Comment by richardburton | Hacker News Reader

Comment by richardburton | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is fascinating. I think the big (and scary) meta-trend is this:

The population is increasing and the requirement for people is decreasing.

This gap is made wider by increased birth-rates and better automation. More people are being born into a world where fewer are required. That is quite a scary thought. Computers and machines automate and replace people everywhere.

I have some anecdotal evidence of this:

At my last business we used to follow-up twice via email with all of the people who had not responded to a quote that we had sent them. We had 50-100 enquiries a day so the follow-ups soon mounted up. I tried every CRM and mail-list manager out there. I could not find one that would trigger an email from my Gmail account if a contact had not responded. I was spending 3-4 hours a day doing the follow-ups. So were my staff. It got to the point where I wanted to hire someone to do it. Eventually I learnt more about the software and read up on ruby on rails. I hired a small software house to help with the backend, built the front-end myself and a month later, a machine replaced the humans and prevented a new hire. That is just one job at a tiny 5-person company. At scale, computer-based automation creates huge efficiencies. The flip-side of that are huge deficiencies in employment.

Here come the machines.

In parts of the world where there is a lot of automation birth rates are basically either flat or declining below replacement level. Maybe this is a natural response to increasing automation or at least understanding there is a need for less people.

Do you have a citation or example of this? I've also read the opposite about Japan: that they are increasing automation in order to compensate for declining birth rates.

Not directly. Most studies look at it as automation making up for declining birth rates. There are a lot of studies that say birth rates go down with increased education, surplus goods and increased leisure time so it might be a chicken and egg thing.

> a machine replaced the humans and prevented a new hire

I think it's more the case that a machine made your small business more efficient and more likely to still be in existence a year from now. Was there really any benefit to have someone sitting at a desk performing a dull, repetitive task?

I think it's also a matter of what kind of world we want.

For example: Do you choose to use software instead of employing a person because you prefer the software, or would you prefer to hire a person but choose software because it is cheaper (which helps the company survive) and kind-of can do the same job?

If it's the first, there's a good reason to be scared. If it's the second, then market forces might eventually balance out and make hiring people an attractive choice again.

Ideally, tools such as computers will go back to being tools, "human helpers" and not "human replacements".

I do not like to think about an automated, antisocial world in which less and less humans are needed because machines have taken over. Isn't that self-defeating anyway? When did we start putting our tools above ourselves?

> Do you choose to use software instead of employing a person because you prefer the software

I think in the long run the software will do a much better job than a person. It's inevitable in my opinion. We are not even a century into computing and look what we already have achieved.

> I do not like to think about an automated, antisocial world

That is because you define your world as the action of going to work in order to receive food and shelter. This does not necessarily have to be your world. I say we should leave this world to machines while everybody can go on to do what he is really passionate about.

Of course we need a different distribution mechanism of goods created by the machines. But that's a different question.

I think in the long run the software will do a much better job than a person

Software is good at doing a single, static, well-defined job many times. What people do much better than software is adopt to change, deal with unexpected events, and communicating with other people.

Anyway, my point is not that software isn't doing a good job, it's that there is a turnover point...

We are not even a century into computing and look what we already have achieved

Yes. No arguing that. But no trend ever keeps going in the same direction forever. It could well be that the diminishing returns for adding more software have already started.

That is because you define your world as the action of going to work in order to receive food and shelter.

No, I don't. You couldn't be more wrong about that.

This does not necessarily have to be your world. I say we should leave this world to machines

But do you believe this? Can we "leave the world to machines"? (or, to any abstraction?) Who controls these machines? They put all the worlds power in a few hands -- if we live at their whim, do they have your best interest in mind? And even if they do now, will they always have our best interests in mind? (if not, it is very unstable)

The problem reaches much deeper than just "the distribution mechanism". We already have a big problem with getting such basics as food all over the planet, and that's not because the mechanisms don't exist...

while everybody can go on to do what he is really passionate about.

I agree that would be great. We could do that already now. We could take care of the poor and un(der)employed people, step out of the consumerist mindset, and stop worrying and trying to control everyone's every actions. The problem is that it requires a shift in the mindset of people. Until we figure that out, I have very little belief in this "loving machine future".

Some people are in fact doing jobs they're passionate about.

What you should really worry about is a world in which a person can't do anything except consume entertainment and goods, because everything else is handled better by machines....

And what exactly is wrong with that? You've gotten 'consume entertainment and goods' confused with 'do absolutely anything they want'. Maybe that's making movies, or writing, or painting, or travelling, or maybe spending their time getting to know interesting people. And even if this person really prefers sitting at home watching TV (even though they haven't spent their energy at some demeaning, labour-intensive job), well, who are you to say that's a problem? Let people decide for themselves what they want to do. Increasing their free time and decreasing scarcity can only give people more options.

No, I don't have it confused.

Some people really like producing something someone else can use. Especially if people then actually use it. There are quite a lot of people like that, actually. And such people would be absolutely screwed in the world you describe.

What's the point of making movies no one will watch? Is it worth writing if no one will read it? Painting if no one wants to see them? For some people, yes. For many, no.

I expect the dichotomy of machine/human to disappeared before that moment comes.

If it's the second, then market forces might eventually balance out and make hiring people an attractive choice again.

It's definitely not going to balance out so that it becomes economical to hire people for today's low-skill jobs. At any given time, there will be jobs that machines are capable of, but that it is more economical to hire people for. However, the skill level required for those jobs is going to keep increasing.

It's definitely not going to balance out so that it becomes economical to hire people for today's low-skill jobs.

Let's take a market force like peak oil. When oil is <$5.00/gal then using a backhoe to dig ditches is the obvious choice over hiring ditch diggers.

When oil is $50.00/gal then you might think twice about using a backhoe to dig ditches, and instead hire a bunch of ditch diggers for minimum wage.

When oil is $50/gal then the minimum wage must also be way higher, or your ditch diggers will not be able to get to work, or eat.

> I could not find one that would trigger an email from my Gmail account if a contact had not responded.

You might want to look into a more powerful email client. Gnus (a part or emacs) could be programmed to perform such a task. Setting it up to download your gmail over IMAP and the running a process filter would probably do the trick.

On the upside, as populations become wealthier and more educated the fertility rate drops. We're a (scarily) long way from things stabilising, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com