Will Robots Take Our Jobs? 

Ha Nguyen Video-Bombed! lol

Tbh I am surprised there is noone that woudl like begin to follow him all the way, when they see his do thing vlogs xD

Haha

Lol’d

3:56 man in the background disapproves of Derek.

whoa, hi there Sonny :D

It is called content marketing.

smh

Yep i Saw that to he was like “Jesus Chris ”

Samovar maker unfortunately he'll soon lose his job too😪

lol i dont know why

I imagine he sees way too many selfie sticks to expect that this one is held by a smart person.

Can you share the link?

When robots do creative jobs we could all play RaId ShAdOw LeGeNds.

I don’t think they will Creative jobs are more likely things you do as a hobby If a robot does the job 100% accurate and perfekt but a human doesn’t People maybe still tend to pay more for the human creation. Why? Because it is unique

@@kevinfritsch2620 well it depends on type of creativity. If its art, music etc ai would take time and there are different outcomes. But creativity in science would really change world. And if programmed and planned in right way. Its would be best invention by human.

Eventually perhaps there may be no real jobs left, leaving us with free time to do whatever we want, including creative activities. Maybe living creatures could still do creative jobs for a living branding their products as "made by living soul" :P

Or you just picking things out of context maybe...

I see three things going on here that combine to create the effect you so brilliantly explained. 1) Humans a pattern recognising organisms. We draw connections between things and there are lots of elements in the videos to feed that process. So I'm calling that skillfully recognised coincidence. 2) We are not conscious of most of our pattern recognising abilities. But they do effect the choices we make, the subjects that come to mind next, the words we choose. It is very likely that someone will talk about a concept that relates to something they saw, but didn't notice. I think this must have happened to some extent during the video. 3) No matter how logical we think we are, we do a lot of things by feel, by our emotional reactions. We like patterns and things fitting together. Derek would have made a lot of choices when editing this video down, and it is likely that the stuff on the cutting room floor has less of these coincidences, because at a non-conscious level, they would have been less attractive material. But you are right, he does have some film making genius going on for him. This is a great phrase for describing those who trust their unconscious, go with the gut feeling decisions, and come up with a product that has a lot more depth and connections than they consciously put into it.

Necrojoker or maybe he is with the Illuminati

He wanted to be a filmmaker remember? It's a combination of skill in framing the shots and luck to have occurrences and places that fit into the storyline to work with in each scene.

Face in the clouds

The bad part is that companies don't employ more people to work less hours, they simply employ less people that work the same amount.

yes and no. there is a trend in the company where i work for - people tend to work less hours, just because they find it insulting to travel 2 hours a day and then spend 8 more working for someone else. why aren't we all insulted by the obvious waste of our lifetime. i start to understand older people who have not left anything behind them except ... workhours.

Jelle van M. Yes. I think it will be fundamental to make sure the middle class actually gain the wealth (for fairness, and so that they want to work less) and maybe there should be limits to work-hours.

there is no fairness in the middle class to gain whatever. we agree to work for a salary, we agree to pay taxes, we suffer from unemployment, etc. nothing is given or taken without a reason. trust me, i lived in a communist country and there is a reason that this system is only theoretical and not practical :D one thing that i agree on however is the fact that people are generally underpaid. salaries could easily be higher. this can only be regulated by the government, but again...it is a bit unnatural to intervene in such a private issue. again, what if the salaries are increased and the effect is zero. this topic is as long as the human history...

boredom

Exactly!

Renagadde IKR I mean all we have to do control the robots it not like they got to eat😂 they can literally do everything like building houses now everyone got free house and lambo and not be in debt but it all depends on the government

MPcrazyscience thy took dee durrr!!!

dey terp de deeeerr!?

MPcrazyscience durka duuurrr

tuk arrr jaaaaaaa

This is what I was looking for when I scrolled down to the comments.

Yea

Unless you become jobless and won't be able to make a living

Sayuas thats why i say shouldnt. just as it is now we make enough resources for everyone to live comfortably. robots taking our works should mean that we no longer have to work to get our needs met, and we can each focus on having a fulfilling life.

Keep in mind that, if you can't add anything to society, society migh consider that it should do nothing for you. It's impossible to say that all future societies will be completely uncorrupted, and that they will never take the power for themselves. If that situation would arise, you would at best be living far worse than you seem to imply (and probably wouldn't know it).

The transition is a (temporary) bad thing because our policies doesn't really address the issue very well of the people who get phased out in the mean time. If we fix that, it won't be a problem. The conundrum is that fixing the problem will undeniably result in some massive welfare standard like basic income.

Joaquin and if only large multinational companies take over all automation system the why would they let u live comfortably----u think they will make everything free of cost---NO u will become poor while they feed off your healthy lifestyle

Nikhil Garg It was taken over by a lazy robot.

Green Silver 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂fml then

Nikhil Garg Maybe he didn't have any food ideas for shorter videos? Hopefully that channel will be used more in the future.

+David Wood It's not that ironic really in fact it is kinda inevitable and always was, capitalism is very good at efficiently allocating scarce resources be that labour or material resources. Transition to a post scarcity civilisation was always inherently bound to undermine the vary basis of value in a capitalist which is scarcity, it's pretty easy to see where this is going first capitalism is going to fall by the wayside as the labour allocator it will still function as the physical resource allocator for a time with people spending their UBI with the companies that produce the best value products which in turn of course allows them to buy more resources. But even that will have to change in time tech is going to progress eventually to the point that our access to energy and resources is going to grow exponentially likely even faster than the population hell you start harvesting even a fraction of the energy just our own star puts out and you suddenly can have populations in the trillions to quadrillions and give each of them several hundred thousand TWh of energy credits per year to use as they please ie like the current global supply of primary energy *EACH*. At the point where you can literally give individuals command of the sort of resources of our current entire civilisation claiming with a straight face that we really need to try to enforce scarcity with a credits system just starts to sound goddamn ridiculous. Fair enough that's getting probably a few centuries in the future yet but it's again pretty much inevitable short of being a flat Earther that believes the rest of the universe is some mural on their delusional sky it's really hard to come up with a good argument why the ever present quest to seek out new resources, new places to expand to etc wont inevitably lead to looking seriously at the near unlimited supplies of energy and resource beyond the thin layer of this little ball we rely on for absolutely everything currently.

Most of our jobs have existed for a century, but almost none of them existed before the industrial revolution.

Benjamin Brooks exactly

It's fine to disagree on a prediction.

I don't have a problem with him disagreeing, but I wish he had told us why. Basically, he gave some arguments, most of which had been thoroughly countered in CGPGrey's video on this topic. So most people who have seen both videos would immediately disregard this one and assume CGPGrey is right. It felt like an earlier part of the conversation. If, on the other hand, he'd directly addressed those counter-arguments, then I would have been very interested in hearing that.

You could learn your entire life in a university. Do only things you like. Eat healthy local delicious food. Have full mobility and communication. Full healthcare for all your needs. Housing that is suitable for you and travel the world. Without ever working a job. Without anyone on earth having to do anything else. The only thing you could not do, was have hundreds or thousands of people working for you, to get money from their labor, so that you can buy yachts, private jets, politicians, countries and planets. So guess who does not want you to believe that the first is possible.

+liquidminds But does that make people happy? Just giving them what they want? Are the richest people in the world content with how much money they have, or do they want more? Alexander wept when there were no nations left to conquer. I like videogames, vacations, days off every now and then but what makes me happy in the long term is going to my job, making an honest living, and eating a meal at night knowing that I earned it.

Not what they "want". what they NEED. So that everything they want can be the focus of their work. Your story is exactly the point. If you work hard but can hardly sustain your life with it, you will be unsatisfied. If you work hard but make a good living, you're happy. But even if you happened to lose your job, you should be able to get by somehow. As you said. the richest don't get happier with more billions, but a honest, earned wage, that's something that doesn't cost millions and brings a lot.

He's like "dang crazy white folk, talking to their cameras n shit"

Dem wer neva kangz lik uz..

White boi talking to camera...Jeez what times we live in

Dude took my jerb.

yes, mate!

This isn't true across the board, though. Robotic chefs could put a lot of fast food employees out of work, as the only mandated human interaction would premise on maintenance.

[citation needed]

+Travis Wald > People thought ATMs and online banking were going to replace tellers ATMs did replace tellers. The number of tellers per branch went down. What confuses the issue is that the number of bank branches increased disproportionately to hide that effect. People incorrectly attribute the increase in branches to ATMs making them cheaper, but that doesn't make sense. The number of tellers overall went up, so banks were paying more in labor costs. The real reason for the increased number of branches was not due to ATMs, but because "The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 removed many of the restrictions on opening bank branches across state lines," according to the Federal Reserve. www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2016/12/17/automation-has-created-more-jobs-in-the-past-but-will-it-now/ The idea that automation will not impact employment because the automation will reduce costs that will lead to increased demand is proved incorrect by the agriculture industry. It use to employ 90%+ of the population. Now it is just ~2%. The fact is that peak demand exists, and once it is met, extra job growth in that area is increasingly difficult. Luckily we had untapped potential areas of employment to absorb the agricultural job losses. Jobs first moved to manufacturing, and when automation took hold there they moved to services. The problem is there isn't a lot of room left after services. Most of the new employment areas require fewer and fewer people. High tech services lead to a winner-takes-all, best will survive situation. In general, Google is our one search engine. Facebook is our one social platform. In addition, servicing more customers in those platforms requires ridiculously fewer employees than previous areas like manufacturing. For example, GM would have to hire far more people to make 1 million more cars, than Google needs to add 1 million more people doing searches.

No it’s not like that, few hundred trillionares will infinite wealth and we will live in mercy of them

And in next few hundred years even those trillionare job will be taken by robots due to their high intelligence and human’s future will be in mercy of AI ! Do u want to that future?

@@joshuabenedictj All of these trillionaires and A.I.s are creating goods and services for humanity. What is there to be scared of? Not having a job, because goods and services are so cheap? Someone else getting rich doesn't make someone else poorer.

@@ronpaulrevered But in many cases it will cause inequality, do u think those trillions will just give you money every month, no. Yes some new jobs will be created at first but as time passes those also will be taken

@@joshuabenedictj Inequality isn't a problem either. I don't care if someone makes more money than me. How much money someone makes is none of my business. Do you care? You seem to forget that producers of goods and services need someone to buy those goods and services, so if A.I. is going to "take" everybodies job, then it's going to be because A.I. is cheaper labor and if people have less money, then the prices of the goods and services that are being produced more cheaply will have to be offered cheaper to chase less money held by consumers. This "A.I. will take your job" narrative is pure non-sense.

efficient, you say?! no.

The way AI is going, even highly skilled and highly educated humans won't be able to compete with automata.

Aaron L There is no such thing as "our economy".

Rob Mckennie Absolutely. If you put a chimp into a room long enough with a typewriter it can write shakespeare. Yes a person could do it in a lot less time, but what if I have a thousand, a million, or a billion chimpanzees with a billion typewriters? That's the thing about digital automation and machine learning. They can brute force problems in a way that humans simply cannot compete with. Maybe that's not the case today, tomorrow or in the next decade, but technology is getting there. Humans will be losing any and every job that would be paid purely because an employer wants the work done. Maybe not work of passion, but unless other common people have a way to pay for it it won't sustain any kind of life. Automation is not a bad thing, it just needs to be guided and controlled so that it doesn't absolutely screw anyone that doesn't own a share in it.

There's a Loop? Sorry, but I'm afraid that's not how machine learning works. If it was brute force, it wouldn't work. You could have as many chimps randomly typing on a typwriter as there are particles in the entire observable universe, doing that for the entire history of the universe up until now, you still wouldn't expect to get Hamlet out of it. Not even ONCE. Apart from that, I mostly agree with you (I just wanted to point out how complex machines actually are and how they don't "brute force" anything).

This. Ultimately we have to ask ourselves what the goal is of all this progress we are making. Maybe a few hours a week on average(likely irregular and projects instead of steady times) is where we are headed. Experts in various fields where we still want humans.

Well if Automation starts seriously creeping up on the economy on us education should become more flexible like Veritasium mentioned in the video. "So for the future the key is going to be can you get the right education that will make you adaptable and agile because you probably aren't going to do one thing for the rest of your life, and you probsbly shouldn't have just one skillset". I might've butchered some words, but for the most part thtas what he said. I would love for education to be free, but I think thats asking alot from politicians and lawmakers; we also have to take into consideration how we're going to pay for it. So in my opinion a better goal would be to make education more accesible and flexible. If that means making it cheaper more power to it. But it lesves room for ways to innovate the way we teach in a trsditional classroom. Keeping ththe parts that work and scrapping the ones that are irrelevant or are hurting thre education proccess. We should aim to adapt the way we teach to the careers of today and possibly the future. Though this is all my take in the matter and I have no credentials to back it up. nvm the fact that I'm commenting a paragraph on RU-vid.

Waymo is

If your competitors go cheap and replace all the staff with AI you won't stay in business employing costly humans for the better good of the community. There will need to be a universal wage. I think Scotland is already trailing it. People will be paid simply to enjoy themselves. Because without a universal wage the system will soon collapse.

I don't see how a universal wage would ever work though. Where would that money come from? If it comes from the governement, that means you're getting paid from tax money, tax money that the population and corporations pay. That means that the governement gives a certain amount of money so that you are able to buy things but they will only get 21% of that amount back because the rest goes to the corporations. So they're losing money. And if it's the corporations that give you the wage, how would that work? The corporation gives you money so you can go buy things from other companies? There's no guarantee that you'll buy from them. And if for some reason you do buy all of your stuff from them they'll still lose money because 21% goes to the governement.

Nobody wants to get pregnant from robot sea men, dude.

Also: if robots do replace us, then the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer

Anthony Flores: Don't be ridiculous

Thanks 😂

The description already did it.!

Well yeah they are programmed but if robots take all jobs it will cause horrible things

How about us? We are good at something.

That s exactly my point.

Technically you can automate the entire education from kindergarten to PhD. It would be easy too as it is far easier to perfect a single curriculum with the single best suited teacher to speak and act as "guide". Doing it that way will help to produce the best quality education that takes into account so many different variables that are simply ignored in today's systems and best part of it would be everyone gets the same quality (humans can't ruin the end product with their involvement). With a good enough tracking to identify troubled and slow learners you can never have a situation where someone is truly left behind since "same expectation to all doesn't exist as it would be individualistic". Do all the lessons modular enough and you can just update only specific parts of the overall system while keeping things that were not affected the same. This helps to keep up with new discoveries and always up to date without rolling out a completely new curriculum every single time something really minor changes. Basically RIP universities if this were to happen - it is likely unis will just focus on science and less on teaching since they are not needed any more. Academia basically fucks off from education and it can be a good thing. With VR becoming more useful you can also automate really difficult practical education as well. It would save so much money and time as well. If Universities had an interest in actually creating a future like education system from 21st century then universities would lose all the money they get from "teaching". So it makes sense they haven't even bothered and politicians are too dumb to care either way so what you got is stagnation and shitty education. Elite schools can boast how good it all is, but reality is theirs is just flavored shit while rest get just normal shit. Nobody gets the best of the best since to get best of the best you really need a computer to do it so there is laziness (no humans involved at the end product basically) and different variables (most if not all) are actually taken into account.

There's a difference between online education and automated education. I've taken several classes online, some good and some absolutely horrible, worse than useless. The good ones were the ones with enough good teachers and TAs that could respond to questions and misunderstandings, but even those only work for the people who have crazy motivation, and enough time to dive deeply into stuff on their own. And discussions with TAs in online class forums will always be slower than seeing and talking with them in person. P.S. Have you seen Derek's video "This will revolutionize education"? It brings up some good points about this and it matches my experience at least.

google dream? It can't.

kiryu nil it can't create from scratch, do your research.

Richard Eitz True, but can humans create from scratch?

Neither can humans. When humans create things, they base it off what they have already seen, what they have experienced and meld concepts and ideas together into novel ones. It doesn't come out of nowhere.

Rhannmah is exactly right. And guess what? That is exactly the concept of data science. Creation doesn't have to be from scratch. Even new improvements count.

I hope the thumbs up are as fake as this bot's post.

will robots take over our comments section too?

why are you everywhere ffs

Lil Fuckwit Everywhere like where? I have comments after I watched a video so I voice it. Many people do that too. I'm surprised my comments are not lost in the sea of comments. May be you should ask why you can see my comments instead of why am I everywhere.

Lol, what shop?

This is nothing new. We have a S-curve model to describe the life cycle of technology adoption. Robot/AI are a game-changing technology, and its S-curve by-far is the biggest since the industrial revolution. For decades, we're at the base of its S-curve. And once it takes off, there's no telling how fast it'll go and how many would be left behind in the dust.

I've been saying 2020 will be when fully autonomous cars become a reality and I see no reason to change that prediction. That isn't to say that those autonomous cars will be able to function everywhere. People like to counter autonomous cars by using edge cases of remote areas with harsh weather and driving conditions. While that is true, it is also true that not many people live there. Where the population is, is also where autonomous cars will hit first. That is all that is needed for autonomous cars to make a significant impact on the economy and our lives. As for adoption, that is going to be near instantaneous once autonomous cars are a reality. That is for two concurrent trends. First is the rise of Uber and their business model. They, and competitors will immediately adopt fleets of self driving cars that will rival and eventually beat the cost of owning a car. Once the cost gets that low, the used car market will tank. That will in turn make the blue book value of existing cars take a dive. For most people it'll cost less to junk their car and use a service than to pay for any sizable repair. You'll hear talk about cars being kept for an average of 10 years, and that is why autonomous cars will have a slow adoption rate. The flaw in that analysis is that those 10 year estimates are based on the current situation where there is no viable alternative to owning a car, and the price of getting another one is prohibitively high. People don't want to keep their cars 10 years. They have to keep their cars 10 years. That truism will change when a self driving taxi fleet can offer an inexpensive timely door-to-door service. The second reason for quick autonomous car adoption is the switch to electric cars. As battery prices fall, electric cars will be better than gas cars in every way. Fleets of autonomous cars will best be able to make use of these cars. For example customers won't care about the charge time or travel distance per charge when they take a different car for every trip with an autonomous taxi service. It'll be up to the service to make sure each car has enough power to make a requested trip. The ability of autonomous taxi services to best use electric cars will be one of the major reasons why they'll be able to offer their services for less than a person would pay to own a normal gas car.

Tesla said by the end of this year, not in 5. It's probably not going to happen but I'm hoping it will.

+Calvin Page > Tesla said by the end of this year, not in 5. It's probably not going to happen but I'm hoping it will. Google too gave a prediction of 2017, but I've always assumed delays would happen. I think 2020 is a nice round number to expect for self driving cars to become a reality. If that prediction is off, it will only be by a couple of years. That's a good enough margin of error for any major technical innovation prediction.

+Ken Mathis True though one thing to bear in mind with Tesla also is that the hardware in terms of sensors and all the actuator etc to operate in autonomous mode are already in current Tesla vehicles, only thing they are lacking is the software complete with the required regulatory permissions to allow that software to operate autonomously on public roads. Course they have software updating facilities for their vehicles so as soon as they get the green light they can make thousands of existing vehicles autonomous overnight.

and be unemployed...great

His answer is a case of Survivor Bias, and he should know that. He made a video several months ago about survivor bias where he specifically said that "successful" people will think the system (in this case, new jobs creating stuff on platforms like Etsy, RU-vid, Patreon) works for most people when in reality there was a lot of luck involved and it doesn't work for most people. I think his point was that it's "possible" that this can work, not that it "will" work.

🧜‍♀️-"Lord Overloaded Ditto and agreed"

Lmao doesn't even know who she is waving to.

Der ker der!!!!