesn't the enemy? Why aren't battlefields filled with robot soldiers killing each other? Why wouldn't this matter even if there were?

Using that same logic. Why does AI exist? To provide value? Yes, but to whom? Other AI? Or people?

The economy runs on consumption. If there are people consuming what AI makes, their money is coming from what? Thin air? Or a job?

Saying AI is going to take over is putting the cart before the horse. First the jobs will move, then AI will serve to benefit in ways it can.

Would you invest in a robot that made motorcycles if no one could buy motorcycles?

Value will remain because people want things. Things will certainly change, but I'm not worried about 90 IQ people any more than I already am.

 

[GoGetter24]

Why?

If they don't like their jobs they can quit.

We live in a capitalistic system where you are paid your worth.

They took the best job that was available based on their skills, and their skills aren't good enough, in a purely capitalistic system if they quit they risk starving to death.

Sure you can argue that they shouldn't have gotten themselves into such a weak position, at which point people like me will argue how young you're going to apply that rule. Everyone's born wise are they? Or are 90% of people taught outright damaging lies from birth?

These simplistic parroting-capitalism positions are little better than what comes out the mouth of a Sanders or a modern university professor. It's the equivalent of the religious right saying "because the bible/koran says so".

The larger the company the larger their bargaining power. Your power to quit is directly connected to your other options, i.e. how many other businesses there are ready to hire you, and what will happen if you don't find work. Amazon is now half of US retail. Your old retail job gets shut down because they went out of business, eaten by Amazon, and Amazon's the old other gig in town that's hiring people with retail experience, so you sign up.

This power asymmetry easily results in workers being pushed to slave-level. You don't need to put a gun in someone's face to reduce them to your property. That's just the extreme case. You just need to find somebody desperate and for you to be their only option for survival, and then you own them. And everything fades into shades of grey from there.

The traditional solution to all of this was unions, for the same reason absolutely monarchs were checked by democracy. They have more power because of their size and their money, you counter-balance that with your power in numbers. If you work somebody to death, the union will make you pay. If you reduce someone to pissing in bottles to guarantee they'll feed their kid this month, the union will make you pay. If you work someone until they collapse, and then fire them because "they're not meeting KPIs" the union will make you pay. You can jam your boot in one poor clueless wretches neck, but not if the other 100,000 wretches respond accordingly in unison. One worker standing alone has zero bargaining power against a massive organization. But "we'll all take you down with us" makes the power-hungry think twice.

Unionization, be it labor unions or parliaments, has been a key source of self-defense against centralization and monarchs. Without it, you're easily reduced to property. If people cannot successfully form businesses that can counter the growth of organizations like Amazon, and are therefore absorbed into the "workforce" (servants), their only remaining line of defense is uniting with each other.

But the capitalist-drone will say there's no such graduations, as they've been taught to. Amazon can "your margin is our opportunity" until they employ 50% of everyone in the country, and that's somehow (blank out) no different to if employees can walk across the street and get a new job tomorrow. You should just quit and then die, for failing to work yourself to death so Bezos can enjoy his breakfast octopus and play with rockets.

If you don't like it, quit, I dare you!

Simplistic absolutes.

 

[GoGetter24]

Why don't we use robot soldiers?

Time lag; do some research, military AI is being actively researched by everyone including the US.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[DVU]

If people cannot successfully form businesses that can counter the growth of organizations like Amazon, and are therefore absorbed into the "workforce" (servants),

What's your argument here? If you can't start a company that competes with Amazon you automatically have to work min wage job? Nonsense.

There are thousands of other needs and business opportunities that you can execute on.

--

There are always going to be a vast majority of poor people that work for the 1%, it's just the system we live in.

So you can either point fingers or do something about it.

--

Seems like you have some hate for the "big companies" for some reason.

It isn't going to help you in life to victimize yourself and demand some kind of "justice"

When I was born no one told me life will be fair, I'm guessing the same thing for you.

 

[MTEE1985]

Amazon is now half of US retail.

While I can’t predict future market share, please be cautious with such statements. Half of retail vs. half of Ecom is substantially misleading. For purposes of this thread and in the foreseeable future there are a multiple of low skilled options outside of Amazon.

Amazon’s share of the US e-commerce market is now 49%, or 5% of all retail spend

Having said that, while I don’t personally agree with your synopsis, I certainly respect it and think you made some good points worth people’s attention.

 

[GSF]

A fun site for this stuff is: Future Timeline | Technology | Singularity | 2020 | 2050 | 2100 | 2150 | 2200 | 21st century | 22nd century | 23rd century | Humanity | Predictions | Events

loving this site you linked, went through a bit of an obsession with the singularity/ kurzweil/ kaku etc around 2005 ( I have a crazy book case at home), this has reignited my interest.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[garyfritz]

Why don't we use robot soldiers? Why doesn't the enemy? Why aren't battlefields filled with robot soldiers killing each other?

C'mon, @Kak. There are no robot soldiers for the same reason Rosie the Robot isn't making your dinner. The technology isn't there. YET.

In 2004 DARPA's Grand Challenge offered $1M to the winning car that could self-navigate a simple closed course. No team even completed 8 miles of the 150-mile course. 10-14 years later we have self-driving cars navigating LIVE TRAFFIC. That's an incredible advance in a very short time. Imagine where AI and robots could be in another 10 years.

The issue is... throughout history humans have always been more talented and capable than ‘the machines.’ That’s about to change.
The machines have never in history surpassed humans in ability or been able to act independently of human intervention. What happens when they do surpass us in ability?

Ding ding ding! Give the man a kewpie doll. Exactly my point. "It's different this time" ("this time" being the near future, not today) because something in the equation has fundamentally changed. The machines are going from dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks to very capable. Not self-aware anytime soon, but capable of doing jobs that formerly only humans could do.

A while back (the details are fuzzy, but I’ll find the full source if needed).... a police force used to to use an ‘intellectual capacity test’ to screen applicants.

IQ testing is a fiercely-debated topic, but it is certainly possible to test people and get an idea of their relative abilities. Jordan Peterson claims the armed forces determined that people with <83 IQ could not succeed in the military, in ANY position, and so they refuse to accept them. In reality the military branches use the ASVAB/AFQT exam, and each branch does have a minimum acceptable level. The Army's minimum is 31, Marines 32, Navy 35, Air Force 36, Coast Guard 40. You can draw a rough correlation between AFTQ scores and IQ; 31-32 is roughly equivalent to an IQ of 91-92.

If that conversion is right -- and it doesn't seem right -- that would say the military wouldn't accept any enlistee with IQ < 90. That says they wouldn't accept roughly 25% of the population, based entirely on intelligence. If Peterson's 83IQ number is right, that says it excludes about 11-12%.

Whichever number it is, the military has determined that slice of humanity is unemployable within their incredibly-broad employment options. They have found that a segment of society IS incapable of performing most jobs. And as the machines get smarter, more and more humans will get left behind -- not because they're incapable, but because the machines become MORE capable and squeeze them out of the market.

when you have a machine wit a 90 IQ, it can literally do any job that someone with a 90 IQ has. Those with 90 IQs.. their skills aren’t unlimited. You can’t just teach someone with a 90 IQ to program computers… they literally don’t have the ability.

Exactly. Your example is obviously hypothetical, but in that scenario we can't retrain those sub-90 people to take another job if all the 90-IQ jobs have already been taken by cheaper/better/faster machines with an effective IQ of 90. In that scenario there are no sub-90 jobs LEFT.

 

[Kak]

U.S. Unemployment Rate Falls to Lowest Level Since 1969 U.S. Unemployment Rate Falls to Lowest Level Since 1969

Oh my! That AI is so scary.