
AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs - rpm4321
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/06/future-of-jobs/
======
jbarrow
Reading articles like this I'm often reminded of Amara's Law:

"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and
underestimate the effect in the long run."

In terms of overestimation in the short term, it seems to me that although we
are trending towards automative technologies, 11 years seems like far too
short a span for those technologies to have "displaced significant numbers of
both blue- and white-collar workers."

Meanwhile, in the long term, the time frame these technologies actually need
to have fully permeated, we don't know what types of jobs or how many will be
brought about by their existence.

~~~
tmp1234519029
Exactly my feeling. Although I can't blame someone for overestimating the
impact of automation on his jobs and preparing for it. Those who underestimate
AIs will pay a hefty price.

Anyway, I don't think the "when" is really interesting to think about,
especially when it's an arbitrary date. I prefer to ponder on much more
significant and inevitable events/thresholds such as when AIs will surpass
humans in every aspect. In my opinion, as long as AIs are inferior to humans
in terms of intelligence, there will be jobs for most people, but past this
point the concept of "work" is not event relevant anymore. And don't tell me
"people will always need interaction with other people". That's clearly
underestimating the capacity of future generations to identify with highly
intelligent and sentient robots.

------
LesZedCB
> Throughout history, technology has been a job creator—not a job destroyer

This is one argument that I have always really disagreed with. Technology
doesn't inherently create jobs. Rather it makes people able to be more
productive and efficient. I think that will longer stand the test of time.

Hopefully someday soon we will go beyond this need for everybody to have jobs
so that they can pay for food and rent. Instead we will be able to do human
things. Do projects, cool hacks, make art and music, explore the universe. Why
spend all our time compensating for scarcity when robotics can do it for us?

That however is going to be a long transition. Especially one for the people
in the US, who have such a heavy burdened work culture (i.e. if you aren't
working you aren't valuable to society). Also shameless plug here for
basic/guaranteed annual income.

~~~
Vektorweg
I'm not sure about the art and music making. Computers will make this too and
not just better, but also personalized for your brain. I think, there will be
a great depression, when even creativism becomes boring.

~~~
normloman
Being creative doesn't become boring because someone else can do it better.
Just trying to express yourself is fun. If it weren't, nobody would
participate in amateur hour or open mic nights.

~~~
bsoares
I agree 100%. The idea of automating creativity is ludicrous. Creativity is
what being human is all about and the universe we live in is infinitely vast
and full of endless paths to explore.

~~~
krapp
>The idea of automating creativity is ludicrous.

No it isn't. Not anymore ludicrous than automating anything else, just far
more complex in its implementation. It's not impossible.

>the universe we live in is infinitely vast and full of endless paths to
explore.

Yes, but human beings are not infinite, nor is their capacity for creative
thought. We're bound by finite time, space, perception, culture and neurology.
Therefore, I believe human creativity is a process which can be modeled,
replicated and mass produced just as human labor can. There's nothing special
or magic about it, it's just a nut we haven't cracked yet. But then, there was
a time when the concept of a machine doing math was unthinkable as well, and a
machine doing cryptography, and a machine playing Jeopardy, etc.

Consider how formulaic much of modern popular culture is. Do you really think
it's impossible for an AI, with access to the entire web and, theoretically,
working neural models, to churn out an acceptable dime store novel or movie or
video game? We're not talking about _genius_ , here, we're talking about
commerce. People will buy it. And if people will buy it coming from a machine,
there's no longer any reason to pay humans to generate it.

It doesn't even really have to be _better_ than what humans would produce -
just acceptable.

~~~
taroth
I think the point the above posters were making is that people will continue
to create for fun, even if machines are better at it.

~~~
bsoares
This is exactly my point. Creativity is not a mindless endeavor in need of
automation. It is the heart of human existence, no matter how finite your
world view considers it.

~~~
krapp
I agree that creativity is as important to the human experience as you say.
But that still doesn't mean the _industry_ of creativity won't suffer the same
drive for automation as every other, or that it can't be generated by
machines. I don't think there's actually a contradiction here, people will
still _be_ creative, but more and more popular culture will be algorithmically
generated - the jobs for creative work, and the support work, may not be
there.

Although that does also suggest that human-generated creative works may become
more valuable for their rarity.

~~~
normloman
Since the invention of mass media. most folks in the "creative industry"
already work for next to nothing. Automation would only threaten the .1% of
artists, musicians, and actors at the top. My band, for instance, barely makes
any money, but we're in it for fun. Hatsune Miku won't put us out of work, but
after a few more updates, she might replace Katy Perry.

------
soperj
You could pretty much eliminate all mcdonalds staff already with a vending
machine that has a conveyor belt that runs under a heating element(like they
do at quiznos), and sprays some condiments on a bun. All you'd need then is
someone to replenish the vending machine.

So artificial intelligence isn't even necessary.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Has to be self-cleaning, sense outages, package up the food and bag it.
Respond to disruptions (conveyor broke; ketchup dispenser leaking etc). AI
could be useful.

~~~
soperj
Or just sensors? I doubt that the McDonalds grill is cleaned at all during the
day. If that were the only issue, you could get someone in every night and
clean it/restock it. You certainly don't need AI to bag a meal (or even just
_I_ for that matter). I'm just trying to say that really a lot of the work can
be replaced already but they haven't done it yet. Why?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I think you want to automate the whole 'food chain', end to end, to make it
profitable. Else you have robots AND employees, which costs more than one or
the other.

~~~
soperj
Still cheaper to pay someone for 1 hour to clean & re-stock then to pay them
for 8 hours to cook, as long as the machinery costs & maintenance is cheaper
in the long run.

------
mentos
Considering cars are made by robots I always wondered why a big company like
McDonalds couldn't do similar when making its cheeseburgers. Never researched
it until now but looks like there is a machine capable:
[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-12/meet-smart-
restaura...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-12/meet-smart-restaurant-
minimum-wage-crushing-burger-flipping-robot)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I look forward to completely automated fast food. Drive up, wave my RFID tag
near a sensor, get a menu of last 5 thinks I ordered, touch screen, plop! Bag
drops out chute, clean and hot and just the way I like it.

------
pinkyand
We're always hearing "there will be new kinds of jobs", but never what those
jobs will be , how many they could be in number or any relevant detail to that
claim.

Why is that ?have we no sense of imagination ? Or is it that the claim is just
an easy comforting truism(that preservers the current order) and nothing but ?

~~~
ModernMech
I believe as the robotics industry grows, an appropriate support network will
need to grow with it to handle the inevitable growing pains. For instance, I
believe a "robotics mechanic" will be a job of the future, analogous to an
automotive mechanic. Today there are experts/specialists in different
automotive systems like transmissions, electrical, etc. Likewise, robots will
need specialists in perception, locomotion, cognition, etc.

But robots of the future will not be designed to do one thing, as cars are
(press throttle, move forward). They will be complex, autonomous decision-
making machines, something the world really has never dealt with. I imagine
the support infrastructure needed to deal with such machines would more
closely resemble the healthcare industry than the automotive industry.

For example, you would have your highly trained specialists as I mentioned,
but also generalists skilled at diagnosing and repairing common issues, and of
course support staff needed to assist them in their jobs. Thus you have tiers
of skill so that if a robot displaces a housekeeper(for instance) he doesn't
have to get a PhD in order to find a new job in the robotics industry that
made him obsolete.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Its unlikely that disruptive changes in the robotics situation will magically
leave room for everyone, or even for most people, to still have meaningful
work. We'll have to decide what to do about that. And it will take more than
hopeful trickle-down theories. Probably a basic income or work program
solution of some kind.

------
nova
I don't get this issue. Let the robots have all the jobs.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Disruption of the economy. What if they had Your job? And you couldn't find
another one.

~~~
bsoares
The real question that intrigues me is why have a job in the first place?
Obviously the current system derived from capitalism requires that we either
work or own, but this doesn't make it the right path for mankind.

