Source: Gabrielle Lurie
Robots have been roaming around San Francisco delivering food and packages, but the city has been passing regulations to avoid the possibility of automation "gobbling up jobs." These regulations include limiting companies to three robots, limiting the city to nine robots, and confining robots to industrial areas. Such restrictions, some supporters of the robots say, "slows down the process of testing." Others also remain optimistic, believing that San Francisco can pave the way for the creation of well-paid manufacturing jobs, contrary to the threat of automation these robots pose.
Supervisor Norman Yee proposed a few "guiding principles." He suggested that, in general, emerging technology businesses should seek to "provide a net common good," shall not prevent people from accessing resources or infrastructure, make their technology accessible to "vulnerable populations," share data about how they operate, and make sure tech grows instead of reduces the labor force.
Now, startups are under stricter guidelines. Do you think the city is justified in regulating technology businesses in this manner? Why or why not? What do you think about Norman Yee's "guiding principles"? Do you completely agree with them, or is there anything you would change? What are some of the greater implications politicians will need to consider as innovation occurs at a rapid rate?
34 comments:
I believe the city is justified in regulating technology companies because robots will generally be more in demand than human workers, and will compete with workers for jobs. However, while robots are efficient, they have the potential to reduce the labor force and take many blue-collar jobs. The robot limit regulations seem fair, but of course we have to wait and see if these regulations do an adequate job. Norman Yee's guiding principles justifiably favor the community and majority more than the technology businesses, but the companies do need to make profit off these robots. The companies certainly have the capability to follow these guidelines, but the question is how can they maximize their profit, while still holding the community in consideration.
I do think that the city has justification to regulate the businesses because at this stage they are trying to figure things out before possibly reducing the work force. For now, this is a good step and after they have some plan or something laid out, they should go ahead and make the restrictions a bit more lenient. I do agree with Norman Yee's guiding principles because this is the best way to get everyone what they want. By making technology accessible, but not dominant, he will help create a more advanced society while also keeping many in the work force. I think that some of our next steps should be to shape the process around these principles. I actually completely agree with his principles and feel like they are perfect to shape the next steps around. As for politicians, they should probably consider how the economy and GDP can be affected by these robots and evaluate how they should shape progress around this new technology.
I understand why the city has strict regulations. They are looking out for the people in the city. People are fighting over job positions because there are so few of them. Taking more positions away by putting in robots would only make it worse because unemployment rates would increase. I think they came to a good compromise by letting only a few robots do their job.
I think it is smart now to have regulations because robotic delivery is new. It is still fairly early but I could see how too many robots on the streets could be an issue. The potential issues these robots could cause would far outweigh the benefits. If you do not have enough robots then the delivery demand will not be met solely by robots. If you have too many robots then there will be a loss of jobs and space on the sidewalk.In addition, how would these companies who produce a profit without the ability to mobilize a fair amount of robots. The idea is cool but to me it seems like a gimmick.
Contrary to what people have said above, I find it hard to agree with the city's decision to regulate these robots.
In my mind, the claim that robots "take" jobs, and therefore need to be regulated, seems quite narrow-minded. The widespread use of email services like Gmail result in fewer jobs for postal workers, so should email be regulated too? Only three email addresses allowed per company, and nine for each city?
Many of the tools and resources that we use today have at some point "taken away jobs" because they assist us in some aspect of our lives. Whereas previously, some task had to be done manually, we now have the technology to automate that process and can complete it in a quicker and more efficient manner. Isn't that the definition of innovation?
The thing is, developments like the one mentioned in the article don't actually "take away jobs." With recent technological advancements, there is no doubt that some jobs have become obsolete. However, this imbalance has been more than corrected by the surge of new jobs that these advancements have brought in areas like artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, cloud computing, and so on.
Instead of looking at delivery robots as a threat to current jobs, we should view them as an opportunity to create new ones. There are countless examples of this already happening, and many involve technology that we use in our daily lives. Each of these developments has improved our lives in some way and opened the door for even more research and advancement. So, rather than policies to protect jobs, these regulations seem more like barriers to innovation.
I understand and agree with parts of both perspectives shown above. I think that Avichal does make a good point that we can't just focus on the negative aspects of these robots since there are lots of benefits that come with employing these robots including cost, productivity, and efficiency. However, I also feel like there does need to be some level of regulation in using these robots as they do reduce the labor force and take away the jobs of many. And although these technological advancements do create a surge of new jobs, these "new jobs" are mainly in areas like artificial intelligence, engineering, programming, etc like Avichal pointed out. So while they do create more employment in these fields and these "white collar" jobs, they only do so by taking away employment from the lower to middle-level jobs, especially those with routine and manual labor. In order to protect the jobs of the blue collar workers, Norman Yee's guiding principles seem pretty justifiable to start off with and go from there. Our future will definitely entail more robots such as the ones mentioned in this article, however, for now, these guidelines seem necessary for the members of the society and their jobs.
I acknowledge the fact that the city has strict regulations due to the fact that robots are somewhat new. The introduction of too many robots will ultimately reduce the number of jobs in the city. As of now, there are just so many problems that can occur when technology companies begin to increase production. It's like the introduction of the drone few years ago. When the drone was first introduced, people didn't think it was too big of a deal, but until there began a mass production, cities set limits on where you can fly them. Similar to this robot situation, regulations have been put in to decrease the chance of a huge amount of problems especially regarding the workforce
I think regulations might be helpful as we learn how robots might affect our cities, but I think limiting to 9 robots per city is a little too strict. This means that only 3 companies could test robots in a city, which might prevent another company from being able to test their robot that could be more effective in some way. I think, however, that it is acceptable to have a time in which regulations are present in order to give both companies and cities an idea of challenges these technologies might present in the future, and give both entities ample time to work to fix these problems before robots become too common.
San Francisco are one of those cities infamous for their horrible sidewalks. It's not going to help when some mid-western transplant going to showcase their robots in front of the whole city, blocking commuters and more. I think the city is justified in regulating robots and other technology businesses. Even though it may hinder some, it the long run it shows these startups that they are invincible just because they use the money of people on the Internet. I do think that a common good approach is good, but it won't stop from people in the future from exploiting that for our money.
I think that the current regulations are justified. I think it is important that San Francisco is able to keep a good balance between having robots but while also making sure too many jobs are not taken away. The current regulations should be kept around for a little to see how it effects the city. But eventually, I think the city should expand on their regulations a little more to allow for more robots, because, like Lydia said, I think only 9 robots per city is a little strict and it won't really effect too many jobs.
The prominence of robots in the streets does need to be regulated as it can be a nuisance to citizens and will take away a lot of jobs. Though the innovation can save money and time, I can see the robots causing problems in multiple ways. For now the guidelines that Yee has set are smart, but in the future companies are bound to lean heavy on robots. In all, the main problem will be the loss of jobs and the accessibility of robots for select groups.
I believe that a middle ground between Avichal's belief and Arthur's belief is the reality of the situation. Basically, these robots will directly take away some basic labor jobs like deliverymen because the robots will be doing the delivering. But also like Avichal said they will open up new jobs in other areas like making sure the robots are working functionally and are smarter. So in reality, blue color jobs will be taken away while white collar jobs will be added. This will lead to a boost in technology but another job that normally required no education is being replaced with one that requires something probably through college. This is a trend in our society. As we become more advanced, more education is required to understand the more complex systems. I worry that one day we will reach a limit to our technological advancement because we are limited for a time until our death.
Anyway, I think it is good that the city is putting restrictions on the robots because corporations really only care about making money and they would gladly fire all of their workers in favor of robots which are much, much cheaper.
The future is here: robots, artificially intelligent assistants, self driving cars. But it's far less Utopian than we were hoping for. In all the optimistic sci-fi movies, the tech had no strings attached. But that's simply not the case in real life. All these devices are made by companies with an agenda, and all these devices negatively affect certain groups of people. We will continue to create better and more life-changing technology, but I'm worried that it will make our lives more difficult rather than easier. We need to rethink the purpose of innovation and consider whether technological progress leads to societal progress.
It is completely necessary for regulation of these robots. I believe that innovation is outpacing law making and that the crowding of city streets by robots could be a problem of the future. Additionally, law makers must make it clear to start ups and tech businesses that they will be under regulation even as they continue to develop new technologies. These companies are attempting to push their product and agenda and should be treated accordingly.
Although, I do agree that their should be some regulation (More so over how it is transported, keeping track if anyone tampered with the device) more than anything. Only 9 robots is way too strict for the size of a city
If you really think that manufacturing jobs will be created in San Francisco, you are delusional. There is no space for massive factories and the land is simply too expensive to build on. Hopefully, this point was not a serious one because labor is not easy to come by at a cheap price in a city of ever-rising rents and astronomic tech sector growth.
The entire United States is justified in regulating tech businesses in a manner so that we don't have millions of unemployed people on the streets without anything to do. What happens when you have millions of unemployed people? They collect food stamps and riot in the streets for their lack of a job. We wouldn't want that to happen. Norman Yee's proposals are a tell-tale sign of the bureaucracy in place in San Francisco. The Board of Supervisors will be reactionary and only take initiative when people see the problem effect them. Or, in other words, when it is too late. Action needs to be taken now for there not to be mass unemployment. He has essentially changed nothing and promised everything in his "guiding principles."
If I were him, I would test out an automation tax that would tax the "automated labor" at the same rate at which income is taxed in San Francisco. The revenues collected from the tax would be put towards the retraining and housing of those displaced by automation itself. This would mitigate the problem and provide an effective incentive to make products with heavier human involvement.
I do not agree that these robots should be regulated. Innovation is here, and the government wants to regulate it? To me, this is unfair, and just another great example of the government overreach of power. I don't think that the availability of robots would take away a significant number of jobs. The free market would solve the problem, and opportunities would be created as time passes.
I agree with the comments above that it is a time of innovation and technology continues to grow everyday. The government shouldn't have a say in regulation the number of robots in the city. 9 is a really small number too! I agree with Norman Yee's ideas of finding a common good and making sure tech grows, but doesn't reduce the labor force. But these companies are still just testing out their robots and aren't reducing the labor force yet. I don't think the robots should be regulated unless it really becomes a problem with the labor force. If people begin to lose their jobs to robots, then it becomes a problem as people need jobs to stay employed and provide for their family or even themselves. Robots aren't paid and are basically working for free, or at least they are programmed to. Technology is growing everyday and shouldn't be restricted.
I feel like these robots should definitely not be regulated. In a country where technology is thriving, regulating it will only hinder further success.I think the reason for regulation is a strong fear about technology soon taking jobs of many people around the world. With some cooperation, I'm sure a compromise can be found regarding these food delivery robots.
I've seen these robots on the street before, and they tend to take up a lot of space and are a nuisance. I feel that they should be regulated to make sure there is still space for pedestrians. Additionally, having robots do jobs like delivery takes jobs away from people who need them. Tech needs to grow and thrive, but there are places other than our sidewalks where robots could help- such as in factories. These robots should be regulated more than they are, making sure the jobs they do are ones that would not be desirable for humans. With no regulation, many jobs would be taken away from people who need them. I am not against robots, but like Yee states, we need to find a middle ground.
I've seen hotels in other countries with automated robots bringing foods and beverages to each room in place of a human, and I truly believe this is going to be the future. There is no denying that technology is advancing quickly and robots will be center of attention in present years and years to come. I do completely understand the concern that these robots will be taking away jobs. However, I fail to see how continuing to place regulations on something that will end up becoming normal is going to change things. This may be a horrible comparison but Amazon and other online companies are taking away major business from retail stores as more and more people turn to Amazon for the cheaper prices and the ease of delivery. There is already a huge shift in society and there is no going back. Sure, they can place regulations on the robots for now, but the future of filled with robots seems inevitable.
I believe it was a good idea to limit the amount of robots that are allowed to be in the possession of a single corporation or business in the city. Robots are cheaper to maintain and will undoubtedly replace much of our current workforce if an unlimited amount were to be distributed. Perhaps then, robots will rule the world, and not the people. I believe the robots should have higher quality over quantity. Instead of producing more robots, there should be more put into the functions and quality of the robot.
As our technology continues to progress, this will only become a larger problem for us. Robots will be able to conduct manual labor jobs that may be the basis of one’s life. It seems obvious that politicians would restrict robots taking jobs from normal people, but as the abilities and availabilities of robots grows so will the demand for them. Soon every company will be trying to fill their workforce with robots, as this is significantly cheaper than paying for uneducated workers. A balance must be struck between satisfying workers and big companies trying to exploit them.
Yes, of course regulating some parts the technology is justified because these robots are on the city's streets and have a direct interaction with humans. As we move along into the future, the issue of robots taking the jobs of people will always be present. Jobs like being a cashier and delivering food may no longer exist because of the existence of robots. We must have a smooth transition into this or else would economy would greatly suffer, due to the large amount of people losing jobs. Even though they may be hindering innovation a little bit, it is worth it to protect some of the jobs of the American people. Some people argue that the creation of these robots will create more jobs; however, these new jobs will not be going to the same group of people. Are these cashiers and delivery people going to learn how to assemble robots? I do not think so.
Like other commenters have mentioned, I believe that robots and other similar technology is and will be a growing part of the future and the workforce. As such, I think that restrictions on their implementation are only slowing down the inevitable. I believe that Yee's "guiding principles" are a good idea because they look out for people in the workforce and allow the area to ease into the use of robots. Other than that, however, I think the city should focus on balancing and creating guidelines for the inevitable use of robots in companies, rather than limiting or restricting it.
I think by restricting technological advancements that benefit society would only slow down our progress as a nation. These inventions are made with the intention of making lives better. The city should not think of ways to regulate them, but to find ways to assimilate them into the work force to assist not only the company as a whole but the workers as well. Through regulation we are only slowing down the inevitable.
I do not think that the city of San Francisco should be so strictly regulating the development of these robots. Like many others, I think that this kind of technological advance is one of many that will continue to progress how we live our every day lives. The main concern over these robots seems to be that they will take many of our jobs, but right now it appears that the only jobs they could be taking is that of nine different food delivery servicemen. Something that obviously has been thought of is that while this will take some jobs it will create many. For example, the more robot deliverymen we have the more programmers and engineers we will need, not to mention repairmen. An entire industry could be developed and expanded around the creation and maintenance of these robots, and to me that seems pretty cool.
I think that SF is justified in regulating the robot development. I can understand Keegan's point about a new robot industry become a reality, and the jobs it could create, but as of now, the robots are taking the jobs are delivery servicemen. This may seem like a small population to worry about, but if the robots continue to develop, lots of UPS, FedEx, and food delivery workers will be put out of a job. The idea of having more programmer and engineer jobs is great if you are skilled in that field, but it doesn't replace the jobs the robots took over. I think that the idea of robots delivering things is cool, and more convenient for the people ordering things, but it would take away the jobs of hardworking people without providing a different job for them.
I can understand why the city would be regulating the use of robots because they could take jobs from people. I agree with Norman's policy on the idea that tech should grow and help businesses but not take jobs from people who need them. I agree with Kate that it is starting off small with just delivery jobs but it could grow and take more jobs than that. The idea of robots doing small jobs is good to increase productivity but it must not be allowed to grow into something we can't control.
I can understand why the city would be regulating the use of robots because they could take jobs from people. I agree with Norman's policy on the idea that tech should grow and help businesses but not take jobs from people who need them. I agree with Kate that it is starting off small with just delivery jobs but it could grow and take more jobs than that. The idea of robots doing small jobs is good to increase productivity but it must not be allowed to grow into something we can't control.
As many have previously stated, I think that the city of SF is justified in enacting these restrictions. While the common fear with automation is that it will replace everyone's jobs and make human labor obsolete, in reality, the rise of robots will push the labor force into working in new types of jobs, such as programming and engineering. In the short term, however, it will push a lot of people out of work, especially those who work in laborious, blue-collar occupations. Right now, this is beginning to occur in SF, as delivery people are being replaced by robots. It has caused a bit of a stir in the city, which makes sense because people will be angry to loose their jobs, so I think that the city did the right thing to set some guidelines for the use of robots for previously-human occupations. SF is one of the first cities to enact legislation and adopt principles such as these, so perhaps these actions will serve as a positive standard for other cities across the globe to follow when dealing with automation. Despite all of this, I think that in the near future, politicians are going to have to realize that enacting legislation like this is not going to be an effective long-term solution to the issue of automation replacing jobs. The fact that jobs will be replaced is an unavoidable reality, and it is going to be almost impossible for politicians to please all of these displaced and unpleased workers because not only will it be hard to prevent jobs from being replaced and to regain these replaced jobs, but it will be hard to convince and incentivize industries to think that human labor is more cost-effective than robot-labor, which is almost never the case. It will be interesting to see how this situation in SF plays out on the global scale in the near future.
My personal opinion is this: If there are people and companies that want to positively change the way we live through innovations like these, we should support them. If their robots are well-tested and reliable, the only real drawback, as this article points out, is the loss of jobs. I agree with Supervisor Norman Yee that the robots should only be allowed to roam if they have a "net common good," and I think that the robots do. Robots such as the ones in San Francisco, if they are fast, efficient, and reliable, will make everyone's life significantly more convenient. People will have more time to focus on the things they want to do. Besides, there are many more new jobs that could spawn as a result.
What should deserve a lot of strict regulations, however, is Artificial Intelligence (AI). While it seems like you would only be able to see the dangers of AI in fictional movies and television shows, it is something that is a lot scarier than we think. If the AI is smart enough and is connected to the cloud, it could hack into numerous secure places in the world and use that against us. To them, . Because AI can be designed to learn from humans, they could also learn about what it means to be polite and nice, and develop negative emotions against us if we do not show the same gestures of politeness we show to other people.
While the robots on the street in SF don't deserve many strict regulations, the potential dangers of AI does.
Post a Comment