Ask Lemmygrad

828 readers

5 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml

QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml

yogthos@lemmygrad.ml

Can someone please explain this to me? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 1 week ago by VictimOfAmerikkka@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Someone was saying that even if using machines becomes cheaper than using humans, capitalist will still use humans because

"automation constitutes constant capital and human labour is variable capital

The Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall disproves that fact"

What do those mean?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] big_spoon@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

well capitalists still need humans because:

raw materials have to be transported by someone who knows where it's heading

someone has to do maintenance to the machines

someone has to sell the products

someone has to deliver the products

and all of that requieres human labor, and that's where the value comes, because the capitalist doesn't do any of those things

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Can points 1, 2, and 4 not be automated? Especially as machines continue to evolve and exponentially improve?

[–] starkillerfish@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Machines cannot do maintenance on themselves.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't see why that's fundamentally impossible though. For example, people are already working on stuff like 3d printers that can produce copies of themselves by printing all the parts. So, you can have machines made out of modular components that can be printed. When a part fails, then a new one is printed and installed to replace it. This whole process can be entirely automated. And this would include the printers themselves.

[–] starkillerfish@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Sure, but machines cannot do troubleshooting the way humans can. Yes you can have machines tell you what's wrong, but they cannot reason why a problem exists and how to fix it. There are too many random elements to account for, things that are impossible to account for even. This is why you still have car mechanics, even considering all the fancy telemetry that exists. In the same way, a computer program cannot debug itself.

[–] Murple_27@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

Yes you can have machines tell you what’s wrong, but they cannot reason why a problem exists and how to fix it.

This is also true of a human worker though. That's why the profession of "doctor" exists. The question is, why couldn't a robot be made to perform maintenance on other robots?

[–] ComradeSalad@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I feel like you’re missing the point. Machines are quickly reaching the stage where they will able to troubleshoot, think and reason.

That’s what we’re discussing.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago

We don't have general purpose AI yet, but I don't think that's a prerequisite for automating many jobs out of existence. Humans will still be needed to solve really complex problems for the foreseeable future, but the number of humans that need to work will be greatly reduced. A great example we can already see today are automated ports and factories in China where there's a just handful people overseeing them.