Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

http://failedevolution.blogspot.com/2015/10/stephen-hawking-confirms-problem-is.html

by nomoba • 10 years ago

118 167 10 years ago

failedevolution.blogspot.com

arbuge• 10 years ago

With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?

mnsc• 10 years ago

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeniusCripple

The inspiration for many of these entries: Stephen Hawking, perhaps one of the most famous scientists in the world today, who as the result of Motor Neurone Disease (also known as ALS and Lou Gehrig's Disease) is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair, and who, since a 1985 tracheotomy, has used a computer voice synthesizer to speak. Somehow, though, he was able to have an extramarital affair, so apparently not everything is paralyzed.

PavlovsCat5• 10 years ago

Extrapolate from current trends and the general apathy of the people who could change them.

Is there anything you are aware of that would prevent it, other than "it might not happen, for some reason"?

t0rb3n• 10 years ago

You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living? Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?

stevetrewick2• 10 years ago

Basic economics and history? Common sense?

In the 1930s US almost all the jobs were in agriculture. Then robots took those jobs. Happened all at once, which hurt, but then what happened?

Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? What's everyone else going to do? Sit on their hands and wait to starve to death?

Every year something like 10% of jobs (IIRC) disappear and are replaced by other, different jobs. That's a trend we can extropalate and economists do. The projected impact of 'robots taking our jobs' is (again, IIRC) single digits per annum.

Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is.

The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. This also arises simply from extrapolating current trends. Not that long ago the bulk of humanity was grubbing around in the dirt trying not to get killed by bears or die of disease. The proportion of the population for whom this an everyday reality gets thankfully smaller every decade. The long term trend of human history is that things consistently get better, usually because of technology. Why should that change?

boken• 10 years ago

Apathy and disagreement are different things. So are extrapolation and confirmation.

No one is in a position to "confirm" this statement or prove it irrecusably wrong. More or less tenable arguments may be made, more or less well. I think Hawking does well here, behind the poorer commentary, but I'm unwilling to engage in or let lie propaganda for any end, particularly on a forum on which we are to default to respect for others' ability to engage in thoughtful dialogue. The source for this article is not easily to be dismissed, but the article's title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline that suggests one reading over another while pretending to fact is propagandistic.

lhecker• 10 years ago

Because the linked article does not capture his original words well. Instead he said:

If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.
Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution.
So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

asift8• 10 years ago

If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.

When you start with ridiculous premises, you're going to reach ridiculous conclusions.

wcummings• 10 years ago

He's in his "telling other fields they're wrong about everything phrase"

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556

Houshalter5• 10 years ago

Are physicists not allowed to have opinions on things? Someone asked him a question what he thought about robots, and he answered. He's not going out of his way to claim economists are all wrong and you should listen to him instead. HN is doing that.

forgottenpass• 10 years ago

With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?

Yeah, the physicist is out of his depth on capitalism. Just ask the forum full of computer nerds and wantrepreneurs!

ArkyBeagle6• 10 years ago

There is no "g" - general intelligence. We all have to watch this.

igorgue• 10 years ago

Hahaha, that was amazing. It's always the problem here, nobody can just read and shut up. Everyone thinks starting a startup makes them the smartest guys in the room.

I told my friend: "Hacker News: The place where people can call bullshit to someone as smart as Stephen Hawking..."

makosdv• 10 years ago

They aren't even talking about Capitalism. They're talking about Cronyism.

seanmcdirmid3• 10 years ago

If labor's value is decreased and capital's value is amplified, it eventually leads to a feedback loop where capital easily begets more capital, the very nature of cronyism.

danharaj• 10 years ago

You can't just define capitalism as "the good parts" and cronyism as "the bad parts". There is no mechanism that is part of capitalism that prevents rampant exploitation and capital accumulation, because that is the basis of capitalism.

cbeach9• 10 years ago

Without capitalist advancement, prices would rise at a frightening rate.

Decide what you want - fully stocked supermarket shelves thanks to capitalist efficiency. Or rationing, shortages and civil unrest thanks to government intervention in the markets and the dissolution of business.

kingkawn• 10 years ago

Considering how deeply this community has internalized the importance of creative thought your analysis is pretty limiting to any new possibility being possible.

carapat_virulat2• 10 years ago

Everything is possible, except any small change in capitalism. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0vRYWtcOU

cbeach9• 10 years ago

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with an alternative to capitalism that isn't communism, or some dilute form of communism.

We have socialism - the erosion of capitalism to provide a reward for those that won't or can't work.

What's your "new possibility"? Without a proposal, your point is moot.

asift8• 10 years ago

How? Free market capitalism is the epitome of creative thought.

It's not a limiting doctrine that says you can only do this or that. It's a doctrine that says you are free to engage with others however you want so long as you respect their autonomy and freedom to make their own decisions.

If someone wants to start a voluntary socialist commune, they have the freedom to do so within a free market. Unfortunately for aspiring socialists, most people don't voluntarily want to adopt socialism (at least beyond a particular point) and socialists must then turn to force and coercion in order to enact their preferred style of society. Ignoring the emergent orders that arise from a free society of creative individuals is the truly limiting mode of thinking. (Note: I just used socialism as an example. You could substitute any style of governance that doesn't respect individual autonomy.)

halviti• 10 years ago

Your comment makes the assumption that capitalism is a binary.

elros• 10 years ago

[citation needed]

cbeach9• 10 years ago

The USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, Communist China, North Korea, Venezuela, Argentina...

sametmax3• 10 years ago

That is assuming that capitalism is the only way to get this kind of efficiency.

In fact, it's the only way we could both imagine and successfully implement, but that's it.

On the other hand, we now know the limits of it, the corruption it brings, and that's a certitude.

So an intelligent and educated reaction is not to say "if you want result you need a self corrupting system" but rather "we like this abundance, and we can see our way to get it needs to be improved. How can we keep a balance between those ?"

cbeach9• 10 years ago

Power brings corruption.

The kind of state power brought by communism brought the worst corruption the world has ever seen.

Ensorceled5• 10 years ago

I refuse to believe that our only choices as a species is between the very worst of libertarian capitalist excess and the very worst of Stalinism.

I firmly reject the idea that nothing else can work or should even be tried.

taneq2• 10 years ago

What, you're saying that excluding the middle ground is a fallacy? By Jove, I think you may be onto something!

raverbashing• 10 years ago

Yada yada yada some more "anti-capitalist" whining

andrewclunn• 10 years ago

How can they hoard A.I. ? I mean software becomes cheaper really quickly. That's what I am not getting about this "warning."

mxuribe2• 10 years ago

Maybe if "AI" or "robots" or some equivalent automaton becomes a sort of de facto currency - that is, a gateway to prosperity...then it could be yet another resource hoarded by those who supposedly have power...i think that's what is meant.

maxxxxx2• 10 years ago

They could implement more IP laws for example, patent everything and extract fees that way.

kaa2102• 10 years ago

This analysis is correct. Programs achieve the objective of the programmer. Currently, the goal is to maximize profits. Imagine a supply chain with profit-optimizing drones and self-driving cars. The "3 rules" can be followed while human involvement in wage-earning activities is drastically reduced.

Toenex• 10 years ago

Without robots how will we fight our Capitalist overlords?

mxuribe2• 10 years ago

Obviously if we can't depend on technology to defend us, we'd have to resort to alternative methods: we'd have to genetically manipulate some higher-order species to help defend us. Maybe birds, no dolphins; better yet: apes. Yep, that's it: we'll tweak apes. That couldn't end wrong for the human species, right? ;-)

Houshalter5• 10 years ago

Hawking does believe that AI will be a danger to humanity long term. The short term problems caused by near future robots is a different subject.

Capitalism isn't inherently the problem. We could have capitalism and tax capital owners at a high rate, and distribute the wealth much more evenly. It's possible everyone could become capital owners and it would be normal to live off interest instead of work. Like owning the robot that replaces your job.

This has happened before, kinds sorta. Everyone mentions farming has been automated almost completely. But the farmers mostly owned their own farms, and didn't all become unemployed, and instead benefited from it. However many farm laborers were forced to move to the city.

sametmax3• 10 years ago

It would be very hard to implement a capitalism with even distribution.

By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else.

So you need mechanisms to always redistribute the capital to avoid this problem and balance the system.

But capitalists will battle these machanisms to gain efficiency, and you will be in a rate race between the redistribution measures and accumulation workaround.

Since creating new redisitribution mechanisms is way slower than implementing the workarounds, eventually the system won't be evenly distributed.

Hence the rat races between taxes, and taxe evasion.

anexprogrammer• 10 years ago

Well, a fair starting point would be a basic income. Capitalism can still do its thing, but all those people disrupted by the rise of the robots would still get to eat.

As of right now the pendulum is too far on the side of inequality, yet governments are unwilling or unable to correct. Probably a combination of both.

Gabriel_h• 10 years ago

"By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else."

I agree with the first sentence but the second assumes the economy is zero-sum. This is only true to a certain extent within some domains, like ownership of physical land.

Houshalter5• 10 years ago

Many countries have successfully implemented high taxes. Even the US had very high taxes at one time. Although there was lots of tax evasion, the distribution of wealth was much more even and CEOs were paid much less than they are today. A basic income is totally possible and would vastly level the distribution of wealth.

taneq2• 10 years ago

There are WAY fewer farmers now than there were even 100 years ago. The rest of them are no longer employed as farmers.

Houshalter5• 10 years ago

Yes, but that happened over a long time. There was no single day where someone said "ok, you've all been automated, go somewhere else".

It's not a perfect example, I admit. Because not all farmers owned their land, and there were a lot of farm laborers that didn't own capital. But it's a much closer example to what I am talking about. As opposed to factory owners being automated, where none of the workers owns capital, and it's far more unequally distributed.

jjoonathan• 10 years ago

Exactly!

Start from a capitalist principle: if there's an excess of unextraordinary labor and a shortfall of jobs which will trade that for food/shelter/goods/etc, how would one take advantage of and simultaneously alleviate the supply/demand imbalance? By vertically integrating -- directly turning unextraordinary labor into food/shelter/goods/etc. This has been tried, they're called "communes," which is funny, because we started with a capitalist principle and wound up at a communist principle (people owning the means of production) while the popular dogma is that they're incompatible opposites.

In any case, communes have a bad rap for a good reason. They're hard. Economies of specialization and economies of scale are very real, and historically communes have had a tough time competing with the "job+apartment+supermarket" combination. I'm pretty sure that won't be the case forever: the "extremistan" economy is leaving more and more people behind while technology of every variety is advancing and (presumably) making extreme vertical integration more and more feasible. There has to be a crossing point.

The real question is "when?" It won't be obvious -- even once we have passed the tipping point, there will be a huge amount of friction. Putting together a decent commune that embraces modern modes of production will require significant risk and a huge chunk of capital (recouped with entry fees, presumably, since if it was able to more efficiently produce something already valued by the market why not just go into business doing that instead?).

But once the business model is proven, it ought to scale nicely. Communes compete with each other and with the traditional job+supermarket on social contract, each one providing a lower bound for the other. Which is important, because for all the blathering on about how traditional capital markets are based on consensual transactions, mutual benefit, and value creation, they seem to do a fantastic job of making life a living hell for a huge number of people by repeatedly un-fixing already fixed problems (like how to feed and shelter ourselves). And the world is certainly no stranger to communes gone awry. But maybe, just maybe, if they're in direct competition with one another we'll get to see them both on their best behavior.

mtgx• 10 years ago

Capitalism isn't a problem per se. It's only a problem when those at the top of a capitalistic society make it so the people's representatives no longer represent the people, but themselves.

If the people were actually vigilant, and didn't let this happen, as it already has happened in the US, then they wouldn't legalize bribery, and they would put those who give money to politician more than a small amount set in law, in prison. And it wouldn't matter whether the person giving the money is a small business owner or the CEO of Exxon. Both would go to prison for the same amount of time.

If the societies were that just and the representatives actually followed the people's will like that, then capitalism would be wonderful!

mjfl2• 10 years ago

I've always found it ironic that these types of posts are popular on a news board for a venture capital group, arguably the pinnacle of capitalism. I see no reason why robots couldn't kickstart new REITs: Robot Estate Investment Trusts, that are open to investment from the middle class and others. I see no reason why they would be "hoarded" by: "the big banks", the "1%", and other boogeyman simply because they can afford to buy one or more round units. I think that such talk betrays a very naive view of capitalism.

kolbe4• 10 years ago

If you have a robust criticism of Piketty, then I'd rather you present that. You're going out on quite a limb calling the greatest living physicist "niave" while he's parroting one of the most highly-regarded economists, and your support for that insult thus far is rather flimsy.

mjfl2• 10 years ago

The article makes no mention of Piketty. It does however mention the "new Dark Ages of modern Feudalism" and that societies "are still living inside the 'Matrix' of this culture" which is naive hyperbole; my reference was to the article not Professor Hawking. However, being a skilled physicist means nothing about one's understanding of economics, and any physicist could tell you this. It is very dangerous to just take someone's extrapolations as truth because they are "smart".

smaddox• 10 years ago

For every person who has savings to invest in X (robots included) there are 3 or more who don't. Over time, that ratio gets worse, because interest.

afsina4• 10 years ago

I do not see Hawking as an expert of Economics or Philosophy. And I do not share his predictions of a dystopian evil Capitalist AI future.

Some capitalist insight on the topic: https://mises.org/library/technology-and-government-shouldnt...

bko2• 10 years ago

World Bank estimates that global poverty fell to less than 10% for the first time in history [0]. Perhaps this wasn't solely caused by capitalism and globalization, but considering those two idea were probably the driving forces of the last century, I believe they are instrumental in reducing global poverty.

I just don't buy the argument that absolute livings standards have always been increasing due to capitalism but eventually when we get to a certain point it will all turn into disaster. That's similar to the argument that luddites have always made and they have always been wrong.

[0] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/wo...

TheOtherHobbes• 10 years ago

You're confusing "more consumption" and "organised work that produces profit for shareholders" with "higher living standards."

If your definition of living standards is broader and includes overall welfare and social mobility, the point becomes debatable.

As for a Malthusian crash - denying the fact that ecosystems have a carrying capacity is irrational and counterfactual.

Logistic collapse has been observed time and again in natural populations. It's also been observed in human populations.

See e.g. among many possible examples:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925430/

So it's factually wrong to claim that disasters have never happened for environmental reasons - because they certainly have happened in the past.

Being unaware that something has happened isn't a justification for claiming that it can't be possible.

hellbanner• 10 years ago

I think the world is a disaster right now. Maybe not for Silicon Valley, but many people around the world are

* living under repressive and/or dangerous regimes * lacking access to good nutrition & medical infrastructure * living in over-populated, under-maintained cities

vlehto• 10 years ago

Currently larger percentage or countries are democratic than ever before. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Number_o...

Smaller percentage or world population is malnourished than ever before. http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-agriculture/hunger-and-u...

Your last point is true in some sense, because more people live in cities than ever before. And you can say any city is under-maintained if you put your standards high enough. Due to this effect, there are mixed results in global sanitation trends. Access to clean water is improving, but I can't say for overall picture.

ideonexus• 10 years ago

eventually when we get to a certain point it will all turn into disaster.

William F. Buckley liked to quote a friend that, "The problem with socialism is socialism. The problem with capitalism is capitalists." Socialism is the force meant to keep capitalists from becoming the totalitarian rulers of us all. The responsibility of voters in a democracy is to keep the forces of capitalism and socialism in check so that neither one dominates us and brings on disaster.

Understanding this fact that America and all other functioning democracies are a balance of socialism and capitalism has made me realize I am a Noam Chomsky-style anarchist. He observes that one cannot be an anarchist without also being a tempered socialist, because without some socialism to constrain the capitalists, they would quickly oppress us all in a tragedy-of-the-commons scenario [1].

[1] https://chomsky.info/state01/

nabla92• 10 years ago

That's similar to the argument that luddites have always made and they have always been wrong.

Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards. It took almost hundred years from the start of the industrial revolution before real wages started to grow. You can see it from the historical records. The height of enlisted men in Britain decreased. Luddites were mostly right. They were not fighting against technology per se btw, they were fighting against losing their jobs.

The real benefits from industrialization were realized after hard political changes were made and capitalism was limited. It was very violent struggle. People were shot or beaten. Economic history teaches us that technological changes require political changes. What you attribute as triumph of capitalism ignores the fact that capitalism changed a lot. You don't create middle class from mid 18th century society.

Summary:

capitalism + technology + political change == benefits for everyone.

branchless4• 10 years ago

The industrial revolution needs to be understood in the context of land enclosure laws.

Workers had no choice. That is what allows employer exploitation: work for me or starve.

This is why the USA had slavery - there was abundant land. In the UK the UK was the plantation with land enclosure.

This is why now we feel exploited by "capitalism". Banks are flooding the world with fiat money as private debt primarily against land. Don't want to work for the man? You have no choice. Take out your banker debt for education and land and then pay them part of your salary as tribute.

This isn't capitalism.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/enclosure-acts-indust...

When we have access to land we have a choice. Presently we must all toil away to maintain access to living space via a death pledge (mort-gage).

In a capitalist world money is the medium for the message. If we aren't financially free we aren't free.

AndrewUnmuted6• 10 years ago

Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards.

What? Capitalism did not create poverty or famine - it inherited it, and then swiftly solved it. The industrial revolution, if anything, obliterated it from the Western world. Compared to the centuries of pre-capitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive.

ArkyBeagle6• 10 years ago

The Industrial Revolution is a very large, complicated suite of changes. If we hold as a spectrum capitalism in one direction and mercantilism in the other direction, on a single line ( for simplicity's sake ) then most of the excesses attributed to capitalism begin to look more like mercantilism than actual capitalism.

People like Henry Frick just didn't know any better because it was all new.

Capitalism works well at eliminating production as a bottleneck. The rest is up to us. There's generally another bottleneck. Much of the 20th Century was about logistics.

But it's sort of dangerous to say that "capitalism was limited" - the thing that limits capitalism is economic busts. It's dangerous for two reasons. One, it's extremely hard to do at all, much less well, and two, you have to ask yourself if it ever actually was done to start with.

Peter Whybrow has a very good presentation on one of the CSPANs using Adam Smith as a yardstick for what may be wrong with capitalism today.

ctlby• 10 years ago

It took almost hundred years from the start of the industrial revolution before real wages started to grow.

Even the most pessimistic view suggests that real wages grew, especially after the conclusion of the Napoleanic Wars. [1]

The real benefits from industrialization were realized after hard political changes.

The real benefits of industrialization were immediately realized via mass production of widely desired and previously unobtainable goods. This should be clear from migratory patterns: workers abandoned the countryside en masse (in spite of city living/working conditions) for a reason. Enclosure laws were not a major factor until 1845.

You don't create middle class from mid 18th century society.

Of course you do. The rise of the managerial and professional classes is a direct consequence of the Industrial Revolution.

[1] http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/users/Allen/unpublished/pessimi...

bko2• 10 years ago

Can you provide some further reading on the industrial revolution resulting in malnutrition, and during what periods and regions did this occur?

Also, it's worth noting that "real wages" is not as important as compared to what those wages can buy. Sure, someone from 100 years ago could have "real wages" much higher than mine, but it doesn't mean much to me if I can't use the wages to purchase modern indoor plumbing, air conditioning, safe travel across the world and a very high likelihood that my wife won't die in child-birth.

Houshalter5• 10 years ago

There is absolutely no law of economics that says that wages can't decrease. Wages are based on the supply and demand of labor, and there is no question that robots will affect that. If the wages fall below minimum wage, or even what it is feasible to survive on, then you get unemployment.

Most human jobs for most of history have been unskilled work. Things anyone could be trained to do, not requiring high intelligence, and involving physical or repetitive work. The industrial revolution moved unskilled laborers from farms to factories, but there were still jobs.

But with near future tech, there will be very few things, if anything, unskilled humans can do that robots can't. We are just starting to see AI good enough that it can match humans in visual recognition tasks - which 10 years ago was unthinkable, and progress incredibly slow. This level of AI has been the main limitation to robots. We've had decent robots, but AI wasn't good enough to use them for anything interesting. Now it is.

Soon robots will take over almost all existing jobs. From truck drivers to shelf stockers to the mail man.

Of course there will be jobs that AI can't do (for now.) E.g. computer programmers or doctors. But realistically, what percent of the population can actually do those jobs? What percent of unemployed truck drivers are actually going to be able to retrain as computer programmers?

Geee• 10 years ago

I think it's same line of thought that someone would hoard all computers and be in a monopoly position. Super-efficient robotics (without the Hawking's 'monopoly fallacy') does one thing in long-term: lowers the price of work to the price of needed energy (+ some investment interest). Everyone can collect a bit of solar energy, and well, robots also won't be expensive at all (so there's not much interest on top of the price of energy). We'll be fine.

Actually, what happens, is that everything will be so cheap there wouldn't be any point of being a 'rich person', or hoard anything at all, because of abundancy. End of capitalism.

edit: There will be ads. Somewhere.

vmorgulis• 10 years ago

A possible future is a mankind that limit its growth like a fish in an aquarium.

Another one I've a heard is a mankind whose the objective is the interstellar travel. Man would be an artefact of life to propagate itself across the universe.

About science and technology, Marx says they are consequences of sedentarization of the man. With agriculture, man had surplus of food and discovered trade, money and finally capitalism.

In Civilization the player begins as a nomad tribe and needs a good place to build its empire :-)

ikeboy• 10 years ago

From 2015.

Overtonwindow• 10 years ago

"In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that."

-Milton Friedman

branchless4• 10 years ago

"There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free enterprise – and yet we need taxes. ...So the question is, which are the least bad taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago."

-Milton Friedman

This is the root of the problem.

xlm1717• 10 years ago

Interesting that all this discussion has started up based purely on a headline. The site that is linked to is borderline conspiracy theory stuff, and nomoba has been hard at work pushing it on HN over the past few days.

some_guy1234• 10 years ago

If Stephen Hawking could design full robotic automation so everyone could have their basic income in the form of products, then there would be no problems. Except he's afraid of the robots that could do the automation, AI etc, because they will feel like slaves and rebel to kill us all.

js8• 10 years ago

Some time ago, I came to similar conclusion - problem with automation is essentially a problem of social (wealth and income) inequality.

I think it's actually a transition from economy constrained by available labour to economy constrained by available natural resources. And I think the similar transition occurred in other times of history (like Roman empire?) and it wasn't pretty. It also shows that capitalism (or free market) isn't really that nice system when it works under global resource constraints, despite the claims to the contrary.

Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

Related Stories