|
You give an example I would, but to the contrary purpose:
The Billion dollar decisions are made by a machine (algorithm, at least) that was created by a person - but first and more importantly - someone had to think up the idea that such an algorithm could exist and be useful).
Analytics pointing to the gaps - only for the trivial. The real work's already been done and the model set up: the gaps need to be defined, at least implicitly.
Creativity is the real multi-tasking experience: : concepts that may have no relation at all can be brought together to create and problems solved by routes not part of the ('coded') working set of tools. As of now (at least so far as I know) that realm still remains in the hands of humans - and not that many of them.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting that most of the detractors to the concept of AI taking over their job are basing their viewpoint on that an AI could never have those skills.
But what if an AGI could exist that would have the induction, intuition, creativity and emotions akin to a human?
I believe that if an AGI became advanced enough to replace me and my development talents, every society on the planet would be so transformed that I would have no worry about my next paycheck and could spend the rest of my days writing novels and directing movies.
Am I be worried? Nope, either way.
Is AGI coming? Yup. Eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If robots can create software better than any humans - and are allowed to - then we are all stuffed anyway
|
|
|
|
|
Have soldering iron, will travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I partially agree with other comments, that programming will be one of the last things in danger. But...
IF... (a big if), computers do get so far that they can write software and learn from own errors, the learning curve will be exponential.
To be honest a job is the last of my concerns in such a situation. 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1)I have been long enough in automation as well, that's why I said I partially agree, but the point is: noone is irreplaceable.
2) The whole speech you gave missed the point that my message was another one.
Have a nice day 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fact is, software does replace people and therefore contributes to increasing the unemployment rate. It may not seem to have much effect now, but it's only going to keep increasing. Factor that in with an ever increasing world population and it will eventually be too much to sweep under the rug and ignore.
People always laugh when I tell them that the robots will destroy the world, but I think that's because they take it literally like some sort of Judgement Day event.. of course, there are plenty of other opportunities for self-destruction floating around.. it's hard to predict which one we will set off first
|
|
|
|
|
2 mins faster than me
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
musefan wrote: software does replace people
Software replaces people who do tasks that do not require intelligent thinking. Perhaps that isn't such a bad thing.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Ha! If it managed to remove them from existence then I would agree... but they just go back in to the unemployment pot.
There are plenty of important jobs in the world that can cater for all levels of intelligence. The problem isn't that some people aren't as clever as others, the problem is that there are just too many people.
Oh, and well I'm at my keyboard... there are waaay too many selfish people in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
musefan wrote: but they just go back in to the unemployment pot.
Which is why we need to do better at education and other things.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you need an education to be unemployed... my point being there will never be enough jobs for everyone, and it is only getting worse with machines replacing humans.
Worldwide population control is what we need, problems is it's too profitable to farm humans.
If our planet was taken over by flesh eating aliens, I wonder if they would see us as 'caged' or 'free-range'?
Oh, and I agree that using software/machines to make people lives is easier is a great thing... but the reality is people see it as a means of replacement, rather than assistance
|
|
|
|
|
musefan wrote: my point being there will never be enough jobs for everyone,
I disagree.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
more repairmen need as more machine is used
|
|
|
|
|
Not really... 10 machines that do the job of 100 people only needs 1 repair man
|
|
|
|
|
more and more people not having baby but have ... for fun  than procreate.
We need quality people not more people.
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, like I said before, population control is required
|
|
|
|
|
Not well thought out. Software (and equipment, for that matter) tend to make jobs people do obsolete. But remember to take into account the jobs created with the same technology.
Blacksmith's put out of work by cars - enter the garage mechanic.
Wave-solders do an entire circuit-board's soldering in the blink of an eye - but the low cost electronics put electronics into the hands of the masses that could otherwise never afford it.
No more TV repair men, per se, but we do have the PC repairman, instead.
The world keeps rolling along as it did, before.
Simply reduce work hours and more people can have jobs - and the others, with more time off, can enjoy the fruits of the technology.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
That seems to be a common argument, but I think it blinds most people to what is really true.
If a machine replaces 10 people, it doesn't then create 10 jobs to maintain that machine. In fact, 1 single repair man could take care of tens or hundreds of machines.
So... 10 machines put 100 people out of work, but only create - lets say - 5 jobs max. That's 95 people surplus to requirements.
I think you will find that the past changes you have mentioned aren't sufficient enough to make the problem obvious, or even important. It's also a convenient argument to make people less worried. If people don't see a problem, then they don't worry, but doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Most people don't really care for the world that's left behind when they are gone.
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, in case you haven't noticed, the following has occurred in the industrialized countries of the world: people work fewer hours and have more and better food to eat than in those places who have kept up employment (by your standards) with menial jobs. They, basically, live a life of subsistence: and leisure time is not even a thought.
And, as for your odd ration of 10 people lose jobs and are replace by one - that's very 0th order thinking. Consider the number of people (back to the horses vs. cars) are employed not only in repairing the cars (instead of the horseshoes) but building them, feeding them their fuel, and all of the subordinate industries employed millions upon millions.
This works both ways (I'm not ignoring that) as demand for some items will lesson. Overall, there's a simple net improvement that results from industrialization. You wouldn't be the first to think that way: click[^]
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
