Foxconn replaces 60,000 factory workers with robots - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 05:29:38 pm
content: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966Quote

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 05:46:09 pm
content: That's the substitution effect many economusts, especially labor economists like Prof. Krugmen, know well: policies like minimum wages hurt the most people's who could leeast afford them.The only ones benefiting from this are politians who usse suuch things as a way to get more power and to spend other peoples money.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 05:47:20 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on May 25, 2016, 05:29:38 pmSome what tongue in cheek...If only those 60,000 soon to be laid off folks can find the real Chinese version of "Who Moved My Cheese" byM.D. Spencer Johnson, they'd be better prepared; but, that wont be easy - they will find a lot of "Who Moved My Cheese" written/translated by "God know Who did it" and Spencer Johnson's name is no where in sight...On a more serious note and sincerely, it is no fun to be laid off. I hope they will find other opportunities without too much heart break.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 05:51:48 pm
content: They will be given jobs to maintain those robots.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 05:57:36 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 25, 2016, 05:47:20 pmWhen your employer distributes this book to all employees, it's typically not a good sign.Happened to me once, I still have the book. ;-)

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 06:13:03 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on May 25, 2016, 05:57:36 pmYeah, that is a signal from a good hearted employer. I have received it, and I have given it as gift.It is a good book for anyone to read. Even if laid off or big change is not in the future, it is good advice on how one should always be prepared to face change. Five years in technology is a life time. Much change can occur before wearing out the carpet under your rolling chair. Cumulative change is hard to spot until it builds enough and breaks the dam and "hot" stuff suddenly became worthless old ideas.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 06:30:54 pm
content: Labor force: I WANT MORE MONEY, BETTER BENEFITS, TIME OFF, A BREAK ROOM, SMOKE BREAK, I'M BEING HARASSED BY SOMEONE......Factory Chief: YOUR JOB CAN BE REPLACED BY A ROBOT AND 2 PEOPLE CAN MAINTAIN 100 ROBOTS THAT WORK 24/7 AND NEVER ASK FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN SOFTWARE UPDATES. GOODBYE.My entire expansion strategy is built on automation and robots. I simply cannot see any way to hire people until it is absolutely necessary and the people I do hire need to be very valuable - ie being able to design, install, program, and operate the automation systems. In that scenario - A single person can out manufacture 100+ people turning screw drivers, installing PCBs, applying stickers, etc. The entire world is at a strange crossroads where the smarter people are designing robots to reduce the need for the less gifted labor force. This is a massive social problem globally.If Chinese labor is too expensive and they need robots to keep up - we are clearly in a tough spot trying to keep laborers employed gainfully.

author: ECEdesign
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 06:35:57 pm
content: And people still think manufacturing jobs are coming back to the US... They are long gone, everyone will be replaced by robots eventually. They have already used an AI as a teaching assistant at a university and as a lawyer. Hopefully there will still be a need for EE's for my generation...

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 06:38:40 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on May 25, 2016, 05:51:48 pmVery, very doubtful.You say "they" but you do not mention how many. Even if some got the training to maintain the robots, I hardly think it would be anywhere near 60,000 persons.But, this is only the beginning of this transition. When truly human level AI robots become available, they can fix each other, and the human labor force will do what exactly?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 06:46:34 pm
content: There is a piece out today, from the head of McDonald's saying that the fast food operators will have to automate because it is far cheaper to get a 35k robots to do works done today by a 15/hr human.Something people had predicated but the left had refused to acknowledge.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 06:51:33 pm
content: Things are getting scary. Cost of living keeps going up, but job availability keeps going down and if you do have a job, salaries stay the same. I know if I lose my job I'm kinda screwed, there's just nothing else. I'd probably have to change career paths, like trades as that will be harder to automate, but even then there is prefab that will eventually become more prevalent.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 06:52:32 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 25, 2016, 06:46:34 pmOh robots broke even a couple years sooner than projected for McDonald's.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 06:54:19 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 25, 2016, 06:46:34 pmI have been telling people that for a while. You don't get more money by asking for it - you get more money by earning it. Now, they are all at risk of being fired after forcing the company to look at alternatives. Capitalism.Quote from: xrunner on May 25, 2016, 06:38:40 pmWhen I purchased my first CNC machine from HAAS about 10 years ago - I took factory tour. The most striking observation is that they were SERIOUSLY automated and employ the absolute minimum people possible. A cell of 10-15 CNC machines was operated by one person and that was a decade ago! They had one full shift but operated 24/7 shifts 2 and 3 were a skeleton crew that would observe (not really operate) 30+ machines just to make sure they were not on fire.I could only imagine that 10 years later, they have done even better.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 07:06:36 pm
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on May 25, 2016, 06:57:33 pmOK, we're going to get really, really futuristic here, but the answer is - nobody.Far enough into the future, if you give me enough time ... all production and services will be performed by robots - androids, whatever you wish to call them, and humankind will be simply served by the robots - no need for humankind to work.

author: ECEdesign
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 07:07:16 pm
content: QuoteI also thought of this if no one makes any money people aren't buying products... We would all sit around in caves riding horses agin lolEven highly skilled professions like surgeons are already using bots to control instruments for them for more control than they can do with hands. I don't imagine it would take many years work to get an advanced image detection system to be able to detect what needs cut and to do it all automatically with higher precision than a human could.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 07:09:45 pm
content: Quote from: ECEdesign on May 25, 2016, 07:07:16 pmYep I think all of this is going to eventually crash. Even now you hear it every time at Christmas time, retailers reporting lower sales than the previous years. People are spending less in these unstable times. It's only going to get worse. What can't be automated can still be outsourced. Both are a big threat. TPP is only going to make this worse.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 07:11:16 pm
content: Quote from: ECEdesign on May 25, 2016, 07:07:16 pmNobody needs money to buy things if they are provided by an effectively never-ending automata.See my answer above ^^^

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 07:11:25 pm
content: From an anarcho-capitalist point of view only those who own enough natural resources to be able to supply for their survival will be able to survive without charity in the all robot labor scenario. No matter how low cost goods get, if you can provide no value from labor and you aren't born into wealth ... well.Which is why I'm more of a Georgist (ie. filthy socialist) than an anarcho-capitalist.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 07:15:27 pm
content: And you still have to pay taxes either way, and utility bills etc...

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 07:23:18 pm
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on May 25, 2016, 07:17:41 pmI'm sure they'll be crying into their caviar over it.QuoteThey were doing fine until the plague upset the balance of labor and capital, military got expensive and the peons got uppity. In a neo-feudal robotic future with ED-209s on their side new royalty would have less trouble keeping their position.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 07:23:31 pm
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on May 25, 2016, 06:30:54 pmThis could be an interesting Amp Hour interview, especially how it affects the design.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 07:45:27 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on May 25, 2016, 07:06:36 pmWhy would the robots keep supporting the humans? Far enough into the future robots will have inherited the earth. Pollution, global warming, etc, will be less of a problem for them as well.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 07:50:28 pm
content: Quote from: apis on May 25, 2016, 07:45:27 pmWell they might not end up doing that after enough time. They might exterminate us, but until that time they would be programmed to support us, and if they somehow overcame that programming and exterminated us, then the problem is over anyway. Either way, robots / androids will continue to take away jobs and there is nothing we will do to stop it. That's what I think will happen.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 08:06:41 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on May 25, 2016, 07:50:28 pmThey don't have to exterminate us, they just have to stop caring about us, monopolize resources or cause catastrophic climate change not caring about how it affect us, etc. Kind of the way we are causing other species to go extinct now because we don't care enough.Quote from: xrunner on May 25, 2016, 07:50:28 pmYeah, me too. Not necessarily a bad thing as you say. Problem is who owns the natural resources (even robots needs energy and replacement parts) and how will the wealth be distributed when no-one is working. Lots of challenges for future generations...

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 08:07:26 pm
content: Or alternate reading: "60,000 humans freed up from doing robotic work to pursue more human tasks."I stated up way past my bed-time watching a 2-hour video on YouTube from The Zeitgeist Movement.I'm not sure I agree with much of their philosophy, but the video is a fascinating and reasonably comprehensive review of how technology is changing society and directly connects with the topic of this thread.https://youtu.be/0SuGRgdJA_c

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 08:11:19 pm
content: Where does this obtuse idea about "overcoming their programming" come from?You can't overcome your own programming. Why should a computer be able to.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 08:17:41 pm
content: Isn't this a discussion which has been going on for more than a century? Despite all the automated production methods there have never been more people on this world and economic growth is something you can take for granted on a larger timescale. Like the law of preservation of energy there is also a law of preservation of problems. New production methods will introduce new possibilities and also many new problems to solve by people.The biggest problem is people don't like change and are way too set in their old ways.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 08:17:50 pm
content: Quote from: helius on May 25, 2016, 08:11:19 pmMaybe they can evolve like we did?

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 08:21:16 pm
content: "We" (you and I) didn't and won't evolve. The genes that we are temporary hosts for did.Carry that idea to computers and you have genetic algorithms, which are basically a complete failure. (no better than random search)

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 08:25:21 pm
content: Quote from: helius on May 25, 2016, 08:11:19 pmIf you think it is possible to create an artificial intelligence (AI) it's inevitable that either a human purposely decides to give his creation free will or that he mistakenly does so (programmers make mistakes all the time). Then ask yourself if it's possible to make such an AI more intelligent than a human, that would mean it could understand and change it's own programming for one thing. Then consider all the robotic platforms that are being developed right now, for the military for example, and that in the future they will be controlled by more and more sophisticated programs... someone is going to start putting AI:s into them since it will give them an edge...

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 08:34:51 pm
content: Quote from: helius on May 25, 2016, 08:21:16 pmNot true, for example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

author: 3db
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 08:47:01 pm
content: Quote from: helius on May 25, 2016, 08:21:16 pmSociety "people" do evolve .Take a look at the USA ( for example) 40-50 years ago and tell me that the current mindset is the same.WE ARE OUR GENES plus a bit of programming !!

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 08:53:36 pm
content: Quote from: helius on May 25, 2016, 08:21:16 pmThat's optimal for random problems

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 10:01:42 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on May 25, 2016, 08:07:26 pmAlso nobody's expressing their relief because before there were 60000 people underpaid, working in terrible condition in an unsafe environment.. and now they don't anymore!

author: RGB255_0_0
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 10:21:30 pm
content: The Chinese government should start worrying. 60k, then 600k, 6m. This will create anarchy that will overthrow the powers that control China.Job creation, and thus wealth, is what is keeping the status quo there; what's happened with students in Hong Kong will be but a fly in a room when the wasps nest breaks.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 10:31:45 pm
content: Production creates wealth, not jobs perse.

author: SL4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 10:37:41 pm
content: One lighter aspect of this spiral, is the future elite - don't know how or what work to do.The factories and automation will slowly grind to a halt... until the elite can replacethemselveswith automatons - programmed by those that 'used to' do the actual work!

author: RGB255_0_0
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 10:45:45 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 25, 2016, 10:31:45 pmCreates wealth for the elite. Growing an economy relies on the jobs.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 10:46:45 pm
content: "If everyone is replaced by robots, who exactly is going to be buying the goods and services these machines produce?"That's thee communist utopia where one doesn't need to work but works for the pleasure. Obviously, that's only possible where productivity of the whole society iss sufficiently high and resources are plentiful.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2016, 11:00:10 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 25, 2016, 10:46:45 pmWell that's right. The Earth is chock full of resources. The Sun is far from burning out. Why do human beings get hired by companies? Why do they get paid to do things at all?It's because there are still no machines that can do what a person can do in many sorts of jobs. But that is quickly changing. As I've said, give it enough time, and there will be androids with human level AI and possible even more powerful. Then, why would a company hire a person to do a job, when the android can do it better, faster, and won't call in sick or pregnant.It will happen. It will. And when that happens, society is going to have to face a very big dilemma. Either outlaw robots so people can have a purpose, or let the robots provide all goods and services and learn to enjoy leisure, living under the Providers.

author: nuno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 12:05:43 am
content: Population size will have to decrease.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 01:26:57 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on May 25, 2016, 11:26:49 pmPeople believed that long distance communication is limited by the speed of a running horse and thata phone system growth is limited by the number of people that switch the wires.The future is not limited by our current technology.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 01:31:43 am
content: Quote from: nuno on May 26, 2016, 12:05:43 amTrue if nothing else changes. It's time for all of humanity to get creative. Very creative.

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 01:52:30 am
content: Everybody should watch the following:Arithmetic, Population and Energy, by Dr. Albert A. BartlettA Crude Awaking - The Oilcrash

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 01:58:03 am
content: A good short read on the robotic future coming -Robotic Nation

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 02:25:47 am
content: Still waiting for the first AI forum member here.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 02:29:33 am
content: Quote from: zapta on May 26, 2016, 02:25:47 amMaybe it is already here.How would you be able to tell?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 02:30:47 am
content: Quote from: xrunner on May 26, 2016, 02:29:33 amBy definition it need to be intelligent

author: sarepairman2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 02:42:53 am
content: it depends on what you make. a trained workforce thats not retarded means you can make highly customized products with greater ease, allowing for more satisfied customers.a braindead work force (however large) means you need an army of managers and quality people. not to mention design becomes much harder because you need to account for unskilled labor assembling things. You cant count on a clever assembler to "make due", you need to account for every. stupid. detail.if you don't make revisions, need some thing massively produced and lack morals.. you can probobly get away with using china zombies.and then you need to deal with china. this means two management teams communicating in broken English, probobly offsite repairs, time delay. this will turn into a stressful balancing act. kind of like communicating with people on mars lol

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 02:56:26 am
content: Quote from: nuno on May 26, 2016, 12:05:43 amThe human population will stabilize around 10-11 billion. If we use to much resources/yr then you can either try limit population size or you can limit resource use per capita.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 03:22:51 am
content: Egypt is ready to go to war over water rights to the Nile with the population still exploding. Pakistan and India are also suffering population growth, with economies in massive deficit, religious problems, water depletion and nukes. Aquifer's are running out all over Africa and the ME, with western Europe about to be invaded by 100s of Millions of people which if allowed will destroy it's agricultural output through white flight (being blamed on global warming ... which is either disingenuous or retarded, the population impact on their per capita water resources crowds out climate change by orders of magnitude).Cornucopians have won a few rounds, but Malthus is going to make a come back ... they think resources and people can simply be distributed around the world, they are wrong. If we are unlucky Europe will show them just how wrong they are.

author: nowlan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 03:41:30 am
content: Adidas was making headlines recently with their robot 'speedfactories'. Pilot in Germany, plans to build more in US/Uk. Pulling out of China.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 03:46:52 am
content: Quote from: nowlan on May 26, 2016, 03:41:30 amThey are currently marketing those "Made in Germany" shoes at very high prices in Asia.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 05:58:18 am
content: Quote from: apis on May 25, 2016, 08:34:51 pmNot supported by the citation given:QuoteHill climbing is not a genetic algorithm. It is a random search algorithm.

author: ivaylo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 06:21:44 am
content: Quote from: helius on May 26, 2016, 05:58:18 amC'mon, this one even has a Wikipedia page -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_algorithm_applicationsEvolution is random search by definition (well, with a fitness function). Or did God do it (sorry, can't help it...)?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 06:53:10 am
content: Quote from: ivaylo on May 26, 2016, 06:21:44 amC'mon, you can't support the claim that genetic algorithms don't work if you start accepting that proven useful solutions mimic genetic behaviour.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 05:29:30 pm
content: The one thing that is not arguable is that the future will be different. Whether it is a Malthusian catastrophe or a life of leisure and luxury for humans as the princes over robotic serfs it will be different. Which will be in some way uncomfortable for many, maybe all of us. It has always been so.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 10:52:29 pm
content: Quote from: helius on May 26, 2016, 05:58:18 amThere was more to it than the hill climbing algorithm, if you read the source it's obvious they used genetic algorithms:Quotehttp://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/Space2006Antenna.pdf

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2016, 11:43:14 pm
content: The reason they did this is that most optimisers are efficient at finding local optimums, and work poorly or not at all at finding global optimums. Genetic algorithms are not fast or efficient, but allow a massively parallel approach to finding global optimum solution. So you use a genetic approach to find likely candidates and optimize through better methods.If you are running genetic algorithms on one personal computer you are doing something wrong. But if you utilize the spare cycles on a campus full of personal computers you may be on to something.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 04:37:36 am
content: Those assembly machines don't need to be that intelligent. It's a very specific task, in a controlled environment, assembling a product that was designed will the automated line in mind.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 05:14:33 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on May 26, 2016, 11:43:14 pmFinding local optimums is the very essence of good engineering. If we only finalised a design when it reached a global optimum we would still be riding horses, waiting for the optimisation to be complete for the first and most perfect car. However, an algorithm that cannot search beyond local maxima is not genetic in nature. Even something as basic as a well implemented Weiner filter can search beyond local maxima.

author: colotron
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 12:37:39 pm
content: Really interesting topic.And yeah, all things that can be automated will be automated if it makes economic sense. Started with easy to automate tasks, but the complexity that machines can deal with increases without pause.So in the end if a machine can do it, you as a worker will not be able to compete; it's just a matter of time.Maybe the energy costs could be a limiting factor?, I don't know.There will be of course jobs that will not be automated just because (some) humans like to deal with humans, but the mass production/transportation/service economy will be done with a very narrow human workforce (supervising and dealing with new-unexpected situations).On the other hand prices of goods should fall too, and maybe you will need to work less to get the same products (housing is a big exception).Maybe a future with 4 hour work day?, others say a minimal income per person issued by the state... I'm not in favor or against any of those, I will wait to see results of real life implementations.The only sure thing is, the current ways seems to become obsolete fast, and doing nothing could be dangerous.

author: colotron
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 12:49:56 pm
content: OhI was forgetting another "alternative".Machines as built now are expensive in terms of materials (metals require mining) and energy (oil, gas will be more expensive with time).So... if you can't beat them...What's easier to produce and more abundant?: a lot of robot humanoids and machines made of scarce materials, or biological beens with chip implants to increment memory, processing capabilities, learning. Biological bodies are wonderful: they use resources easily available (food), that are compatible with the ecosystem, and they self-replicate!!!.Of course, there are things to figure out (how to interface effectively the neural system with integrated circuits); but in the end wouldn't be a better way of existence?.Humachines are coming...

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 01:06:54 pm
content: QuoteThey have been here since the dawn of humanity:a man + knife; a man + spear; a man + wagon; a man + locomotive; a man + car; a man + truck ; a man + earth mover; a man + crane; a man + airplaine; a man + artificial heart; a man + pacemaker; a man + ..... All of those devices have extended our capabilities and augmented our physical limitations.we have gone bionic for a long time, without many of us realizing it.

author: nowlan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 02:11:08 pm
content: History repeats.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_%28folklore%29

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 02:29:43 pm
content: Foxconn's sweatshops were always run by robots - disguised as humans by a toad named Guo Tai-ming. Foxconn's workplace culture is so toxic, the moron installed safety nets to stop his employees committing suicide rather than fixing the root cause - abuse, exploitation, and greed.If every greedy mongrel around the world replaced their workforce with robots, who is going to earn the money to purchase goods? Or are workers going to become a new human species on welfare from cradle to grave, there to serve their masters?The year is 1984.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 02:34:51 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on May 27, 2016, 05:14:33 amThe best descriptive analogy I can think of is as follows. You are somewhere in the Rocky Mountains of North America. A poorly designed optimizer will find the top of the hillside you are standing on. The good ones would find the highest peak in the Rocky Mountains. But if the optimizer is not initialized with appropriate knowledge it will miss the existence of the Himalaya range. So to find a global (pun intended) solution you need to know a priori the scope of the problem.Or to put it another way, invention exists outside the range of current knowledge. There are lots of ways to invent. Random trials are one way. (Screening of botanicals for potential drug usage isn't quite random, but it is close). Genetic algorithms are another. If you haven't looked into the TRIZ methodology, I highly recommend it. It isn't magic, but is often a useful approach to idea development.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 02:58:52 pm
content: Whoever gets replaced by a dumb robot, deserves to be replaced by a dumb robot, because doing a work of a robot.Please when you strike make sure your banner said "learning is overrated".

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 03:48:17 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 27, 2016, 02:58:52 pmWell that may be true, as far as "dumb" robots are concerned, but when they acquire human-level intelligence and beyond (it's only a matter of time) , what will you say to those people then?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 04:11:47 pm
content: Quote from: xrunner on May 27, 2016, 03:48:17 pm"Come with me if you wanna live?""A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."“Nothing but the rain.""There is no spoon"Fearing from AI is like fearing from a meteor or a nearby star going supernova or black hole. Nothing to do about it. Bonus points if you got all the references.

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 05:28:17 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on May 27, 2016, 02:58:52 pmI've never quite understood this reasoning, that we can just educate ourselves out of any problem.Of course, there are smart, motivated people who can do just this: learn something new and keep climbing. But there are limits. Everyone cannot do this. Some people are just not the self-educating types, or haven't the resources or time to learn a wholly new thing, or are just old and learning gets more and more difficult. And some people just aren't that bright. It even happens to EE's, who might reach a point in their career where reinventing themselves, as say, app designers is unappealing on a lot of levels. Sometimes I wonder how many reinventions are left in me.And even if you can learn something new and useful, technology pretty reliably means that there will be fewer of those jobs than there were of the "dumb" jobs, at least in the short term. A machinists can learn CNC, but there will be fewer CNC operators than there were machinists. So newly acquired skills won't be able to help everyone.One of the things that I worry about is that even in the "good" scenarios, where tech destroys jobs but generates an equal number or more new ones, there is a delay between the destroying and the creating. If you look at the Industrial Revolution, you'll see the time between mechanization of agriculture destroying most of those jobs and new industries demanding a significant workforce was literally generations. That mean that a lot of people were born, lived, and died, completely immiserated by lack of work.Personally, I think our world is in for a drastic and rough transition. We might end up in a better state, but not before passing through a worse one.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 06:46:17 pm
content: I thought the whole reason we are using cheap Chinese labor to assemble our electronic gadgets is because robots weren't able to efficiently piece together a bunch of tiny parts. There were technical limitations based on the designs that wouldn't give the robot an advantage. I guess that hurdle has been leaped.If devices are designed in such a way that assembly does not need human intervention, and robots can stamp out the entire gadget from start to finish, it would look just like an automated assembly line with various machines designed to fold, bend, screw, stick, package, etc... Humans just need to keep the line loaded and trouble-shoot any glitches or mismatches.What does that mean for Chinese society at large? Imagine if tomorrow all cheap factory labor was being done by robots, and millions of Chinese workers were now forced to educate themselves or branch out into other industries. Initially it would be quite a shock, but don't you think it would be better in the long run for Chinese society, and the world society if we were now competing on an equal level? We can build robots too... So cheap assembly labor is no longer a driving force to outsource things to China. It could be manufactured locally and easier to keep intellectual property under wraps.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 06:48:04 pm
content: Quote from: djacobow on May 27, 2016, 05:28:17 pmI see a delicate balance on this topic. It is certainly true that aptitude varies dramatically around the world. Not everyone can do anything. With that in mind, my personal experience (in the USA) is that nearly all the people I have worked with professionally in the past 24 years are crippled by laziness more than aptitude. They make choices that allow them to to be in positions where they don't need to worry or think (easy), and they can have as much time off work as possible and they can buy as many things as possible. On paper, this sounds amazing and fantastic - but I certainly can't feel sorry for them when the easy/repetitive jobs they do get replaced by robots. The percentage of people that only have the capability of turning a screwdriver is tiny. The vast majority of people, in my opinion, are capable of a LOT more than robot-centric jobs.I am not saying any of this is easy and asking millions of people to re-invent themselves is t tall order, but these are survival choices. The time we live in, the progress we all wanted has created a world the moves and changes faster than humanity has ever changed before. the good news is that it is easier than ever to change your path that ever before. Self education and communication have never been more accessible. I don't claim to have THE solution, but I can say that business as usual is not very usual. Everyone at every level has to be willing and looking to adapt more and faster than before.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 06:58:29 pm
content: QuoteI would think that you should take a longer and more strategic view on this.In the 1970s / 80s, China was exporting mostly toys; Now, they dominate in manufacturing and certain segments of high tech industries / products / niches. Telecomm (if it were not for protectionism and national security concerns, Cisco wouldn't exist today), microphones, ASIC designs, certain types of drones, and phones.The most valuable resources in the world are human resources. Take a look at the R&D spendings of any country and plot out its GDP 30 / 40 / 50 years out.That's true for individuals as well. Poor people are poor because they couldn't afford to be rich (by investing in themselves). That's why education, and a people's cultural attitude towards education, are key to upward mobility.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 08:48:01 pm
content: HiLet's back up a bit and *maybe* take a look at the actual factory in question:1) What were they making before?2) What will they make in the future?3) Was there any automation at all before?4) How much self-support did the factory need to do before?So often these things get spun in a really nutty fashion. The real answer turns out to be that they switched the entire product focus from one product to another. The new product runs down pick and place machines. The old product was all hand inserted leaded parts. The old setup had 20,000 people serving food and the like for 40,000 people who did this or that. Now the city has expanded and you don't need food service anymore. The real answers turns out to be:1) The food service still gets done, just not by the company.2) The leaded assembly line was obsolete the day it went in.3) The leaded part product (finally) died and it got replaced with a new product.Do I have any information to back any of that up? No not at all. I've just seen *way* to many of these announcements that turn out to be utterly and totally bogus when you dig out the facts. People get all excited and alarmed. In about 4 out of 5 cased I've actually dug into - You look at the total employees in the company a year later and it's 10% (or 30%) higher than it was. Even the mix of people does not change, no "only robot engineers work here" stuff.Why do these headlines go out:1) Somebody wants to sell you robots2) Somebody wants to rent you robots3) Somebody wants to design you robots4) The stock needed a bit of a bump and layoff announcements always do that5) The negotiation with XXXX is coming up and this gives somebody more leverage.There's lots of reasons that have very little to do with reality ... Thus it's generally best to dig into the facts before spinning off into doom and gloom land.If you ever wonder what people will keep doing -- how many meetings do you go to a week? I have absolutely no doubt that they will easily expand to fill a typical 40 hour week for just about everybodyBob

author: iampoor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 09:36:37 pm
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on May 27, 2016, 06:48:04 pm+1I think the other fundamental issue is that quite a few people (in my age group, I am 22), dont "get it" yet. Parents from the older generation are used to having 1-4 good jobs in there careers. Many people I know have a very loose definition of working hard, and believe that they are unique or different without any extra-curricular activities. Of course....thats not the case. I have seen a real attitude of entitlement amongst my friens, many of which are smart people. But they dont understand their value to employeers an their parents bager them to "do better" even though they have done what little they feel they can. Its a delicate balance. I certainly believe that this impacts my generations political views....cough cough.

author: GreyWoolfe
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 09:40:52 pm
content: --If you ever wonder what people will keep doing -- how many meetings do you go to a week? I have absolutely no doubt that they will easily expand to fill a typical 40 hour week for just about everybody--I typically get stuck in 2-3 conference calls a week, lasting up to an hour each. If I had to do 40 hours a week of that, I think I would go postal. Granted, most of the time, they are actually useful (OK, 2 of the 3 are actually useful) but............

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 10:23:33 pm
content: Quote from: GreyWoolfe on May 27, 2016, 09:40:52 pmHiWell, there are people who look at putting R1, R3, and R5 into PCB 32221 for 10 hours a day / 6 days a week as a "go postal" sort of thing. If you dig into the setups in some of these factories, that's exactly what 30,000 people were doing ... Wonder why they had a hard time hiring new people for the line ....Bob

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2016, 10:39:03 pm
content: QuoteHere is a graphic presentation of what I meant:https://www.yahoo.com/news/village-where-children-climb-cliffside-ladder-may-stairs-051344753.html?nhp=1"Chinese kids who climb cliffside ladder home will get stairsBEIJING (AP) — Just to get home from school, they climb 800 meters (more than 2,500 feet) toward the sky — on a ladder made of bamboo and secured to a sheer cliff face."A dumb person may laugh those kids off: "look at how poor they are", and "it will take them decades to catch up to us". That's probably true.But it is the determination those kids exhibited, and the determination their families exhibited, the emphasis that they put on educating their kids, and their grand kids, that will determine their future (and our future) in terms of competitiveness.That picture is very scary for someone whose is interested in what our countries and out peoples will do 50 or 500 years from that.

author: uncle_bob
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 28, 2016, 01:45:33 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 27, 2016, 10:39:03 pmHiSo let's see, that "determination" and "cultural bias" has been in place for ... errr ... roughly 6,000 years now. If you go back say, 30 years, Japanese economic thinking was going to wipe us all out ...The Japanese economy is now where? I've seen what the kids in the best high schools in Shanghai can do. It's impressive, but it's really no better than what the kids in a good school in a lot of places can do. Are they smart and hard working? Sure they are. There are a *lot* of smart hardworking kids all over the world. Does their education system have a lot of major holes in it? Yes indeed it does. So does ours, so do all the rest.It's fun to come up with doom and gloom scenarios. They quite obviously make for a lot of talk. Just look at the number of comments on this topic. It's just like things like vampire movies. The more scary they are the better. Being scary does not in any way make them true.Bob

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2016, 03:14:40 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 27, 2016, 06:58:29 pmWhat rubbish. China was not exporting toys in 1970's.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2016, 03:20:34 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on May 28, 2016, 03:14:40 amAlmost true. They had already started at the very bottom of the toy market. Things like the molded plastic rings found in gumball machines. By the late eighties/early nineties New Bright and others were well on their way.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2016, 06:14:04 am
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on May 27, 2016, 06:48:04 pmThey might take a look and decide to riot instead, that's a non negligible possibility to keep in the back of your mind.Personally I think we are not at peak per worked production, but we are at peak consumption in the first world. So people increasing their productivity doesn't really help in the big scheme of things, we need to start redirecting labor from economically viable jobs to subsidized socially valuable jobs instead. We do need to keep near full employment simply for social stability, both because employment is an important socializing force and because taxation is easier to accept when it goes towards jobs rather than pure welfare. It will take an ever increasing amount of redistribution to accomplish though and eventually we will probably have to reduce the work week for most people too.That's assuming the first world survives, which I'm not sure off. The US can in principle do fine on its own, Europe lacks the natural resources for complete autarky and has less benign neighbors.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2016, 12:47:12 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on May 28, 2016, 03:20:34 amUnder the Mao, no toys were exported from Red China. The main manufactured export under Mao's brutal regime was communist propaganda on Radio Peking. Mao's corpse got stuffed (literally) in 1976. It was about 2 years after that the Chinese began exporting manufactured goods, albeit very gradually from 1978. Most of their exports were to Japan and only made up 0.7% of world trade in 1979.Some 1.5 million people were murdered during Mao's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution which ended in 1976, and millions of others suffered imprisonment, seizure of property, torture or general humiliation. The Cultural Revolution’s short-term effects may have been felt mainly in China’s cities, but its long-term effects would impact the entire country for decades to come. So you think they were starting to manufacture toys for export during the Cultural Revolution?

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2016, 01:23:54 pm
content: It seems as though we agree on the facts and are argueing about them. No toys in the early 70s. Starting in the late 70s. Growing through the 80s.There is a silver lining in everything. The rebound against the excesses of the cultural revolution let China make the pragmatic decisions that put it where it is today.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2016, 01:56:11 pm
content: QuoteProbably not.Those guys were dominant economically, culturally and likely militarily through 80% of the human history. Their downfall came over the last few hundred years. So it is tough to argue against their rising today - there were something right about them and their culture -> to me that picture speaks volume.The last few decades of China's rising are more of an American story: the same animal spirit that powered the US' growth. Basically, the government got out of the way of people trying to better their own lives.Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), very few Americans understand it.

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2016, 04:42:32 pm
content: While Chinese population growth is being controlled by their government, the growth in their standard of living (which is a basic wish for all people) will mean greater consumption and energy and resource usage. What we need is a sustainable way to make the billions of people on this planet who are "rising" into the consumerist mentality to not end up destroying the planet while they are chasing the American dream. Hopefully, technologies that improve efficiency and a cultural concept of valuing nature and simplicity (over excess and gluttony) will prevail.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2016, 06:03:52 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 28, 2016, 06:14:04 amre: "we need to start redirecting labor from economically viable jobs to subsidized socially valuable jobs instead"I agree with Marco's a point to an extend, but there must be enough economically viable jobs with adequate productivity to subsidies the non-viable jobs.Using Greece as an example where except shipping business it has no viable export business. One can increase ones reliance on government jobs, but how can it sustain itself? Beyond a certain point, it breaks down.Both USSR and the CCP tried that - communism where all jobs are government jobs: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Both had enough natural resources and manpower to be a self-contained economy. But it didn't work. So even when exporting/importing (foreign trade) is taken out of the equation, it still cannot function.In the modern world, trade cannot be taken out of the equation. The once-upon-a-time oil exporter has "rich-poor imbalance". It attempted "redirecting labor from economically viable jobs to subsidized socially valuable jobs instead".May 25th 2016 Washington Post headline: "Harrowing scenes of Venezuela on the brink of collapse".It didn't work there even with Venezuela with vast oil resources. That giant pot of black gold didn't help. Human being human, their oil infrastructure went to disrepair. Now even oil have to be imported*! Coca-Cola production halted in Venezuela due to sugar shortage.*source: Oil-rich Venezuela is now importing U.S. oil - Feb. 3, 2016 - CNN MoneyIt is human nature to do less if doing more doesn't get you more. Given human nature, it is unrealistic to expect "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Sure you can eliminate human nature. You can do so with drugs or force and remove human desires and emotion. At that point, we can be all equal, all work with each other, and all get along. Question is, at the point, are we human?I would think "redirecting labor from economically viable jobs to subsidized socially valuable jobs instead" is a viable transitional scheme to find ways to improve those "socially valuable" jobs to real productive jobs. Otherwise, those truly productive will continue to decrease until there is not enough productivity to sustain the society. At that point, Marco's first preposition "They might take a look and decide to riot instead" is likely to happen.RickEdit: copy-pasted wrong (it was addressing Marco). So re-pasted. (It should be addressing points Marco's made)

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2016, 12:39:09 am
content: Quotethis piece actually made the prime time news on ABC today. I hope the kids at least got a lot of physical work-out, and a few view from their class rooms.Another piece during the same broadcast is that life on earth may come from comets carrying amino acid - essentially we were the aliens,Personally I think it is solar activities and volcanoes.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 29, 2016, 12:40:51 am
content: QuoteDon't know. I think the fact that one society advanced one way doesn't mean other societies have to follow the same path. Late comers / 2nd mover advantage for example could mean that countries like China, India, Russia and Brazil may follow a different pattern.