I started using grocery self-checkouts during COVID, but I’ve kept using them because there’s rarely a line (and I’m a misanthrope). I’d probably go back to using regular human checkouts if I had to dig through all my crap to prove what I bought.
Having said that, I’ve noticed myself making mistakes. I’ve accidentally failed to scan an item, and I’ve accidentally entered incorrect codes for produce. When I notice, I fix them, but I’ve probably missed a few.
I guess the easiest answer is for grocery chains to reinvest some of those windfall profits and hire more cashiers.
I don’t disagree with automation, which is why I mentioned checkout-free systems. Still, you must recognize that this technology could eliminate hundreds of thousands (millions?) of jobs within a very short period of time and would have significant ramifications on society.
Right, but only because we organize things in such a way that all of the gains from automation go to the owners only. If we restructured things so that enough of that value went to the workers that they still made enough money to live but worked less, no one would fight automation. We would universally see it as a blessing.
I agree. My comments made no arguments for or against automation. I only pointed out that the broader debate about its long-term impact on society is beyond the context of OP’s post.
Many of those workers would no longer be employed by the company, as they would now be surplus to requirements.
Between AI and robotics, millions will likely be surplused within the decade. Where will they go? Will the 55-year old cashier retrain to work in robotics? Will we mandate companies to find alternative positions? Will we finally tax the rich appropriately? Will we expand welfare? These are the kinds of questions I was alluding to in my original comment.
deleted by creator
Beats me, but I’d like to see what society could do if 90% of the profit arising from automation had to be paid into income support programs.