this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

828 readers
1 users here now

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

"automation constitutes constant capital and human labour is variable capital

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

What do those mean?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Machines cannot do maintenance on themselves.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago

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

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)