I think it is possible that one day robots will do all the work and it seems logical that as we progress toward that point programming will be a pretty safe and in demand job.
However - I think it is important to consider the political implications of such a future. It is unlikely that 50% unemployment is politically acceptable. If we were to move to a more communist / socialist society would robots still be doing the work?
I truly think that at some point (far) in the future, robots will put everyone out of "real" work. They'll do everything for us. Money and economics will become irrelevant. Humans will be left to do what we enjoy at will, whether it's spending time with friends and family, exercising, playing music, painting, building things, or all of the above, of course. Some might even take it upon themselves to improve whatever systems are in place, if that's what they enjoy doing. The main obstacle we face, however, is getting everyone on the same page and making the transition from an economy dependent on cash flow to one that is automated where no one has any real responsibilities. I know it's hard to imagine right now, and we can presently think of a million ways why it will never happen; but it's just my opinion: where there's a will there's a way, and for something like this we have to really think outside the box.
I agree with most of what you are saying, I have similar beliefs.
I think that we need to redesign society from a technological and _primatological_ standpoint because I think a lot of the extreme hierarchy and brutality we see in our world is a result of the way that our cultural frameworks handle our primitive needs such as various ways that men compete for sexual success (such as resource acquisition).
The thing that I think people are missing as a realistic concern or change is that by the time these robots are able to replace most human jobs, which doesn't seem like it will be too many decades from now, shortly after that, we have to expect that the robots will become even more capable than humans.
The robots will be smarter than people. Normal, unaltered humans will probably eventually be treated like animals. I think that people don't take this possibility seriously (to me it is a likelihood, and probably within my lifetime).
I don't think that means we should prevent the next 'species' from taking over, but I do think it means we need to plan for ways that we can integrate with super-intelligent technology in order to stay relevant. And I think that is going to be a very practical issue within a small number of decades.
In order for "robots" to completely "take over" the transition will have to be MUCH longer than just one lifetime. Otherwise we'll end up with 40% unemployment and mass rioting.
It'll probably take us 50 years to have emission-free vehicles dominating the auto market, let alone robot overlords.
Maybe I'm just pessimistic (or optimistic), but I think Humans are too dumb and/or too smart to create an AI that will overthrow us. More likely, we'll ruin our society by overpopulating and draining our natural resources before we can prepare a suitable "Earth 2".
It isn't safe in the absolute sense, but it is the safest: as soon as AIs can program, they can automate whatever else is left themselves, probably fairly quickly.
This is not necessarily the case. Humans are machines that can do programming. And yet there are many many tasks for which we are unable to design machines to automate. Technology takes time to progress, AI or no AI.
That said, strong AI is so difficult, and we are so far away from it, that it is likely that by the time it happens we will have automated everything else already.
I actually think social work will be the safest job. In a world filled with robots, people will want to talk to real people :)
50% unemployment is fine. That's what automation is about. Freeing people from mind numbing boring work, which is most of it really.
The problem is really what do you do with a lot of people who need to do anything and probably don't need to exist? They tend to multiply quite rapidly as well as there is nothing else to do.
Nope. So far, automation has been about efficiency not liberating oppressed workers. I don't think that will change anytime soon. Millions of people endure 'mind-numbing boring work' because that's what they need to do to survive. Do you really think they're going to view their replacement as a reprieve from their oppression? They aren't paid afterwards, they're put out on their ass.
In a society that demands employment, 50% unemployment is a death-sentence. That's half your population draining the subsidies dry and raising taxes on the working half. Suddenly both sides are angry. Prisons become overburdened, people dead in the streets, Governments overthrown, CEO assassinations, etc.
Sure, in a fantasy land where things don't cost money and land isn't 'owned', 50% unemployment could be ok. Unfortunately that's not us yet.
I'm not saying the focus is, but an accidental side effect is the "pushing up" of labour so that the bottom end of the market have no place in the capitalist hierarchy. The result of this is massive amounts of low skilled yet unemployed people who are a "tax burden" (or is this just a side effect of capitalism's relentless push to a service economy). That is basically Europe and the US summed up.
Society is polarised by automation. The gap widens every day.
I've destroyed hundreds if not thousands of manual work positions over the years by making software that replaces them. I've now got to support the uenmploymed with my tax contribution. Welcome to the flawed turd-bag that capitalism is.
However - I think it is important to consider the political implications of such a future. It is unlikely that 50% unemployment is politically acceptable. If we were to move to a more communist / socialist society would robots still be doing the work?
It is unlikely that we all end up programming.