Will robots steal our jobs?

[JJM 777]

Medical diagnosis could be outsourced a lot, even to the patient himself. Or to a nurse. I have this rash here, what could it be? The robot lists the different possibilities. If an MD has a way of knowing which of the possible ones it is, it should be possible to teach a robot to do the same. Even better, with eyes that view the rash in various light wave lengths unseen to the human eye, ultraviolet, infrared, etc.

Hmm, I am starting to like the idea of replacing a lot of the work of ridiculously overpaid MDs with less expensive robots.

 

[Brainster]

I always sense a certain hopefulness in these threads that it will happen and the government will be forced to pay people not to work.

 

[barehl]

Another example of where "highly skilled" and therefore highly paid jobs are more easily replaced by robots is airline pilots.

This already happened. As Sullenberger stated in his book, the salaries of airlines pilots were cut by 2/3rds about the time he became one. He also stated that he had to bring his own lunch because the airline stopped providing food for the crew. In other words, they replaced a highly paid job with a lower paying job without a robot.

We have the technology now, and have already had it for many years, to replace airline pilots and make planes operate without pilots.

Not really. If this were true then all of the subway trains should be automated. Staying on one track with unchanging platform stops is a much simpler decision space.

The consensus is that such pilotless planes would be safer than current ones, where a significant proportion of all "accidents" are due to pilot error.

No, this is a naïve assumption.

The only things stopping us from doing this are not technical ones

There are technical issues as well.

they are to do with legislation and rules written when robot planes weren't available, and the widespread, probably wrong, belief that passengers would feel less safe without a pilot and would therefore not fly.

This isn't really much of an argument. Locomotives have a single engineer even when multiple locomotives are used in a train. If your assertion was correct then we would be down to a single crew member for backup of the automated system.

driverless trains are already a thing.

Well, sort of. There are limited lines that use full automation (GoA4). When you look through the lists you find that a given system may have a dozen lines and only one or two are automated. The most extensive systems are only GoA2.

In this system trains run automatically from station to station but a driver is in the cab, with responsibility for door closing, obstacle detection on the track in front of the train and handling of emergency situations. As in a GoA3 system, the GoA2 train cannot operate safely without the staff member on board.

 

[rjh01]

Medical diagnosis could be outsourced a lot, even to the patient himself. Or to a nurse. I have this rash here, what could it be? The robot lists the different possibilities. If an MD has a way of knowing which of the possible ones it is, it should be possible to teach a robot to do the same. Even better, with eyes that view the rash in various light wave lengths unseen to the human eye, ultraviolet, infrared, etc.

Hmm, I am starting to like the idea of replacing a lot of the work of ridiculously overpaid MDs with less expensive robots.

I agree. A computer should be able to give a better diagnosis than a human. Take a picture of that rash and the program would be able to say what it is and what treatments to apply. If they discover that there is a new type of rash then all programs could be informed immediately. The skill level required for a doctor would be greatly reduced. As well as the need for human specialists.

 

[Darat]

That's a great deal of confidence considering that you are talking about a theory that is still hypothetical.

What theory?

 

[Darat]

I agree. A computer should be able to give a better diagnosis than a human. Take a picture of that rash and the program would be able to say what it is and what treatments to apply. If they discover that there is a new type of rash then all programs could be informed immediately. The skill level required for a doctor would be greatly reduced. As well as the need for human specialists.

They already are better than humans in quite a few diagnostic areas:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/ai-versus-md

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ibm-watson-proper-diagnosis-doctors-stumped-article-1.2741857

And there are a lot more real world examples.

 

[rjh01]

His arguments don't seem all that logical. For example he states that what used to be thirty humans is now one human overseeing thirty cashier robots. We already had vending machines with bill readers. We already had UPC scanners. We've had menus and touch screens for some time. All that was added was a sensitive scale to detect when things were added to the sacking tray. There is no big advance here. Calling a checkout kiosk a "cashier robot" is bordering on psychotic delusion. A genuine cashier robot would be able to scan and sack the items on its own. This isn't even a new concept. It actually dates back to the first Piggly Wiggly in 1916.

At the time of its founding, grocery stores did not allow their customers to gather their own goods. Instead, a customer would give a list of items to a clerk, who would then go through the store himself, gathering them. This created a greater cost, therefore higher prices. Piggly Wiggly introduced the innovation of allowing customers to go through the store, gathering their own goods.

The horse and automobile analogy is silly. Horses have never had any requirement for jobs. The personification of horses was not much better than claiming that bronze eliminated the jobs for stone tools.

The self-driving cars claim is another of his delusions. Do they work? No, they don't. These designs are more properly classified as upgraded autopilot systems which have been in aircraft since 1912. They work pretty good on interstate highways in daylight in good weather but not so well in city traffic or at night or in bad weather. The only question is how quickly they will replace human drivers? That's a naïve assumption and shows that the author of the video is not informed about the technology. A more accurate statement would be that if a more intelligent control system becomes available then the tools developed thus far for "self-driving" cars will make it much easier to create a fully autonomous system.

Computers can already self-program. No, not even close. The rest is mostly the same highly exaggerated projection and a further confusion of jobs with tools.


He's not even in the right area code.

Thanks for your review. The point is that jobs are going. You need far fewer people now to sell you your groceries now than in the past. In the future even fewer will be required. It does not matter if it is due to robots or other technologies or how long it is between the invention of the technology and its common usage. The fact still remains a lot of jobs are on the way out or will be radically changed.

 

[quadraginta]

I always sense a certain hopefulness in these threads that it will happen and the government will be forced to pay people not to work.

Disregarding the unnecessary "hopefulness" quip, if the replacement of many or most routine occupations with modern automation should come about, and if large numbers of people were left with no practical avenue to legitimate employment at all, do you think it would be wrong for governments to step in and provide a basic living allowance?

 

[HansMustermann]

Nah, robots will go, "Screw you, guys! I'm making my own factory! With blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the factory!"

 

[JJM 777]

Take a picture of that rash and the program would be able to say what it is and what treatments to apply.

Diagnosing is not quite that simple. It is more like: "This symptom has 10 known causes, with varying statistical probabilities. We'll assume the statistically most common cause, unless interview of the patient or other circumstances give a reason to suspect that some less common cause is now the most probable cause. Then we have to decide which of the many possible medicines and treatments this particular person responds most positively to. If symptoms will not go away with the given treatment, we try some other treatment for the same assumed cause. If nothing helps, we'll have to assume that the first diagnose guess was incorrect, and try treatments meant for the next most probable cause. In some cases, neither the cause nor a remedy will ever be found out. In some cases, the patient dies because we guessed wrong too many times. In some cases, the treatments fail because the patient did not follow the instructions or take the medicine, but we have no way of knowing if he did or not. Sometimes we believe that the patient is lying. In some cases, we believe that the patient is insane."

If a fever etc. can be caused by bacteria or viruses, doctors seldom verify the precise bacteria or virus that is found in the patient. Apparently this would be possible for science, but considered unencessarily difficult or expensive -- especially if knowing the exact cause would anyway not help ending the flu any quicker. Technological advances are welcome also in the technical side of the diagnosing process, not only (or even mainly) in the decision-making process now done by a medical doctor.

 

[barehl]

What theory?

What you have today is Advanced AI. It works quite well on structured, high volume, and repetitive tasks. It's efficient but profoundly stupid. It is not unusual for people to hope that advanced AI will somehow grow up to be General AI. However, there is still no experimental foundation and no theoretical basis for this.

General AI. If this actually exists then no one has yet been able to say how it would differ from cognitive theory. If it is the same as cognitive theory then that wouldn't help you because it would only give you a sentient agent with similar reasoning capabilities to a human.

Fractional Theory. This is a hypothetical overlap between cognitive and computational theory. It involves the idea that behavior can be hard limited based on computation. It's the model most often used in science fiction including Asimov's three laws and Robby from The Forbidden Planet. If you want a perfect servant or an intelligent weapon, this is what you would need.

 

[Dr. Keith]

As I sit here a portion of my job is being taking over by a robot. Luckily it is a portion of my job that I neither like nor get much compensation for, so I'm good with that. In fact, I really like it. The robot is a DeeBot.

 

[theprestige]

Disregarding the unnecessary "hopefulness" quip, if the replacement of many or most routine occupations with modern automation should come about, and if large numbers of people were left with no practical avenue to legitimate employment at all, do you think it would be wrong for governments to step in and provide a basic living allowance?

As phrased, yes, absolutely it would be wrong.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[barehl]

The point is that jobs are going. You need far fewer people now to sell you your groceries now than in the past. In the future even fewer will be required.

That's not the point. When the steam donkey became available it eliminated jobs in a number of areas such as the number of men required to handle sails on schooners. Tools reduce the amount of human labor required. That has never been in dispute. The video tried to make the case that intelligent machines are different.

It does not matter if it is due to robots or other technologies or how long it is between the invention of the technology and its common usage.

So, you are refuting the video that you gave as evidence?

The fact still remains a lot of jobs are on the way out or will be radically changed.

No, there are two facts. First, tools have always eliminated human labor. Secondly, we are not yet in the age of intelligent machines as the video implied. You can call a pencil a pigment transfer inscription robot but that doesn't make it one.

 

[barehl]

As I sit here a portion of my job is being taking over by a robot. Luckily it is a portion of my job that I neither like nor get much compensation for, so I'm good with that. In fact, I really like it. The robot is a DeeBot.

Well, we can test that theory pretty easily. How many offices, hotels, and restaurants are replacing cleaning staff with DeeBots? None that I've been able to find.

 

[barehl]

Let's just say for the sake of argument that cognitive theory is complete, Fractional theory is possible, and the control device is small enough and cheap enough to be useful. Now lets say that we've gotten around the power supply problem. How do you solve the speed/power problem for direct drive stepper motors?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well, we can test that theory pretty easily. How many offices, hotels, and restaurants are replacing cleaning staff with DeeBots? None that I've been able to find.

I'll let my former cleaning lady know that she hasn't lost her job. Because I was about to rehire her before the wife bought this.

 

[Brainster]

Disregarding the unnecessary "hopefulness" quip, if the replacement of many or most routine occupations with modern automation should come about, and if large numbers of people were left with no practical avenue to legitimate employment at all, do you think it would be wrong for governments to step in and provide a basic living allowance?

It's a fantasy to believe that they can do this. About all the government could do to alleviate the situation is to reduce or eliminate the minimum wage.

Think about it this way--suppose the government stepped in and provided a basic living allowance. What would happen to wages? In all probability, they would go up a bit, because otherwise too many people at the bottom end of the wage scale would make the quite rational decision that it wasn't worth working unless you got a certain amount of money above what the government was offering.

Sounds great--higher wages! But the celebration will be short-lived as the higher wages leads to greater automation. Leads to more people lining up for the dole, leads to fewer and fewer people contributing to the economy (and paying the pricetag).

The fact is that automation is taking jobs because (especially in the first world), many people have become overpriced. This was disguised in the US for years because US manufacturing was terrifically competitive up until about 1970, and especially during the post-World War II era, when our stiffest economic competitors were digging themselves out of the rubble.

Since then, however, American workers have effectively been priced out of manufacturing employment. And now they are in danger of being priced out of occupations like cashier and taxi or truck driver. Note in particular that for the most part, automation is hitting the low-skill occupations. I know, I know, robot diagnosticians; I suppose it just shows that job wasn't as highly skilled as we thought.

It is at this point in the conversation that people usually talk about civil unrest, and of course that is something that no government wants. So maybe the short-term solution is financial aid. But long-term that is unsustainable.

Trump thinks we can return the jobs lost overseas by means of tariffs and reduced trade. I am pleased to see that most people here disagree and see that is a fantasy which is only going to create more problems. But that also applies to this basic living allowance idea. It won't work and it will create more problems than it solves, but that is not to say that it won't happen. Governments love to kick problems down the road (e.g., Greece), and Democrats especially will find the idea of hooking more people up to the government teat attractive.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Think about it this way--suppose the government stepped in and provided a basic living allowance. What would happen to wages? In all probability, they would go up a bit, because otherwise too many people at the bottom end of the wage scale would make the quite rational decision that it wasn't worth working unless you got a certain amount of money above what the government was offering.

The above assumes that the basic living allowance is only provided to the unemployed. Most basic income proposals are of the "universal" nature to sidestep this issue entirely.

I agree that in connection you would no longer need a minimum wage. And wages may even go down a bit for very easy jobs. But menial jobs or disgusting jobs may see a wage increase. It could be interesting.

 

[quadraginta]

As phrased, yes, absolutely it would be wrong.

Why?