Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Amazon Go- the no checkout store


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
Quote

Keep the posts up wonderpup, nothing to contribute apart from very much enjoy reading your contributions, I agree fully.

Thanks for the kind words.

I just watched this presentation by a guy called Wolfgang Streeck- worth a look if you have the time. He's speaking the day after Trump won the election.

Among other things he makes the point that Capitalism has been so 'successful' in taking out any opposing forces-like trade unions- that it has created an environment in which there are now no limits on it's excesses- sort of analogous to a kind of superpredator that is so successful it ends up destroying itself by overbreeding and destroying the ecology on which it's survival depends.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442
2
HOLA443
4 hours ago, Ash4781 said:

I visited my local Poundland today and they had replaced around half the manned tills with new self service checkouts. Humans were just left stacking shelves around the store. Suspect that the computer algorithm might work out the best restocking solution. 

Cost effective robotics and or AI software to do even shelf stacking is still some way off.  Reminds me of manual telephone switchboards - begging for an automated solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444
11 hours ago, blackhole said:

Cost effective robotics and or AI software to do even shelf stacking is still some way off.  Reminds me of manual telephone switchboards - begging for an automated solution.

Was a switchboard operator a job the people doing it liked or hated? If the former a stupid thing to automate, if the latter then it made sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
12 hours ago, blackhole said:

Cost effective robotics and or AI software to do even shelf stacking is still some way off.  Reminds me of manual telephone switchboards - begging for an automated solution.

They are working on shelf stacking. They already have prototypes of robot flexible arms (like a large snake), that can move objects around. I give it 5 years, tops, before some kind of mass-market robot shelf stacking snake is available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446
15 minutes ago, Errol said:

They are working on shelf stacking. They already have prototypes of robot flexible arms (like a large snake), that can move objects around. I give it 5 years, tops, before some kind of mass-market robot shelf stacking snake is available.

The issue I see discussed with these systems is coping with non deterministic scenarios or flexing to change - both Merc and VW had to resort to man-power to overcome these issues in the end - though it's only a matter of time before advancements are made here with deep learning etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

The early prototype I saw in action has AI built in, with 'eyes'. It can see the entire 3D space around it, determine which objects to pick up and where to place them etc. With current advancements proceeding at their fast pace I can see something akin to this being ready for use in 5 years (possibly earlier - hard to tell).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448
1 minute ago, Errol said:

The early prototype I saw in action has AI built in, with 'eyes'. It can see the entire 3D space around it, determine which objects to pick up and where to place them etc. With current advancements proceeding at their fast pace I can see something akin to this being ready for use in 5 years (possibly earlier - hard to tell).

Or just make use of human beings, which can do all that already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Or just make use of human beings, which can do all that already.

As long as the costs associated with using people is lower - sure.  But once machines become economically competitive then it's a given that the work will be automated.

 

The thing is that automation is now becoming practical even for simple low-paid, low-skill jobs which were once considered a 'last resort' for those seeking employment.  With automation creeping in at all levels, something needs to be changed as to how we structure the tax/ benefits system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410
10
HOLA4411
11
HOLA4412
12
HOLA4413
2 minutes ago, Errol said:

The robot could work 24/7 with no rest, no holiday. It will do the work of scores of people.

Self driving lorries, humans are restricted by law to only work a set number of hours for obvious reasons. A robot lorry can go 247 and a human lorry driver is relatively well paid. The robot lorries learn a route and can network with other lorries to warn of obstructions or jams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415
1 hour ago, Sour Mash said:

As long as the costs associated with using people is lower - sure.  But once machines become economically competitive then it's a given that the work will be automated.

 

The thing is that automation is now becoming practical even for simple low-paid, low-skill jobs which were once considered a 'last resort' for those seeking employment.  With automation creeping in at all levels, something needs to be changed as to how we structure the tax/ benefits system.

That just reveals a flaw in the economic system though, that it can possibly make sense to spend time, resources, and money building a very complex machine to do things that people can do easily enough. It benefits the individual company doing it, sure, but the wider implications are largely negative (unless you're talking unpleasant or dangerous jobs). The counter-argument appears to just be a hand-wavy "oh well, something else will come up." If you end up with a system where people are sitting around (or doing essentially make-work jobs) then in the grand scheme of things it would make much more sense to throw the machines away and get people to do those tasks. There's no real labour shortage after all, and no real need for greater productivity, all there is is the have-to-stay-ahead-to-keep-up vicous circle.

It's happening, it's going to happen, and it's going to do us no good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
16
HOLA4417
9 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That just reveals a flaw in the economic system though, that it can possibly make sense to spend time, resources, and money building a very complex machine to do things that people can do easily enough. It benefits the individual company doing it, sure, but the wider implications are largely negative (unless you're talking unpleasant or dangerous jobs). The counter-argument appears to just be a hand-wavy "oh well, something else will come up." If you end up with a system where people are sitting around (or doing essentially make-work jobs) then in the grand scheme of things it would make much more sense to throw the machines away and get people to do those tasks. There's no real labour shortage after all, and no real need for greater productivity, all there is is the have-to-stay-ahead-to-keep-up vicous circle.

It's happening, it's going to happen, and it's going to do us no good.

 

The solution as automation becomes ever more invasive is pretty simple and works just as it currently does - you tax the production and redistribute it.  Only you stop pretending to give it the proceeds of your taxation of productive labour out as short-term welfare benefits to people between jobs and just provide everyone with a baseline income that keeps them housed, fed, healthy and educated.

 

If you want a higher standard of living (as many will), you seek out productive avenues to generate additional wealth just as ambitious people look to improve their lot at the moment.  If not, you don't have to justify anything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17
HOLA4418

The solution as automation becomes ever more invasive is pretty simple and works just as it currently does - you tax the production and redistribute it.  Only you stop pretending to give it the proceeds of your taxation of productive labour out as short-term welfare benefits to people between jobs and just provide

everyone with a baseline income that keeps them housed, fed, healthy and educated.

If you think the complaints about benefits scroungers are bad now just wait to see what would happen if you did that. And it still doesn't change the fact that rationally it would make more sense to save the effort and resources of building the machines by making use of the now vastly under-used resource of people that's still there, now sitting around even more and feeling even more useless.

7 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

If you want a higher standard of living (as many will), you seek out productive avenues to generate additional wealth just as ambitious people look to improve their lot at the moment.  If not, you don't have to justify anything.

Too bad you've just hugely restricted such opportunities.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

If you think the complaints about benefits scroungers are bad now just wait to see what would happen if you did that. And it still doesn't change the fact that rationally it would make more sense to save the effort and resources of building the machines by making use of the now vastly under-used resource of people that's still there, now sitting around even more and feeling even more useless.

Too bad you've just hugely restricted such opportunities.

The current system is rewarding not-working or working only 16h/day. A baseline income would not provide perverse incentives and be fair to everyone.

There will always be some jobs for people to do. With more automation, you can reduce the working hours while maintaining the same productivity as before. For instance France has a 35-hour workweek (since February 2000, too), and you can reduce it further. That would improve everyone's quality of life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
16 minutes ago, crashbaby said:

The current system is rewarding not-working or working only 16h/day. A baseline income would not provide perverse incentives and be fair to everyone.

There will always be some jobs for people to do. With more automation, you can reduce the working hours while maintaining the same productivity as before. For instance France has a 35-hour workweek (since February 2000, too), and you can reduce it further. That would improve everyone's quality of life.

Sure, a bit of a reduction in working hours would indeed be an improvement to quality of life, and I'd be rather less against the negative consequences if it were to happen. I don't see it happening though, at least not as a result of automation. Working hours are more of a social situation than a technological one; they seem to be on the increase rather than the opposite (or far fewer, unpredictable hours and correspondingly little pay to go with them). Bringing working hours down requires social, not technological change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

So what? Society needs that because?

I don't agree with it at all, but I think it's basically inevitable. It can't be stopped as any country that individually tried to prevent it would just be overrun by all the other countries that won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
21 minutes ago, Errol said:

I don't agree with it at all, but I think it's basically inevitable. It can't be stopped as any country that individually tried to prevent it would just be overrun by all the other countries that won't.

Can't argue with that, which is why I call it a vicious circle (or downward spiral).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

 

 

If you think the complaints about benefits scroungers are bad now just wait to see what would happen if you did that. And it still doesn't change the fact that rationally it would make more sense to save the effort and resources of building the machines by making use of the now vastly under-used resource of people that's still there, now sitting around even more and feeling even more useless.

Too bad you've just hugely restricted such opportunities.

The whole point of a citizens income is that there are no 'benefits' as such (other than for actual disability/ illness requiring special care over and above that of a healthy, able-bodied person).  Since everyone gets it, regardless of other income, it's not something that people claim by virtue of being notionally 'unemployed' ergo they aren't scrounging it while everyone else works to pay it.  Everyone is of course, scrounging it from the robots who are essentially being worked/taxed like slaves.  Somehow I don't think that they'll complain.  Their owners might but then unless there is a market of redistributed wealth from their robots productivity, they won't be able to sell whatever it is they are making.

 

If people want to do nothing else but draw on citizens income and live a fairly basic life watching trash TV and drinking cheap booze or whatever, well that's entirely up to them.

 

Most will want a better life.  To do that, you do exactly what you currently do - seek out opportunities to produce more and gain wealth.  Not everything will be automated, there will still be some (but fewer) positions for human workers, and people with loads of free time and at least a small surplus income will provide the seed from which to develop new market opportunities and new wealth.

 

Currently, if you are prepared to game the system you can more or less do this anyway at the cost of drawing the resentment and disgust of people who actually get off their backsides to work and get taxed to pay for others.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
18 hours ago, Sour Mash said:

The whole point of a citizens income is that there are no 'benefits' as such (other than for actual disability/ illness requiring special care over and above that of a healthy, able-bodied person).  Since everyone gets it, regardless of other income, it's not something that people claim by virtue of being notionally 'unemployed' ergo they aren't scrounging it while everyone else works to pay it.  Everyone is of course, scrounging it from the robots who are essentially being worked/taxed like slaves.  Somehow I don't think that they'll complain.  Their owners might but then unless there is a market of redistributed wealth from their robots productivity, they won't be able to sell whatever it is they are making.

And from the people who are still working. A lot more automation looks certain, complete automation of absolutely everything doesn't look possible in the forseable future though. Those still working will be working to pay for those not.

If people want to do nothing else but draw on citizens income and live a fairly basic life watching trash TV and drinking cheap booze or whatever, well that's entirely up to them.

Sure, but it's not good for them or for wider society. You'll end up with even more generally unhappy, unfulfilled people than we've got at present. That's not something to aspire to.

Most will want a better life.  To do that, you do exactly what you currently do - seek out opportunities to produce more and gain wealth.  Not everything will be automated, there will still be some (but fewer) positions for human workers, and people with loads of free time and at least a small surplus income will provide the seed from which to develop new market opportunities and new wealth.

Most will want but fewer will be able to get. It's greatly limited the skill set (let alone the things people might want to do) that's capable of getting more. Reducing the amount of work (and stress) is a good thing, eliminating it a bad one. A more likely occurence than shorter hours for all is a few people with the same or more, and everyone else out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

The arguments for and against basic income are irrelevant. The reason why we should have it was made several centuries ago by Thomas Paine in Agrarian Justice: the aristocracy have dividend up the land for themselves and we deserve compensation for the loss of free use of common land which we all used to enjoy.

A land value tax would pay for a citizens' income without having to raise other taxes. This was already established in the 1940s I believe.

Conversations about 'benefit scroungers' are divisive and unhelpful. If you want to hate on scroungers then direct it to the royal family, the church and other holders of masses of land who charge the rest of us to use it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information