The robotic revolution is a hoax

An important aspect of the Enlightenment (from 1600 onward) was the concept that science and technology would usher in a new age of prosperity, peace and happiness. This philosophical revolution in the West was also strongly associated with the concept of the individual, as expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

In classical times in Egypt and Greece, the prosperity of society was greatly dependent on slavery: cheap labour. It enabled the city states to devote more resources to philosophical, artistic, and military advancements. It is estimated that 30-40% of the labour force in Ancient Greece consisted of slaves!

In a way the robotisation of modern society is creating a new class of “slaves”: worker entities without intrinsic rights (although in ancient times the level of rights of slaves varied considerably), never complaining, able to work around the clock as long as they are properly maintained.

But an important element in the equation is not often discussed: who actually owns the value of these assets? In ancient times you were able to buy a slave or obtain one through some other means (indenture, as a punishment, conquest etc.). The slave would then be your asset. In our times we see a different ownership model. Robots (as a generic term for machines that perform labour in the broadest sense) are owned by a very small set of corporations, to be “leased out” to organisations or individuals. In other words: the actual value of the asset is reaped by those few real owners. The rest of us can only pay-for-use, and are completely dependent on the actual owners as to the price they charge for use.

It is very easy to understand that this construct is not sustainable. It is already clearly demonstrating that it results in a growing inequality in wealth. This has been demonstrated historically to lead to instability and eventually revolutions.

Elon Musk told the US–Saudi Investment Forum that advanced AI and humanoid robots will make human work “optional” within 10–20 years, end poverty, and make money “irrelevant,” predicting a major societal shift driven by automation.

Quotes like the one above are commonly heard from the parties expected to profit most from these technological developments. History teaches us that things usually do not develop in this manner. A brief period of wealth concentration is followed by a destructive upheaval resulting in a slight (and temporary!) redistribution of wealth. An example is the French revolution.

In France just before the Revolution of 1789, the proportion of national wealth held by the top 10 percent was about 90 percent, and the fraction possessed by the top 1 percent was as much as 60 percent. [1] After the Revolution, the proportion held by the top 10 percent fell slightly due to the redistribution of land belonging to the aristocracy and clergy in favour of the bourgeoisie (a little over 9 percent). – Thomas Piketty

Might we say that the seeming luxury of these robotic “slaves” has a rippling effect in making ourselves into slaves?

A sustainable model will need to be created, with the actual ownership of automated support in the hands of the people that use that support, with actual value (as in marketability).