At What Point Do Humans Become Obsolete?
The rise of AI and the adaptation of the human race. It’s not entirely grim.
1779 — Ned Ludd smashed two stocking frames in protest to the increasing use of machinery. Thirty years later his name was used to symbolise the head of the growing movement against mechanisation, Captain Ludd, or General Ludd, the group became known as ‘Luddites’.
There were plenty of other elements to fight for as well at the time, unskilled workers, overseas workers, rising prices, lowering wages, setting a minimum wage. The first knitting machine was built in 1589, over time spinning and weaving machines were built. In 1830–4 a group of agricultural workers that formed a ‘friendly society’, early basis of a trade union, were arrested, tried and deported to Australia, only to be pardoned and brought back home around 1837. They became known as the Tolpudle Martyrs.
All of this is relevant as we live in a world where the increasing use of machinery is taking over so many tasks. From the Agricultural revolution to the Industrial revolution to the Information revolution. Where once people protested at increasing mechanisation, then industrialisation and now automation. There is this constant worry that people will have no work to do as it will all be done by machines.
An idea put forward by Cal Newport in Deep Work that there are three ways an individual will thrive in the increasingly automated world, by becoming:
A highly skilled worker — someone who can work with the ever advancing technology and bring more from it than others.
A superstar — someone who at a global level is known to be the best at what they do.
An owner — someone who owns capital and invests.
In essence there will be a limited number of potential places at the top of this ‘work’ pyramid. As pyramids by their nature are structured this way. As automation increases do we factor that all tasks will be replaced by machines? As driverless cars become more common, will the act of driving become illegal as it is safer for a machine to drive than a person?
If we look at a standard adoption curve for anything we can see this in the image below.
At the left of the scale Innovators pay the highest price as they are literally the first to do something and as it has not been done before it is expensive to create. Once the prototype has been built and tested then produced the Early Adopters pay a slightly lower price and start using. Gradually this function becomes more widespread until it is so common everyone has it with the last group to take it up being defined as Laggards. The cost of whatever the construct is gets cheaper the further along the right we progress. So whilst at the moment it may cost Billions of dollars for a car manufacturer to build a plant full of robots to build cars on an assembly line now, as robotics becomes more widespread this will get cheaper as time goes on. Automation will become as accessible as flat screen televisions are today.
In this next image we can see Automation on the Y axis and Time on the X axis. At what point on the timeline will humans become obsolete? With automation becoming so commonplace that it has a normal existence, human interaction within the workplace will become redundant.
So there is an argument that suggests that humans will become redundant as was feared by the Ludittes during the late 18th Century. However with all the advancements during the last 200+ years what is the impact on our rate of unemployment, which is a measure of those unemployed within a given population. Understood there are variables when considering those actively looking for work and those that are choosing not to seek employment. Below are UK figures for unemployment.
2020: 4%
2010: 8%
2000: 5%
1993: 10%
1984: 12%
1980: 7%
So these are percentages of the population. So do these figures matter? Only that in the UK the population has increased. It is however predicted by some to level off to somewhere around the 80 million mark by 2100, indeed seeing a decline in some countries.
Population increases (to a point) as does automation and yet unemployment remains relatively static.
There are any number of unknown variables that can impact this course of trajectory. Let us assume that this does increase over a long period of time and will reach its plateau at some point in the future. Also global population growth has always been growing and yet now there are indications that global population growth will start to stabilise.
There is no way of predicting the future of unemployment. It is fair to say that whenever a new industrial innovation has boosted the production then certain unskilled jobs have been lost. However people have managed to find work elsewhere, up skilling, or creating their own ventures. This is the resilience of human endeavour. Perhaps part of the solution is the general development of our workforce to migrate from industrial models of work to informational models, requiring more innovation and entrepreneurship?
What will happen when the extent of automation is so common it reaches a plateau whilst being adopted by practically everyone, which in turn brings the pricing down to the lowest costs available. Meaning we will have more activity in our lives automated. At what point will we not have to do anything?
At this point will we need a basic income, or will we have removed money completely from our lives. How will we illustrate value to the society that we will live in?
The fact is we have no idea what the future holds. What factors will shape our futures and thus how we work, what we do for work, how automated, or manual it will be. What is clear now is we still live in a society where there is great inequality and thus there is a growing argument that balancing this inequality is more important than allowing it to continue.
So how do we balance the books? How do we ensure that all those that live on our planet have a means of living and not just surviving?
“Teach them how to fish” vs “Give them a fish”
Can we do both?
Basic Income has been an idea for 100s of years, iterating in its development each time it is raised as an option. Rather than being a means tested right, what is the point of a basic income today?
We live in a time based economy, you sell your time to someone for the salary that pays your lifestyle. Many of us get bogged down in the hamster wheel of earning money to pay for rent, family, life, with some disposable income perhaps going toward a pension. Breaking away from this is very difficult and scary for many.
Would a Basic Income give people the confidence to break away so that they can spend time focused on something that they value? Focusing on up skilling, being innovative, entrepreneurial? Or simply care and look after those that need their help.
Summary:
Greater automation and AI deployment is coming.
We don’t have to be scared, we just have to adapt.
A Basic Income will provide a means to invest in ourselves.
We will ultimately embrace change and continue to grow.
