AI & AI Robots: 3 steps to “we aren’t ready!”

Synopsis: Our economic system will cease to be fit for purpose.

Digesting the full scope of the change society is facing is quite daunting. As a person who had brough new technology to market of many decades, it still took me 3 steps over several months to progress to my current position.

The three steps so far have been:

1. Understanding how far and fast AI and AI robots have progressed and how AI is unlike any previous technology.
2. Understanding that even if the timing predictions are wrong, give how like AI and AI robots are progressing, as Elon Musk says, “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better.“
3. Universal Basic Income alone is not a solution and AI could cause more radical change than the entire 20th century in just 2 or 3 decades. Without something more than “somebody will pay people for doing nothing”, people will become without goals or purpose, unmotivated and even unwanted just as happened with most of the horses (see “this time, we are the horses“).

The bottom line is AI and robots are happening, and fast, yet no one is taking responsibility for dealing with the consequences for society. While this page does consider answers, the main focus is to understand the problem, and how even the CEO of Open AI admits that proposed solutions are inadequate.

A good background for this discussion is the paper “This time, we are the horses: the disruption of labor by humanoid robots” by Tony Seba of RethinkX, and the TED talk video “What is AI” by Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman.

Consider the following bullet points that lead through the 3 steps, and if desired, follow the links any point of interest more in-depth analysis:

1. AI is already here, and AI robots have already demonstrated skills of a totally different nature than previous technology could herald a new era.
2. All predictions by “experts” are that AI and AI Robots will replace anywhere between half of all jobs, and nearly 100% of all jobs.
   • AI + Robots will take jobs. AI and AI robots for the first time automate not only menial tasks, but also the work of professionals including lawyers, surgeons, tasks such as surgery, researchers and engineers.
   • What is more debatable, is whether this will leave workers without jobs, or whether new jobs will automatically be created. Talk of Universal basic income only arises because many experts do believe either new jobs won’t happen in sufficient numbers or won’t need to happen.
3. AI & AI robots can enable increased production of food, goods and housing for greater total wealth worldwide even without most people working, meaning there can be more wealth to share.
4. How does AI create trillion-dollar companies and increase equality? Will this wealth really be shared? So far, progress on AI and robots is leading to valuations as high as trillions of dollars the AI industry even as the first workers lose jobs to AI. A big change is needed as currently things are not headed to the proposed utopia where the new wealth is distributed to all.
5. Who pays? No one is taking charge of introducing wealth distribution. Leaders of AI are suggesting Universal Basic Income as a solution which would normally be funded by government, but not proposing solutions as to how governments could access the wealth generated by AI in order to distribute that wealth through a UBI in an economy where governments would have less revenue due to the mass unemployment.
6. Universal Basic Income is inadequate as a solution. When Tony Seba predicts “we are the horses”, presumedly Tony meant “we” to be the “working people” but the analogy highlights how once the horses were no longer needed, no one kept unneeded horse around. If there is no new role for “working people” beyond just receiving income, will governments still want people as they do now?

A world with AI robots could have more total wealth than ever before, but not unlimited wealth due to the limited resources of a finite planet, which means the challenge of deciding “who gets what” remains.

We could all be technically wealthier, as long as we can find a system for the distribution of wealth that works at least somewhat equitably in a society where almost all jobs can best be done by AI and AI robots, but people still need to be able to achieve things, which should be linked to “who gets what”.

A world where everything is done by robots and there is nothing for most people to do and not system for achievement may not turn out to be wealthier, or at least happier.

The best solution I have so far is that in place of a “Universal High Income” as suggested by Elon Musk, give people a “Universal Basic Income” and their own robot so people have the key tool needed to be competitively productive and this could enable them to earn more.

While I will consider more on the answers in future updates, really, governments need some of the best minds trying to find and agree on solutions. Leaving it to those who provide no answer beyond UBI when people lose their jobs is not going to work.

AI and AI robots are already beginning to arrive, and not only are we just not ready, but we are also not even trying to be ready!

AI Robots: From Anthropocene to Anthrobocene.

As described in the video shown here, AI very different from previous technology and is almost like a new species, or a new form of life. The world of Anthrobocene is coming, where it is humans and AI together dominating the planet, and where everyone who currently has a car has an AI humanoid robot.

If things continue at the current pace we will be moving from a world or basically zero AI and zero AI robots to pervasive AI and potentially billions of AI robots within a span of two decades. Sci-fi has provided decades of simulations of what could happen if computers were smart enough to interact like humans, and now examples like the Figure 01 video from January 2024 show it is not just simulation anymore.

Chat-GPT launched in late 2022 and made headlines throughout 2023, but the impact of AI reaching a tipping point has only just begun. That AI will impact not only the virtual world, but also the physical world was highlighted by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang sharing the stage at the Nividia AI presentation with 9 humanoid robots highlighting how significant the 3rd most valuable company in the word (as of March 2024) sees the opportunity for biped anthrobotic robots provided credibly to predictions billion of these will exist within around a decade.

This is an introduction and overview of what is happening as countries like the US and China look to send AI and robots to workplaces, factories and homes around the world, and digital humans spread through world online and entertainment industry, and the proliferation of AI and robots could make Antrobocene a more apt epoch.

2024 and robots both real and virtual have reached a tipping point that heralds a new era.

AI is already here. Most of us have had our attention drawn to the rapid progress of AI, and watching this same AI rapidly advance month by month makes it almost indisputable that with AI and AI robots, we have passed a tipping point and are entering a new era.

Almost everyone has now heard of Chat-GPT, the online AI system from the organisation Open AI that within one year transformed what can be asked of the internet and became by some measures the fastest growing company every.

As the CEO of Chat-GPT says, we are now in take-off phase towards an “AGI” or Artificial general intelligence:

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that that matches or surpasses human capabilities across a wide range of cognitive tasks.^[1] This is in contrast to narrow AI, which is designed for specific tasks.^[2] AGI is considered one of various definitions of strong AI. which is where AI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence

So how fast will AI robots appear?

No other recent manufactured technology, from the mobile phone to the EV, has been cost competitive with what went before from day outset. AI robots are already for sale for US$100,000 and as 1 robot with 1 8-hour break per week could replace 4 workers each working 8 hours 5 days a week, do the math, and then factor in that Wright’s law means the cost will soon be US$10,000 per robot.

The video shown here features the “Figure 01” AI robot from the company Figure AI that was founded in 2022 and reached a valuation of US$2.6 billion in February 2024. With Open AI, Microsoft, Amazon and others as investors, the robot uses software based on the same Open AI systems behind Chat-GPT.

Despite more specialised industrial robots having been in use in factories since the 1970s, robot toys since the 1990s, robot vacuums and other specialised robots since the 2000s and even robots in hospitality that can sometimes even look a little like R2D2 during the 2010s, no humanoid C3PIO like robots capable of learning had been deployed until the new level of AI arrived.

With the level of AI demonstrated by Chat GPT, suddenly humanoid robots that can be trained on the job rather than programmed have moved from science fiction to the stage of the AI presentation from a multi-trillion dollar company.

Almost every robot that shared the stage at the Nvidia AI day in March 2024 was announced in the previous 18 months, and while none of the companies behind those robots is yet profiting from these robots, yet the opportunity to sell the chips that will be inside these robots is large enough to take centre stage of an event of multi-trillion-dollar company Nvidia, the world’s third most valuable company by market cap at the time of writing in early 2024.

The intelligence difference between these humanoid robots and those industrial robot predecessors is so vast it can take time to understand, but they have to potential to take our lives to a whole new level.

It is a future with both risks and huge potential benefits.

AI and AI robots have the potential to disrupt almost all work done by humans. The nature or disruption is examined in detail for the “Hollywood & Celebrities” example, and the scope of this type of impact has the potential for AI to make most jobs redundant across every white-collar industry, and humanoid AI robots to replace workers in blue-collar industries, the changes will require a lot of adjustment.

There are risks from AI and humanoid AI robots. The main risk is unlikely to be a “Terminator” style doom as robots become more intelligent than us and then overthrow us, but from the challenges of adjusting our economic system to handle the disruption, but another key risk arises from the prospect of humans using the power of AI against other humans.

As humanity already faces risks from climate change and environmental damage from plastic and other pollution, any new risk additional risk may seem questionable, but AI also offers the possibly to help us solve our already existing risks, cure cancer and eradicate human suffering. Plus, getting everyone to agree to keep the genie in the bottle seems now extremely unlikely.

In fact, David Holz, the founder of AI company “Midjourney”, predicted a billion robots by 2040, which was then backed up by Elon Musk. However, it is not clear that either of these predictions is backed by sound analysis. First David Holz, Founder of “Midjourney”:

It all started with a tweet from Midjourney founder David Holz, who predicted that by the time we reach the 2040s, “we should be expecting a billion humanoid robots” on Earth — and that 20 years after that, we should expect 100 times that many “mostly alien” robots

ELON MUSK SAYS EARTH WILL SOON HOST A BILLION HUMANOID ROBOTS

Musk replied, “Probably something like that, provided the foundations of civilization are stable.”

Foxbusines Jan 2024: Elon Musk says to expect roughly 1 billion humanoid robots in 2040s

Almost everyone agrees: AI and AI robots will replace at least half of all jobs.

For even more analysis, comprehensive analysis, see the separate paper “AI robot job terminators“.

That AI and AI robots will lead to widespread redundancies as technology results in job losses is widely agreed. We are looking at an unprecedented percentage of jobs being disrupted by AI, with various sources analysing and making lists of jobs disrupted by AI and disrupted by AI robots, and there are differences between previous new technologies.

While it is not universally agreed is how different job losses to AI and AI robots will be to the long history of technology replacing jobs, here are some key differences.

• AI and AI robots for the first time automate not only menial tasks, but also the work of professionals including lawyers, surgeons, tasks such as surgery, researchers and engineers.
• Previous technology, even previous robots, lacking intelligence, can be seen as increasing the productivity of humans by doing parts of a task, while AI automate all of a task.
• While previously automation developed decades and even centuries, which mean newly created jobs required people, AI and AI robots can learn faster than people, and as universal rather than task specialist technology, need no technology development time before tacking new tasks.
• The expected replacement of jobs simultaneously across such almost all industries at once is unprecedented, and the ability of AI & robots to also tackle any newly created jobs leads many, such as Elon Musk, to believe we are heading for a world where people will no longer need to have jobs.

In the past, the technological disruption of one industry didn’t necessarily mean the disruption of another. Let’s take car manufacturing as an example; a robot in automobile manufacturing can drive big gains in productivity and efficiency, but that same robot would be useless trying to manufacture anything other than a car. The underlying technology of the robot might be adapted, but at best that still only addresses manufacturing

AI is different because it can be applied to virtually any industry. When you develop AI that can understand language, recognize patterns, and problem-solve, disruption isn’t contained. Imagine creating an AI that can diagnose diseases and handle medications, address lawsuits, and write articles like this one. No need to imagine: AI is already doing those exact things.

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence – Widespread Job Losses

Technology Has Always Been Making Jobs Redundant: But according to some experts, not like this!

While the above significant differences don’t prove this is not another false alarm on people being replaced by technology, they do make a strong case for considering what it is not just another false alarm.

It feels like people have “forever” been crying out that new technology would lead to massive unemployment that has never arrived. Like the boy who cried wolf, neither false alarms alone nor past history are a guarantee the threat will never be real.

Robots & Job Terminations – One Finite Planet.

For those who wish to dive deeper, there is a separate webpaper “AI Robots As Job Terminators?” with a section analysing how in the past, the new jobs have been created: “Technology Has Always Been Making Jobs Redundant: What’s New?”

There are two the two main schools of thought:

1. Technology has replaced jobs throughout the industrial age, as gains in productivity always create new employment opportunities.
2. AI is fundamentally different than any previous technology, although new employment opportunities will be created, AI and/or AI robots will be will also from the outset take on and learn those new jobs faster than humans can.
   • All previous automation, and even previous robots, have been specialised to specific tasks, and thus normally unable to be applied to new employment opportunities.

So, other than my own analysis, who says it is different this time and what is the logic?

Experts all seem to agree: this time it’s different.

It is not just the arguments above pointing to this time humans actually losing our jobs, but also experts from Tony Seba to Elon Musk, McKinsey and Co and Sam Altman.

It turns out, most experts who have looked in depth all agree: we can’t assume new jobs alone will save the day this time.

I quote Tony Seba, not because he is the best-known expert, but because he has published online a quite thorough and compelling case summed up by this excerpt:

In the 15 years between 1907 and 1922, horses went from providing 95% of all private vehicle-miles travelled on American roads to less than 20%. In areas like New York City, which led in the adoption of automobiles, the disruption of transportation was swift and transformative – as shown in the images below.

This time, we are the horses: the disruption of labor by humanoid robots

So, who is Tony Seba?

Tony Seba of Rethinkx, a futurist who did accurately in 2014 predict uptake and over 10x fall in prices of solar power and batteries over the next ten years since that time, with many saying that qualifies Tony to be listened to now.

Humanity is facing its greatest change ever, according to Tony Seba. Some call him a naive, foolish optimist, but Seba has repeatedly been proven right and his critics wrong. A tip is to listen to him this time.

The naive Tony Seba has been more right than anyone else

For solar panels and batteries, the predictions of Tony Seba for trends between 2014 and 2024 have been accurate. While I am not confident of all of the timeframes, and I do not believe Tony is always right, I de believe his opinions are certainly worthy of consideration.

I highly recommend the reading of the paper by Tony Seba: This time, we are the horses.

So far this is the person I have found with a web page on what will happen. All other experts who have really devoted time to AI are mostly revealing their thoughts in interviews, or when talking at events.

Elon Musk is certainly someone who has given it a lot of thought.

Several times, like this time in 2023 when meeting with UK leader Ritchie Sunak, Elon Musk has said that people will no longer need to work: “Tech billionaire Elon Musk has predicted that artificial intelligence will eventually mean that no one will have to work” (BBC).

Elon Musk advocates that those displaced by AI and/or robots will not need to work and a Universal Basic Income will be needed to distribute the wealth.

Elon Musk shared his dystopian vision for the future overnight while remotely joining the Viva Technology Conference in Paris.

“In a benign scenario, probably none of us will have a job,” said Musk. “But in that benign scenario, there will be universal high income, not universal basic income. There will be no shortage of goods and services.”

Musk continued to describe a scenario he described as “most likely” in which humans live a plentiful life powered by intelligent robot companions. He stated the presence of not just universal basic income, but “universal high income” in a very matter-of-fact way. But in this future, where money and work are no issue, Musk described existential issues where humans lack purpose.

“I think that long term, in a benign scenario, any job
that somebody does will be optional. If you want to do a job as a hobby, you can do a job. But otherwise, AI and robots will provide any goods and services that you want.” – @elonmusk at #VivaTech pic.twitter.com/UUykEDEmeO— Viva Technology (@VivaTech) May 23, 2024

“If a computer and the robots can do everything better than you, then… does your life have meaning? That will really be the question in the benign scenario,” explained Musk.

Elon Musk Says AI Will Take Your Job (Bad), but You’ll Be Rich (Good), With No Purpose (Hmm): May, 2024

A Universal Basic Income is the proposed solution for where AI enables the production of current levels, or even increased levels of total wealth, but does not provide everyone with a job.

“It’s really important to get data rather than just talk about it,” said Sam Altman, president of Y Combinator, during a Bloomberg panel interview. “Are they happy? Are they fulfilled? How does it change their skills, how they spend their time?” He wrote earlier in a blog post: “I’m fairly confident that at some point in the future, as technology continues to eliminate traditional jobs and massive new wealth gets created, we’re going to see some version of this at a national scale.”

Sam Altman now in 2024 CEO of Open AI, speaking in 2016 on the need for UBI: Courtesy Engadget.

McKinsey & Company reckons that, depending upon various adoption scenarios, automation will displace between 400 and 800 million jobs by 2030, requiring as many as 375 million people to switch job categories entirely. How could such a shift not cause fear and concern, especially for the world’s vulnerable countries and populations?

The Brookings Institution writes of a “new” kind of automation with more advanced robotics and AI that can bring work displacement to college graduates and professionals as much as it has to vehicle drivers and retail workers.

With frightening yet like these, it’s no wonder AI and automation keep many of us up at night.   

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence – Widespread Job Losses

Total wealth will increase as AI and AI robots will create a productivity boom.

“There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. What to do about mass unemployment? This is going to be a massive social challenge. And I think ultimately, we will have to have some kind of universal basic income. I don’t think we are going to have a choice. Universal I basic income, I think it is going to be necessary. And I want to be clear, that these are not things that I wish would happen, these are things that I think probably will happen. If my assessment is correct and they probably will happen, then we need to say what are we going to do about it. And I think some kind of universal basic income is going to be necessary.

Now the output of goods and services will be extremely high so with automation, there will come abundance, almost everything will get very cheap… I think the biggest… I think we’ll just end up doing a universal basic income it’s going to be necessary. The harder challenge, the much harder challenge is, how do people then have meaning, like a lot of people they derive their meaning from their employment, so that if you don’t have, if you’re not needed, if there’s not a need for your labor, how do you, what’s the meaning, do you have meaning do you feel useless, these are much, that is a much harder problem to deal with”

Elon Musk at the World Government Summit in Dubai, 2023.

The key words marked in bold from the above comments by Elon Musk, are “with automation, there will come abundance”. Like all previous technologies that improve productivity, AI and AI robots can drive a boom in production of wealth. More food to eat, more manufactured goods and more services.

It seems strange to have a boom at a time when people are losing their jobs. What is different is that the jobs are not going away, it is just that they will now be done by AI and robots. “Boom” times also normally lead to new employment opportunities, and there will be new jobs in this boom also, the question this time is will AI and robots also be able to take on the new roles.

Total production can increase, which provided that the wealth is distributed, can allow average wealth to increase.

How does AI create trillion-dollar companies and more equality?

The utopia is a world where AI creates increased wealth, and everyone gets to enjoy a share.

A problem is this story does not fit well with the history technology creating vast wealth.

Consider where the money came from to generate the wealth of internet companies such as Google, Facebook and Amazon. Google and Facebook earn the money from advertising, and worldwide, national newspapers and television stations lost that revenue. Almost every small business now pays Google or other tech giants some of their revenue in exchange for advertising or promotion. Amazon has become a global retailer at the expense of local retailers worldwide. These companies may be more efficient and have other virtues, but their wealth comes from concentrating revenues that previously were spread over a very large number of businesses. Their value is not built on revenues that did not previously exist; it is built on taking over revenues that did exist. It is not really new wealth creation, but a concentration of wealth.

The same with AI and AI robots. While AI and robots won’t take over unless they cost less, but the revenues AI and robots are taking over are the revenues of workers.

Elon Musk provides a perfect illustration of this wealth distribution problem. Will the ever-shrinking group of people who control the creation of the wealth even want to share with everyone else, and if they do wish to share, how could that work? Elon Musk has said he is “uncomfortable growing Tesla to be a leader in AI & robotics” if he does not receive the bonus package that has been valued at $55 billion is approved by Tesla shareholders, providing an example of those in control of the wealth wanting to keep getting richer. Elon plans to gain far more wealth through the introduction of robots, and his plans are for Tesla to gain far more wealth than it is paying Elon, but there is no clear path as to how workers who become laid off will all become as wealthy as Elon suggests:

Musk continued to describe a scenario he described as “most likely” in which humans live a plentiful life powered by intelligent robot companions. He stated the presence of not just universal basic income, but “universal high income” in a very matter-of-fact way. But in this future, where money and work are no issue, Musk described existential issues where humans lack purpose.

Elon Musk Says AI Will Take Your Job (Bad), but You’ll Be Rich (Good), With No Purpose (Hmm)

I wonder, do the over 10% of the Tesla workforce recently laid off all now feel richer? Seriously, the type of “universal high income” Elon refers to would require those generating all the wealth to willingly share the wealth with the general population who are mostly no longer productive. Governments who would lose almost all income tax revenue are not going to be able to pay every citizen a universal high income. In reality, the entire economic system would need a complete redesign, and no one is yet working on that redesign. An extended universal basic income scheme goes nowhere near solving the problem.

Of course, this only matters if people like Elon Musk are correct about AI & robots causing job losses.

Just dismissing threat from AI robots on the basis that past fears of humans being made redundant have turned out to be false alarms ignores the possibility that this time things are different.

Who pays? No one is taking charge of introducing wealth distribution.

The most commonly proposed solution for distribution of the wealth generated by AI is Universal Basic Income. Elon Musk consistently refers to Universal Basic Income as something that will be required, and when speaking as captured on video and outlined in the previous section, “Total Wealth Will Increase” above, Elon Musk repeated several times that he feels “a universal basic income it’s going to be necessary“.

What Elon Musk does not suggest, is how a universal basic income could be funded. This is rather important, as what is proposed differs significantly from normal proposals for “Gateway to employment” type UBI schemes, which always propose to cost no more than existing welfare schemes. Having a far larger percentage of the population effectively on welfare, and being wealthier than when they were working, is not something governments could afford without governments having a huge new revenue scheme. The basic problem is that the proposed increased wealth, has to somehow get from those earning the increased wealth to the recipients of the UBI, and no one is proposing how to fund this very different type of UBI: A wealth distribution UBI.

Musk continued to describe a scenario he described as “most likely” in which humans live a plentiful life powered by intelligent robot companions. He stated the presence of not just universal basic income, but “universal high income” in a very matter-of-fact way.

Elon Musk Says AI Will Take Your Job (Bad), but You’ll Be Rich (Good), With No Purpose (Hmm): May, 2024

The problems with a Wealth Distribution UBI are discussed in more detail in the webpaper on “Basic Income”, but the critical point is that a wealth distribution UBI cannot be funded by the current welfare budget and would requires those profiting from AI and Robots to contribute orders of magnitude more money than they would currently pay in taxes. This is before moving to a Universal High-Income scheme as alluded to by Elon Musk.

Gateway to employment Universal Basic Income can work, because it provides citizens with a baseline to build on, lifting a significant majority of citizens to the level where they pay sufficient taxes to fund the scheme. What has made UBI schemes affordable so far, is that UBI has so far resulted in an increase in employment, which means that, the vast majority of UBI recipients pay the government more in taxes than they receive from as UBI. Under our current system, governments still must receive more in taxes than they pay as welfare.

A government dealing with large scale unemployment cannot fund a Universal Basic Income scheme, let alone a “universal high income” scheme! With the aid of AI and AI robots, much of production can be automated, but since neither AI nor robots pay taxes, government revenue would fall. Without some entirely new revenue scheme, such as the government taking over production, UBI does not add up in a world where most citizens are unemployed.

A Distribution of Wealth UBI is going to be incredibly expensive, and no one is going to want to pay. While a normal “Gateway to Employment UBI” scheme targets reducing the existing cost of supporting the existing unemployed, whoever funds the required “wealth distribution UBI” would logically see every citizen of each nation as an expense.

So, not only is it unclear how a wealth distribution scheme could be funded, but consider that, if, as Tony Seba puts it “we are the horses”, then “we”, an ever-increasing proportion of the population, will no longer play a role in growing GDP, and instead be on a wealth distribution UBI, then “we” would simply be a drain on society. Governments, or whoever else funds the UBI, may not wish to keep providing with money.

The horse population dropped rather quickly once they were not needed, but assuming neither a knackery for humans nor ending “breeding programs” for humans would be considered acceptable, the economy will instead be left with a large number of “unproductive” humans.

Universal Basic Income is inadequate as a solution.

There are far greater problems not addressed by a UBI alone. As discussed by Sam Altman in this video, and mentioned by Elon Musk in the quote above, income is not the only reason people work. A society where people don’t still have work goals would be highly problematic to say the least.

In a world where the skill of AI and robots, by the definition of AGI, “matches or surpasses human capabilities across a wide range of cognitive tasks”, and AI and robot workers cost less than any workable minimum wage, we still need to find a way the people can still work.

In essence, there are two types of basic income scheme:

• Gateway to employment UBI, which has been demonstrated to work.
• Wealth distribution UBI, which is highly questionable, and has not yet been demonstrated to work.

Why it is possible the trials by OpenAI have trialled “wealth distribution UBI“, all previous trials showing how a UBI can succeed have been very different “Gateway to Employment UBI schemes” with the goals:

• Reducing total both direct and indirect costs people needing welfare.
• Limiting any reduction of employment to those moving to education.
• Providing people with an increased sense of purpose.

Any UBI set up to distribute wealth to people displaced because, as Elon Musk says, “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better“, will fail all three of those goals for any normal UBI.

People having purpose and having achievements is central to happiness. Plus, this is future where everything would be either run solely by AI/robots, or by people who control those AI/robots. As Sam Altman says in the video above, in the words that can be read here, a UBI can be a part of the solution, but it is not the solution.

There are two key reasons why a basic income could be an interim step, but is not itself the main part of a long-term solution:

1. Society currently values the idea of a meritocracy where there is incentive to try to be worth more to society. While it can certainly be argued that current system already fails to work well, at least it tries.
2. Under current systems, governments would not be able to fund a universal basic income if most of society are no longer tax paying workers, and it is not clear who else would pay.

This leaves us with the words of unconvincing small mention by Sam Altman that “I think we are going to find, incredible new jobs” against the much more confident words by Elon Musk “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better“.

Answering the essential economic question being ignored.

I don’t have all the answers, but as many people have suggested, from Elon Musk to Douglas Adams, asking the right question can be more critical than answering.

I believe the essential economic question is: Is there any framework for a future where there are fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better“?

I feel the answer relies on not considering human vs machine, but human + machine vs machine alone.

What if instead of a UBI simply providing money, the UBI also provided a robot? Then the cash payment could be a true basic income, because the new owner of the robot now has the key tool now needed to earn more income.

My answer started with three thoughts:

• We could all own robots is they don’t take our jobs.
• If people don’t contribute to society, not only will they be unfulfilled, but also unwanted.
• Capitalism becomes completely unworkable for society with humans having their ability to work as an asset.
• The thought of the idea of give a cow rather than food to solve poverty.

The basic principle is to link people with robots, and instead of the words of Elon Musk “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better” it could become “There will be fewer and fewer jobs that person cannot do better when teaming with their AI robot.”

There are many possibilities. On one hand the robot that takes your job could be your robot, and then if it is more productive than you it could fund the robot and your pay. At the other extreme, with the aid of a robot, so many business ideas become viable, or a person could even have the robot directly produce most of their own needs from growing a vegetable garden, to building their house.

We could all own robots if they don’t take our jobs.

Robots are expected to soon cost less than a car, but there is a contradiction: It would be great to own a robot that could do all the jobs around the house, but if robots can do all the jobs around the house, then it is very likely robots can also do at least most of the jobs at your place of work, potentially depriving you of the income to buy your own robot.

This same contradiction applies across the national and even across the globe.

A world where robots both could do all the farming, mining and manufacturing to create enough material wealth for everyone, what is left for the people to do?

Tony Seba of Rethinkx, a futurist with a fantastic track record of past predictions having been proven correct, predicts “This time, we are the horses: the disruption of labor by humanoid robots“, which I highly recommend. While it is worth a full read, the introduction sets the scene:

In the 15 years between 1907 and 1922, horses went from providing 95% of all private vehicle-miles travelled on American roads to less than 20%. In areas like New York City, which led in the adoption of automobiles, the disruption of transportation was swift and transformative – as shown in the images below.

This time, we are the horses: the disruption of labor by humanoid robots

Human labour is about to become largely obsolete. Horses don’t live as long as humans, their breeding is controlled to produce the numbers we desire, and if all else fails their are knackeries.

Unlike horses, where people control the breeding, hopefully this will not automatically result in sudden and dramatic drop in the human population, nor we want such a sudden and dramatic fall in population. The human population is already going through a correction, but that is a whole separate topic, but that correction is not going to be anywhere near as dramatic as what happened to the horses.

The economic revolution: From people driving the economy, to being “horses”?

Right now, in 2024, most western nations including like USA, Canada, Australia, UK etc., actively encourage immigration to prevent their populations falling, because GDP is the key metric, not GDP per capita, so any fall in population reduces GDP, potentially causing a recession.

While it can be argued this “grow the population to grow the economy” policy is already highly problematic and often against the best interests of the population, in a world where AI an AI robots do all the work, and this approach is very popular, as from this quote from Joe Biden: “You know, one of the reasons why our economy is growing is because of you and many others. Why? Because we welcome immigrants“, in comments made to countries where, like the USA, people have children in numbers that would provide a population decrease, but unlike the USA, they don’t use immigration to grow to reverse what the people would have happen.

National economies are like egg farms, and with each worker in the economy producing the equivalent of eggs. Just like the more chickens the more eggs, the more workers the bigger the economy, then the great the wealth for all those who earn from the entire economy, such as big business, governments and billionaires.

Even if it makes conditions worse for the chickens workers, it is better for the total economy.

However, humanoid robots change everything, as these mechanical chickens workers then produce the eggs.

So, what happens to the, now unnecessary, population? Well, they still can have a role as consumers, as what is the point of still being able to produce everything if there are no consumers? The problem becomes, how do the consumers have an income?

Overall, this that could become real within 15 years where humanoid robots do most of the work, has the potential for productivity to skyrocket and the overall wealth of society to increase.

The big problem becomes: how do we then distribute that wealth?

Capitalism cannot work without everyone owning some capital.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.^[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

I suggest the capitalist system is workable because every worker owns their own asset that is a “means of production”: their ability to work. Banks even provide loans against the revenue potential of this asset, accepting that their will be an ongoing revenue stream from the asset.

If the “ability to work” is considered no longer an asset that can provide a revenue stream for even as many as 50% of the population, then most of the population no longer has any role in the capitalist system, which logically means society is then, for the majority of people, no longer a capitalist system.

Hollywood & Celebrities: An example potential impact of AI.

AI could transform the production of motion pictures.

The wider impact on employment is discussed below, but this example of how AI alone even with without robots can completely transform industries, and it is not only a case of robots replacing workers.

Consider how television and motion pictures are made. Scenes are traditionally captured on film either using soundstages or “on location”. In the 21st century film has given way to digital, but even in science fiction where many locations can be created digitally, still productions like “Dune” are partially filmed “on location”, which in the case of Dune included the deserts of Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Although the above photos of a sound stage and on location crew do not show all the people involved, anyone who has sat through the full credits at the end of a production will be aware that between the gaffer and key grip and their crews, camera operators and a host of other roles that involve an entire jargon, there are a lot people involved in the production of a motion picture or television show.

Now consider the scene created by Sora from Open AI of the rocky outcropping of the Almalfi coast complete with dozens of people, or the people moving the through Toyko on a snowy day. Or just what the entire set of clips from the ten-minute video.

Each clip in the video generated from a text description by Sora could be created by one person using a laptop computer. To get desired results, even for the clips in the sample video, it may have taken several attempts to word things appropriately even for someone who understands the technology. Given the rapid rate of progress, while it may still take some more years before the AI behind Sora gets sufficient upgrades to be capable of creating every scene required for a complete motion picture, it certainly seems highly likely this is achievable.

One or more people are still needed to write the script, but production of sets, costumes and props, the need for cameras and lighting, and even the need for actors and makeup and to act out the scenes need not be required.

Questions raised by the 2023 screen actor’s strike: actors or celebrity movie stars?

Outside Amazon Studios in Los Angeles, the striking writers of Hollywood had a promise for studio executives: “AI will replace you before it replaces us.”

Guardian May 2023: ‘Pens down!’: Hollywood writers strike as late-night comedy shows go dark

In 2023 in the USA, first the screenwriters, and then screen actor’s guild went on strike. The issue triggering initially was the lack of revenue for screenwriters and actors from sales of programs to streaming services, which as streaming services had not been part of the landscape when agreements were previously negotiated, is understandable. Before the strikes were resolved, AI had become a key issue for negotiation, particularly for actors:

The AI protections were a sticking point in the negotiations that had moved methodically, with both long breaks for both sides to huddle, since they restarted on Oct. 24.

“It is something that has evolved even while we’ve been in this negotiation process,” Crabtree-Ireland said. “The capabilities of generative AI tools have expanded dramatically. So we have really been focused on making sure that the guardrails that we negotiated for were future-proof or at least future-resistant.”

November 2023: Actors union reaches deal with studios to end strike | AP News

The strike focused on future royalties from works involving writers and actors, which means there was little thought or focus on how AI could replace actors. What was gained for agreements was not about actors securing royalties from their acting, but on securing rights to royalties from use of their image in generative AI where in reality it is the AI creating the acting.

While rights to royalties from future streaming may affect everyone, what was secured in terms of AI seems likely to have only very limited impact of a small number of the highest paid and most famous actors and only during a transition period.

There is an issue that during the period of transition from traditional filmmaking to generative AI productions, AI productions could use characters who, unlike in the examples from Sora, are based on images of existing actors and be leveraging the reputation of these actors and, potentially, their “movie star good looks”. If this happens, then, yes royalties make sense. But how often would it happen, and who, beyond the most famous and already wealthy actors would be impacted?

If the vastly lower cost and great creative flexibility of Generative AI does lead to it becoming the dominant way motion pictures are created in future, then characters could be created by AI, as in the Sora examples in the video above and on the Open AI website, without any need to use the appearance of any existing actor. In a generative AI production of Oppenheimer, would the role of Oppenheimer use the appearance of the actual original J. Robert Oppenheimer, or actor Cillian Murphy dressed and made up to look like Oppenheimer? Overall, a complex question, but it could be argued and creative use of altering the actual historical appearance need not be based on how a “movie star” looks when made up and dressed as the original person.

So, use of an actor’s appearance in a generative AI production would be to leverage the actor’s reputation gained from the actors’ appearances in previous traditional productions, or simple the actor’s celebrity status.

Realistically, it raises questions as to how often the appearance of a celebrity as a character in a generative AI motion picture would make sense, and, if it is only the appearance that is of value rather than acting, which would be done by the AI, whether such celebrities need even have ever been actors.

What makes a celebrity, and could “digital humans” play a major role in future?

The phenomenon of stardom has remained essential to Hollywood because of its ability to lure spectators into the theater. Following the demise of the studio system in the 1950s and ’60s, the star system became the most important stabilizing feature of the movie industry. This is because stars provide film makers with built-in audiences who regularly watch films in which their favorite actors and actresses appear. ^[7]

Wikipedia: Star system (filmmaking)

Historically, “movie stars” became celebrities not just because of their acting, but also because publicity around of their lavish and exotic lifestyles. But if actors no longer do their own acting, will it be actors who are best able to provide the celebrity image in future?

It has been suggested that movie stars were always manufactured, but what if, instead of being manufactured around actual people, celebrities could be created free from the pitfalls of needing to be based on actual people:

Meet Dex. From mixing music in her bedroom to appearing as a DJ at Digital Fashion Week in New York, Paris and London, she’s already made a name for herself at 23-years-old.

She’s anti-fast fashion and thanks to her immersive live performances, now counts Chelcee Grimes and Eurythmics singer Dave Stewart as fans.

But there’s something a bit different about Dex. Unlike your average influencer, Dex is a ‘digital human’, powered by AI and developed by Liverpool-based tech firm Sum Vivas. 

Prolific North: How AI-powered ‘digital humans’ could be the next big thing to shake up the influencer industry

While “Dex” is something new for “the West”, in Asia, this is not new:

Hatsune Miku is a 16-year-old pop star from Sapporo, Japan. She has neon blue hair, which she wears in pigtails, and bright blue eyes. Since starting her career in 2007, she’s opened for Lady Gaga during the 2014 ArtPop tour, she’s done a “Happy” remix with Pharrell Williams, and has recently served as a muse for designers like Marc Jacobs and Riccardo Tisci.

Here’s the catch: Hatsune Miku isn’t real.

Meet Hatsune Miku, the Japanese Pop Star Hologram

K-pop bands have been holding holographic concerts since 2016:

Is there a new type of concert on the rise?

A new trend in concert technology is gaining attention as holographic shows are beginning to become more common for K-pop artists.

Fans are flocking to various theaters around Seoul and other major cities in Asia to get a glimpse of their favorite idols dominating the stage as full, life-sized holograms. The trend of holographic is continuing to thrive as more people are able to attend the shows, according to Mashable.

KPopstarts February 2016: Are Hologram Concerts The Next Big Thing For K-Pop?

And as on 2023, virtual bands are on the rise:

Virtual K-pop idols are on the rise as South Korean agencies and labels are now looking into the metaverse as the next destination for Hallyu (the Korean wave).

While fictional artists are gaining traction online following the popularity of groups such as K/DA in late 2018, the concept is not new. For instance, the English virtual band Gorillaz have found success over the years despite presenting themselves as four fictional characters.

In South Korea, virtual artists have already received millions of views since debuting. So, without further ado, here are nine virtual K-pop idols we’re stanning right now.

NextShark May 2023: 9 virtual K-pop idols we’re stanning right now

The economics of the impact of AI: Motion picture example

It turns out the economics is rather confusing, and possibly contradictory. For example, in this motion picture industry example, while it may seem logical that if motion pictures could at some time in future be made for a fraction of the cost, then that would have to be a good thing from an economics perspective. However, the reality is that a new technology like AI would decrease economic activity unless the AI companies can justify their huge increases in the value of the stock by being able to charge those using the AI even more than the companies were spending motion pictures the old way. Any decrease in spending is a decrease in economic activity.

The picture for Hollywood is also quite complex. Currently the average US citizen pays for the industry through movie tickets and subscription fees, with the complexity of paying through advertising added to the mix. The result of all these consumers contributing is the employment of an entire industry, but also the creation of quite extreme wealth for a small number of individuals. One of the complexities is that with our current economic system, extra spending by a large number of typical consumers that transfers their money to create extreme wealth for a small number of individuals can be seen as a boost to the economy. It can even be seen as a boost to the economy even when those wealthy individuals take the money out of the country. As long as people spend more, the economy is doing well.

Using the current methods to measure the economy at this time, when technology saves people money, without some counter effect the economy suffers. As producing the same work for a lower cost means there is still the same total wealth to share, if the system of wealth distribution was able to maintain the current level of equity of that same amount of wealth, then there would be no need for new economic activity from compensate, but under the current system, without new activities creating new additional spending, reducing spending and saving money harms the economy.

The wider impact of AI on making jobs redundant.

The capability of AI has reached a tipping point.

A computer first defeated the chess world champion in 1997, marking a milestone in the development of AI. However:

Deep Blue was a chess-playing expert system run on a unique purpose-built IBM supercomputer.” the computer.

Deep Blue (chess computer)

Yes, a computer was able to defeat the chess world champion, but a more cynical view is that an entire team working from 1985 through to 1997 were able to design and program a computer to help that team defeat a chess world champion. A milestone, but it could still be described as a special purpose tool built for a task and using its computational speed together with purpose designed programs to be able to be better than an expert human at one specific task. Special purpose AI on a special purpose computer after decades of programming being able to defeat human was seen as a tipping point, but not one that had direct ramifications that changed to world.

But the real pivotal tipping point was when the AI managed to defeat the GO champion Lee Sedol in 2016. Rather than a team combining a strategy that works with sufficient computing power behind it, this time the campion was defeated by AI that developed its own strategy and even the now famous “move 37” of game 2 which was considered a move no human would ever make.

The software has now even improved its ability to learn its own strategies without help from humans or even needing access to data on previous games, and Google purchased the company Deepmind behind the software not to AI to play go, but to be able to learn on its own how to accomplish a very wide variety of tasks.

What jobs can AI now replace?

The key difference between AI of today and the power of computers previously is similar to the difference between “DeepBlue” and AlphaGo Zero as discussed above. AI can now learn how to do a wide variety of tasks by itself, rather than needing to be programmed by humans to help them accomplish the work.

Here lists from others that provide their explanations of why these jobs will be made redundant. There are lists like this all over the web, but often the content seems to be simply echoed from one page to another. The list is the jobs people see the AI of today capable of replacing, and when you consider how different the lists would have been 10 years ago, it become astounding to then consider what the list would look like in another 10 years.

1. Tech jobs (Coders, computer programmers, software engineers, data analysts)
2. Media jobs (advertising, content creation, technical writing, journalism)
3. Legal industry jobs (paralegals, legal assistants)
4. Market research analysts
5. Teachers
6. Finance jobs (Financial analysts, personal financial advisors)
7. Traders
8. Graphic designers
9. Accountants
10. Customer service agents

Business Insider: ChatGPT may be coming for our jobs. Here are the 10 roles that AI is most likely to replace.

1. Entry-Level Programming, Data Analysis and Web Development Roles
2. Entry-Level Writing and Proofreading Roles
3. Translation Jobs
4.  Entry-Level Graphic Design Jobs
5. Fast Food Order Taking Jobs
6. Accounting
7. Postal Service Clerical Jobs
8. Data Entry Jobs
9. Bank Teller Jobs
10. Administrative Support Jobs
11. Legal Roles
12. Packers/Packagers
13. Entry-Level HR Roles
14. Mathematical Technician Roles
15. Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Jobs
16. Telemarketing

Yahoo Finance:16 Jobs That Will Disappear in the Future Due to AI

Note, number 12 on the above list is assumed to be made redundant by AI robots, as opposed to AI alone.

How AI robots make even more jobs redundant than AI alone.

The capability of robots has reached a tipping point.

Robots have been in factories since the 1950s, so what is new? The tipping point is moving from robots designed and programmed for a specific task, versatile humanoid robots capable a wide variety of tasks without being programmed for each task.

This tipping point is clearly visible in the appearance of all 9 robots Jensen Huang the CEO of Nvidia, worlds 3rd most valuable company at the time, chose to share the stage.

This new generation of robots, with at least 12 companies now rushing to being their products to the mass market, are all humanoid robots.

Unlike robots from the past that are designed to be capable of doing a specific task over and over a that may have previously required a human, these robots can learn, even without programming, and can learn to do potentially almost anything that previously required a human.

While there have been industrial robots in factories since the 1950s, and robot vacuums in homes since the 1990s, there is a good reason none of the robots outside of science fiction were ever took human form. When a robot is designed to do one specific thing, then it takes the form required for that function. These earlier single function robots take the form of being a tool, rather than the humanoid form designed to be a user of any number of tools.

Until these new AI humanoid robots, none were ever designed to be a versatile as a human, because each new action required programming. Yes, recent quadruped robots by Boston Dynamics and Unitree could do tasks a trained dog could do, like conduct security patrols and investigate disturbances, but they could never put away the dishes like the Figure robot featured in the video above, or perhaps most significantly, recognise that not only are they dishes, but also decide that that dishes need to be put away.

These new AI humanoid robots are a completely new paradigm, because they can do a new task without needing to first be programmed for that task.

The ability of AI Robots to learn changes everything.

There have been non-AI single function barista robots since 2016, and while these prove that robots can operate an expresso machine, as single function robots they have to be programed for the task and can only do that one task. Just changing the coffee machine could require expensive changes to program code, and the small market for such a special purpose robot makes the costly.

At right is a video of a humanoid robot making a coffee, although this example is of a simply capsule machine, this video is still interesting, because the robot learnt how to use the machine just by observing, with no instruction or programming required. A difference between robots and humans, is that once any one robot of the same type has learnt a skill, what it has learnt can be stored in the cloud and then become a skill of every robot of the same type.

As opposed to current function barista robots, a humanoid robot can the role of a barista also take orders and payment, but also put away the chairs, load cups into the dishwasher etc. If prices suggested by Elon Musk are any guide, the mass production of humanoid robots could also make them less expensive than low volume single function robots.

What jobs can humanoid AI robots make redundant?

A list of jobs AI could make redundant already suggested packers/packagers, and the reality is jobs like these and those baristas and other of hospitality staff are already at risk from traditional single purpose robots.

In most workplaces a supervisor will still be needed for some time, but all workers on this list reporting to a supervisor could be made redundant:

• Packers/packagers.
• Warehouse staff.
• Factory workers.
• Hospitality workers.
• Health care nurses and orderlies.
• Tradesmen.
• Construction workers.
• Mine workers.
• Military infantry.

How many billion jobs can AI robots make redundant?

Musk took to X, formerly Twitter, to concur with the prediction made by David Holz, the founder of artificial intelligence (AI) research lab Midjourney. Holz said in a post last week that “we should be expecting a billion humanoid robots on earth in the 2040s and a hundred billion (mostly alien) robots throughout the solar system in the 2060s.”

Musk replied, “Probably something like that, provided the foundations of civilization are stable.”

Fox Jan 2024: Elon Musk says to expect roughly 1 billion humanoid robots in 2040s

Almost the exact same text can be found online at:

• New York Post Jan 2024: Elon Musk expects 1 billion humanoid robots on Earth by 2040s
• GBNews Jan 2024: Elon Musk says there will be one BILLION humanoid robots on Earth by 2040
• Bitfinancenews: Musk predicts that by 2040 there will be one billion humanoid robots on the market

To put things in perspective, the world has between 1 and 2 billion cars, so this would be at least half as many robots as there are, now in 2024, cars. Picture the number of cars you currently see each week and imagine in future seeing half that number of humanoid robots!

David Holz is the founder of an AI research company Midjourney, and Elon Musk is highly invested in robot future, so both have reasons for potential confirmation bias. All the stories attribute the 1 billion number to Elon Musk, who really only stated that it sounded approximately correct, and added the note of caution that it all depends on civilization remaining stable.

Even if the real number will be 10x lower, it would still be such a change that it is hard to visualize, and yet, even though Elon Musk has a history of optimistic forecasts, being 10x too optimistic would represent new ground even for him.

In 2022 there were just over 500,000 new industrial robots installed, but without knowing how many installations replace older installations, it is difficult to calculate the total, but clearly the total is in the millions already. By 2019 there were 30 million home robots and 11 million entertainment and leisure robots.

By now in 2024, although there are almost zero AI humanoid robots, it seems likely there are already more than 50-million of their predecessor single application robots, with most of those being home robots, and most of those home robots being robot vacuums.

Just a future where every home that currently has a robot vacuum soon having a humanoid robot still feels like science fiction, and the reality is we may be picturing everyone who currently has a car having a humanoid robot.

Anthrobocene or Anthropocene.

Anthropocene.

The Anthropocene is a label for a new geological epoch that has been proposed, but not at least yet accepted by those approving geological epochs, as describing a time period when the impact of humans on the Earth is so significant that it is the defining characteristic of the time period.

The history can be found here, and a quick overview of the name can be found below.

At this time, “Anthropocene” is a very useful label for the time when humans are having such destructive impact on the environment, even though this may not continue to apply long enough for it to in hindsight label something that last as long as is normal for an epoch. Epochs are easier to name in hindsight when they are over.

The current level of acceptance of the name is well expressed here:

A proposal to codify a new geological epoch based on humanity’s influence on Earth has been rejected.

It means “the Anthropocene” will not be added to the chronostratigraphic chart featured in textbooks and on classroom posters to record the major changes in Earth history.

The International Union of Geological Sciences upheld an earlier vote by a lower committee to dismiss the idea.

But it also recognised the term Anthropocene had common currency.

“Despite its rejection as a formal unit of the geologic timescale, the Anthropocene will nevertheless continue to be used not only by Earth and environmental scientists but also by social scientists, politicians and economists as well as by the public at large,” the IUGS said.

“It will remain an invaluable descriptor of human impact on the Earth system.”

Anthropocene unit of geological time is rejected

One of the biggest challenges is when the Anthropocene should begin, with possibilities ranging from the first production of tools passed from generation to generation by early human ancestors through to the year 2000 CE, with proposal actually ranging from Neolithic to the 1960s:

Various start dates for the Anthropocene have been proposed, ranging from the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution (12,000–15,000 years ago), to as recently as the 1960s as a starting date.

Wikipedia: Anthropocene

Anthrobocene: Anth-robo-cene.

Are moving beyond the Anthropocene?

The name Anthrobocene is intended to encompass a time period following the emergence of artificial intelligent life. It is not about robots taking over, but coexisting in a synergistic way with humans, who lay by this logic represented the previous step in the evolution of life through their accessorised evolution.

Epoch names

Even if projections there will be as many as 1 billion AI robots in the world by the 2040s are too aggressive, the impact of both online AI and AI robots will change the world even more than the remarkable changes seen during the 20th century.

I suggest, bar some complete collapse of society, this is an even bigger change than that which has created calls for the current time to be called the Anthropocene.

Whether or not the Anthropocene itself qualifies as a new epoch, by the time we take into account AI becoming like a life form, then we are entering a new epoch, and potentially even a new eon as potentially superseding the Phanerozoic.

This marks the time when biological life exists in combination with “robotic” life and AI intelligence. Although the terminator motion pictures propose an age of machines, the term Anthrobocene is intended to suggest and age of both humans coexisting with AI intelligence and robotic machines.

However, a wider definition of the term anthrobotics has been proposed, in which the meaning is derived from anthropology rather than anthropomorphic. This usage includes robots that respond to input in a human-like fashion, rather than simply mimicking human actions, thus theoretically being able to respond more flexibly or to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. This expanded definition also encompasses robots that are situated in social environments with the ability to respond to those environments appropriately, such as insect robots, robotic pets, and the like.

Anthrobotics is now taught at some universities, encouraging students not only to design and build robots for environments beyond current industrial applications, but also to speculate on the future of robotics that are embedded in the world at large, as mobile phones and computers are today. In 2016 philosopher Luis de Miranda created the Anthrobotics Cluster at the University of Edinburgh “a platform of cross-disciplinary research that seeks to investigate some of the biggest questions that will need to be answered”^[1] on the relationship between humans, robots and intelligent systems and “a think tank on the social spread of robotics, and also how automation is part of the definition of what humans have always been”.^[2] to explore the symbiotic relationship between humans and automated protocols.

Wikipedia: Anthrobotics

Interestingly, notes on the Anthrobotics cluster created by Luis de Miranda state:

Along with the Creation of Reality Group,^[14] he was the founder of the Anthrobotics Cluster, “a platform of cross-disciplinary research”^[15] working on the relationship between humans, robots and artificial intelligence: “partial automation is part of the definition of what humans have always been”,^[16] “a hybrid unity made of flesh and protocols, creation and creature”.^[17]

Luis de Miranda

With the words “automation is part of the definition of what humans have always been” aligning closely with the concept of humans an accessorised species. Although “automation”, unlike “accessories” does not necessarily include clothing, jewelry and accessories beyond automation, and the role of evolution of automation is not necessarily present, the core concept is very similar.

This core concept, that human societies are becoming an ecosystem with not only humans and the microbiome of non-human cells within the human bodies, but the machines which increasingly will take on the characteristics of being like another form of life.

What is in an epoch name, and what timespan should apply to these labels?

All epochs have the suffix “cene”, from Ancient Greek word for “new” or “recent” proceeded by a word for whatever it is that is new in the time period in comparison with previous times.

Anthropocene is formed from “anthropo” for the Ancient Greek word “anthropos” for human with the suffix “cene” meaning “new” or “recent”.

It is generally assumed the Ancient Greeks were unaware of any previous species that could be also described as “human”, but that leaves it ambiguous as to whether “anthropos” is specifically to refer to Homo sapiens or could include Homo erectus, Homo habilus or even any early earlier humans should they be discovered.

An epoch dating from as many as two million years ago could be most logical if the Anthropocene is intended to cover all the time of humans on Earth, as opposed to when humans reached some specific milestone. A major problem is agreeing on a start date, and that best suited to geology may not be that best suited to getting action on climate change.

Anth-robo-cene is my own name, and not currently in usage beyond this site as far as I know and is built from taking a further contraction of “anthropos” down to “anth”, adding “robo” as a prefix for things robotic as with “Robocop” etc, despite the Ancient Greeks having no real word for robot to my knowledge.

The name Anthrobocene is intended to encompass a time period following the emergence of artificial intelligent life. It is not about robots taking over, but coexisting in a synergistic way with humans, who lay by this logic represented the previous step in the evolution of life through their accessorised evolution.

This name works best if the name Anthropcene is used to reflect the previous 2 million years and the rise of accessorised evolution.

Updates:

• 2024 May 30 : Answering the essential questions.
• 2024 April 7 : Added we could all own robots if we still have jobs.
• 2024 March 30: first published.