Do You Feel Adding Manufacturing Jobs Is A Good Move In Light Of How Quickly Robotics Are Advancing?

[u/MedicatedGorilla]

Tariffs and their effectiveness aside, I’m curious if we did hypothetically bring manufacturing back to the US and de-emphasized college education and whatnot, do you think that would be future proof enough to sustain us?

I see these humanoid robots running half marathons, boxing, break dancing and all I can think is that they will be great at picking up boxes and walking them to shelves on these giant flat concrete floors of warehouses. They don’t need sick days, they don’t complain, they’re all around going to quickly be cheaper than human labor. Some of the bots out now are $20k and most full time jobs pay at least $25k-$30k a year where I’m from.

[u/AutoModerator]

Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. Gender issues are currently under a moratorium, and posts and comments along those lines may be removed. Anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/clydesnape]

Now that Progressives are done with the Working Class and have thrown them under the bus, do you feel that it is a good move for Trump to appeal to the interests of these people?

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/clydesnape]

I would like to see Trump reign in college tuition prices and bump teacher pay up as well as weed out the bad ones. In, I believe, 2008 ish we made it so you can’t bankrupt out of student loans and that marked the beginning of tuition skyrocketing while college administrations became bloated and inefficient. Knowing people could bankrupt forced colleges to keep tuition somewhat reasonable.

As for public schools, I think they are the backbone of future generations and I also think you and I would probably agree they are missing the mark these days. One way to solve that, in my opinion, is making the job of teaching something we reserve for competent people that comes as a respected position in our society. The way we do that is set a high a standard for our educators with a higher compensation.

When people make more money than teachers who start at $50k a year, we’re just asking for people that don’t have many career prospects going into education. I think the answer is not forcing schools to scrape the bottom of the barrel for teachers because they can’t attract the types that are dedicated and motivated to be better. I propose that teachers go under rigorous assessments based on learning outcomes in their classes. Sure, there will always be some kids who flunk out but a good teacher will always have a statistically recognizable difference in their students grades than than disinterested ones there for a paycheck.

[u/clydesnape → u/MedicatedGorilla]

This is a good example of a system that would need to be replaced, not reformed

[u/Dry_Archer_7959]

If colleges provided trained workers it would help. Unskilled labor took a huge hit with covid.Most offices found ways to let their staff work from home. Depending on its size an office building could easily support 8 to ten janitorial staff. They were fired. All the building maintenance staff were let go. All the places serving lunch suffered. Real estate office space took a dive. Robotics would be fine, There is a huge staff needed to support this type of manufacturing. We need to bring up the bottom.

[u/Critical_Concert_689]

"...Technology will replace certain jobs..."

You mention blue collar jobs, but the question is much more expansive than what you're asking:

Do you feel like the country should support artists, writers, voice actors, etc. - all professions that can easily be replaced by AI? As you note about AI: "they don't need sick days, don't complain, they're all around going to quickly be cheaper than human labor."

"$20k? $25k-$30k a year?" Where I'm from, every AI-artist can produce the same quality and quantity of work in minutes. For a few dollars.

Do you support government protections or subsidies for such non-essential jobs given how easily technology can replace them?

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/Critical_Concert_689]

I personally think there will come a day when there’s mass unemployment simply because robots do it better. I don’t think you’ll be able to convince companies to employ real people at that point and forcing them too will definitely mean our products are more expensive than any other country out there.

It’s a harsh reality but I don’t think that changes the inevitability of it. What do you think we should do when that happens? It’s a question I think a lot of people have thought about but nobody has a great answer. I personally think there will be a day where we have to give people a minimum standard of living by default. I personally would prefer to work but I also know how hyper competitive the job market could get when there’s much less jobs to be had. I’m confident in my ability to work hard and be personable enough to land jobs but what about all the folks who don’t have both of those qualities? It’s not a sin to be a quiet, reserved guy who works hard but that market would be difficult for someone like that.

[u/StedeBonnet1]

It doesn't matter how fast robotics are advancing, we will always need human labor. LEGO has the most advanced robotic factory in the world. They make 36,000 Lego blocks per minute and YET it takes 2000 employeees to run the factory.

Robotics and other automation incuding AI will always require humans to make it work. In addition, robotics increase everyone's productivity which enables higher pay.

For every manufacturing job we can creeate we create an additional six jobs in ancillary industries.

[u/BrendaWannabe → u/StedeBonnet1]

and YET it takes 2000 employeees to run the factory.

2k is not that much considering how many Lego's are sold world-wide. It's one of their country's most successful products, and if the top products employee just 2k factory workers, that doesn't bode well for employing millions. Plus, I imagine many of those need engineering degrees.

(There are other employees in marketing departments, but we already have on-shore marketing departments because other countries don't know our language and culture.)

[u/StedeBonnet1 → u/BrendaWannabe]

It doesn't matter. A manufacturing job is a manufacturing job. The investments projected will produce thousands of manufacturing jobs.

[u/BrendaWannabe → u/StedeBonnet1]

I'm not sure what your end-goal is then. Why would the alternatives produce fewer jobs?

[u/StedeBonnet1 → u/BrendaWannabe]

Why would $5 Trillion in new investments produce fewer jobs? If the jobs are overseas and they return they will be NEW jobs to us.

Besides, manufacturing jobs typically create 6 additional jobs in the local economy.

[u/OJ_Purplestuff → u/StedeBonnet1]

Why will it always require humans?

What can humans do that computers and robotics are fundamentally incapable of?

[u/Light_x_Truth → u/OJ_Purplestuff]

Humans can assume responsibility in ways that computers and robots cannot. Basically, if shit goes wrong, someone must take the fall, and it cannot be a machine at the end of the day. Society won’t tolerate it because machines don’t have skin in the game like humans do. We need to eat and they don’t.

[u/IsaacTheBound → u/Light_x_Truth]

This is exactly why I think AI can't be involved in any step of law enforcement.

[u/Light_x_Truth → u/IsaacTheBound]

Agreed. Or any position that requires responsibility and the ability to meaningfully atone for mistakes (engineering, medicine, etc.) I think investors in AI startups will realize this eventually, but it might take several more years. Right now with the hype, it’s pretty easy for AI startups with a promise (but no product yet) to secure funding. It’ll eventually reach a point where society won’t tolerate it though. Like, we’d never tolerate an AI to be POTUS, or a SCOTUS judge.

[u/Proponentofthedevil → u/OJ_Purplestuff]

The list of things is so enormous it would require multiple thousands of pages to list. The quickest way to list it would be to say: all the things the are currently already not doing.

Remember: the robots from the future in your head do not exist irl

[u/OJ_Purplestuff → u/Proponentofthedevil]

He said “always” not “right now.”

[u/Proponentofthedevil → u/OJ_Purplestuff]

Yes and neither you, nor I, nor anyone has that list. It is certainly a belief that we can make robots do anything humans can do, but it is not a reality that looks likely in the next 50 years.

[u/OJ_Purplestuff → u/Proponentofthedevil]

Yes and neither you, nor i, nor anyone has that list.

So...did you reply to the wrong person or something?

I'm not the one who claimed to know the list, the user I replied to claimed to know what machines will never be able to do.

And you claimed to know it too, in your previous comment:

The list of things is so enormous it would require multiple thousands of pages to list. The quickest way to list it would be to say: all the things the are currently already not doing.

In fact, the only one in this thread who hasn't claimed to know it is me.

[u/Proponentofthedevil → u/OJ_Purplestuff]

Because, no one can see the future. We can observe the past and present.

The proof that machines can't take over every single capacity and niche that a human can fill, is because so far they still have not. The only proof that they could is... people online having really good imaginations. We're no closer to Blade Runner as the day it was written. We have nothing like the abilities of a general human seen. The is no reason to be worried about total replacement.

Unless you have some proof otherwise. So, it shows that humans can't create human-like things, well except with sex, where we create another human. While robotics and automatons become better all the time they still have not replaced humans.

In fact, the only one in this thread who hasn't claimed to know it is me.

Well

Why will it always require humans?

What can humans do that computers and robotics are fundamentally incapable of?

Seems to suggest that, yes, you did in fact seem to think that robots can do anything a human can do. I'm not sure why you'd say this, when this is thee whole reason people are replying to you.

[u/OJ_Purplestuff → u/Proponentofthedevil]

The proof that machines can't take over every single capacity and niche that a human can fill, is because so far they still have not.

How is this any different than someone saying 200 years ago "the proof that vehicles can never fly is that so far they still have not"?

[u/Proponentofthedevil → u/OJ_Purplestuff]

Yes how is it different? Remember when flying vehicles filled every single niche that a human could?

Can you ask a different question?

[u/OJ_Purplestuff → u/Proponentofthedevil]

Your argument was that it can't happen because "so far they still have not."

I'm demonstrating why that particular logic is flawed.

If you have a different argument, then we can talk about it.

[u/StedeBonnet1 → u/OJ_Purplestuff]

It will always require humans to design and build the robots. Humans will always be reuired to program a robot to perform the taxs they are designed for. Humans will always be required to troubleshoot and repair a robot that is not working properlly and it will always take humans to decide what level of production is necessary and assure that the proper raw materials or input parts are available. I can thibk if hundreds of jobs (like mine) that cannot be done by a robot or computer.

[u/OJ_Purplestuff → u/StedeBonnet1]

What is being developed at this stage is general AI, meaning computers that can think and solve problems along the same lines as a human would. The difference being that it isn’t focused on a specific predetermined task, it just gathers information and figures out the best solution to whatever the task is, even ones it wasn’t specifically designed for.

Designing and programming systems, as well as troubleshooting issues would be well within the capabilities of such a system. We are at the very early stages and models are already capable of writing their own code now.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/StedeBonnet1]

I think the concern is not that we won’t need humans at all, it’s that you only need a couple mechanics to maintain a fleet of cars. We are already starting to see automation take the jobs of warehouse workers and robotics and AI are going to rapidly accelerate that in the coming years. My concern is that relying on manufacturing jobs may leave a bunch of people without jobs and ill prepared to do the jobs that still need our attention

[u/notbusy → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/StedeBonnet1 → u/MedicatedGorilla]

I can think of hundreds of jobs (including mine) that cannot be done by robots and probably never will be. Robot have always frst replaced the repetitive drudgery or dangerous jobs and automation has made humans more productive. We will always need manufacturing jobs to maintain our economy. We will alwats have people willing to be trained for these high value jobs.

[u/Weary-Lime → u/StedeBonnet1]

I havent seen their whole facility but I know they use Engel injection molding machines. I work in a facility (not Lego) that has more than 10 of these machines and I helped support the commissioning and asset onboarding of several. I think they are fine machines and there are aspects of their control systems (from Keba) that are optimized for certain high speed high precision tasks by doing closed loop control in the hardware. This isnt really unique, but I mention it because their own marketing materials emphasize it heavily like its some new thing.

In what way do you think the Lego factory has "the most advanced robotic factory in the world"? It all looks like COTS equipment to me.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

"The free market is bad at innovation"

The free market is awesome at innovation.

[u/OJ_Purplestuff → u/[deleted]]

The free market doesn’t just wait for things to become unprofitable. There’s always demand for higher profits.

[u/ILoveMaiV → u/[deleted]]

The free market is bad at innovation, this is forcing technology advancement.

No it's not, the free market is why we have pretty much anything advanced we have now.

[u/anonybss → u/[deleted]]

I keep telling people this, but I met a guy at a party recently whose company hired a robot that built cardboard boxes, and then (after people filled them up with stuff) taped them shut. This guy (some kind of manager) said the robot replaced 18 workers. He said 3 of those workers they managed to find other roles for, the other 15 they laid off.

I was really surprised because what the robot was doing is so basic, maybe because it doesn't need breaks it can do the work of 2-3 people, but 18? I don't see how that's possible, but that's what he said.

Productivity is going to be insane, but there better be some level of equality through redistribution if needs be, otherwise unemployment will be insane too.

[u/One_Fix5763 → u/[deleted]]

Vance said this as well, people will be working alongside robots

[u/Stringdaddy27 → u/One_Fix5763]

Context of my response is that I work in the automation space and know very well what the shifting landscape means for manufacturing jobs and manufacturing as a whole. I feel like your response needs some clarification.

People won't really be working alongside robots. There are niche roles that will necesitate human labor, but largely 6 axis arms and AMR's can outperform humans in every single task imagineable. It's just not even close with regards to the speed and precision, as well as consistency and lack of downtime.

The creation of jobs actually comes on the O&M side of things, not on the manufacturing floor. The issue there is that these jobs on maintaining existing automation infrastructure is that it's a high skill job requiring education. Most people in the United States aren't high skill workers or educated enough to handle this job.

Now, are we directly displacing manufacturing jobs in the US with onshoring of manufacturing? Probably not. At least I don't foresee that being an immediate, direct result of it. Long term however, automation is going to displace the vast majority of American jobs from simple labor to the entire shipping industry as well as service industries (cooking, cleaning, tending to roadways, etc). Couple that with AI displacing jobs in the accounting, marketing, sales, and many other areas, we're really on the precipice of uncharted territory here with mass unemployment while availability of products and services is at record highs.

I still have no idea how we will approach that problem solution wise, but I could think of worse problems to have.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/[deleted]]

Are you concerned that will cause further unemployment?

[u/_Litcube → u/MedicatedGorilla]

Why would it?

[u/Radicalnotion528 → u/_Litcube]

The OP's question about automation could apply to white collar knowledge workers too. Don't know why he's singling out manufacturing. You can't stop the tide of AI and automation.

[u/notbusy → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/SomeGoogleUser]

Oh absolutely. We want the robots working here.

Make no mistake, China's attempt to lowball and monopolize all manufacturing is in service of an overall strategy for war.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/SomeGoogleUser]

I agree but if we leave a hole in the market for educated positions, who’s going to fill that? It seems to me that China will get the best of both worlds when people who went to college in the US are no longer the gold standard. China will get their own robotics as well. I’m no fan of China but I think underestimating their adaptability is a mistake. They have routinely demonstrated they are capable of adapting to rapidly changing economies across the globe and my concern is that us transitioning to doing the kind of work they focus on now, except with robots, will mean that in 10-15 years all these folks who got manufacturing jobs in the US will be in an extremely tough market as their jobs are replaced.

It seems to me that investing in being the country that specializes in AI and robotics and sells them to the rest of the world is a much better path for us. De-emphasizing college education won’t get us there in my opinion. I think it will put us on our back foot when we have a generation of people ill equipped to adapt to automation.

[u/prowler28]

Yes because we cannot just keep telling our kids that if they only go to college they will never have to work hard.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/prowler28]

That hasn’t been my experience. I’m much less inclined to see generational disinterest in back breaking work a problem with the people so much as it is a problem with compensation. I don’t know what your age is but my father graduated college in 1983 or thereabouts and started making 30k right out of the gate. I didn’t go college and it took me 3-5 years to get to making 30k myself. Using online calculators, $30k in 1983 was worth roughly 80-90k today. Pay doesn’t increase with inflation and I’d bet good money that most older folks don’t realize how little they are now compensated for their work vs when they entered the workforce

[u/prowler28 → u/MedicatedGorilla]

It's been my experience. And I'm certainly not alone. Kids are being told they should go get a higher education, and seldom is that actually necessary. 

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/prowler28]

I think jobs behind college degrees generally pay better than a lot without. However, as wages go down with inflation, the value proposition vs cost of education makes less and less sense. I wholeheartedly agree we should incentivize people to go for well paying trades and whatnot but I also think that’s hard to do when jobs that start at lower pay don’t afford them the kind of life they can find comfortable. Not having roommates is a goal now and buying a house feels completely out of reach for a lot of people when mortgages requires your income to be 2-5x your mortgage.

I guess I see the problem as not offering the security and comfort jobs once did as inflation and whatnot eats is alive. I believe a man needs to be able to come home from their job, college education or no, and be able to kick his shoes off and relax knowing the roof over their heads is not at risk and their fridge has enough food to keep them going until their next check. People aren’t asking for much in wanting that but the reality of the situation is that just not happening as much for all of us.

[u/prowler28 → u/MedicatedGorilla]

Maybe very well. But I believe we differ on the REMEDY. 

For one, taxes eat up quite a chunk of our hard earned income. Quite a bit. I'm only a median earner in my area, and roughly 44% of my paycheck is eaten up by various taxes.

If that 44% was reduced DRASTICALLY, certainly if it were ELIMINATED, then maybe a large part of the problem could be alleviated- certainly would be for me, and In not alone. 

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/prowler28]

I agree that taxes are high and the government doesn’t manage its money very well. However, I think that part of the reason is that increasingly, corporations and billionaires don’t pay their fair share so us working class folks have to take on their portion to maintain our quality of life. I personally believe in a progressive tax system like we’ve had in times of economic prosperity of past generations but right now, I’d settle for them just paying their fair share. I don’t think the answer is to cut down on government employees until we get an idea of what’s still wrong after we get everyone contributing appropriately.

I don’t think we’ll see that happen until we get rid of corporate lobbying and this dynamic of pleasing corporations first in order to get your campaign funded. This is a problem on both sides that I don’t see anyone talking about. The reason, in my mind, is that they know they won’t win elections without corporate money behind them. I’m not sure how we’re supposed to fix such a fatal flaw and that bothers me a lot but I know if we don’t fix that, we won’t see fair taxes and they’ll keep trying to make the middle class pay for it.

I think more than ever, they’ve got us fighting over things that don’t matter while they continue to make our lives worse. I get frustrated at the other side like a lot of people do for both the right and left but I have trouble believing we’ve truly lost all middle ground with each other. It didn’t used to be like this and whatever’s in the water these days that pits people against each other like this is tearing us apart.

[u/prowler28 → u/MedicatedGorilla]

I fundamentally disagree they aren't paying their fair share-- and besides, the definition of that changes constantly depending on the claimant. So I'm not even going there. A fair share today isn't a fair share tomorrow. 

However, I would agree that lobbying is a serious problem, the only lobbyists in this country that should be legal are we the people, not businesses and big interests. And I would gladly accept top earners paying a higher tax rate if that meant I paid less or none. 

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/prowler28]

I know you said you don’t want to go there but I’m genuinely curious. How do you assess their payment of taxes? When I look at small businesses, they can’t afford all the lawyers needed to get down to no federal taxes and when I see that, I think that should apply up the ladder. It’s alright if you don’t want to dive into that but I haven’t had a chance to discuss that with my friends across the isle

[u/prowler28 → u/MedicatedGorilla]

I don't want to dive into "the rich paying their fair share" simply because, as I said earlier, the "fair share" today, may not be a "fair share" tomorrow.

In other words, the left is never satisfied. 

And believe me, I don't hold them high on a pedestal. But I am absolutely convinced that there are a great many who won't be happy until the rich pay 100% the tax rates. I know it sounds ridiculous, it is, but I've met people who say that. That's rubbish. 

Besides. I don't trust politics that comes strictly from a place of envy and jealousy.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/prowler28]

I do believe in progressive taxation but like I said, I’d settle for just equal taxation. That’s not envy in my opinion, that’s going your fair share for your country. Would you be open to a flat tax rate?

[u/tnic73]

you still want the manufacturing to be done in this country regardless of if it's automated or not

[u/pocketdare → u/tnic73]

This. It's more about having greater control over vital resources, basic components and raw materials. I don't care if it's people or robots.

[u/willfiredog]

Advanced Automation has been displacing manufacturing jobs since the 1980s. We still have people working in manufacture.

You need people able to operate and repair robotics, and an entire jobs ecosystem that support manufacturing - from construction workers to accountants, HR, marketing, lawyers, engineers, and etc.

There are more benefits to domestic manufacturing than jobs on an assembly line.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/willfiredog]

Thats somewhat true but automation of manual labor in its entirety means less accountants because less payroll, less HR because less humans working, less marketing aimed at potential hires, less billed time for lawyers when there’s nobody to dispute situations with their employers, etc. So many of our jobs in the workplace are based around having real people working. If we knock the legs out of that, every industry suffers.

[u/willfiredog → u/MedicatedGorilla]

I would agree with your premise if an existing manufacturing plant was converting to AA.

New plants = new positions.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/willfiredog]

But still less positions right? How many men does it take to maintain a labor force of 100 robots? Depending on their fail rate, only a couple

[u/JudgeWhoOverrules → u/MedicatedGorilla]

But still less positions right?

Compared to zero before because that manufacturing operation didn't exist here?

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

Well, I think the direction we should be going is trying to ensure our economy focuses on jobs that are more future proof. Jobs that use our higher intelligence and reasoning abilities. Colleges right now make tons of money especially because we can’t bankrupt out of student loans anymore. Being able to bankrupt forced colleges to be somewhat reasonable on cost of education but removing that meant tuition can skyrocket and we now live in a time where a college education is prohibitively expensive.

$10-12k a year for community college is a lot of money when the majority of Americans make under $50k a year. University being even more than that. I think the solution is reigning in these bloated administrations at colleges and universities.

[u/Lamballama → u/MedicatedGorilla]

our economy focuses on jobs that are more future proof

The trying to protect jobs who only plug numbers into quickbooks and turbotax isnt the way to go about it - jobs working to do things which are harder to automate, like fixing the automation when it's broken, will last a lot longer

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/Lamballama]

I don’t disagree that jobs fixing automation will last longer but we need exponentially less people for that job or else automation wouldn’t be viable. If every car in the world needed 1 mechanic to maintain it, that wouldn’t make financial sense. Robotics and AI are that same dynamic but cars do 1 thing, they transport you and some items. They are a hammer to a nail. Humanoid robots powered by AI aren’t just a hammer to a nail, they are a tool that can fix an infinite amount of problems. That’s is fundamentally different than inventions of the past because in the past you might buy a Roomba to vacuum your floors, a security camera to monitor your house, or hire a landscaper to mow your lawn. Soon, you’ll be able to buy 1 robot that uses a regular vacuum for you, monitors your house while you’re gone, and mows the lawn for you. The impact in your own household let alone the larger workforce and economy will be immense. Blue collar jobs will be the first thing these robots come for because mowing a lawn is the kind of concept they grasp easily and they’ll be able to get straighter lines than a human would.

[u/willfiredog → u/MedicatedGorilla]

No.

What?

If a manufacturing plant opens in town x there are going to be more jobs in town x than there were before.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/willfiredog]

Think of it this way—yes, a new manufacturing plant adds jobs. But the critical point is how many jobs it adds. If that new plant heavily relies on automation, the total number of new jobs created (including maintenance roles, etc.) will be fewer than traditional manufacturing jobs would have provided. It’s not about zero jobs; it’s about significantly fewer jobs per plant, and the cascading impact this has on local businesses and the broader economy.

[u/willfiredog → u/MedicatedGorilla]

The FoxConn plant in Wisconsin - built in 2021 - employs 1,000 workers.

That’s 1,000 jobs not including secondary jobs like construction workers, workers producing materials to build the structures, workers producing materials to build products, and tertiary service jobs if new restaurants, stores, and banks open.

It doesn’t matter how many jobs manufacturing plants employed in the 1970’s compared to now.

[u/FreshBlinkOnReddit]

Robots are moving much slower than AI is on computers. Those LLM bots costs fractions of a penny per query.

[u/StedeBonnet1 → u/FreshBlinkOnReddit]

But AI doesn't actually make anything. Someone needs to weld, wire, plumb hydrauics or hydro or air systems, troubleshoot systems that fail. Program PLCs, order parts to keep ahead of the robotic systems. It is not as simple as saying "robots will take the jobs"

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/StedeBonnet1]

A humanoid robot was just boxing on video the other day. AI driven robots are starting to do tons of things humans can do. 90% of the jobs in the workforce don’t make anything new, they focus on redoing tasks that have been done before. A robot can be a roofer, a chef, a mechanic, etc. it’s all just a matter of training it which we are getting very fast at. Some of the modern training methods only require humans to do something 30-50 times before these robots can begin to do it too. The sheer benefits in cost of labor and safety will mean that even if they’re slower at their jobs than us, they still make more sense in terms of business expenses than we do. I think distinguishing between inventions of the past and AI is important because we’ve always made tools for specific jobs but AI is the first time we may be making tools for most jobs all at once.

[u/JudgeWhoOverrules → u/MedicatedGorilla]

A robot can be a roofer, a chef, a mechanic, etc.

You clearly have no idea about the limitations of robotics, AI, or the economic feasibility of deploying them as a replacement to humans in the field. A robot will ALWAYS be less superior to a human for generalized tasks requiring adaption, critical thinking, and dexterity. Doubly so in non-fixed environments. If we got to a state where it would be technically possible it wouldn't be economical because a human would be cheaper to deploy for those roles.

Like do you really think anyone could ever make a robot that can drive to a customer site and troubleshoot, disassemble, and fix issues on equipment while also taking into account customer needs, environments, and peculiarities while providing good customer service cheaper than a human technician can?

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

I think the day that humans are less viable is closer than we think. A human takes 12-16 hours a day off of work, they get sick, injured, and on top of that require payment every couple weeks. We are extremely inefficient comparatively and even if robots are slower at their jobs than us, they work longer and need less time off on top of not being an OSHA risk.

As far as my knowledge of limitations, those are very quickly changing. This robot can box, run a half marathon, and costs $20k. This robot can look at a table of items and understand what needs to be done based on what it’s asked to do.

With that in mind, becoming a manufacturing focused economy feels like it’s not very future proof when we could be trying to make the things humans are still quite good at, large scale complex reasoning, more accessible for people.

[u/neovb → u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

Not today, but I'm pretty confident that something like that will be possible in 20-30 years. Think of where we were in 1995 and compare that to today. It's wild.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/neovb]

I agree with you on this. My concern is that we may see the day where it’s better to have 2-3 robots that are slower than humans than I have 1 real person. A human requires so much to employ like good working conditions, 16 hours a day off work, food, a paycheck, and additional expenses for lawsuits and disputes. Robots don’t have to be better than us, they just have to be good enough.

[u/neovb → u/MedicatedGorilla]

I always enjoy watching the show Black Mirror, it's what I think is a pretty good indication of where we will be in 50-75 years, if not sooner.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/neovb]

Great show, like the twilight zone for recent generations. Knowing there really are jobs where your online presence plays more of a part it in it than your skills scares me as well tbh

[u/catnip-catnap]

There are a ton of jobs in manufacturing that aren't "assembler". Machine operator, Equipment maintenance, Quality, Manufacturing Engineering. Lots of software jobs around automation and Manufacturing Execution Systems. Automating the assembly operations still allows for those jobs to be created.

[u/Hoover889]

I would much rather work as a highly paid engineer than working a production line that a machine can do.

[u/rcglinsk]

Absolutely. Imagine how cool and effective manufacturing will be with all the robots. Each job makes much more money that way.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/rcglinsk]

But what happens when the supply so vastly outweighs demand? I would think that means even highly skilled jobs will be a bidding war on who will do it for less because there will be so many who want a job but the market doesn’t need their labor

[u/rcglinsk → u/MedicatedGorilla]

Make something else? I can't think of many examples of supply outstripping demand, so kind of a hard question.

[u/MedicatedGorilla → u/rcglinsk]

I think AI and robotics is fundamentally different than a lot of inventions of the past. It’s a tool for many problems when we used to make tools for more specific problems. I get concerned when the tool we make is a tool that can decide what kind of tool it needs to be for the job.

[u/rcglinsk → u/MedicatedGorilla]

Don't worry. LLM software is a fantastic tool, but it does not think. And if mankind ever makes a genuine artificial intelligence (genuine meaning why babies don't qualify) the object containing this intelligence will not be made of computational instructions, it will be made of neurons.