Google Jumps into Robotics – NY Times
Robots and Fast Food – Food and Nutrition Report
Security Guard Robots – NY Times
Creative Computing – BBC
Will We ‘Droid Our Economy to Death? – Interview with Fintan Dunne
On the Impact of Autonomous Cars – The New Yorker
Inequality in Silicon Valley – The Weekly Standard
I’ll be speaking at an event hosted by the Warwick PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) Forum, on Saturday, November 9, 2013. The title of the event is “All Work and No Pay in 2013: The Automation of the Global Economy.” Details are here.
I’ll be speaking at the IMPAKT Festival in Utrecht, The Netherlands on Saturday November 2. Information is here.
The festival runs from Oct 30 to Nov 3, and this year’s theme is “Capitalism Catch-22″.
In my book The Lights in the Tunnel, written back in 2009, I wrote:
“So our assumption is going to be that, at some point down the line, machines or computers will take over a great many of these people’s jobs. Not all of them, but a lot. Maybe 40 percent. Maybe half. “
Turns out that wasn’t a bad guess, at least according to some researchers at the University of Oxford. Their best estimate is that 47% of U.S. jobs are susceptible to automation within the next two decades. PDF of the complete report is here.
Will Robots Kill — or Create — your Next Job? – FastCompany
Robots Fill New Roles at Work – PC World
On the Future of Moore’s Law:
An interesting debate over whether automated cars would produce economic growth.
Ryan Avent of the Economist argues “yes” … but I am not so sure. For one thing, automated cars will likely be a shared resource, at least in cities. That means fewer cars, which is certainly good for the environment, but maybe not so good for economic growth — at least in terms of the way we measure GDP. Also, another very important question is whether new technologies like automated cars will raise median incomes (which have been stagnant in the U.S. for decades). Kind of hard for me to see how that would be the case.
I think Robert Gordon raises some valid points, although he is really getting slammed by the techno-optimist/TED Conference community. What do you think?
The Internet’s Greatest Disruptive Innovation — Inequality – Andrew Leonard, Salon
Businesses are adopting robots for new tasks, but will they kill jobs? – Esther Shein, ComputerWorld
The “Atlas” Humanoid Robot – John Markoff, New York Times
More high tech unemployment angst – Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post
Immigrants vs. Agricultural Robots – The Daily Caller
IBM’s new Cognitive Computing Chip and Programming Language – Singularity Hub
Automated Parking Garages – Singularity Hub
For the last time, Robots DO NOT Cause Unemployment - Scott Winship, Brookings Institution
Don’t Worry about Robots Stealing Jobs – Henry Blodget, Business Insider
“These Luddites are Wrong” – Andy Kessler, Wall Street Journal
I have an an article in this month’s Communications of the ACM (a leading journal for the computer science community). The main point of the article is that most of the work required by the economy is on some level routine and predicatable. This is true of both blue and white collar work, and it includes many skilled occupations. A key point is that acquiring more skills will not necessarily be a defense against advancing automation technology. Machines are getting better and better at acquiring skills.
You can read the article here:
“Could Artificial Intelligence Create an Unemployment Crisis?”
There is also an introduction by the editor-in-chief, Moshe Vardi, here:
A few months ago, I did an interview with CBC/Radio-Canada on how a future economy might work in the age of robots and automation. In it, I describe many ideas from my book, The Lights in the Tunnel, and in particular, the need for a guaranteed minimum income — perhaps incorporating some basic incentives.
The program is airing this weekend and the podcast is here.
Robots Get a Sense of Touch – NY Times
Robots Mimic the Human Hand - NY Times
The Robot Reality: Service Jobs are Next - The Fiscal Times
The Robots are Coming (podcast) - A Conversation with Matt Miller and Erik Brynjolfsson
TED Presentations/Debate on Future Innovation v. Stagnation – Andrew McAfee
New Initiative to Map the Human Brain – NY Times
Willow Garage spinoff, Industrial Perception, Building Advanced Robots – Singularity Hub
Robots will Do Everything You Do — Only Better – Singularity Hub
Optimism Dims for the Middle Class – NY Times
Japan to Promote Nursing Care Robots – Bangor Daily News
Campaign to Stop Killer Robots- Reuters
Robot Uncovers Ancient Burial Chambers Beneath Teotihuacan Temple – Huffington Post
In my 2009 book, The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future, I argued that advancing technology — and especially software automation — would increasingly threaten the jobs taken by college graduates, and might eventually undermine the incentive to attend college. At the time, this was a very unconventional view. Here’s part of what I wrote:
The unfortunate reality, however, is that the college dream is likely at some point to collide with the trends toward offshoring and automation. The fact is that college graduates very often become knowledge workers. These jobs — and in particular more routine or entry level jobs — are at very high risk from automation. The danger is that as these trends accelerate, a college degree will be seen increasingly not as a ticket to a prosperous future, but as a ticket to a job that will very likely vaporize. At some point in the future, the high cost of a college education, together with diminishing prospects for college graduates, is likely to begin having a negative impact on college enrollment. This will be especially true of students coming from more modest backgrounds, but it will have impact at all levels of society.
This is, obviously, a very unconventional view. Most economists and others who study such trends would probably strongly argue exactly the opposite case: that in the future, a college degree will be increasingly valuable and there will be strong demand for well-educated workers.
This is essentially the “skill premium” argument — the idea that technology is creating jobs for highly skilled workers even as it destroys opportunities for the unskilled. I think the evidence clearly shows that this has indeed been the case over the past couple of decades, but I do not think it can continue indefinitely. The reason is simple: machines and computers are advancing in capability and will increasingly invade the realm of the highly educated. We’ll likely see evidence of this at some point in the form of diminished opportunity and unemployment among recent graduates and also among older college-educated workers who lose jobs and are unable to find comparable positions.
We may not see an actual closing of the gap in aver-age pay for college v. non-college graduates because opportunities for workers of all skill levels are likely to be in decline. I am not suggesting that high school graduates who would have otherwise gone to college will choose to remain completely unskilled, but I do think there is likely to be a migration toward relatively skilled blue collar jobs if there is a perception that these occupations offer more security.
As new high school graduates begin to shy away from a course leading to knowledge worker jobs, they will increasingly turn to the trades. As we have seen, jobs for people like auto mechanics, truck drivers, plumbers and so forth are among the most difficult to automate. The result may well be intense competition for these relatively “safe” jobs. As high school graduates who might previously have been college-bound compete instead for trade jobs, they will, of course, end up displacing less academically inclined people who may have been a better fit for those jobs. That will leave even fewer options for a large number of workers.
Economists are now finding hard evidence that this trend has been underway since 2000. In a recently published paper, three Canadian economists argue that there has been a “great reversal in the demand for skill and cognitive tasks.” Here’s part of the abstract for the paper:
Many researchers have documented a strong, ongoing increase in the demand for skills in the decades leading up to 2000. In this paper, we document a decline in that demand in the years since 2000, even as the supply of high education workers continues to grow. We go on to show that, in response to this demand reversal, high-skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder and have begun to perform jobs traditionally performed by lower-skilled workers. This de-skilling process, in turn, results in high-skilled workers pushing low-skilled workers even further down the occupational ladder and, to some degree, out of the labor force all together.
At present, high percentages of high school graduates are continuing to enroll in college, often taking on punishing levels of debt in the process. As nearly any recent college graduate knows, many of these people are ending up working in lower wage service jobs (Baristas for example). I think it is entirely possible that future high school graduates will begin to look at these outcomes begin shying away from college.
Inexpensive online education may offer a partial solution, but it won’t necessarily address the fact that the most important incentive for seeking further education is being undermined. If there is no job waiting after all that work, a great many people probably won’t be motivated to make the investment, and the result may be a less educated population. In a world that is becoming increasingly complex and connected, and in a future that will hold unprecedented global challenges, the last thing we need is an an even less informed and educated population and electorate.
I think this is perhaps one of the greatest challenge we will face in the future. As technology destroys both high and low skill jobs, the conventional solutions — nearly all of which tend to emphasize still more education and more training — are very likely to be ineffective. A great many people will do all the right things but nonetheless fail to find a foothold in the economy of the future. What will we do then?