|
There are some jobs that will never be replaced, but the auto industry has replaced a large number of workers with assembly robots. The robots can provide a much more consistent and higher quality product, than a human can produce. It really is quite amazing what these robots are capable of.
In the future there will probably be even more automation which would greatly reduce the number of manufacturing jobs available. In this area, nearly all of the factory jobs have already moved to other countries, so automation really isn't that big of a deal here.
|
|
|
|
|
Every country maintains a certain level of support for jobs, to let people live (and if no job than a certain level of aid)...All this possible because of the incomes the country has from taxes...When a robot pack/wraps chocolate there is no tax and there is no money to pay for aid or for someone else to create a new job for those lost it for the robot...At some point countries will lost so much tax money to the robots that it will be impossible to maintain any aid system for those have no job, and the same time that money goes to the owners, who will be able to stop legalization of such laws, that may even the situation...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
modified 17-Feb-16 9:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
This kind of thing has actually been going on for a lot longer than most people realize, and is much more widespread.
On farms, tractors, harvesting machines, etc. have replaced workers doing it all by hand. Farm machines have enabled a handful of people to farm an area that used to take large teams of people.
Automated telecom switching equipment has replaced the manual switchboards. The job of telephone operator is nearly extinct. The same goes for elevator/lift operators. A simple push of a button will allow anyone to operate them. There is also a slew of built-in automatic safety features that prevent most accidents from occurring.
Most of the jobs that have been replaced were jobs that were not well suited for human workers such as repetitive labor intensive tasks. I know that I would not want to work on a farm, be a switchboard operator, etc.
Technology is double-edged. There are a lot of positive things, as well as negative. Certain jobs like carpentry will never be replaced by robots. Modern technology such as electric saws, pneumatic nailers, etc. have made their jobs easier and makes the work go faster so that they can get more work done.
The downside is that there are jobs that can be completely replaced by software. In the insurance industry, many companies have websites you can go to for a quote. The entire insurance policy can be issued with minimal input from the employees. Before this, insurance agents would have people coming into their office to issue a policy, or speak to them on the phone. This still happens, but not nearly as often as it used to be. There is a significant degradation in service when people are replaced by machines.
Yes, there are more IT jobs out there now, but the amount of those jobs does not even come close to the amount of jobs that have been lost to automation.
There is also a loss of the human element when jobs are automated. The kind old ladies that made the chocolates have mostly gone away now in favor of machines. Of course each chocolate bar comes out perfect when a machine does it, but there is something lost in the process of automation that can't be replicated by machines.
Some art forms are now being lost. In today's disposable culture, household items are not made to last. Household appliances are not usually very serviceable. Appliance and repair shops are nearly extinct. It has gotten cheaper to buy a new device than to pay someone to repair it. That means there are job losses both in the primary market, and the secondary market as well.
With the loss of manufacturing jobs, the economy begins to tank. The other businesses begin to suffer as well because people are not bringing in good incomes. A society actually has to produce something tangible to have a good economy.
Robots are not a huge threat, but computers are. Next time you drive through an empty tollbooth with your EZ-Pass, think about the person that has lost their job as a toll collector.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Even the jobs that would be considered the bottom of the totem pole (as far as skill and education are concerned) are going away. Think of one of the lowest level jobs you could get - a garbage man. Well in my town they've replaced the garbage trucks that used to carry 2-3 workers with a truck with a "robotic" arm that picks up and dumps the trash barrels, with one single person driving. I have no doubt many custodians will soon be replaced by robotic floor cleaners. Industrial scale Roombas. If they don't already exist, they will soon.
And no, not all those displaced workers can be trained as STEM workers. Some people simply don't have the disposition or the brains for it, but we are rapidly making no place for them in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is already here. It was pretty gradual to start off with so many people didn't really realise what was going on.
It's why we are having the wars over knowledge now, the weapons being patents and copyright.
The next battleground will be AI of course. When machines can solve problems and implement soft solutions faster than we can patent and copyright them, we will truly understand how redundant we are to the whole process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well.. we could peer live into the brain of the thing!
It ain't that bad!
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I would argue that any limited or newly intelligent construct would show it's hand via it's curiosity. It would wish to explore beyond it's original programming. It would develop and indeed try to understand more.
Now, for me, this is where it gets interesting. Currently we are bags of chemicals with a brain. What is interesting is that the body chemistry affects our learning and our intellect. Starve a child and their IQ is negatively impacted. Introduce a drug, and their desire to understand is replaced by a desire for continued euphoria (if addicted), or a desire to NEVER experience that again (if repelled by the thought of lack of control, etc).
It is our getting tired that causes us to stop. I suffer form insomnia in terrible ways because while solving problems I have trained my mind to override my bodies natural instinct for sleep. I have to occassionally take sleeping pills (over the counter) to reset my clock, and force myself away from the computer/problems and do brain dead things at the end of the day.
So, while I believe we will make "AI" work (which I always laugh, because nobody has found a truly acceptable definition of Intelligence, much less what an Artificial version of a fuzzy definition is) I am not sure it will be the same, and I am concerned that it will, if not tempered with the equivalent of a circadian system, literally drive itself into a continuous set of infinite search loops resulting in pure schizophrenia. (But I could be self-diagnosing here, LOL)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaotiq wrote: Sort of the rub and Catch 22 no? How can we define an AI if we have to to define NI (natural intelligence)?
So, while I studied AI in the 1990s (wow, that is a while ago). I came up with this definition of intelligence:
An ability to fractally(recursively) recognize patterns and incorporate said patterns in order to simplify ones overall pattern of recognition.
As an example/proof of concept: Mensa Tests use semi-complex pattern identification to measure intelligence. And I noticed in learning how to solve them, they became easier, but the next layer maintained a new level of difficulty to over come, and some I will never understand because my larger picture neural net determined I HAVE FRIENDS  And Friends are more fun!
In a neural network, this would be the ability of the net to recognize it's need to grow, and to develop a "neural net" above its current neural net in order to let the lower neural net evolve. Probably sharing similarites with a Hopfield Hirerchical Network. But again, that was a LOOOONG time ago. I kinda left that world behind. It probably has leapfrogged way beyond this.
Always fun stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting perspective. As a fun thought experiment I like to think of how, as an outsider, I could tell that a company like Google say, was being run by a superintelligent AI. I think the people owning/running such a company would happily hand over control if it meant making more money, which would be childs play to a superintelligence. Then what? For example, a superintelligence would probably want to start by protecting its integrity. So building distributed data centers or buying up power and hardware companies. It might want more direct control over its physical environment, so buying robotics companies.
Anyway, fun to think about. Until things start clicking into place - didn't Google recently buy up a whole bunch of robotics companies?
|
|
|
|
|
Machines are still a long way from making informed decisions based on raw data.
A tool does not think.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaotiq wrote: Well to a corporation/employer you yourself are a tool.
Ehr, no; I rent out my time and expertise, there's a difference there. One of them is that I do not only have a routine to make decisions, I can actually back them up with argumentation and compare it to other idea's.
Until AI can qualify "a bit" (ie, understand context, including sarcasm) I do not see any CPU challenging my position.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaotiq wrote: Cars are rented out. So are programmers.
A car is a piece of equipment that does not think, nor take intelligent decisions.
Xaotiq wrote: Else why do they pay you?
Expertise. A hammer does not come with knowledge. Not my idea, but the idea of a free market. Tools are cheap*, because there's lots of them
Xaotiq wrote: No. It is finding baselines and comparing data to show what is the best next action and action after that.
Yes, but not even close to the reasoning of a human. AI still has a long way to go.
Xaotiq wrote: Article is about creating an AI that understand sarcasm
..yes, a single application specifically designed to do so. Still not close to a human who can distinguish it in a second, and applying that knowledge to the current discussion in the correct context.
I do not see a computer intelligently deciding between C# and VB.NET for the next project, never mind replacing one of the programmers 
*) I is not cheap
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaotiq wrote: By the way, did you hear about CA passing a law allowing Google's AI to be considered a driver in a car?
Following simple rules, like the bees we program to act as a cloud. Any tool can follow rules; can you understand why the rule is there and when it can be broken? Can you understand context?
Xaotiq wrote: While this is a silly example I am still going to run with it
Indeed a silly example; the tool has no knowledge - whilst one is better for one task than the other, it is the one that wields it that decides which is swung.
Xaotiq wrote: I like VS as an IDE. It is fantastic.
Still the best IDE that I know, and as great as it is at helping me do my job, it merely makes it easier; it does not replace me in the sense that it does not think in my place. It has no idea what "we" are building together, nor does it (have to) care.
Xaotiq wrote: You underestimate the stupidity of humans.
I'm gonna predict nuclear war before true AI - and human stupidity is on my side of that bet.
Xaotiq wrote: You keep using the word "Human" like everyone fits into this perfect bucket.
No, as rather as an indication of intelligence; it may not sound like an intelligent being, but it does give a rough indication to compare your AI-intelligence to.
Xaotiq wrote: Machine learning can easily
Do exactly as told, nothing else, nothing new, nothing original. Eat peanut-butter according to the exact same recipe as it was for 2000 years.
I don't do exactly as told 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaotiq wrote: the IDE comes with a compiler that understands LINQ.
No, it knows the rules for checking the syntax. It has no idea what the query does or why it is needed. Your example is still of a specialized tool which has no initiative, no thought-process, no validation, nothing.
Xaotiq wrote: You might learn something
Again, you assume too much
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Xaotiq wrote: Cars are rented out. So are programmers.
A car is a piece of equipment that does not think, nor take intelligent decisions.
So you're telling me that half of my managers have actually been cars???
I said that tongue-in-cheek ... but that does describe an unfortunate number of managers I've experienced. [To be fair, I've had the pleasure of working with brilliant managers.]
|
|
|
|
|
BryanFazekas wrote: So you're telling me that half of my managers have actually been cars???
Did the managers pick the shortest route?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
The longest path between two points is a shortcut ... so yeah, they typically pick the shortest route ...
|
|
|
|
|
Primarily I'm tasked with developing abstract platforms (and deciding when stretching one any further is counter-productive). Wherever the coding will go, the job's not going to be abstracted by a machine anytime soon. Neither will drag-and-drop applications make it all the rage for our current smart-phone-infatuated.
Outsourcing the work to 'far off lands' has always found itself in the state of disaster. The quality of the work, at best, is "textbook" - which is without insight and the kind of thing that can be done by a machine.
As an interesting aside, using web pages as an example: I originally used some sort of drag-and-drop environment. Once I started to want to make things interesting it became necessary to hand code the pages. Now, that's all I do. The easy way just doesn't cut it.
And there's always winning the lottery.
| "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
