Which isn't to say that it shouldn't be done, but that any assertion that people will "retrain" or "find new growth industries" with anything like their current quality of life is at best naive, and more often disingenuous. The most likely case is that the losers in such economic shifts will remain so. Any society that leaves them to sort it out on their own should at Leastbe transparent and realistic about what that means.
Discouragingly enough , truck driving itself is a rare example of fairly successful transition to a new industry, as it had a low barrier to entry for people needing to leave a rapidly shrinking workforce in agricultural areas - due to some automation and a larger scale mechanization. One generation of that and it is going to fall off a cliff too, possibly leaving the rural US in a dire employment situation.
As the fall of Rome, the middle ages, and several other dark periods in human history show, this is now always the case.
>There are lots of things that will likely never be cost effective to automate or are impossible to automate.
Several things, yes. A lot, no.
And even if those types of jobs were many, what matters is the number of positions they give us. E.g. being a brain surgeon might not be easily automated, but we don't need that many brain surgeons anyway.
On the other hand, truck driving can be automated, and when it does, it will take with it 1-2 million jobs. Automating fast-food serving and cooking? There go another 2-3 million. Automating office cleaning? There go some millions more.
As for more artistic jobs, like a musician or painter, those might not be realistically automated (because we value the human source of an art work etc), but they aren't going to pay much either, especially since most people wont have proper jobs and thus much money to spend on music (and even less so on art).
I think automated/algorithmic music and art will happen quite quickly, if it hasn't already.
If you mean emotionally and intellectually, then yes, it has been an essential part of human civilisation since there were cavemen painting on caves. And it doesn't have to be Beethoven to fill the role of art, it can also be Cheap Trick or Skrillex.
If you mean financially, then yes again. If we include music, movies, comics, books and TV it's 300bn dollar industry. If we are to believe the news (1), more than €51 billion of fine art was traded in 2014 alone -- and that's a kind of art that concerns rather few people.
>I think automated/algorithmic music and art will happen quite quickly, if it hasn't already.
What would be the point? More than the artifact, we value the connection with the artist.
(1) https://www.artsy.net/article/editorial-the-art-markets-reco...
> Dr. Pangloss was the pedantic old tutor in Voltaire's satirical novel Candide. Pangloss was an incurable, albeit misguided, optimist who claimed that "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds." So persistent was he in his optimism that he kept it even after witnessing and experiencing great cruelty and suffering. The name "Pangloss" comes from Greek pan, meaning "all," and glossa, meaning "tongue," suggesting glibness and talkativeness.
You see people trying to articulate the desperation they feel about job loss, and some Pangloss sweeps by to comfort them by talking about how macroeconomically speaking they are more than offset by someone else's gain in welfare. It's bizarre.
As far as the creative part is concerned, the offer is already huge and probably exceeds the demand depending how you consider it. So there is not much to expect in that domain either, as far as jobs (or even activities) are concerned.
It is a bit the same for painting. There are people who are willing to buy and can afford to do so, but their problem is then "where am I going to put this?. I already have many that I cannot display...". That's one of the limits the few painters I know hit. Then do have fans, known buyers but if one of these guys buy another painting, it is more to sponsor the painter than because they have a 'use' for the painting.
Could you give examples that are capable of providing living wages to 160-250 million people, in the US alone?
Technology has completely destroyed the value in human labor for most industries, in much the way we no longer use horses for farming, and is rapidly doing the same to "white collar" jobs.
I'm honestly curious what you think it is that <95th percentile humans will have to contribute to the future economy.
Also, I'm not sure where your "160-250 million people" comes from. That's exactly how many workers there are today, many of whom are in no danger of having their jobs automated.
All of which can be automated.
Furthermore...
> "highly productive individuals. If you are a high productivity software engineer, trader or doctor"
None of those jobs are safe from automation either. Your personal productivity means diddly squat compared to fast automated interconnected machines that can teach themselves. Engineers and traders are just as expendable as the rest of us.
Let me put it like this, why would you pay a human to do those things when a machine could do just as good/a better job? Even if AI-based solutions were still subpar compared to human practitioners of the professions you mention, they only have to be "good enough" to take over the mass market, as they're likely to be far cheaper than the human professional.
However, the lack of job opportunities for humans need not be a problem. There are still plenty of things we enjoy doing, and could continue to enjoy doing on a voluntary basis. That way everyone wins, the machines take away the need to work to earn money, and humans get to spend their time doing things they enjoy. That's part of the reasoning behind UBI, to stop monetary needs getting in the way of making this future a reality.
How is a machine literally going to do these things? Is everyone going to buy a personal trainer robot? Is everyone going to install a home dermatology kit? I can't see it.
You can try, and depending on how close you are to retirement perhaps you'll succeed, but I'd argue future generations may not have this choice. Automation/AI is on course to touch every corner of human activity, it's not a question about if it's going to happen but rather how soon and who benefits. The idea behind UBI and other similar ideas is to let this upcoming change in our society be a force of good for all, rather than one that widens the gap between the rich and the poor.
As to the personal assistant robots/AI, other replies have addressed the main points, but I would say to think more in terms of PC accessories if you're struggling to get your head around it. For example, what does a fitness coach need to do? Set out training and diet plans, monitor form and performance and motivate. An AI solution can so all of these things, and in terms of hardware all you need is a TV, a webcam (or something more advanced like a Kinect) and a heart rate monitor. In some ways the automated fitness coach/personal trainer is already possible, it's just a matter of refinement.
Not at the level of sophistication we're likely to see in the near future (e.g. in the next 10 to 20 years). Whilst the human touch is nice and all, look at what happens when technology reaches the point when it can do most of what a human does. For example, automated checkouts in supermarkets are popular despite lacking the human touch. Whilst you may argue that personal trainers are an area people want the human touch with, perhaps some do, but I'd argue the technology only has to be "good enough" to negate this for many. An automated personal trainer can monitor your progress better than a human one (as it can be with you throughout your day), can motivate you through gamification, can adapt your training regime just as easily as a human can, etc... It may be a different experience to having a human personal trainer, but I didn't say the automated version had to be the same, it just has to be good enough.
It should also be pointed out that the current growth in personal trainers is clearly a reaction to a surge in popularity in keeping fit. Personal trainers may be making the most of the halo effect that comes from this right now, but that says nothing about the future.
Also, I should clarify, I do want a world where people help each other people get fitter. What I can see happening isn't a world where we're any less social than we already are, but rather I can see a world where paid social interaction is reduced. In other words, if personal training is a vocation, something that people take pleasure from regardless of the money, it'll exist just as strongly as before. Once you take money out of the equation you can see that our human-focused society can continue to thrive, plus money is not going to matter as much when we can meet our needs without needing to earn it.
What about one that can track which workouts actually keep you motivated longer, which diet foods you like better, just by watching your behavior?
-- Nothing like this exists today, but it will, eventually. AI will be a lot like the AI in HER and it won't be very long of a wait, probably in 20 years or so..
Why would you need a robot? Millions of people today already use video-guided workouts off YouTube or follow semi-customised apps that tell them what workout to do, etc.
https://blog.gyminsight.com/859-most-current-fitness-industr...
(unless the robots are like I, Robot level androids)
Housekeeper
Nanny
Personal trainer
Personal assistant
Tutor
Pet care
Archive researcher
Take two things that could unlock numerous needs for jobs.
1) education, which we currently do en masse, but could be personalised to varying extents
2) remote working, which would free people from cities and allow them to have larger houses and gardens, and in general make service provision less efficient and require more labour (it's easy to serve urban dwellers since they are so concentrated)
I'm pretty sure those workers don't consider themselves servants of anyone.
I really don't think the other ones are safe. Just that it's not obvious that they aren't.
Automation of personal trainers is already ongoing. People have been more successful on automating the "motivational" aspect of the job (probably because this one isn't regulated). But there are lots tentative initiatives to automate the "teaching and correcting" aspect too, from video games to in-lab research.
As you said, we have seen a proliferation of devices, equipment and information that make it easier than ever for people to form a fitness plan and measure progress. We have also, at the same time, seen a large increase in the number of personal trainers in employment. This would suggest that technological progress in this sector is complimenting/augmenting, not replacing, the work of humans.
Programmers are on this same stage of the cycle. But I expect we to last there much more than personal trainers.
People are willing to pay to have someone shield them from the complexity, the diligence, and the organizational effort behind everyday endeavors. That's not going to change.
Also, automation's track record is incredibly overrated. It seems to only work in situations with exquisitely controlled conditions, like assembly lines. People bring up super-market check-outs, but this only works because the customer does all the physical work themselves. The bridge between automation and complexity is intelligence... and we're nowhere even remotely close to having AGI technology.
The problem is that we seem set on using the minimum wage to ensure a basic level of income. This means that we HAVE to make sure we have enough jobs for everyone, and that all of those jobs HAVE to produce enough economic value for the employer for them to provide that basic level of income.
The result is that we end up effectively paying people to do nothing, while effectively prohibiting jobs that don't produce enough value to justify the minimum wage. This seems blatantly inefficient and idiotic to me.
Just truck drivers - millions of people getting unemployed. And don't paint a too romantic picture... a lot of them will NOT be qualified for another job.
We are also using software to enable people to perform tasks normally done by experts.
Drafting architectural plans is a recent example. The hand - drawing has been replaced by CAD software, and a LOT of architects now do these themselves or with little staff in-house.
I work in the financial sector, and supportive applications will enable "normal" client supporters to sell Investment packages.
Of course WITHOUT them really learning shit about investments .. result: Less experts needed (first step)
Second step: Automated consulting / online use by the customer.
Not even AI needed.
If there were jobs within their capabilities that were not undesirable they would be doing them, so what that does mean is that for a huge portion of the economy, people are doing undesirable jobs because they don't have the skills to do desirable ones.
HN is in kind of its own reality sphere, since everyone likes coding and startups and thinks the work is great, when if you drive 100 miles in any direction from whatever tech hub bubble you are living in you will find entire counties in decline as the only work is at Walmart and there is no industry left to aspire towards for the residents. The main street of town is half condemned, there are old abandoned shoe and plastics factories and half the farmland is either abandoned or corporate owned and manned by a skeleton crew of a few dozen people farming the entire region.
What did you have in mind?