Support NeoGAF

[Mr.Mike]

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...s-artificial-intelligence-ai-mcjobs-low-skill

On the left, there are two prominent worries about American jobs. One is that new jobs are terrible: Low-level service and retail positions, or “McJobs,” are replacing the middle-class occupations of the past. The second is that there soon won’t be any jobs at all: Robots, artificial intelligence, and similar technologies will produce so much labor displacement that even crummy jobs won’t be available.

That’s pretty depressing if these two (somewhat contradictory) views are accurate. Fortunately, neither one is. Start with the idea that jobs will disappear. This is, to say the least, highly unlikely. Concerns about the disappearance of jobs have recurred again and again as technology has advanced, and they’ve always been wrong. The general pattern is that technological transformations put workers out of jobs in one sector only to have more jobs created in others as demand for new products and services grow. Thus, technology advances but the availability of jobs does not decline.

...

But perhaps today is different? This technology — robots, artificial intelligence, the computerization of everything — is so powerful that it will hoover up most of the jobs and leave very few for actual humans to do.

...

But what is the evidence that technologically driven labor displacement is taking place at a particularly fast — much less accelerating — rate? To put it bluntly: There isn’t any. If Ford’s “rise of the robots” were taking place, we would be seeing very rapid productivity increases today (fewer workers, larger output). We’re not. Instead, productivity increases have been abominably slow in recent years — a mere 1.3 percent per year, just over a third of the rate at the end of the last century.

Another indicator that the robots are gaining on us would be an exceptionally high rate of “occupational churn,” the rate at which the job structure is changing as some occupations decline and others grow. In a study of Census data going back to 1850, economists Robert Atkinson and John Wu found instead that the rate of churn in recent decades has been exceptionally slow — slower, in fact, than at any other period in their study. Indeed, the rate of occupational churn in the new century has been less than a third of that in the dynamic 1950 to 1980 period.

These results are completely inconsistent with the “jobless future” hypothesis. We are in no danger of having humans crowded out by incredibly productive robots. If anything, given the anemic productivity growth, we should worry that robots and related technologies are being underused, thereby holding back the advance of new economic sectors.

OK, the jobs pessimist might reply, maybe there will be jobs in the future but they’ll be jobs barely worth having. After all, isn’t that how American jobs have been trending for 50 years?

The pessimist has it right that past trends may continue, but the pessimist is wrong about what those past trends have been. Since “blue collar” and “white collar” have become hopelessly muddled terms, the best way to look at changes in the job structure over time is to sort workers by skill levels and work performed.

In The Economy Goes to College, by economists Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose, the authors sort workers into three occupation tiers: managerial-professional, middle-skill, and low-skill. In this categorization, mid-skill jobs include not only mid-level supervisors, skilled craftspeople and clericals but also service occupations such as medical assistants and police; the low-skill category includes not just factory workers but also retail sales clerks and service workers including security guards, janitors, and waitresses.

Back in 1967, just 21 percent of jobs were managerial-professional, the authors found, while 39 percent were low-skill and about the same proportion were mid skill. Today, 35 percent of jobs are managerial-professional, 36 percent are middle-skill and only 29 percent are low-skill. Thus, managerial-professional positions are up 14 percentage points as a share of jobs since 1967; low-skill jobs have actually dropped by 10 percentage points.

...

Since 1967, the big change has been the rise in office work and high-skill services (up 14 points), while the big decline has been in industrial manual labor, down 13 points. Interestingly, and very importantly, the share of low-skill service jobs is just about the same today as it was back in 1967. (Fast food jobs — the quintessential low-skill gig — are stuck at around 2.3 percent of US jobs, with no sign that that share is going up since the turn of the century.)

Statistics like those put paid to the notion that middle-class jobs are disappearing and being replaced by “McJobs.” This view equates the decline of low-skill, relatively well-paid jobs like those in manufacturing — which, indeed, has been going on since 1948 — to an overall decline in middle-class jobs, which is not merited.

The middle-class jobs of today are in the growth areas of offices and high skill services. These two areas of the economy now provide 64 percent of all jobs. And they’ve expanded more as a share of jobs since 1967 than manufacturing and related jobs have declined. Middle-class jobs are not disappearing; rather, they have moved to different sectors that require higher levels of education and cognitive training.

Of course, that middle-class jobs are not disappearing does not mean inequality is not rising. It is. That trend is a product of many forces, including a lack of support for low-income workers, stagnating wages, and the skew of economic rewards toward the rich. The availability of new middle-class jobs in offices and high-skill services is not sufficient, by itself, to counteract these powerful forces. But that is not fault of these jobs. In part, it has to do with unwise policy choices.

...

So it was ever thus. Continuing technological advance, as in the past, is unlikely to produce a future of no jobs. It will lead instead to a future of different and more highly skilled jobs. Rather than bemoaning a chimerical disappearance of work, or seeking to somehow reinvent the manufacturing economy of the past, the left should seek to increase access to high-skill and growing sectors of the economy, particularly in regions where the decline in low-skill industrial labor has significantly eroded the job base.

Analysis of Census data indicates that 84 percent of noncollege workers who make $50,000 a year or more work outside of manufacturing. Count on that trend to continue.

Above all, we must keep the focus on running a high-pressure, full employment, rising-wages economy — and expanding the benefits available to all workers. American jobs will continue to evolve toward higher skills over time; let’s make sure those jobs pay as well as possible and that they provide solid economic security.

More behind the link.

 

[The Technomancer]

Reading the full thing now...the statistics are interesting. I think wage stagnation is a huge factor in the perception of declining job prospects

 

[Mr.Mike]

Reading the full thing now...the statistics are interesting. I think wage stagnation is a huge factor in the perception of declining job prospects

I think another huge factor is that people who are actually doing okay aren't really going around talking about how things are actually pretty good for them. Which is not to say the people on the losing end of this change are wrong to raise their concerns, and we should do more to help people. But it is fallacious to extrapolate from them that the entire economy is doing poorly.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I see a major flaw in their argument: the incessant need for higher and higher levels of education in order to just achieve a middle class lifestyle. This will inevitably lead to disaster, as the vast majority of the population will either not have the motivation or capacity to obtain that level of technical knowledge and know-how.

As the labor pool increases in size due to globalization and includes highly educated, highly skilled workers from poorer countries where education is highly subsidized or free, native American workers, on average, will fall further and further behind, being underemployed or exiting the workforce altogether. In this paradigm of a race to the bottom in terms of wages and standard of living across the population as a whole, Bernie Sanders is the only person stating what needs to happen: Americans need access to highly subsidized or free higher education in order to compete and not start life with crippling debt.

 

[The Technomancer]

I see a major flaw in their argument: the incessant need for higher and higher levels of education in order to just achieve a middle class lifestyle. This will inevitably lead to disaster, as the vast majority of the population will either not have the motivation or capacity to obtain that level of technical knowledge and know-how.

I was thinking about this and I was thinking about how this isn't geographically heterogeneous. That actually might be my primary issue with this piece (although now I need to go find the statistics to show that I'm right)

 

[shira]

The real craziness is the $100k coal jobs.

Sorry people those are never coming back.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I think this is the key takeaway from their argument:

Of course, that middle-class jobs are not disappearing does not mean inequality is not rising. It is. That trend is a product of many forces, including a lack of support for low-income workers, stagnating wages, and the skew of economic rewards toward the rich. The availability of new middle-class jobs in offices and high-skill services is not sufficient, by itself, to counteract these powerful forces. But that is not fault of these jobs. In part, it has to do with unwise policy choices.

Basically that the "machines will take our jobs!" histrionics is part and parcel for modern society ever since automation was a thing, but it's not really accurate when looking at the whole picture. It feels like it's happening because of rising inequality, which is making a bunch of other stuff (rising housing prices in cities you have to live for these jobs, etc.) feel more dire.

I think the most broadly applicable statement is that both sides of the coin can be right here, just that the most deleterious effects are highly localized, rather than some all-encompassing tidal wave of robotic doom coming our way.

 

[The Albatross]

I am pretty shocked that Vox published this, because everything else they've published on this topic for the last 2 years has been the neo-luddite "robots are takin our jobs and there's no hope!" platform, which has frustrating perseverance on sites like NeoGaf, despite being based in nothing but populist fear-mongering.

 

[Foffy]

Oh boy, a full employment article. Surely that hasn't been gamed with the transfer of capital....

 

[Mr.Mike]

I see a major flaw in their argument: the incessant need for higher and higher levels of education in order to just achieve a middle class lifestyle. This will inevitably lead to disaster, as the vast majority of the population will either not have the motivation or capacity to obtain that level of technical knowledge and know-how.

I'd challenge the idea that future middle-class jobs will all require technical knowledge. I'd imagine we'd see a rise in jobs requiring other sorts of skill sets as well, so we don't have to worry about trying to train everyone in a handful of skillsets not everyone is suited for or prefers.

Also people are getting smarter, so perhaps it's to early to give up on having a huge proportion of the population be very highly educated.

 

[Damaniel]

I think this is the key takeaway from their argument:



Basically that the "machines will take our jobs!" histrionics is part and parcel for modern society ever since automation was a thing, but it's not really accurate when looking at the whole picture. It feels like it's happening because of rising inequality, which is making a bunch of other stuff (rising housing prices in cities you have to live for these jobs, etc.) feel more dire.

If a job isn't sufficient to buy a house in the city its located in, what makes that job better than the low-level service 'McJobs' the article is talking about? A traditional middle class job doesn't mean much if you don't get traditional middle class spending power from it. Even in my city, the median income can't buy the median house anywhere but in the most crime-ridden outer parts of the city limits (and barely then).

 

[Gutek]

I think another huge factor is that people who are actually doing okay aren't really going around talking about how things are actually pretty good for them. Which is not to say the people on the losing end of this change are wrong to raise their concerns, and we should do more to help people. But it is fallacious to extrapolate from them that the entire economy is doing poorly.

"Actually doing okay" is relative. You can be making 100k in CA and it still won't give you economic security.

Edit: Wages need to go up. Across the board.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I'd challenge the idea that future middle-class jobs will all require technical knowledge. I'd imagine we'd see a rise in jobs requiring other sorts of skill sets as well, so we don't have to worry about trying to train everyone in a handful of skillsets not everyone is suited for or prefers.

Also people are getting smarter, so perhaps it's to early to give up on having a huge proportion of the population be very highly educated.

People getting smarter is a trend where you will eventually inevitably brush up against the limits of human intellectual capacity.

And even though not all jobs will require an inherently technical skill set, on average the number that will will continue to trend upwards. Even soft skill jobs in business will require more credentialization just to have a shot at even being considered for the job, which is what we already are seeing in today's world. In this new employer centric labor market, workers will perpetually be at the whim of highly risk averse employers who don't want to dedicate dollars to training potential green employees. They will only consider employees they know can perform the task day one or with minimal training.

 

[Mr.Mike]

If a job isn't sufficient to buy a house in the city its located in, what makes that job better than the low-level service 'McJobs' the article is talking about? A traditional middle class job doesn't mean much if you don't get traditional middle class spending power from it. Even in my city, the median income can't buy the median house anywhere but in the most crime-ridden outer parts of the city limits (and barely then).

Because you can still buy a better quality of life?

I do agree that housing is too expensive. There are a number of policies in place that have constrained the growth of supply, like zoning laws and rent controls. Removing them would help, although I think we've reached a point where the situation is dire enough that the government ought to intervene and just start building as much housing as it possibly can, and heavily investing in infrastructure so that more residential area is within an acceptable commute of where the bulk of jobs are. The supply shock might screw current owners, but far more people would benefit.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I see a major flaw in their argument: the incessant need for higher and higher levels of education in order to just achieve a middle class lifestyle. This will inevitably lead to disaster, as the vast majority of the population will either not have the motivation or capacity to obtain that level of technical knowledge and know-how.

As the labor pool increases in size due to globalization and includes highly educated, highly skilled workers from poorer countries where education is highly subsidized or free, native American workers, on average, will fall further and further behind, being underemployed or exiting the workforce altogether. In this paradigm of a race to the bottom in terms of wages and standard of living across the population as a whole, Bernie Sanders is the only person stating what needs to happen: Americans need access to highly subsidized or free higher education in order to compete and not start life with crippling debt.

I think we are seeing both this issue and the solution to this issue right now. There is no doubt in my mind that there is an education bubble that is going to burst. The costs vs the advantages in getting a qualification. The cost of an education these days is almost crippling. At some point it will force the majority to stop looking at higher education institutions for these qualifications. When that happens, the education system as we know it, will collapse.

However the solution to this, is the internet and the freely available information it provides. There are people already studying and learning to do the tasks, that traditionally a higher education would need. As technology gets better I think we will see a transition away from Higher Education, with it being reserved to very specialist fields.

 

[tokkun]

One statistic I like to think about when I see the AI fearmongering is employment on farms.

Prior to the World Wars, about 50% of Americans were employed in farmwork. Today it is closer to 1%. For reference, the number of Americans employed as truck drivers - a job whose automation is often purported to be catastrophic - is also around 1%. 50X less per capita.

I think it is appropriate for people to worry about the impact of AI, but these things need to be viewed in historical perspective. It may be that "this time it will be different" and we don't create new jobs for displaced workers, but the immediate scope of the issue is not nearly as large as some that have been faced in the past.

 

[kswiston]

I think we are seeing both this issue and the solution to this issue right now. There is no doubt in my mind that there is an education bubble that is going to burst. The costs vs the advantages in getting a qualification. The cost of an education these days is almost crippling. At some point it will force the majority to stop looking at higher education institutions for these qualifications. When that happens, the education system as we know it, will collapse.

However the solution to this, is the internet and the freely available information it provides. There are people already studying and learning to do the tasks, that traditionally a higher education would need. As technology gets better I think we will see a transition away from Higher Education, with it being reserved to very specialist fields.

You will have to wean employers and recruiters off of the need to see those pieces of paper first though. We aren't even at the point where most employers would accept coursework from the free/cheap MOO courses, and those are designed by the same people teaching the classes in accredited universities. I have browsed a few and they aren't all that different from your experience in traditional lecture courses through your first two years of university. At least outside of the physical sciences, where lab work with expensive equipment is sort of a pre-requisite to getting the full experience.

 

[Foffy]

One statistic I like to think about when I see the AI fearmongering is employment on farms.

Prior to the World Wars, about 50% of Americans were employed in farmwork. Today it is closer to 1%. For reference, the number of Americans employed as truck drivers - a job whose automation is often purported to be catastrophic - is also around 1%. 50X less per capita.

I think it is appropriate for people to worry about the impact of AI, but these things need to be viewed in historical perspective. It may be that "this time it will be different" and we don't create new jobs for displaced workers, but the immediate scope of the issue is not nearly as large as some that have been faced in the past.

1% here is also the most employed job in the United States? Did I fail a math class somewhere in my life?

 

[tokkun]

1% here is also the most employed job in the United States? Did I fail a math class somewhere in my life?

Yes, employment is much more diversified today than it once was. It's another reason why disruption of any single field does not have as much impact as it did in the past with the introduction of more sophisticated farming machinery.

The point is that if society was able to navigate a change in employment for 50% of the population, we should not view smaller changes as insurmountable.

 

[Formless]

One statistic I like to think about when I see the AI fearmongering is employment on farms.

Prior to the World Wars, about 50% of Americans were employed in farmwork. Today it is closer to 1%. For reference, the number of Americans employed as truck drivers - a job whose automation is often purported to be catastrophic - is also around 1%. 50X less per capita.

I think it is appropriate for people to worry about the impact of AI, but these things need to be viewed in historical perspective. It may be that "this time it will be different" and we don't create new jobs for displaced workers, but the immediate scope of the issue is not nearly as large as some that have been faced in the past.

It's worth noting that automating trucks won't just affect truckers, but also maintenance guys, all those restaurants/gas stations in the middle of nowhere, etc. Those actually provide a lot of jobs for rural communities.

 

[kirblar]

Reading the full thing now...the statistics are interesting. I think wage stagnation is a huge factor in the perception of declining job prospects

I think a larger issue is that the people doing labor-intensive work don't want to do desk jobs or jobs where they interact w/ people.

 

[tokkun]

It's worth noting that automating trucks won't just affect truckers, but also maintenance guys, all those restaurants/gas stations in the middle of nowhere, etc. Those actually provide a lot of jobs for rural communities.

Trucks will still need fuel and maintenance. And someone will likely continue to be paid to sit in the self-driving trucks for quite a while after they stop being the drivers.

I think a larger issue is that the people doing labor-intensive work don't want to do desk jobs or jobs where they interact w/ people.

They are probably fine. AI is not really threatening jobs that require a lot of physical labor, and advances in robotics for doing such labor have been much slower. Robots are good at doing extremely repetitive and predictable activities, but throw in any sort of need for adaptation and fine motor skills and humans are way more efficient. I think we are a long way from having robots take the place of plumbers or roofers.

 

[FreezeSSC]

I think most articles that raise the alarm of rising AI make the point that its only just beginning. Looking at current job trends and saying everything's fine when the big break through might be just 5 years down the road is extremely short sided IMO.

 

[Krakatoa]

Trucks will still need fuel and maintenance. .

Fuel and Maintenance can be automated.

 

[kirblar]

They are probably fine. AI is not really threatening jobs that require a lot of physical labor, and advances in robotics for doing such labor have been much slower. Robots are good at doing extremely repetitive and predictable activities, but throw in any sort of need for adaptation and fine motor skills and humans are way more efficient. I think we are a long way from having robots take the place of plumbers or roofers.

They're not.

Since 1967, the big change has been the rise in office work and high-skill services (up 14 points), while the big decline has been in industrial manual labor, down 13 points. Interestingly, and very importantly, the share of low-skill service jobs is just about the same today as it was back in 1967. (Fast food jobs — the quintessential low-skill gig — are stuck at around 2.3 percent of US jobs, with no sign that that share is going up since the turn of the century.)

That's a big change in the economy. An eighth less jobs exist in that sector.

 

[Skellig Gra]

The article definitely puts a rosy spin on things. Here is the way I see it. These managerial jobs increase is a result of people not retiring because they don't have enough money. You can't have a 64 year old as a low level pleb because they've been working there for 20 years. On top of that, these 64 year old people are incredibly inefficient and are doing tons of work that should be automated (which the article points out to an extent). Anyone on GAF who works in a typical office environment knows what I'm talking about. Old person can't even figure out excel when an automated script could do in seconds what they take days to do.

 

[Gallbaro]

It's worth noting that automating trucks won't just affect truckers, but also maintenance guys, all those restaurants/gas stations in the middle of nowhere, etc. Those actually provide a lot of jobs for rural communities.

Automated driving will also DRASTICALLY affect municipal revenues.

Police traffic enforcement is a major employment center and source of funding.

 

[shira]

Automated driving will also DRASTICALLY affect municipal revenues.

Police traffic enforcement is a major employment center and source of funding.

I can't wait to see a human cop give a robot driver a ticket to meet their quota.

 

[Skellig Gra]

I can't wait to see a human cop give a robot driver a ticket to meet their quota.

Robot will try to weasel out of it. Something along these lines.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

People getting smarter is a trend where you will eventually inevitably brush up against the limits of human intellectual capacity.

And even though not all jobs will require an inherently technical skill set, on average the number that will will continue to trend upwards. Even soft skill jobs in business will require more credentialization just to have a shot at even being considered for the job, which is what we already are seeing in today's world. In this new employer centric labor market, workers will perpetually be at the whim of highly risk averse employers who don't want to dedicate dollars to training potential green employees. They will only consider employees they know can perform the task day one or with minimal training.

That's why computers with specific software and AI will aid in new occupations. Eventually some jobs that require specific knowledge will cease to exist as well because software can do the job better. I'm sure people two centuries back would be astonished at the power of our current heavy industrial machines can accomplish compared to what they themselves could do with human, animal labor or their machines.

 

[Fuchsdh]

If a job isn't sufficient to buy a house in the city its located in, what makes that job better than the low-level service 'McJobs' the article is talking about? A traditional middle class job doesn't mean much if you don't get traditional middle class spending power from it. Even in my city, the median income can't buy the median house anywhere but in the most crime-ridden outer parts of the city limits (and barely then).

Like with inflation in education costs, housing is entirely a separate problem that should ideally be tackled. But good luck with that given that most people don't bother investing and thus property is their only significant asset, and because "affordable housing" has come to mean "we tore down these historic homes to replace with shitty-looking buildings with even worse living conditions."

 

[midramble]

The threshold of "it's different this time" is when the automation plays the role of a human better than a human can. To say this won't happen is probably underestimating the potential and even current vector of AI.

 

[Woo-Fu]

Trucks will still need fuel and maintenance. And someone will likely continue to be paid to sit in the self-driving trucks for quite a while after they stop being the drivers.



They are probably fine. AI is not really threatening jobs that require a lot of physical labor, and advances in robotics for doing such labor have been much slower. Robots are good at doing extremely repetitive and predictable activities, but throw in any sort of need for adaptation and fine motor skills and humans are way more efficient. I think we are a long way from having robots take the place of plumbers or roofers.

Actually that isn't entirely true. It doesn't need to be AI/robots. Machines/power tools have become more effective/efficient, thus requiring fewer workers. Just compare how fast you can do a lawn with a zero-turn vs. previous options. Instead of a crew spending half hour to an hour on a lawn you've got two guys with zero-turns and straight arm weedeaters banging out large lawns in 15m.

Those technology increases mean you're either doing the same amount of work with fewer people or doing more work with the same people, choking out the competition. Either way it is fewer overall jobs unless the volume of work itself is increasing as fast as the technology---and even then you run into other constraints like oh, say, the size of the area you can effectively service.

And really, worrying about the robots taking all the jobs misses what the real problem is: The people at the top taking all the profit. If robots are more efficient that could mean higher wages/cheaper products for everybody. Instead the wealthy will use that money to increase their control on a given market and/or line their own pockets. I'm not blaming them for that, BTW. That's the type of behavior capitalism rewards/encourages/demands.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

i've never seen anyone ever say that all jobs will disappear.

also it's not just about productivity but cost as well.

 

[KingV]

Actually that isn't entirely true. It doesn't need to be AI/robots. Machines/power tools have become more effective/efficient, thus requiring fewer workers. Just compare how fast you can do a lawn with a zero-turn vs. previous options. Instead of a crew spending half hour to an hour on a lawn you've got two guys with zero-turns and straight arm weedeaters banging out large lawns in 15m.

Those technology increases means you're either doing the same amount of work with fewer people or doing more work with the same people, choking out the competition. Either way it is less overall jobs unless the volume of work itself is increasing as fast as the technology---and even then you run into other constraints like oh, say, the size of the area you can effectively service.

Then go back to the op and ask why productivity is only increasing 1.3% per year. The answer is that this trend is not very widespread.

 

[midramble]

i've never seen anyone ever say that all jobs will disappear.

Well then I'll basically say this. Once machines can do everything humans can do, except better, (which they eventually will) the only job left to humans will be... being human. People will pay to be specifically serviced by a human just for the sake of... well... nostalgia? Even then, at some point machines may be better at representing what we expect to be human than real humans and for cheaper, so we may be out of that job as well.

 

[-COOLIO-]

I think most articles that raise the alarm of rising AI make the point that its only just beginning. Looking at current job trends and saying everything's fine when the big break through might be just 5 years down the road is extremely short sided IMO.

Pretty much

 

[Mr.Mike]

The threshold of "it's different this time" is when the automation plays the role of a human better than a human can. To say this won't happen is probably underestimating the potential and even current vector of AI.

My experience with AI is mostly people throwing random linear algebra they barely understand at problem domains they barely understand and seeing what sticks.

Maybe they're a bit more competent at more elite schools, but I feel like a lot of people are really overestimating AI.

I don't know what your angle is, but I see a lot of anti-capitalists be rightly skeptical of a lot of Silicon Valley, but then they just take SV's grandiose vision of AI on face value?

 

[TheLaughingStock]

I am pretty shocked that Vox published this, because everything else they've published on this topic for the last 2 years has been the neo-luddite "robots are takin our jobs and there's no hope!" platform, which has frustrating perseverance on sites like NeoGaf, despite being based in nothing but populist fear-mongering.

Probably different authors. Vox posts a lot of dumb stuff and certainly leans on the robots are so good everyone will be out of work charade. I mean if that's the case then so many problems in the global economy would be solved with the US leading the way.

 

[Mr.Mike]

i've never seen anyone ever say that all jobs will disappear.

also it's not just about productivity but cost as well.

There's definitely plenty of people concerned that enough jobs will disappear to cause major social issues.

The second point is kind of a tautology? We want to increase productivity so we can get more output from the same or less input (cost).

 

[badcrumble]

Technology's great for employment. Just look at all the jobs the cotton gin created.

 

[Sectorseven]

The key to automating manual labor is perfecting vision. In other words, programming a computer to see and recognize objects as a human would, and we're on the cusp of that.

 

[Foffy]

The threshold of "it's different this time" is when the automation plays the role of a human better than a human can. To say this won't happen is probably underestimating the potential and even current vector of AI.

Indeed, and that's the problem.

We are using ways of thinking of the past and the present to map out the future, and there has often been cases where human models and views of the world broke as we moved forward.

To assume it's not is being foolish, especially considering those concerned of it. Investors, bankers, the Obama administration, the WEF, and the Pentagon, to name a few. The fact the Pentagon thinks this will mix with climate change and create a new age of combat is very concerning. Mega cities where thousands of people are dissenters and urban terrorists.

To handwave this at this moment is much like handwaving the issue of climate concerns in the 1970s. We did that, and we fucked up hard doing so with the mess we have today. We have people invested in not dealing with the problem, and those same people will do the same thing here is this is a tsunami of change.

 

[Walter White Walker]

I can't wait to see a human cop give a robot driver a ticket to meet their quota.

That's why you paint your robot white.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Ah, the productivity paradox. There was just an episode of Planet Money about this.

The problem is, and the professor in the middle of that episode mentions it, is that so much of this is based off perception. He stated he plays a game called "spot the robot", and it's true, you don't see robots replacing service jobs much right now or any really visible profession.

But of course things are just starting, and the changes happening are not in very visible areas of society. Productivity and change may be slower than they've been in our history, but the question is whether the metrics are missing the changes under the surface ready to break through.

It's true we are missing major paradigm changes since so many resources get dumped into apps now, and perhaps we are in the middle of a startup bubble similar to the dot com boom, but a new way of life is just on the horizon.

Now, in my mind, it's theoretically possible that the overlap of the modern Maker culture, urban farming, DIY electronics, 3D printing, and the gig economy are creating a new kind of microeconomics that will grow into the new paradigm as existing jobs are replaced, but of course a switch to more of a cottage industry environment may result in new class divisions within the middle class as those who cannot even afford startup costs will become the most disenfranchised. I suspect we will see sooner than later.

 

[tokkun]

Fuel and Maintenance can be automated.

Automating maintenance will be difficult. Automating fueling probably isn't, but is not necessarily going to be cheaper than just having a human do it.

They're not.

That's a big change in the economy. An eighth less jobs exist in that sector.

That data isn't really addressing what I said, because it does not differentiate between repetitive, single-skill labor (which is easily done by robots) and adaptive, multi-skill labor (which is not).

I think we all recognize that robotics have eliminated a lot of jobs on the assembly line. What is not clear is if robots will be capable of extending this to doing the job of an electrician or a chef any time soon. Some academics recently tried to design a robot to fold laundry - a task that is not exactly hugely complicated - and found it to be extremely difficult.

Actually that isn't entirely true. It doesn't need to be AI/robots. Machines/power tools have become more effective/efficient, thus requiring fewer workers. Just compare how fast you can do a lawn with a zero-turn vs. previous options. Instead of a crew spending half hour to an hour on a lawn you've got two guys with zero-turns and straight arm weedeaters banging out large lawns in 15m.

Tools increasing productivity is a different issue that has been going on since the beginning of time. Productivity gains from tools have been slowing in recent years compared to previous decades.

 

[CrunchyB]

My experience with AI is mostly people throwing random linear algebra they barely understand at problem domains they barely understand and seeing what sticks.

Yeah, same here. I've been in software engineering for a decade and other than IBM and handful other outfits I don't see much progress being made in AI.

Lots of stuff gets automated and nowadays there are multiple ways to chain systems together to get stuff done, but that is not AI.

Maybe the AI singularity is just around the corner, I don't know, but I doubt it.

 

[Cave Johnson]

I'm jealous of the people playing the Nintendo Switch sessions on Mario Oddyssey.

I cri!

**and that Mayor Paulina theme song.

 

[sohois]

A survey of AI experts on timelines for replacement of human roles was literally published within the last few days:

http://aiimpacts.org/some-survey-results/

Safe to say that this article doesn't reflect the consensus on technological unemployment whatsoever

 

[Mr.Mike]

Safe to say that this article doesn't reflect the consensus on technological unemployment whatsoever

These aren't estimates on technological unemployment, it's estimates on when AI will be able to perform certain tasks. The point isn't that automation won't automate jobs, but that it won't get rid of work and people will shift to being employed in different tasks where they have comparative advantage over AI.