65 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SlowBro
SlowBro
8 years ago

Jack was thinking about you with last night’s tragedy being probably 45 mins from your front door. If you have any comments on it we’d be all ears of course.

I don’t know why anyone would doubt the robot takeover. The writing is on the wall.

Evelyn
Evelyn
8 years ago

Reminds me of a CNC type robot I just saw yesterday called ‘Farm Bot’, it even takes care of the weeds. Here is a link to the machine.
https://farmbot.io/

Chris in Kansas
Chris in Kansas
8 years ago

Great topic. Great conversation. Thanks guys.

Dave
Dave
8 years ago

Haven’t listened to the show yet, I listen in the mornings. However while reading the show notes about automation I heard an advertisement on the radio for a Frozen Yogurt robot franchise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQbEFsIegGY.

Steven
8 years ago

Have you heard of or read “Humans are Underrated”? I thought it made lots of sense… gist seems to be that the only jobs left for humans will be jobs that humans demand get done by humans.

JohnPugliano
8 years ago
Reply to  Steven

Haven’t read that book but my thoughts are that what Artificial Intelligence will be weak at is Wisdom (applying knowledge) and Creativity (again a form of applying knowledge). So humans will continue to excel in those areas. Also people will continue to wants human contact from people they LIKE…would you rather use an ATM or a bank teller that treats you extremely nice and looks like Angelina Jolie/George Clooney?

JohnPugliano
8 years ago

I should have finished the way I started the episode with a quote from the history update…
Horace Greeley said, “Go West, young man, go West. There is health in the country, and room away from our crowds of idlers and imbeciles.”
Today I think we can modify that to read, “Embrace technology, there is wealth there and room away from our crowds of idlers and imbeciles.”

229Mick
8 years ago

Heard John mention is ‘paradigm shift’ thinking about people who got pulled over by cops. It made me think about how I’ve watched COPS for 30 years or whatever now, and when it started (even as a ‘kid’) would think ‘yea, get them punks!’, and now I only enjoy the show when something silly happens. Half the time I’m yelling at the TV ‘leave them alone!!’.

Rorschach
Rorschach
8 years ago
Reply to  229Mick

The history segment regarding Olbers’ paradox(http://tspwiki.com/index.php?title=1823), was ultimately about paradigm shifts, it took over a hundreds of years, with a strong reason to object to the current model of thinking, but the incorrect idea remained. This may have been a case of “You can’t beat something with nothing” as Gary North likes to say; without another idea to take it’s place the old paradigm will stubbornly remain, despite it’s failings.

mrlenja
mrlenja
8 years ago

When checking out in a big box store, I’ll wait a bit longer in line to get the human to check me out rather than get out quicker through the self-check out line. It gives the human a job and purpose. They are trying to train us and I am resisting, though my effort is so small.

Evelyn
Evelyn
8 years ago

In many cases that is desirable, the human factor is comforting.

Evelyn
Evelyn
8 years ago
Reply to  mrlenja

There are more of us resisting the auto checkout than you know.

Evelyn
Evelyn
8 years ago

All true but I like unpredictable active edges.

Evelyn
Evelyn
8 years ago

I was trying to edit my reply but timed out.

I am being selfish, I like the brief contact with people. And although they would rather be doing something else with there time many seem to care about the people who briefly pass through their lives.
I did use the “saving jobs for people who need them” mantra and my protest was/is using live checkout lanes. It is logical for now.
It might not be “the natural way”, but automation might not be “the natural way” either. If I feel like they are saying “get your stuff and leave” I might not go back.
Who knows what will be? Deliveries in pods, grocery’s on demand, etc… Replicators… 3-D printer are close but not there yet.

I think you are thinking further ahead than I am right now, that’s okay, that’s why I listen to you.

Strensk
Strensk
8 years ago
Reply to  mrlenja

It depends on what I am shopping for. If I am grocery shopping, I will use a self check out since I want things bagged up a certain way. I find that the people in front of me are completely clueless when it comes to these things.

So, it depends.

Strensk
Strensk
8 years ago
Reply to  Strensk

Or if they over pack a bag, something gets smashed or the bag tears. I completely agree here.

Caddy
8 years ago
Reply to  Strensk

Here one, if you really want to piss of the people in the qeue behind you, put all your stuff in your bag then take it all back out again and put them back into the bag in a different order, then look at the bag and smile at a job well done.

Insidious
Insidious
8 years ago

There’s a very simple formula for determining where you’re going to see automation:

number of people performing the job
x
compensation per person
=
potential savings

If cost of development < potential savings…

It gets done.

Low lying fruit first (simplest (cheapest) development -or- highest potential return)

Better tech (faster/cheaper or ready made components (software or hardware)) = lower cost of development

Regulation will ALWAYS lag innovation

Recently I have seen SEVERAL AI systems rolled out by Google, Apple & Microsoft that your average user will not even realize have been rolled out (I don't do any sort of social media stuff, so I don't watch their changes).

Insidious
Insidious
8 years ago

On the school thing, another use of school loans right now is basically welfare (providing money for living expenses).

Locally I’ve noticed two things at our local college:

1) MUCH older students suddenly appearing at the college. Lost your job, or retirement not working out? Get a college loan! You’ll be dead before you need to pay it back anyway! Just out of high school, parents have thrown you out and there are no local jobs? Get a college loan, and live off of it until things ‘work out’!

2) College as a ‘parking’ location. There is a local halfway house for developmentally challenged adults. During the day I used to see them at the local bookstore; all day, almost every day. The bookstore closed. Suddenly I started seeming them at the local Starbucks, chatting and drinking sugary coffee drinks. They’re funding got cut. Where did I just start seeing the entire group? At the local junior college.

I’m also curious if another reason for increased enrollment is the availability of low cost health care, which is often made available to students.

Insidious
Insidious
8 years ago
Reply to  Insidious

Sorry Jack, should have included a ‘trigger warning’. 😉

When you crunch the numbers on the number of people that are ‘working’, and apply your own observational powers to how many of those are REALLY working…

You’ll be amazed by the wealth and abundance being provided by so few. The surpluses are astounding to allow so many to remain in extreme grasshopper mode, without triggering instantaneous economic collapse.

This isn’t even getting into the number of those ’employed’ who are ‘working’ within government.

Bureaucracy : The Art of making the possible impossible.

All of this actually gives me hope. Heaven on earth is easily possible.

Strensk
Strensk
8 years ago

My biggest problem with the automation thing is it is fine for certain things. Especially mass production. If you require anything that requires thought due to changing situations, or implementation, I just don’t see where it can be automated. So, somethings will be automated, others not.

As for self-driving cars, I don’t like this at all. There are definitely people who would benefit from it, as they can’t drive or pay attention to save their lives (or the lives of those around them). I don’t want to put that much power into the hands of some computer controlling where I go, how fast I get there, etc.

I don’t even like the auto sensors for collision avoidance. I think it creates a very passive driver who is paying attention even less.

Fridges that remind me to buy stuff? Really? Again, no thanks.

I seem to be kind of regressing in technology (which is weird because I work in it). If I could easily get rid of my “smart” phone, I would in a heart beat.

Strensk
Strensk
8 years ago
Reply to  Strensk

I get that because I don’t like it, that it is coming, and coming fast.

I hear the “automate” mantra in my job all the time, and I have used it to take care of things that are easily repeatable with in a project I am working on or to do things that need to be done for every project. It makes me more efficient, and eliminates the chance I make a mistake. As with many things where I work, it is on the trajectory to be the “magic bullet” for everything that ails the company be it real or perceived. I’ve seen quite a few one size fits all solutions that we are still trying to force into the wrong sized and shaped hole.

I also get the potential financial ramifications, and that is what has me jittery for lack of a better term. Not so much for me (I’ll admit there is some of that there), but for the workforce as a whole.

I see the potential for self driving cars, especially for people with disabilities who need or want that independence, or for mass transit where it has a set route, set stops, again I’m fine with that. It eliminates a huge burden to the tax payer. However, to completely take over a complete aspect of my life and leave it in the hands of a computer, or Cthulhu forbid a computer and a faceless bureaucrat, I’d rather not.

My biggest question is, is just because we CAN do something, should we? Is it moving to fast to save a buck, and will it just end up putting everyone in a hurt locker all in the name of profit? I dig capitalism, but is that truly the right decision.

Will we, as people, become even more disassociated from our fellow man? Believe me there are times I completely despise people and want nothing more than to be left completely alone, but are we really any better off with social media, texting, etc. than we were 30 years ago?

Those are some of the things I think about with this stuff, who knows maybe I’m just completely, 100% wrong, and we’ll end up in a Star Trekesque utopia where most everyone is happy and doesn’t have to worry about anything but the Borg.

John cnn
John cnn
8 years ago
Reply to  Strensk

“My biggest question is, is just because we CAN do something, should we? “.

Note: Human beings have always done something if that something is doable.

Notmycentury
Notmycentury
8 years ago

Most people do underestimate automation. They now use robots for picking weeds from lettuce fields. A robot performed surgery this year. Artificial intelligence is spreading through the legal field like wildfire. Computers paint and compose music now. We will still need surgeons, lawyers, drivers, composers, just a whole lot less of them….

K.
K.
8 years ago

Halfway through listening… did John say, “it’s going to be bread and circuses?”

Insidious
Insidious
8 years ago
Reply to  K.

Interestingly, the bread and circuses period in Rome came about due to widespread unemployment, and therefore unrest, within the middle class.

The ‘technology’ of the day they were displaced by was the large number of captured slaves from Roman conquests of surrounding countries. Which were being conquered to ENLARGE the sizes of Roman farms.

Hey, wait… this is sounding oddly familiar! Small farms gave way to large centralized farms leading to unemployment and unrest? Where have I heard this before?

Supershak
Supershak
8 years ago

If anyone still doubts that robots are going to take or jobs they really need to watch CGP Grey’s “Humans need not apply” video on YouTube.

William
William
8 years ago

In a way, it seems like a lot of this discussion is very similar to what was occurring twenty years ago with the Internet. The experts were saying that by 2005 or so, at least half brick-and-mortar stores would be gone, yet over 90% of all retail sales dollars still occur at a physical retailer today. Rather than replace physical retailing, the Internet has, for the most part, augmented it by making information and transportation flow much smoother and efficiently than they did before.

Did the Internet put a lot of people, especially in certain industries like travel agents, out of business? Yes, but think of how many people’s jobs today are tied to the Internet and didn’t exist twenty years ago either. The Internet didn’t really eliminate jobs; it simply replaced the type of jobs many people had.

I believe that the same will happen of automation. Will many of the menial tasks that humans do now be replaced by robots? Of course, and to deny this is foolish or ignorant. But what new jobs will spring up as a result, tasks that we can’t even imagine now? Remember that 98% of American workers were employed directly or indirectly in the agricultural industry a little over 100 years ago, and yet we don’t have massive unemployment as a result of the machination of growing crops, and I don’t hear anyone complaining about the comparatively low food prices we enjoy today as a result.

A very interesting aspect of human progress is that when we eliminate one job, another, more productive, job is created, and that has happened repeatedly throughout human history. Will automation break all the rules? Possibly, but I’m doubtful.

This also reminds be very much of Bastiat’s argument in 1845 against protectionism of French industries like candle making. He sarcastically argued that banning free sunlight from entering any kind of structure would boost the economy of numerous ways (i.e. people would buy more candles). While he was doing so to demonstrate the idiocy of protectionism, it also illustrates that if something can be done for free or in a less expensive way, it should be done, regardless of its impact on jobs. And so it will be with automation; if a job performed by humans can be replaced with automation, be it robots or code, with a net resource gain, it should be done.

I really think that John’s comment about wisdom and creativity being the realm of humans and not machines is very accurate. Neither computers nor robots can create, and they do not possess wisdom. The need for these traits will not disappear; rather, it will increase greatly.

Insidious
Insidious
8 years ago

There’s an interesting ‘failure factor’ that often gets overlooked.

Unlike mom & pop stores, big chains can fail ‘all at once’. If x% of their stores are unprofitable, they often can’t ‘descale’ in time to keep from collapsing. Which means LOTS of stores all shutting down at the same time and effecting a lot more communities.

An example here is ‘Sports Authority’ which just went from ‘going concern’ to ‘gone’ over a weekend. Bankruptcy didn’t work out for them, and instead of downsizing, all 450 stores are closed.

This also ties into commercial real estate weakness. 450 store fronts are suddenly empty.

William
William
8 years ago

For the first quarter of 2016, 92.2% of all retail sales are off-line. A huge portion of those sales are impacted in some way by the Internet, but the final sale is occurring in a brick-and-mortar store. That’s the current time-scale.

https://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf

And yes, online sales are increasing, but not by huge jumps. Compared to the same quarter last year, 93% of all retailer were off-line. Those are the hard numbers.

My point is that changes are coming, but because many, if not all, of these changes require a change in consumers’ behavior, they don’t happen overnight. But I will not dispute that big changes are coming.

William
William
8 years ago

Jack, my point is just that it has taken a lot longer than many people thought for online retailing to get a significant share of the overall market, though its impact on off-line retailing has been greater than many thought (i.e. people can easily check prices and off-line retailers have to compete with this, product information and reviews have pushed out a lot of low quality merchandise out of the market, etc.). And yes, online retailing is gaining momentum, but it’s been a lot slower coming, by at least a decade, than many people thought. I just suspect that the same will be true of automation, but I could be wrong.

And certain categories of off-line retailing, particularly those you referenced earlier like electronics and sporting goods, have been hit much harder by online retailing than others. Best Buy has been flirting hard with bankruptcy for years, and other category specialists are in a really hard spot as well. But others, like online groceries, have had a much harder time, even in cities where they are available, because most consumers just don’t like it.

Mike
8 years ago

Deflation is everywhere and even more on the horizon.

No doubt about it, the only way we’re moving forward from here without a deflationary collapse (with a resulting government collapse) is printing money and handing it directly to citizens. Giving more and more cheap debt (money) to those at the top, clearly isn’t going to produce a sustainable inflation.

As of right now, there is no real conceivable mechanisms that the government can directly hand money to individuals. If / When that occurs that is my key indicator of where we’ll be going.

Mike
8 years ago

Very interesting.

Insidious and I were talking on the phone the other day about the aspect of money as it is. Long story short, it clearly only works because people have a self created (and or socially reinforced) disillusion that money (debt) is scarce. Meanwhile people believe its some sort of mathematical model or some sort of thing that makes logical sense. Far from it.

The system you’ve described here, actually sets up a technical backing of a monetary supply that seems reasonable. In a way if you want to sit out from the use of your capital by holding on it, its likely deflation will continue to allow your holdings to have value for use when you need them (want to do something).

Whereas the current environment seems that increasingly we all need to do more because the money has no life of its own (for growth), and yet is scarce. Very odd.

Insidious
Insidious
8 years ago

One of the interesting things about a deflationary currency is that you receive ‘interest’ (an increase in value) without risk/investment.

Whereas in our current system to MAINTAIN the value of your savings, you have to risk the loss of those savings.

This makes for an interesting continuum:
Worst – Debt based currency (loss of value without action)
Neutral – Gold currency (maintains value without action)
Best – Deflationary currency (increases in value without action)

The only negative I can see in deflationary currencies is an increased incentive towards hoarding. The more you hoard, the smaller the amount of currency in circulation, so the higher the rate of price inflation (less currency in circulation = higher value for each currency unit).

Of course that valuation is currently being made AGAINST a fiat currency, so it’s difficult to say how it would actually work in a hypothetical world without a debt based currency to value it against.

Mike
8 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Came across this. The only way to “move forward” is to start handing money to average joe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STqScL0rmxI

John Pugliano
8 years ago

Last night I spent nearly an hour trying to check into a hotel that I had already pre-checked in online. All I needed was to pick up the key. Had to wait in long line and talk to two employees. Could have done without the human interaction and would have gladly just dealt with a competent robot rather than dimwit employees.

William
William
8 years ago
Reply to  John Pugliano

You can actually do that already with your phone at certain Starwood hotels. You just check in using their app and then use your phone as your door key.

Natalie
Natalie
8 years ago

Can’t stand typical supermarkets. Sad places with sad employees and often obese customers who always buy nasty junk food. Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods are usually a better experience. That said, when it’s summer/fall here in New England I try to go to farmers markets as much as I can (at least twice a week). It’s my way of supporting local farmers and craftsmen as well as (hopefully) eating better quality food. A lot of vendors accept credit cards with their phones/iPads so I don’t have to worry about cash too much. I noticed though that it’s not like supermarkets where you grab your stuff and try to leave as soon as you can. I see folks talking to vendors all the time, there’s usually some live music playing with chairs on lawns if you need to take a break or listen, folks bring their kids and dogs (can’t do the latter in a grocery store), drinks, food, ice-cream are being sold. It’s like a social event. I hardly ever see any seriously obese people (not to pick up on anyone, I’ve struggled with extra weight myself and I know it’s not easy) but the difference is quite telling.

I wonder if the typical grocery stores are going away due to automation/online sales while farmers markets are staying because they’re fulfilling the “wants” (i.e. good food, social interaction) as Jack likes to say?

Dan
Dan
8 years ago

Jack, you often have interesting and informative things to say. Same for John. But whenever you deny global warming or man’s role in it it detracts from everything else you say. Fossil fuels are killing the planet, and are about the most anti-permaculture force out there. We will eventually run out of oil. And there is not hundreds of years of natural gas available, unless you believe the con artists who are seeking investors to keep the shale oil “revolution” Ponzi-scheme going.

Even if you want to ignore the global warming/climate change that is significantly and adversely affecting the planet even now, you need to consider the effect of natural gas wells and hydraulic fracturing on the planet. Fracking involves hundreds of toxic chemicals being injected into the ground. Chemicals that will be around for generations. Aquifers are threatened. Ever been around an oil or gas well? They stink. That’s because they’re leaking not only greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but carcinogens, as well.

The only way the shale oil revolution can be sustained is to constantly be drilling and fracking, because the output from wells drops off dramatically after 18 months. So you end up with thousands of wells involving hundreds of toxic chemicals in the adjacent ground (and water) and air, and the companies drilling and maintaining the wells have to keep luring investors to provide the money needed to keep the whole scheme going.

Renewables are practical. Wind and solar are just a couple of options. Maybe nuclear? But we should be moving away from fossil fuels ASAP. Natural gas is a terrible option. And talk about theft. Most people don’t own their mineral rights. If an oil or gas company has the mineral rights under your property they can come in and pretty much do whatever they want on your property. Roads wherever.

Set up a major industrial operation (well or wells) operating 24/7. Next to your home, if that’s the site they prefer. It’s surprising you’re on the fossil fuels band wagon, since you seem to care about government and corporate overreach, and chemicals, in your personal life. Hard to imagine something so negatively impacting us as fossil fuels are. I hope you change your tune at some point.

Insidious
Insidious
8 years ago
Reply to  Dan

@Dan –
I came across this article recently:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/fossil-fuel-use-in-us-is-at-its-lowest-percentage-in-over-a-century/

What’s interesting is the graph. ‘Other Renewables’ is wind & solar. ‘Biomass’ is wood.

To replace petroleum, natural gas & coal as energy sources would require about 80 quadrillion BTUs of ‘other renewables’. Or about 26x the number installed in the last 30 years.

This of course completely ignores how energy is used. Use of electricity for transportation for example would require huge changes to the entire transportation infrastructure.

Not posting this as a slam. If you’re concerned about this issue, and are looking for implementable solutions, you’re going to have to start with the SCIENCE of this issue.

Insidious
Insidious
8 years ago

yeah, not the right word choice.

even ‘fact’ is suspect these days.

by ‘science’ I meant ‘objectively provable facts’, but those are pretty hard to come by.

in this particular case, I hear people saying ‘we need more renewables’ all the time, but no one seems to understand the amount of energy we’re currently using.

getting to our current renewable numbers required massive government subsidies, and as those graphs show, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the total energy being used.

this is the usual case of looking for a ‘solution’, ‘out there, by those people’, or ‘by everyone’.

I can’t fix the US energy situation. I can’t ‘fix’ my neighbors energy choices. I can totally fix mine.

Insidious
Insidious
8 years ago

a ‘fixed’ energy system to me means:
production & use of energy is not permanently damaging living systems; to include air & water contamination with pollutants.

this is of course ‘my utopia’ and it might take 100 years to get there.

Insidious
Insidious
8 years ago
Reply to  Dan

Was musing on the closing of Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in CA this morning. Here’s the ‘renewable’ math:

Plant Annual Output:
18,000 GWh (giga = billion)

In 2015, SEIA says 7.5Gw of panels were installed in US.

In CA, the average time for power generation is 5.1 hours, so those panels would generate: 7.5GW x 5.1h = 38.25 GWh

The SEIA also says total installation of panels is 29GWh, annual output: 147.9 GWh

So, to replace the single nuclear plant (18,000 GWh annually), you would need to install 121x all of the installed solar in the US, or you’d have to install the same amount of panels that were installed last year… for 470 years.

How many solar panels?
One Panel = 300 W x 365 days x 5.1 hours/day = 558kwh/year

18,000,000,000 kwh (nuclear plant)
divided by
558 kwh (single panel output)
equals approx.
32.2 Million Solar Panels

William
William
8 years ago
Reply to  Insidious

Your math is off somewhere. Solar PV, including utility and grid-tied home systems, accounted for 1.04% of all electrical output in the U.S. in 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States

Solar PV is obviously still tiny in terms of energy production, but it’s rapidly gaining ground. In 2012, nuclear plants produced 178 times more power than all utility and grid-tied solar panels, but this dropped to just 30 times more in 2015.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1

But of course, it’s taking nuclear power and fossil fuels to create and transport the solar panels, and the minerals used to create solar panels, many of which are quite rare, are obviously finite. The panels themselves will not last indefinitely, and it’s yet to be determined how much of the material in solar panels can be recycled effectively as there aren’t yet enough old panels to justify a recycling industry for them.

The other aspect of this is that even now, the vast majority of solar panels are being installed in places where grid power is substantially more expensive than for the rest of the nation. Significant improvements to the cost effectiveness of solar PV will continue to be needed in order for it to continue to grow as it has in the last several years. Federal tax incentives are also driving a significant amount of this growth.

Even in a ‘best case’ scenario for solar PV advocates, it’s going to take many years, if ever, before it can actually replace non-renewable energy sources.

Insidious
Insidious
8 years ago
Reply to  Insidious

@William –
Very likely my math is off, as these are quick and dirty calculations, and they’re based on solar hours in a particular location in the US. Solar in Arizona is going to do much better.

Wiki is saying 26.8 GW of solar delivering 41.8TWh of annual output (SEIA says more is installed). That would be 1559.7 Wh of annual output for each W of solar installed, or 4.27 W/day per watt installed.

This single nuclear plant is managing 18 TWh annually, so 43% of all solar in the US.

=

Wiki article is including Solar Thermal solutions which sidestep some of the issues you listed with PV.

=

I’m not sure how accurate this is, but it’s interesting:
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption

This suggests it should be fairly easy to use 1/3 the electricity per household (Germany levels). There are a lot of factors involved obviously. Easier to reduce than build.

Bob
Bob
8 years ago

I think that if technology marches forward and replaces most jobs, the elites will have little need for most people and will get more control over technology, which will serve them. The average Joe, might have less access to technology. It’s a different point of view from what I’ve seen anyone take but there are a lot of ways this could go. More detail on my blog post at:

https://investingwithnature.com/2016/07/19/will-technology-obsolete-your-job/

Bob

Andy
Andy
8 years ago

My $.02.

1- Good show and I think you’re both right.

2 – As I look up at the sky here in DT Phoneix and see the constant take off-landing of jets and see the people in their cars running around I think to myself where are all those people going?

My answer as a faithful Traditional Catholic (Yes, I know God is a bad word around here but just because you don’t believe does not make it that God does not exist) is simple: Straight to hell. This is not a judgement by me it’s just a fact.

BTW, please google “The Miracle of the Sun”

Eternity is a long time folks; are you POSITIVE of your viewpoint/belief in God???????

Justin
Justin
8 years ago

Any more info about the electric motorcycle you mentioned at the end? I tried googling it some but I only found articles about people who did it and not any actual how to plans.