IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th February 2019, 02:46 AM   #1
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,686
The Robots Taking the Jobs Industry

In the NGD thread, kellyb posted this article by Dean Baker, meant to put the worries about massive unemployment due to automation into perspective.

http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press...-jobs-industry


a short read and definitely worth it.


I'd like to comment on some of the points he makes, and hope others will, too.
__________________
So what are you going to do about it, huh?
What would an intellectual do?
What would Plato do?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 03:38 AM   #2
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,686
on Productivity Growth:

Baker seems to be too focused on the US market: Europe and others have had steady productivity growth, with no plateau in sight.
Because of the difference in labor markets, the US (at least in many regions) never had any shortage of cheap, less skilled labor, making it unnecessary to find robotic solutions for labor shortage.
In contrast, Japan is desperate to supplement its labor force with robots to make up for the aging, shrinking population.
The US will probably not be ground zero for the A.I. revolutions' impact on labor.
__________________
So what are you going to do about it, huh?
What would an intellectual do?
What would Plato do?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 03:40 AM   #3
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 49,688
My field is all about automation, but it's also about information exchange. Our robots aren't taking jobs, they're doing a job that could never be done before, because the scale and speed of the task is simply beyond human capacity. This is a whole new field of commercial activity, that can only be accomplished by extensive automation. And it's a fertile field; far from losing jobs, we're constantly facing a shortage of humans who are capable of designing, building, maintaining, and improving a vast and growing ecosystem of robots.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 03:42 AM   #4
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,686
ON replacing unskilled labor:

Baker is absolutely right that it isn't necessarily the least skilled who's job is replaced first. In fact, it will be hard make automation cheaper than Minimum Wage.

But in many areas, this isn't the limiting factor: for Trucking, the fact that an A.I. driver doesn't need sleep can be a bigger consideration than its price tag.
__________________
So what are you going to do about it, huh?
What would an intellectual do?
What would Plato do?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 03:46 AM   #5
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 14,686
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My field is all about automation, but it's also about information exchange. Our robots aren't taking jobs, they're doing a job that could never be done before, because the scale and speed of the task is simply beyond human capacity. This is a whole new field of commercial activity, that can only be accomplished by extensive automation. And it's a fertile field; far from losing jobs, we're constantly facing a shortage of humans who are capable of designing, building, maintaining, and improving a vast and growing ecosystem of robots.
I agree with a lot of this.
Most of the current economy is, for the purposes of human survival, completely optional: we are doing stuff that only affects the very top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs pyramid.
Because of this, there aren't many "real" jobs that are essential, and a basically arbitrarily large number of jobs we could do if we find a way to pay for them, irrespective of the level of automation.
__________________
So what are you going to do about it, huh?
What would an intellectual do?
What would Plato do?
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 05:07 AM   #6
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,760
He's right that so far it hasn't led to massive net job losses. We can see this simply by reading the monthly employment reports. The unemployment rate is 4 percent and we've been adding about 2.2 million jobs, net, per year for almost 10 years now.

It may be that robots simply aren't yet good enough to replace most humans. Maybe at some time in the future robots will finally reach a level where they can perform the same tasks as humans, and maybe more reliably, and then we will truly become obsolete. That moment has not arrived yet and I'm not certain that it ever will. But even if it does, maybe that's a good thing.

What is the purpose of a job after all? Is it to perform a necessary function or is it to give someone a living, a purpose in life? We've come to believe that "good jobs" are a good in themselves, but maybe we'd be better off if nobody had to work at all, and everyone was free to spend their days in any manner they saw fit? Because they don't need a job just to put food on the table.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 07:12 AM   #7
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,720
1. Increased technology leading to mass unemployment has been a scare mongering talking point probably since Og first smashed a rock against the ground to make two smaller rocks was gonna decimate the Mammoth Hunting industry or something. And I'm inherently skeptical of any and all "But this time it's different, I know we said it was different last time but this time we mean it" arguments. More technology has actually lead to more jobs overall (affects on individual jobs/industry not withstanding) has been the rule like since forever.

2. That being said I agree that if does feel like we're on the cusp of something that is different for reasons that aren't 100% easy to verbalize. For me mass automation of the transport industry and the domino effect off of that is the most likely candidate to be a real "Okay this does change thing" tipping point, but I'm open the possibility of being wrong.

3. All that being said isn't all this the point of technology? To make it so we don't have to do the boring, dangerous, repetitive, or meaningless jobs?

4. That that being said a post-job world is one of those things that's easy to imagine and impossible to imagine any sort of transitory phase toward getting there. It's hard to imagine a society where someone people are just expected to work and others aren't without a lot of resentment brewing.

5. That, that, that being said this is all a moot point since the technologies that are going to lead to automation are going to happen, they aren't genies that are going to be kept in the bottle. We can't order progress to stop and can't (within any reasonable context) order companies to not use new technology.

6. I think some people (and I have to fight the urge to place myself in this category I must admit) are kind of smugly sitting there thinking "No computer/machine is ever going to replace me!" and they might be bluffing with cards they don't have. I'm in the IT field and we've always been bemused by fears of automation safe in the "Well somebody's gonna have to fix those computers!" argument and while that probably is true in the short to mid/sorta far term I wonder if it is... really long term. Computers that fix computers aren't that crazy of an idea. A robot on the assembly line who's purpose is to fix the other robots is not that crazy of an idea. An algorithm who's job it is to write algorithms... is already pretty much what an algorithm is to a large degree.

Okay so what about other things. Medicine? Are we (on a timeline worth discussion) going to have computer doctors? Probably not but a hospital full of automated systems to do all the blood pressure checking and questionnaires and routine injections staffed by only a small percentage of the doctors and nurses they have now? That's not just possible giving health care costs that is practically certain in some form.

Or let's hit the big one... art. No I'm not saying the next Hemingways and Rembrants and Daniel Day Lewis's are going to be computers per se, we don't need to have the "Does this unit have a soul?" argument here, but... basic aesthetics and route design... maybe. If you just need a simple graphic whipped up for a sales flyer... maybe. If you just need a simple melody for a jingle... maybe. You're always gonna go (again on a timeframe worth discussing in this context) to your A-list human actor to play important historical figure so and so in your Oscar bait biopic... but what about crowd scenes? Stuntmen? Bit parts? The attractive but down to Earth mom in your yogurt commercial? What's more attractive SAG wages for your background actors, safety concerns for your stuntment, the possibility that you might end up in a PR disaster because your casting director tried to bang Yogurt Mom..... or just download "Generic Suburban Mom Template #323" from StockActorSims.com and let the CGI boys handle it?
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 15th February 2019 at 07:16 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 07:46 AM   #8
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,535
I find the historical arguments frequently presented as evidence that technology has created more "jobs" than it has cost to be unconvincing. It conflates what we currently consider a "job" with something that in the context of 1850 would be "the amount of labor needed to live the best life available". I am reminded of The Flintstones when it is pointed out that advances in farming tech led to more "jobs". It seems to take a view that historical times were just like our time- simply with more rudimentary tools- ignoring that a paying "job" was a much rarer part of society as one moves back in time.
Looked at that way,technological progress has been reducing the need for labor for as long as there has been technological progress. This is a net positive, IMO, however I think it is nearing the time to once again decide what kind of society it is leading us to.

We have removed children from the pool of available labor because of increases in technology, and have (arguably) been extending the duration of effective "childhood" into the third decade of life. This has not been counted as a loss of "jobs", we have simply come to an agreement that these young people should somehow not be considered as part of the available labor pool.
We have agreed that the elderly are to be allowed to spend a substantive portion of their lives as "retirees". Sometimes for decades. Yet we don't see a lack of "jobs" as causing this- we view it as natural because the need for their labor is lacking.
The labor required to maintain a sanitary household that is climate controlled, well fed, dressed and healthy (something that was once a full time "job") has been reduced greatly and we have not looked that as a loss of "jobs".
The handicapped and infirm are not expected to starve on the streets due to lack of a "job".
These are all examples of net positives, don't get me wrong, yet they can also be viewed as "unemployment" by modern standards. We have simply chosen not to do so- then told ourselves that "jobs" have become more plentiful as technology has progressed, when what has actually happened is that we have altered our perception of what a "job" is- and who needs to have one if they wish to avoid pariah status.

The general outlook for the past several decades regarding who should be supplying the labor to keep our society healthy has been shrunk to only include healthy, not handicapped people between 20 and 65 (roughly) who are not engaged in some kind of post secondary education (which can acceptably reduce their productive years by up to another decade), engaged in the process of raising children, or (on a darker note) incarcerated, or prosecuting some kind of war (a destructive act which creates a need for more labor in the crassest way possible)

What is the next group that will be eliminated from the expected pool of available labor as technology moves forward? When 10% of the population can pull the cart that the other 90% are riding on, what rights will the riders have?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 15th February 2019 at 07:51 AM.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 07:50 AM   #9
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,535
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
1. Increased technology leading to mass unemployment has been a scare mongering talking point probably since Og first smashed a rock against the ground to make two smaller rocks was gonna decimate the Mammoth Hunting industry or something. And I'm inherently skeptical of any and all "But this time it's different, I know we said it was different last time but this time we mean it" arguments. More technology has actually lead to more jobs overall (affects on individual jobs/industry not withstanding) has been the rule like since forever.

2. That being said I agree that if does feel like we're on the cusp of something that is different for reasons that aren't 100% easy to verbalize. For me mass automation of the transport industry and the domino effect off of that is the most likely candidate to be a real "Okay this does change thing" tipping point, but I'm open the possibility of being wrong.

3. All that being said isn't all this the point of technology? To make it so we don't have to do the boring, dangerous, repetitive, or meaningless jobs?

4. That that being said a post-job world is one of those things that's easy to imagine and impossible to imagine any sort of transitory phase toward getting there. It's hard to imagine a society where someone people are just expected to work and others aren't without a lot of resentment brewing.

5. That, that, that being said this is all a moot point since the technologies that are going to lead to automation are going to happen, they aren't genies that are going to be kept in the bottle. We can't order progress to stop and can't (within any reasonable context) order companies to not use new technology.

6. I think some people (and I have to fight the urge to place myself in this category I must admit) are kind of smugly sitting there thinking "No computer/machine is ever going to replace me!" and they might be bluffing with cards they don't have. I'm in the IT field and we've always been bemused by fears of automation safe in the "Well somebody's gonna have to fix those computers!" argument and while that probably is true in the short to mid/sorta far term I wonder if it is... really long term. Computers that fix computers aren't that crazy of an idea. A robot on the assembly line who's purpose is to fix the other robots is not that crazy of an idea. An algorithm who's job it is to write algorithms... is already pretty much what an algorithm is to a large degree.

Okay so what about other things. Medicine? Are we (on a timeline worth discussion) going to have computer doctors? Probably not but a hospital full of automated systems to do all the blood pressure checking and questionnaires and routine injections staffed by only a small percentage of the doctors and nurses they have now? That's not just possible giving health care costs that is practically certain in some form.

Or let's hit the big one... art. No I'm not saying the next Hemingways and Rembrants and Daniel Day Lewis's are going to be computers per se, we don't need to have the "Does this unit have a soul?" argument here, but... basic aesthetics and route design... maybe. If you just need a simple graphic whipped up for a sales flyer... maybe. If you just need a simple melody for a jingle... maybe. You're always gonna go (again on a timeframe worth discussing in this context) to your A-list human actor to play important historical figure so and so in your Oscar bait biopic... but what about crowd scenes? Stuntmen? Bit parts? The attractive but down to Earth mom in your yogurt commercial? What's more attractive SAG wages for your background actors, safety concerns for your stuntment, the possibility that you might end up in a PR disaster because your casting director tried to bang Yogurt Mom..... or just download "Generic Suburban Mom Template #323" from StockActorSims.com and let the CGI boys handle it?
100% agree with your second point.
Robocars are on the way (IMO) and will be a sea-change to our culture.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 02:24 PM   #10
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333
Office drones are the most likely to get wiped out. So much of that work is just moving paper and numbers. Hell, half of my office drone job is to automate myself out of it.

As long as dying on a low paying, soul crushing job is seen as "honorable", there will be plenty of people poor and desperate enough to make automation not worth it.
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 02:35 PM   #11
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
I find the historical arguments frequently presented as evidence that technology has created more "jobs" than it has cost to be unconvincing. It conflates what we currently consider a "job" with something that in the context of 1850 would be "the amount of labor needed to live the best life available". I am reminded of The Flintstones when it is pointed out that advances in farming tech led to more "jobs". It seems to take a view that historical times were just like our time- simply with more rudimentary tools- ignoring that a paying "job" was a much rarer part of society as one moves back in time.
Looked at that way,technological progress has been reducing the need for labor for as long as there has been technological progress. This is a net positive, IMO, however I think it is nearing the time to once again decide what kind of society it is leading us to.

We have removed children from the pool of available labor because of increases in technology, and have (arguably) been extending the duration of effective "childhood" into the third decade of life. This has not been counted as a loss of "jobs", we have simply come to an agreement that these young people should somehow not be considered as part of the available labor pool.
We have agreed that the elderly are to be allowed to spend a substantive portion of their lives as "retirees". Sometimes for decades. Yet we don't see a lack of "jobs" as causing this- we view it as natural because the need for their labor is lacking.
The labor required to maintain a sanitary household that is climate controlled, well fed, dressed and healthy (something that was once a full time "job") has been reduced greatly and we have not looked that as a loss of "jobs".
The handicapped and infirm are not expected to starve on the streets due to lack of a "job".
These are all examples of net positives, don't get me wrong, yet they can also be viewed as "unemployment" by modern standards. We have simply chosen not to do so- then told ourselves that "jobs" have become more plentiful as technology has progressed, when what has actually happened is that we have altered our perception of what a "job" is- and who needs to have one if they wish to avoid pariah status.

The general outlook for the past several decades regarding who should be supplying the labor to keep our society healthy has been shrunk to only include healthy, not handicapped people between 20 and 65 (roughly) who are not engaged in some kind of post secondary education (which can acceptably reduce their productive years by up to another decade), engaged in the process of raising children, or (on a darker note) incarcerated, or prosecuting some kind of war (a destructive act which creates a need for more labor in the crassest way possible)

What is the next group that will be eliminated from the expected pool of available labor as technology moves forward? When 10% of the population can pull the cart that the other 90% are riding on, what rights will the riders have?
I think the big difference between now and the industrial revolution is that back then, old jobs were eliminated by machines that still needed human building them. Also, new industries were being created an an emerging middle class was rapidly expanding. A buggy whip maker could get a job working on automobiles and apply his fabricating skills.

This new revolution, people are being replaced by machines, but there's no other place to go. An algorithm or program that replaces an accounting department is going to hit the market and replace a lot of marketing departments. Hell, I've seen first hand systems that automate a lot of the work doctors and nurses do. Where do they go when those jobs are downsized?
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 03:36 PM   #12
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,535
Originally Posted by Donal View Post
Office drones are the most likely to get wiped out. So much of that work is just moving paper and numbers. Hell, half of my office drone job is to automate myself out of it.

As long as dying on a low paying, soul crushing job is seen as "honorable", there will be plenty of people poor and desperate enough to make automation not worth it.
For all of recorded history the mass of people have gotten by by pretending to be a machine that hadn't been invented yet.
What are we when we can no longer pretend well enough? Is there some kind of intrinsic value in simply existing as a HomoSapien?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 04:29 PM   #13
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 31,067
I don't know how universal this is, but when I was working we heard about the 3 D's of automation: Dumb, Dirty, Dangerous. Those are the jobs that should be automated. For Dumb, you should probably read "repetitious".

Also, what's the difference between actually automating a job and outsourcing it to India?
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 05:55 PM   #14
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,526
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
For all of recorded history the mass of people have gotten by by pretending to be a machine that hadn't been invented yet.
What are we when we can no longer pretend well enough? Is there some kind of intrinsic value in simply existing as a HomoSapien?
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I don't know how universal this is, but when I was working we heard about the 3 D's of automation: Dumb, Dirty, Dangerous. Those are the jobs that should be automated. For Dumb, you should probably read "repetitious".

Also, what's the difference between actually automating a job and outsourcing it to India?
What has happened in the past is that technology has been introduced that enabled cheaper products to be made with lower wage costs needed. This increased the spending power of people. So new jobs needed to be created to produce this increased spending power (read standard of living). There are certain problems with this that may not have existed in the past

1. The new jobs may require different skills from the jobs that are lost. This has not been a major problem in the past as many old and their replacement jobs were low skilled. But get rid of many highly skilled workers with no similar new jobs and you get structural unemployment of workers that were very expensive to train.

2. The new jobs may be in different locations. They move the factory from an industrialised country to a poor country (or the other way round!) and you got unemployment in one country.

3. Getting rid of unskilled workers. A certain % of people cannot be educated beyond the very basic levels. Get rid of the jobs that they can do and that % of the population is then permanently unemployed. There is only so much that education can provide.
__________________
This signature is for rent.

Last edited by rjh01; 15th February 2019 at 05:58 PM. Reason: Clarify what I meant
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2019, 10:57 PM   #15
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
on Productivity Growth:

Baker seems to be too focused on the US market: Europe and others have had steady productivity growth, with no plateau in sight.
Because of the difference in labor markets, the US (at least in many regions) never had any shortage of cheap, less skilled labor, making it unnecessary to find robotic solutions for labor shortage.
In contrast, Japan is desperate to supplement its labor force with robots to make up for the aging, shrinking population.
The US will probably not be ground zero for the A.I. revolutions' impact on labor.
The oddball part in his argument is using productivity growth projections to say, nope, not gonna happen. Projections are based on assumptions that may seem reasonable based on past circumstances, but may not apply in the future. As an example, when I analyzed real estate proposals in the early 1980s we used 8% inflation per annum in our models. By 1984 that was down to 4%.

And the tech may be flashy but does it really work? I bought myself one of those Google Minis (like the Alexa), and to be honest I mostly use it for checking the temperature. I asked it what the line was on the Super Bowl and it said it couldn't answer that question right now. Of course I went on the web and quickly Googled the answer. I asked it when Game of Thrones was returning and it said according to the Hollywood Reporter, GoT would return sometime in 2019. Went on the web and got the exact date.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2019, 12:17 PM   #16
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333
My echo gave me the line when I asked for. Also, consumer electronics you find at Best Buy aren't really what we need to be worried about. Its the application in the work place. Like this Google AI that can makes calls for you. Sales people should be scared of this.
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2019, 01:03 PM   #17
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,526
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
<snip>
And the tech may be flashy but does it really work? I bought myself one of those Google Minis (like the Alexa), and to be honest I mostly use it for checking the temperature. I asked it what the line was on the Super Bowl and it said it couldn't answer that question right now. Of course I went on the web and quickly Googled the answer. I asked it when Game of Thrones was returning and it said according to the Hollywood Reporter, GoT would return sometime in 2019. Went on the web and got the exact date.
Was given a Google Mini and we use it to play music from YouTube Music. It is only a cheap device so do not expect it to be able to do much. Though it should be able to answer basic questions from the Web.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2019, 01:17 PM   #18
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,133
I think the big change is going to be jobs that have wrongly be considered "skilled" for a long time, when what they have been is "information deep". The example I would give is general practitioners, they need to know a lot but don't require any great level of skill, these are areas in which "AI" is already surpassing what trained and experienced humans can do. As an example: https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/12/g...cer-detection/
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2019, 04:59 PM   #19
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,280
The machines are taking over, and I couldn't be happier. I don't even write most of my posts anymore.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2019, 05:28 PM   #20
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,549
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2019, 07:56 PM   #21
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,526
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I think the big change is going to be jobs that have wrongly be considered "skilled" for a long time, when what they have been is "information deep". The example I would give is general practitioners, they need to know a lot but don't require any great level of skill, these are areas in which "AI" is already surpassing what trained and experienced humans can do. As an example: https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/12/g...cer-detection/
What is the difference between skilled and "information deep"? In your answer please define both terms. I might comment on the above post once you have done that.

In the meantime I cannot think of many skilled jobs that do not require large knowledge. Maybe something like typing? But most people could learn good typing skills in a short time.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2019, 08:52 PM   #22
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,133
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
What is the difference between skilled and "information deep"? In your answer please define both terms. I might comment on the above post once you have done that.



In the meantime I cannot think of many skilled jobs that do not require large knowledge. Maybe something like typing? But most people could learn good typing skills in a short time.
Thought I had defined it, but I'll have another go. To become a Dr you need to gain a huge amount of information so you can use a decision tree to come to the right diagnosis. But there is no particular skill in that, so thats an information deep profession. Whereas a skilled person would be someone who could for example hand turn a custom replacement part for an 1890s steam engine.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2019, 09:20 PM   #23
Zambo
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 265
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Thought I had defined it, but I'll have another go. To become a Dr you need to gain a huge amount of information so you can use a decision tree to come to the right diagnosis. But there is no particular skill in that, so thats an information deep profession. Whereas a skilled person would be someone who could for example hand turn a custom replacement part for an 1890s steam engine.

I don't like this explanation much. What about a doctor making a diagnosis compared to a surgeon as examples. A significant proportion of diagnosis is accumulating recent data on the illneses currently in the area (colds, flue, measles etc) so i do see that as a good example.

For the steam engine i thing this could be automated either by using drawings or a scanning technology and then manufacturing. But at present using a skilled technician would be cheaper for a one off item.

Last edited by Zambo; 16th February 2019 at 09:24 PM.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2019, 10:55 PM   #24
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,321
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Was given a Google Mini and we use it to play music from YouTube Music. It is only a cheap device so do not expect it to be able to do much. Though it should be able to answer basic questions from the Web.
That was what surprised me. Yes, the device itself is cheap, but it's hooked up to Google.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 07:57 PM   #25
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,526
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Thought I had defined it, but I'll have another go. To become a Dr you need to gain a huge amount of information so you can use a decision tree to come to the right diagnosis. But there is no particular skill in that, so thats an information deep profession. Whereas a skilled person would be someone who could for example hand turn a custom replacement part for an 1890s steam engine.
That would not leave many jobs safe. Take the example of a surgeon. If something goes wrong then the surgeon needs to rely on past experience to come up with a solution. A computer can do the same thing. The computer has the advantage that they can be performing many operations all at the same time, thus gaining experience at a very rapid rate. So teach computers how to do basic operations and very soon you will have all operations done by computers. Then most surgeons would be out of a job.

Even better, a human makes a discovery, the computer can be taught it very quickly and then apply it to all relevant situations.

About the only time a human would be better would be when experience does not matter. They need to come up with an original idea. This is very rare. Then humans would be left with the job of being an interface with the computer. A future doctor would not know much medicine, but would know how to perform tests, like how to take blood pressure. They would also be very good at active listening. Though you could also be talking to a computer about your symptoms. The computer may then tell you to see a 'doctor'. Or maybe it could offer a diagnosis on the spot. This 'doctor' would then perform the required tests as instructed by the computer. The computer would give the diagnoses and what treatment is required. Of course this computer would be able to pass the Turing test.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 08:01 PM   #26
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,526
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
That was what surprised me. Yes, the device itself is cheap, but it's hooked up to Google yet cannot use Chrome to answer a question.
I fixed your post for you.

If I use my iPad I can ask it a question and it will search the web for me and give me answers based on the search. When say ask I mean I use my voice. This does not happen with my Google mini.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 08:17 PM   #27
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,535
It seems like the only part of "robots taking our jobs" that would be a problem for most is the second half of the sentence, no?
An idealists' view of utopia might very well include machines producing food, performing complex medical procedures with precision unattainable by humans, umpiring baseball games with a perfectly consistent strike zone, enabling safe transport of people and goods across distances, etc...etc....
What that same idealist might not see as 'utopian' is a society wherein those machines are owned and controlled by a small percentage of people not beholden to "the masses" in any enforceable sense. Leaving them as little more than serfs in some neo-feudal dystopia, with nothing upon which to trade to try and better their circumstances except their dignity.
When looked at from that perspective the focus of the debate shifts to the murky realms of "private property" and its role (if any) in such a society.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 08:20 PM   #28
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 5,535
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
I fixed your post for you.

If I use my iPad I can ask it a question and it will search the web for me and give me answers based on the search. When say ask I mean I use my voice. This does not happen with my Google mini.
My Google Home will answer direct questions.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 08:21 PM   #29
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,720
As I talked about earlier I think it's just a simpler, more basic fact that a post-scarcity world is a lot easier to imagine living in then a transitory period into a post-scarcity world.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th February 2019, 09:42 PM   #30
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,526
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
My Google Home will answer direct questions.
That is good. You have the next model up. I have a google mini. This does not have a screen. You have a Google home. This does have a screen. And maybe extra brain power. Though I have not looked that up.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 10:30 AM   #31
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333
The Google home is the base model. They are both microphones using the same interface.

Google Home is supposed to be fairly conversational
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 11:44 AM   #32
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,133
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
That is good. You have the next model up. I have a google mini. This does not have a screen. You have a Google home. This does have a screen. And maybe extra brain power. Though I have not looked that up.
The Google Home doesn't have a screen, that's the latest device, the Google Home Hub.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2019, 11:44 AM   #33
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,133
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
That would not leave many jobs safe.... Snip..
Yep.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2019, 08:38 AM   #34
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
The problem with the "robots taking over our jobs" attitude is how incredibly short-sighted it is, and mired in wave-slavery.

The technology currently exists to allow humans to begin the move toward a post-scarcity, universal-income society, but no one in a position to do so seems to have the political will to start that process. Their power base is still heavily dependent on maintaining the status quo, promoting ignorance, prejudice, and superstition. This is just as true on the left as it is on the right, and in almost every other part of the political spectrum.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 12:21 AM   #35
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,526
The Department of Jobs and small business has just put out a report about what jobs and industries will grow in the next 5 years in Australia. They listed 6 broad job categories and I have sorted them by growth (fastest growing first, shrinking last)

COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE WORKERS
PROFESSIONALS
MANAGERS
TECHNICIANS AND TRADES WORKERS
LABOURERS
MACHINERY OPERATORS AND DRIVERS
SALES WORKERS
CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE WORKERS

Full reports here http://lmip.gov.au/default.aspx?LMIP...entProjections
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.