Hacker News Reader

Comment by post_below | Hacker News Reader

There are issues with some of the earlier points, for example:

> We automate tasks, not jobs

We automate both. One popular example is trucking. There are 3.5 million truck drivers in the US alone. And of course this is an area where complete automation is on the horizon. The tech exists, it's getting close to ready for large scale deployment and big players are working on it.

The industrial revolution comparison is apt but only to a point. The rate of innovation in tech is speeding up and our ability to automate jobs away faster than we can adapt along with it.

That said the article goes on to focus on what I think is one of the key points in the automation conversation: wealth inequality.

If we don't come up with a way to share the wealth produced by increasing automation, the current system will funnel almost all of it to the top.

View on HN

> If we don't come up with a way to share the wealth produced by increasing automation, the current system will funnel almost all of it to the top.

I think this is a discussion that requires more nuance than is generally used. I think you're talking just about money here, but I'm not sure.

Without that nuance, there's a good argument to be made that the current system that has made powerful computers accessible to and affordable to all but the most impoverished in the world is an excellent example of sharing wealth. The industrial revolution similarly made cheap textiles available and cheap shipping has dramatically cut food prices.

All of those are arguably sharing wealth. But none of them are sharing money.

You aren't wrong that there is nuance required.

On the other hand 'trickle down economics' has been pretty categorically debunked by reality; it can't not be about money entirely either.

So it isn't all about money, but if the monetary gains of increased productivity are captured by a shrinking fraction of the population, nothing good happens in the long run.

Exactly. Even if wealth is shared, and all humans technically receive everything they need to live life, that does not mean the world is avoiding assorted moral hazards, such as "human zoo" condition. Nor that the human condition on the whole is optimal.

Also relevant, this short story is a favorite of HN: https://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

100% agreed. Automation both requires capital and reduces ongoing expenditures due to salaries, which has the combined effect of a higher barrier to entry for people launching a new business where high automation is required to be competitive and at the same reduces redistribution of the value added. So it’s not so much that money is funelled to the top, but maybe more like it stops trickling down...

> We automate both. One popular example is trucking. There are 3.5 million truck drivers in the US alone. And of course this is an area where complete automation is on the horizon. The tech exists, it's getting close to ready for large scale deployment and big players are working on it.

Assuming you are right, I wonder if this couldn't eliminate trucking altogether given a bit of time: with greater concerns for the environment, governments have tried to pull measures to reduce trucking, but have often be opposed by truckers.

If self-driving eliminates truckers, who will then defend trucking?

Automation has interesting dynamics in the complex system that is today's society. I am not sure if the situation described above holds for the U.S.A. for instance, but it matches my understanding of the one in France, at least.

Lobbies will, no way they're gonna let those billions of investment die

> And of course this is an area where complete automation is on the horizon. The tech exists, it's getting close to ready for large scale deployment and big players are working on it.

That's incorrect. We're really far off still from level 5 self driving cars if you follow developments in that area.

However, the major task in the truck driving job (highway driving) is automatable already. Other ones (urban maneuvering, loading/unloading, etc.) are much harder to automate.

> That said the article goes on to focus on what I think is one of the key points in the automation conversation: wealth inequality.

I'm the author, thanks for echoing my reading on the dynamics.

People focus on an imaginary problem when a very real one is happening underneath our noses.

The rate at which we're approaching full self driving capability (especially with trucking where, for many routes, it's almost all freeway driving) is fast enough that it's safe to say those 3.5 million truckers will not be ready for the change. Even if it takes 10 years they won't be ready for it.

And that's just the easiest example. Past revolutions which have decreased the cost to provide basic needs happened considerably slower than the digital revolution is happening.

I don't think it's an imaginary problem at all. Overblown yes, I completely agree... but if that's what it takes to keep the conversation moving, I'm ok with that.

The urgency, I think, is not "all the jobs will go away tomorrow", but that it's a big enough problem that the time to start solving it is now. And unfortunately the world is really loud these days, it takes volume to be heard over the noise.

Yeah just like we’re nowhere close to go. According to the experts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com