Automation

[Goodspeed]

The other day, the CTO and other higher-level tech brains at my company held an information session in the office.  The subject was RPA, or Robotic Process Automation.  The idea being that with our new-found familiarity with AI, we could keep our eyes and ears open with our clients and report back with any processes that their staffs perform that could be done by a software robot that we could develop and sell them.  There were mentions of how the aim is to increase efficiency and not put people out of work, but in almost the same breath, the presenters demo'd how they could replace our own secretarial and partial HR staff with AI.

It was a small, stepping-stone facet into the polarizing topic of AI & automation, sure, but the implications were clear.  I've been increasingly interested in understanding the effects automation (of its various forms) can and will have on our future - to include the ethics and decision-making behind creating and deploying AI in the first place.  It's a huge topic that I think we're all at least somewhat familiar with so I'm not going to unpack the whole topic here, but rather I wanted to get a conversation going around a few points that come to mind, to start.

• Is automation inevitable?
  
  
• What do we think the broader, long term effects of automation will be on society and long-held norms of modern life?
  
  
• Is there really a historical precedent that can be used as an example to discuss the possible effects of automation?
  
  
• What avenues will be available to people who find themselves automated out of a job?
  
  
• What must be done to ensure the economical benefits of automation are equitably shared?
  

What do you think?

------------------------

My thoughts:

• In the short term, I think there are few business owners that could resist the profit margins possible by automating as much work as possible out of the hands of human beings.  We're far from the ideal workers - we sleep, require vacation time & health benefits, get injured, etc.  That, and competition will drive any business that doesn't adopt the efficiencies of AI to do so in the face of competing businesses getting on board.  I don't think that halting technological progress is ever the answer, but instead there has to be conversations held on a global scale that aren't narratives bought & paid for by the global elite about the effects of automation, and there's reason to be pessimistic about this.  There seems to already be evidence of an interesting duality occurring right now in which business & thought leaders on the subject are selling the idea that "compassionate automation" will be the order of the day, while behind the scenes it's a race to get AI in place ASAP, no matter what the effects (yet to be fully understood) are.
  

• I think automation could be an avenue towards some sort of quasi-Star Trek economy, long term.  In that realm, they got rid of scarcity, and adopted a mix of socialism & capatilism - the state provided the basics, and if you wanted more, you were free to explore making what profit there is to make in often creative or service industries.  Who knows what the next century holds, but as AI matures, we're going to have to investigate concepts like universal basic income if any non-managerial job not requiring creative thinking eventually ends up on the chopping block.  The more AI matures, in theory, the fewer traditional jobs remain, which would totally upend, well, pretty much all industries, taxation structures, & the way work shapes lots of people's sense of self.
  

• I see lots of parallels being drawn between the industrial revolution & automation, and I'm not sure they're entirely accurate.  It was absolutely the case that a couple hundred years ago, there were industries and endeavors that had the growth potential to absorb vast quantities of people.  Agricultural jobs that were destroyed were replaced by factory jobs building or maintaining machinery, for example.  Today, with globalization added into the equation, there are many, many jobs at risk of being replaced by AI on a global scale, and as I already pointed out, there are theoretically only so many data scientist, app developer, & big data specialist roles that can be created.  The Industrial Revolution was about mechanizing the processes of human labor to increase profits per person; the automation revolution is about replacing those people entirely.  I definitely see the long-term benefits possible from the automation revolution, but I think the process for getting there could be much more painful if not handled properly - and in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, we had two major Communist revolutions that killed over 100 million people.  I'm not even touching on climate change and the possible resource wars that could occur, or other conflicts from mass migration.
  

• How sustainable is large-scale job-loss due to automation, on what kind of timeline?  Even if we don't call it job-loss - say, "career reorganization", plenty of people are advertising that, at least in the short term, people can just re-train into careers that are still in-demand and not automated.  Software developers being the #1 cited career.  This is of course assuming there will be a 1-to-1 demand for a software developer for each job automated out of existence.  We're currently (in America) experiencing a lack of qualified tech-industry employees, so this may be true for a certain period of time (assuming everyone who is out of a job is willing and able to re-train).  On a long enough timeline, enough jobs (including in the tech sector) may be automated or otherwise streamlined to the point that large swaths of people just get left out of the equation.  This could eventually go above and beyond the unknown jobs that could be created by automation (robot servicing? there's already talk of automating automation...)
  

• There's already evidence that businesses might try to shirk some responsibility for implementing automation in the name of increasing profits.  Companies are in the business of making money, and one could argue that even the products or services they provide are incidental in that goal, and you could add employing people to that list.  Some important conversations are being had, given the foregone inevitability of automation, that the real issue to discuss is how to ensure that the broad changes to our socioeconomic systems don't just benefit those at the top.  I'm not sure what this would look like - transitioning businesses large and small into co-ops that pay out to current & former employees, pension style, from the profits grown from increasing automation?  Henry Ford had it figured out that his workers need to be able to afford the very product they're making for his business to be sustainable.  Large businesses and industries need to be able to maintain the buying power of the populace as a whole to survive.
  

So, in the end, I could see automation being a huge net benefit for my quality of life - one that'd require a huge personal reorganization of what it means to be alive and what kind of purpose to derive from work.  I kinda think the precedence is there, however, that large corporations will absolutely adopt AI at a pace that will outstrip our, and our legislators, understanding of its effects (think about what we're dealing with now with social media & truth in journalism). With governments that are beholden to corporations and the rich first and foremost, I think a lot of people will be left out to dry in the short term as these technologies and processes are adopted, leading to some sort of upheaval.

[Apoc]

I did RPA stuff in HR at Amazon. Even there, is was cases where there was more work than people so RPA was freeing up for other work. I don't think everyone will be able to transition so easily, but ask coal miners if the human race can adapt on an individual basis. I've already seen some of the things AI will be doing in the future at Google Maps and it blows my mind... and none of will put people out of a job. We have been evolving for millennia and I see "automation" no different than the rest of the leaps forward in mechanics.

[Goodspeed]

I did RPA stuff in HR at Amazon. Even there, is was cases where there was more work than people so RPA was freeing up for other work. I don't think everyone will be able to transition so easily, but ask coal miners if the human race can adapt on an individual basis. I've already seen some of the things AI will be doing in the future at Google Maps and it blows my mind... and none of will put people out of a job. We have been evolving for millennia and I see "automation" no different than the rest of the leaps forward in mechanics.

True enough, automation will help a lot of people and not every implementation of it will cause someone to get fired and equal one less job.  On the subject of coal miners & coding - I definitely believe in adapting yourself to changing economic realities (I've had to do it myself), but on the flipside - we already know how many people are living paycheck to paycheck with stagnant wages and increasing debt in this country (we can argue the genesis and personal responsibility around this, but for the sake of this conversation we just have this as a given).  The cost of re-training can be steep and while we've had some employer-funded pilot programs, on a large enough scale I'm not sure that model will be vastly expanded given the drive for profits - maybe tax benefits will come into effect here as part of...some swirling pot of whatever the hell happens to our tax code.

I'm still laughing over the fact that Twitter is censoring people for telling laid-off journalists to learn to code as journalists did to coal miners.  I think it's awesome that some workers are ahead of the curve on this but I worry that the inefficiencies in and just general decrepitude of our education system will fail a lot of people as AI takes hold.  Education in America has been overdue for a total overhaul though, so maybe automation will help kick that off.

[Apoc]

There's a lot of unpack, if you're talking about whether automation is *right* for humans. I don't think we're going to fix the class system we have in place and I'm not sure technological advancement would be possible to stop while we have the market we have. So, really, the question is what should we be doing with it. I think the best way to help, what I see as inevitable, is to influence it in certain directions. For example, equitable access to technologies or using the technologies to lessen the marginalization of the group of humans that speaks to you. I think we have a lot more to gain by automating home address creation for the billions of people in the world that don't exist because they don't have one, than the store clerks who will have unmarketable skills because machine learning too their jobs. Maybe then, the trade skills would make a comeback in this country.

[Goodspeed]

Good points - I'm really curious to know more about how automation will affect those in poorer regions of the globe. We've already seen how repetitive actions (in the case of process automation) largely provided for the creation of wealth & the middle class in other countries - building stuff in factories, answering phones in call centers, etc.

Those traditional avenues for job creation may be wiped out so for many it may be like trying to climb a ladder with missing rungs. We in the western world may be able to adapt to different careers w/o too much trouble, but for someone that was just getting started building a widget in a Foxconn factory, getting immediately left behind in a very fast moving current could be extremely turbulent. Or, it could be the case that if you never tasted the fruits of stepping-stone work in the first place, you'll just have to find ways to adapt in other ways.

[WRXtranceformed]

My company co-authored a great recent paper on this subject. Feel free to DM me and I can get that to your email if you're interested in reading the executive summary and/or the full paper.

[Goodspeed]

My company co-authored a great recent paper on this subject.  Feel free to DM me and I can get that to your email if you're interested in reading the executive summary and/or the full paper.

PM'ed.  I've been reading misc. reports on the estimated geographic dispersion of where automation is most likely to occur lately, ex:

https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/23/brook...utomation/

Seems that Toledo, Ohio is most ripe for it (50% of the average worker's tasks in that region can be automated), Washington D.C. the least.

I know we got some more brainy dudes that can wax lyrical on this subject - G, Rex etc?  Come on in dudes.  The Matrix human battery bath is nice & warm.

[ScottyB]

Rogan just did a great of cast with Andrew Yang who's running for president in 2020 based mostly on universal basic income as a result of increased automation and offshoring.  Worth a listen.

[CaptainHenreh]

[.RJ]

We're doing some RPA stuff where I work. I can dig up some more info if you like, they've been given some kind of special project status (read: scrooge mcduck gold coin pool) for sure.

[Goodspeed]

Country list had me rollin'.  Just watched the episode tonight - he makes some good points (I love his show.)

Still, I think a core part of this discussion is not being fully addressed - John kind of let it trail off a bit in his sketch.  I'm still not convinced that it's entirely correct to equate the Industrial Revolution & other instances with automation/AI as we know it today.  Back in the day, animals plowing or machines making widgets often caused more people to be hired, not less - more plow horses meant more people plowing more land & industry expanded.  Machines & computers grew existing industries & created new ones because they were tools for the people workforce to use.  And, anyone who did lose a job in Industry A had a wealth of still-extant opportunity in the still-human-worker-centered Industries B-Z.

Automation as we talk of it today is more about replacing people entirely.  Implementations of it will certainly be used as tools for people who remain in their jobs to make their jobs easier, yes (as has already occurred), but eventually the possibility is there that the technology will advance to the point that jobs will be augmented -> changed -> replaced as maturation occurs.  Who's to say that at least some of the jobs that are created anew, won't be automated themselves?

He's definitely right that we can't fathom what new jobs may come about in 50, 75, 100 years.  I have no idea either, and yet I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea that if you don't just say three Hail Mary's and go along with comfortably thinking that many new jobs will just appear to serve all who need them, you're categorized as a fear-mongering anti-AI luddite.  It's a very complicated question, but the answer is often a suspiciously-simple "there will just be". Which often loops back to a comparison with history that as I mentioned above may not be totally correct.

To that point though, and to his credit as well he references having to re-examine what a career is...maybe we'll all become Renaissance people going about making a living via our introspective art projects in some new economy that's totally devoid of anything we understand of today's world order.  But I think the trap here is that lots of people think automation starts and stops at a robot that screws on 10,000 bolts a day, without considering something akin to Moore's Law as AI gets more powerful, and without yet having a serious discussion about what the world of work becomes past a point that is possibly probably rapidly approaching.

[Apoc]

Every company I've ever worked at cuts corners about something because there is more work than qualified workers or because the cost of labor is too high. Why are we assuming automation is replacing a person's job and not doing what isn't being done? It's possible some jobs will become less important, like a cashier, but that's more about the death of retail as a job than anything.

What do you think is going to happen? Assume AI takes x% of the jobs - then what? Poverty gap widens? Or do the billions who are already in poverty have access to opportunities they may not have otherwise had? We already have more people on this planet than we have jobs that pay a living wage, so how much worse does AI really make it? I'm not suggesting we go for it because the world is already fucked; I'm saying the privilege of growing up in U S of A has us worried about unskilled jobs that are a pretty small portion of the global workforce. Most jobs are physical labor and humans will be better at those for quite awhile. Once we have Rosie from the Jetsons, then people should be scared.

[Goodspeed]

Every company I've ever worked at cuts corners about something because there is more work than qualified workers or because the cost of labor is too high. Why are we assuming automation is replacing a person's job and not doing what isn't being done? It's possible some jobs will become less important, like a cashier, but that's more about the death of retail as a job than anything.

Because the important point to distinguish is that once something is built & released to automate what isn't being done (because of not enough qualified staff, or too much work, or what have you), upper management will feel the pull to expand on the automation platform they've built and automate what is being done & replace their human staff for even greater efficiency & profits.  

If a company wants to build 20k widgets a week, but can only eke out 14k because of the issues you described, and they automate tasks to make up the extra 6k - what's stopping them from expanding an "automated" 6k to 12k, 15k, and ultimately 20k if feasible?

An early, mild example of this that may provide some correlation being the recent PepsiCo layoffs.  In their pursuit of "relentless automation" (their words), they reported a 158% increase in YOY profits and immediately announced layoffs.

I want to be as clear as day here: I'm not against automation/AI.  I see many, many benefits to it.  I'm not saying we need to grab our pitchforks and start smashing up AI labs as that's extremely shortsighted.  What I am - against isn't the word - curious about is

• How AI/automation is "sold" to disparate factions as both a panacea to the masses and a boon to corporate profits (and trying to pin-point where it really is on that spectrum - see my earlier Automation at Davos links above)
  
• What we believe the ultimate goal of automation is to those in economic & political power who will deploy it
  
• What happens in an increasingly automated world & how we plan for it
  

What do you think is going to happen? Assume AI takes x% of the jobs - then what? Poverty gap widens? Or do the billions who are already in poverty have access to opportunities they may not have otherwise had? We already have more people on this planet than we have jobs that pay a living wage, so how much worse does AI really make it? I'm not suggesting we go for it because the world is already fucked; I'm saying the privilege of growing up in U S of A has us worried about unskilled jobs that are a pretty small portion of the global workforce. Most jobs are physical labor and humans will be better at those for quite awhile. Once we have Rosie from the Jetsons, then people should be scared.

I shared my ideas on this in an earlier post, but my thoughts are that large swaths of the world population may get leap-frogged by automation.  By the time a lot of countries get into the realm of being first-world (if they get there at all - climate change & resource wars might get in the way), a lot of the traditional early-growth jobs may be automated.  It'll be an interesting exercise to ask a man who makes fishing nets with his bare hands to become a data scientist in a very, very fast timeline.  

But, perhaps the boon of automation is that most of the world population in 2nd & 3rd world countries wouldn't necessarily have to worry about anything - they might be served by the jobs we don't even know will exist yet, or will happily go on making nets and herding cattle while the rest of their ascendant economy just starts at whatever baseline automation provides. I once lived in a country that was dirt roads & goat herders as recently as the late 1950's, and its new cities glisten like quasi-Dubais today - and they did more than alright as a nation. I still think automation is much more different than it is equal to any previous leap in history, though.

Absolutely, I want to see what the future holds for AI & automation.  I just want it to be implemented in a fair, equitable way, and history gives me many reasons to be skeptical.

[Apoc]

•  I just want it to be implemented in a fair, equitable way, and history gives me many reasons to be skeptical.

Well, that's something else entirely. I can tell you, without a doubt, it won't happen equitably. That's not how the free market works.

I think what you describe about "leapfrogging" is just another link in the chain. Many of these cultures have already been leapfrogged by technology; AI isn't new in that sense. The real fear you describe seems to be more about widening of economic/opportunity gap. I believe AI will improve the lives on many people, but it will improve those who Have more than those who Have Not. I don't think that is unique to AI, though... access to the internet alone has widened the gap, as have many technologies before it. I'm curious as to the reasons you believe AI is different, other than AI might be able to create itself.

[CaptainHenreh]

•  I just want it to be implemented in a fair, equitable way, and history gives me many reasons to be skeptical.

Well, that's something else entirely. I can tell you, without a doubt, it won't happen equitably. That's not how the free market works.

I think what you describe about "leapfrogging" is just another link in the chain. Many of these cultures have already been leapfrogged by technology; AI isn't new in that sense. The real fear you describe seems to be more about widening of economic/opportunity gap. I believe AI will improve the lives on many people, but it will improve those who Have more than those who Have Not. I don't think that is unique to AI, though... access to the internet alone has widened the gap, as have many technologies before it. I'm curious as to the reasons you believe AI is different, other than AI might be able to create itself.

A note about the "Gap" though, that I feel like everyone is missing, if I may:

It is officially better to be born ANYWHERE ON EARTH right now than it was to be born anywhere on earth at any point in history. Everywhere is better than it was, almost universally. The hipster barista at Starhucks has the same iPhone as a Saudi Prince, calories have never been cheaper, diseases are on the decline, everyone universally is better off then 200 years ago. (Which i will remind you is a BLINK in even human history, not even world history) No country in the world has a lower life expectancy than the the countries with the highest life expectancy in 1800. Even those 'leapfrogged' countries are far better off than they were, despite not "contributing" anything to to process. 

While equity is important, there's no question that The Free Market, while it has broadened the gap between the "haves" and "have nots"...the Have Nots have a FUCKTON more than even the highest of the Haves had in 1600. Shit, we have a problem in this country that impoverished people are too fat. 

If "inequality" like this is an affliction, then My God may we never recover from it.

[Apoc]

I suspect the response to your message, Rex, is that better than bad isn't good enough as long as there is inequity. How one views that perspective is largely dependent on ones political and societal beliefs. The libertarian minded tends to believe the World should develop how the World develops, while the more progressive minded wants to make sure we purposefully use technology to create more equity. I don't know that these perspectives are unique to AI, though.

Is it possible that automation is for the greater good of humanity, even if it may hurt individuals? Do we have an obligation to ensure all new inventions don't cause harm to anyone? Like I said, one's beliefs really colors answers to these questions.

[CaptainHenreh]

I mean...you wanna actually enrich people's lives or you wanna bemoan how unfair the world is?

Of course I suppose if everyone is starving then everyone is equal...

[HAULN-SS]

Rex posted what I wanted to post, but didn't have time to do. Also, don't worry, not everyone will starve...

"Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples."

[Goodspeed]

Welp, here I come back and people are thinking me a socialist wingnut.  That wasn't the bend I was taking (though I'll concede, "fair and equitable", at least in today's hyperpolitical realm, might come off as making me sound like some foaming-at-the-mouth wealth redistributionist).  The world is absolutely a better place today than it ever was in history, I agree & never argued otherwise.  Again, I see great potential for AI to continue that trend.  I was more getting at the point I've made that I fear AI/automation will be rolled out at fast-enough pace so as to out-strip proper planning & understanding of its effects.  

As long as there is scarcity in anything, someone somewhere will have a job.  The economies of scale in using automation could mean that prices for lots of goods could plummet and so what if I'm laid off for now, or making a lot less money if I'm only paying 1/4 what I used to for my goods.  In all, I agree that I'd rather the market decides what kind of labor evolves rather than some politician.  

But, I'm salty about how slanted the system has gotten lately (hey, we had to ruin the robber baron's party a century or so ago) and IMO, well before the benefits of automation are felt by the masses, it'll probably be used as a tool to further stratify wealth in this country at least.  The juice will probably be worth the squeeze but, with legislators that can barely dial an outside line succumbing to lobbying power, it could be a real bitch to deal with for a generation or so.

[Apoc]

I was more getting at the point I've made that I fear AI/automation will be rolled out at fast-enough pace so as to out-strip proper planning & understanding of its effects. 

I think that's true of most every technology... or invention, for that matter. Social media is the easiest, most recent example.

The system is not any more slanted than it's ever been. Remember slavery and serfdom? I think maybe you're just more woke to how stratification happens around us. 

I honestly don't know where stratification gets us. Maybe if we didn't have as much information as we did, we wouldn't care how much money anyone else has. I think it'll always happen as long no one has invented replicators. As long as the value of goods exists, humans will find ways to hoard a way to obtain them. That is, unless there's some spiritual awakening like... say... realizing there is other life in the universe OR automation drives the cost of goods to fractional levels. Who knows... maybe I just smoke too much weed.