“Unexpected item in bagging area! Please wait for assistance.”
We’ve all been there. On the verge of completing the week’s shopping, desperate to return home, we find ourselves stuck at the self-service checkout, the machine scanning our items and taking our money malfunctioning – again. A human member of staff eventually arrives, discretely rolling their eyes as they sort out the issue for the trillionth time that week. Already stressed enough at trying to purchase the best deals, special offers screaming to us left, right and centre, the end of the process is not smooth. It makes nobody a fan of robots taking a task that, quite recently, belonged to humans. Yet this is happening. Customer checkouts have long been the norm, a key component of the shop for screen obsessives who wish to avoid socialisation. Recently, I was overwhelmingly surprised to see conveyer-belt self service machines in ASDA, checkouts with staff barely a third of the area. I have been no supporter of this change, preferring to speak to a human rather than an emotionless, artificial machine. This broadened out to all sectors of automation, a belief that robots would take all our jobs, and then take over the world. Is this view shared by people across the country? Apparently not. According to a 2017 study by the ‘Future Advocacy’ think tank, only 2% of people are ‘fairly worried’ about automation, despite that same study revealing at least 20% of employees will soon be affected by automation. My unusual conservative instinct for human, not robot, workers was not universal. Perhaps it is because the change seems inevitable, PricewaterhouseCoopers believing automation could affect 56% of transportation and storage jobs, 46% of manufacturing jobs also being affected. These statistics are high, creating concerns for millions. Call me anti-humanist, but robots are likely to be better workers. Logically, there are dozens of advantages to getting a robot to construct your product rather than a human. They are more efficient, creating a greater number of products in a shorter space of time. Humans make errors. There is nothing wrong with that, indeed, it is a key component of who we are. Initially, the errors made to construct the robot would be eradicated, robots making more robots. Of course, the logical consequence of this is robots becoming all too powerful. With necessary regulations, just like every other sphere of life, that, if the government was sensible, would be avoided. Every political party in the UK, nearly all around the world I imagine, supports higher employment. It brings individuals money, allows them to contribute to society, develop who they are and contribute taxes to help keep our public sector going. The arguments for jobs are indisputable. How brilliant that artificial intelligence, by its very nature, will create more high-tech jobs. Automation is simply a part of the next industrial revolution, the rise in quaternary sectors of work meaning humans can access more jobs that challenge and develop them as individuals, rather than dead-end manufacturing. This is why T-levels are such a necessity; recognised technical qualifications that employers can have full confidence in. Society’s snobbish attitude towards apprenticeships and vocational qualifications, failing to realize university isn’t and shouldn’t be the route for all, must end. It is striking the PwC study suggests the risk to the jobs of undergraduates because of AI is 12%. For those with GCSE or lower qualifications, 46%. Just as new skills were required when civilisation discovered farming, embraced the age of steam and connected online, so to will understanding of how robots work, their benefit to humanity and how they can be controlled. Of course, there is, and must be, a massive, overwhelming place for humans in our society. We inhabit the Earth and, while nobody knows what will happen following our deaths, we can be sure there will be future generations on this amazing planet provided we behave in a sustainable way. There are multiple scenarios where robots cannot begin to replace the unique, yet universal, characteristics of human beings. Take health and social work: though thankfully only 17% of jobs are likely to be affected by AI, in terms of emotion, empathy and understanding, a robot cannot compete with humans. Though interactive learning involving technology should be welcomed in education, robots cannot articulate the breadth of views, knowledge and experience that teaching bring. There must be some tertiary, secondary jobs even, for humans, where robots are not the priority. It can easily be sneered, but I am pleased that a ‘Minister for Loneliness’, Tracy Crouch, exists. According to the BBC, loneliness is as harmful as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. A 2018 ONS report suggest 5% of adults feel lonely ‘always or often’, the figures increasing to 16% ‘sometimes’ and 24% ‘occasionally.’ While robots like Alexa or other home speakers can provide some company, they are not enough. I am sceptical of those not because they are robotic, but because of information large TNCs could be accessing about private individuals. No, for real company, helping to reduce mental health, humans are required. That is why it is right that money is invested in projects to ease loneliness, the rewards being reaped, hopefully, in happier humans and mental health reduction. Just as I believe humans are superior to animals, so I believe humans remain on another level to robots. You’ll remember my shopping frustration: that is just one part of the domestic unpaid labour we all have to take part in. Shopping, cooking, ironing, washing, cleaning, I see them only as chores with no visible rewards that prevents human development. As I have studied in sociology, the real gender imbalance is who does the work, women carrying out 60% more unpaid work, working 26 hours per week to men’s 16, ONS research revealed. Staggeringly, the total value of unpaid labour was over a trillion pounds. These are the perfect tasks for robots, giving humans more time for leisure with others. While some of their ideas are misguided, I couldn’t agree more with the Green Party on a ‘Free Time Index’ as a measurement of happiness. Again, to reduce mental health problems, freedom (with some caveats) is the answer. It will take time to adjust to automation. I am still slowly accepting the idea, trying to view the transformative change as an evolutionary benefit to help billions today and in the future. Nevertheless, studies by the American organisation ‘Pew Research’ suggests 70% of Americans fear automation, over two thirds believing it will ‘exacerbate economic inequality.’ On the economic issue to deal with potential job losses, I am not wholly opposed to a Universal Basic Income, though there must be much consultation and research, based on evidence, before any kind of policy was implemented. Concerns must be listened to, those of us who are neither conservatives gazing back at the age of steam or frantic modernisers (post-modernists even) desperate for absolute automation trying to bridge the divide of opinions, looking forward to a revolutionary 21st century.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|