
Brain work may be going the way of manual work - josephby
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21578360-brain-work-may-be-going-way-manual-work-age-smart-machines
======
bsenftner
It's the finance and legal professions that are most at risk with the current
level of AI and machine learning. Contrary to what most finance and legal
professionals believe, there is low creativity in their vocations - and that
is exactly what AI and machine learning does best: wrote procedural operations
from a complex set of rules. This will be very interesting to see how our
"captains of corruption" (the fucks that actually run this planet) react when
they are pushed to the curb.

~~~
gamblor956
I laughed until I realized you were serious. AI can't even get basic speech
processing correct. The combined computer processing power in the world cannot
yet accurately emulate the thought processes of the _average_ human mind.

It will be _decades_ before it can tackle the "creativity" needed to draft
complex transactional legal documents, let alone litigation-related documents.
I can't comment on finance, but law is not about "wrote procedural operations
from a complex set of rules." The law is relatively simple--it is, and always
has been, the application of the law that is complex, and this is why lawyers
get paid so much. (This same logic generally applies to programming -- the
syntactic rules of a language are simple, but the application of those rules
is highly complex.)

Indeed, anything beyond the simplest legal work requires a very highly
contextual understanding of both the applicable law and the facts of the
situation which is currently beyond the capabilities of current software _or
hardware_ (and that includes currently available or near-available quantum
optimizers).

AI will replace legal work about the same time as it replaces programming.

~~~
fraqed
What about legalzoom.com and similar services? All those wills, patent
applications, incorporations, etc. were once performed by legal assistants,
paralegals and junior lawyers. Now someone just fills in some forms and ticks
off various options. Or think of online insurance quotes, tax preparation and
basic accounting again mostly junior level jobs to be sure but this is only
the beginning!

~~~
dragonwriter
Before legal zoom, and even after it, those things were available in hard copy
volumes of model contracts, wills, etc. complete with instructions and
optional sections for different uses. The online services streamlined the UX a
bit, but it's simply not the case that prior to them all of those documents
were prepared individually by professionals. And I suspect that both the books
and the online services displaced people doing their own documents without
professional assistance as much as taking business from pros.

~~~
fraqed
You're quite right about the books I remember the Self-Help series for all
kinds of legal documents, but they were essentially dumb. If the person using
those forms made an error it probably wouldn't be caught and could be costly.
Modern electronic systems have, what may be described as intelligence, though
certainly not understanding, such that user error should be much less common.
Also with consumer grade financial software different scenarios can be
evaluated and actions suggested based on data analysis; so there's more than
just UX improvements occurring in these systems.

------
3pt14159
No they will not.

The amount of effort required to shrink real knowledge worker jobs is
astronomical compared to simply driving a car. After the singularity, fine.
But even that will require a massive, massive amount of work. The low hanging
fruit for increasing knowledge work output is in Gattaca not AI.

~~~
kybernetyk
I guess the point where an AI can replace a programmer is the point where a
technological singularity begins. Because at that point the AI is capable of
improving its own code which would lead to a 'runaway reaction'.

And if you're in a post-singularity world you don't really have to worry about
jobs anymore. So I guess being a programmer is pretty future proof ;)

~~~
nostromo
Software is already replacing programmers through gains in efficiency if not
AI.

Just look at what a small number of programmers can accomplish today vs 10 or
20 years ago.

~~~
danielweber
There's not a finite amount of software that the world needs, though. We're
standing on the shoulders of giants but the top of the ladder is not even in
sight.

------
mindcrime
FWIW, this sounds a lot like Schumpeterian (or Marxist) "creative destruction"
at play. The idea of "creative destruction" is an interesting one, and it's an
area of much debate in regards to the long-term viability of the capitalist
model.

The key idea of "creative destruction" is basically that technological
innovation both creates (duh) and destroys (in that it destroys economic value
based on pre-innovation technologies). And since - in Schumpeter's view anyway
- capitalism depends on a constant flow of new innovations and
entrerpeneurship, we have a constant state of churn where value is being
"creatively destroyed".

I started reading Josesph Schumpeter's _Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy_
[2] a while back but got distracted and never finished it - but based on what
I know so far, I recommend it. What I'm not yet clear on, from my limited
reading of the original source material, and a few related works, is exactly
how bullish (or not) Schumpeter was on capitalism. Which reminds me, I really
want to go back and finish the book, as I find this topic both fascinating and
important.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction>

[2]:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism,_Socialism_and_Democ...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism,_Socialism_and_Democracy)

~~~
tocomment
You mention Schumpeterian, guess who wrote the article! (or it could be
someone with the same name, I don't honestly know)

~~~
ahi
Schumpeter died in 1950. "Our Schumpeter columnist and his colleagues consider
business, finance and management, in a blog named after the economist Joseph
Schumpeter"

------
Aardwolf
"Moore’s law—that the computing power available for a given price doubles
about every 18 months—continues to apply. "

Then why are Intel desktop CPU's not getting any better the last 3 years?

~~~
sliverstorm
Because the article, like just about damn everyone else, completely
misunderstands Moore's law, which _actually_ observes that the number of
transistors we can fit on a chip doubles every two years. Transistor count
does not directly correlate to performance.

~~~
moarzLaw
Wrong again. Moore's law is actually not any kind of law at all.

It's merely a business practice adopted by Intel, which they attempt to adhere
to. The fact that they refer to it as a law, and that journalists around the
world parrot their term, is all merely a magical marketing sales pitch.

They TRY to double the transistor count on a periodic basis, and, when they
do, suddenly, they've got a newer, better, more expensive thing to market and
sell. Wowee! The future is such a miracle!

~~~
sliverstorm
It's not a law, nor is it a business practice. Read what I said again:

 _Moore's law ... OBSERVES that the number of transistors we can fit on a chip
doubles every two years._

If you are trying to argue with me calling it "Moore's law", you are too late.
You missed the boat. That's what it is called, law or not.

~~~
moarzLaw
> Hey, guys, I bet every 18 months we can draw a picture on a thin slice of
> substrate, and make it twice as small as we did 18 months ago. Let's call it
> a law, and proclaim that it "drives the economy."

> Jesus H. Christ, Gordon, that's a fucking fantastic idea! Get marketing on
> the phone. Holy shit, we're gonna be fucking rich.

Yeah, okay, "observe" whatever you want. Sorry to contradict you on a website.
Don't forget to down vote this comment as well. Boo hoo.

~~~
sliverstorm
I "observed" nothing. That's what Moore's law says, not me.

P.S. HN doesn't _let_ me downvote your comments, because you are replying to
_my_ comments. But, I suppose it's impossible I'm the only one that disagrees
with you, so I must be hacking the website.

------
nwenzel
While I doubt there will be some Reverse Big Bang of creative destruction,
it's tough to argue that the need for knowledge workers is being reduced. In
theory, even Excel reduces the need for knowledge workers by allowing a single
analyst to produce more output that an analyst with graph paper.

My question to HN-ers, as people who write code that further reduces the need
for knowledge workers, how should we feel about our role in contributing to a
Vonnegut-style dystopia?

Indifference? If not us, someone else will do it. And job loss isn't really a
net loss. It's just capital reallocating to another area.

Pride? Automation brings advances down in price point creating a better
standard of living for all.

Something else?

edit: The "need" for knowledge workers isn't reduced. I stated that
incorrectly. I meant that fewer knowledge workers are needed for a given task
or given output. Clearly, the need for knowledge workers as a pct of the
workforce is higher than in the past and will continue to do so until the
machines take over.

~~~
invalidOrTaken
Some technologies are inherently populist, while others are authoritarian.
ENIAC was authoritarian, pocket calculators populist (and abacus more so,
because it can be produced from more easily available materials). Tanks
authoritarian (because too expensive for one person), IEDs populist. Large
solar plants authoritarian, "small-solar," one-family panel setups populist.
Agribusiness authoritarian, home fertilizer production for home gardens
populist.

We may end up as net job destroyers, but if we create enough new
entrepreneurs, or make off-the-grid more viable, then I don't feel so bad.

------
starrhorne
Seems like this article is conflating service workers with knowledge workers.
Being a chauffeur isn't the same as being a designer.

------
coenhyde
I don't see AI leading the reduction jobs available to knowledge workers for a
while yet. Though knowledge workers will continue to loose their jobs. But
this will simply be the result of specialized software (not what I call AI).

------
Gravityloss
Unfortunately, the world is very imperfect and there's a huge amount of things
that need improvement. To quote M King Hubbert: "Our ignorance is not so vast
as our failure to use what we know." I don't see work running out.

