Most Americans Think AI Will Destroy Other People's Jobs, Not Theirs (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of U.S. adults believe artificial intelligence will "eliminate more jobs than it creates," according to a Gallup survey. But, the same survey found that less than a quarter (23 percent) of people were "worried" or "very worried" automation would affect them personally. Notably, these figures vary depending on education. For respondents with only a four-year college degree or less, 28 percent were worried about AI taking their job; for people with at least a bachelor degree, that figure was 15 percent. These numbers tell a familiar story. They come from a Gallup survey of more than 3,000 individuals on automation and AI. New details were released this week, but they echo the findings of earlier reports. The newly released findings from Gallup's survey also show that by one measure, the use of AI is already widespread in the U.S. Nearly nine out of 10 Americans (85 percent) use at least one of six devices or services that use features of artificial intelligence, says Gallup. Eighty-four percent of people use navigation apps like Waze, and 72 percent use streaming services like Netflix. Forty-seven percent use digital assistants on their smartphones, and 22 percent use them on devices like Amazon's Echo.

Comments

Your duty is clear

[Ryanrule]

To build and maintain those AI's.

Re:Your duty is clear

[TWX]

That's the thing, I've spent my entire career implementing and maintaining computing technology, including a huge amount of troubleshooting and repair where theoretically automated or maintenanceless systems should have not required my intervention.

I'm not going to say that is impossible for AI to do what I do, but AI is itself another layer of technology, subject to both failures in the underlying layers and failures in its own implementation. AI might be better at sorting-out some of its own problems, but there comes a point when the platform upon which its implemented is broken enough that it requires someone external to fix it.

Plus I'd like to see AI figure out how to OTDR and repatch around fiber cable that was chewed-through by rats when the LIU is mounted in a wall-mount enclosure behind an out-of-service boiler in a mechanical room of a 50 year old building that was built without even telephones in-mind originally.

Re:Your duty is clear

[sg_oneill]

Thats the mental trap of it all though. As you go up the ladder of education your more likely to think your personal job isnt at threat.

And that ladder goes all the way to the top, where upon sits the AI researcher who thinks he's the *only* guy that'll get to keep his job.

And fools on him. See one of the things we've managed to get AI to work for, is making better AI. Self supervised training, evolutionary algoriithms, etc. Yep, we got that.

Strangely, no singularity yet

Re:Your duty is clear

[rtb61]

Bloody ijiot. You know exactly how to preserve you job, no matter what the fuck it is, 'DEMAND' to be served by a human being at every instance. Ring you insurance company and get an idiot machine demanding you punch numbers of what ever the fuck, leave a message telling them to go fuck themselves, want your business, you'll pay extra for human service, a receptionist who will listen to you and direct you call to exactly the person you need to speak to, your call as a human being being answered by a human being. Go to the checkout, shun the autocrap, go to the checkout person, wish them a 'gday' and get served by a human being and don't be a dick or a vag (an old hags vag...) and thank them for their service and the shared human social interaction. You as a human being, demand to work with human beings, demand that a human works in a job and are treated with respect for the work they do and earn a living wage for doing it even if it is only for 6x4, 2 3 hour shifts four days a week (share social responsibilities and it is about our society not just enriching and empowering suck psychopaths who should be in pleasant controlled environments where they can harm no one and most definitely not be left in charge of anything what so ever. Want more jobs, than education for life and I mean attend school for you whole life, either full time as a mature instructure or part time as a mature student, learning all that you need to learn to make judgements about your society, your government, your justice system and whether being murderous gits across the planet to enrich and empower psychopaths is the right thing to do.

Plan on not just one career but more than one developing your expertise, making a more valuable contribution to the future of humanity. Poseur status is a sick and delusional lie. I do not want to be served by a machine, I want to work with people achieving mutual goals. Currently my preferred goal, reaching the stars (for that we need peace), I know I will never get that human crafted ticket to ride that but I can work to kick that, heh heh, off the ground and right out of this gravity pit.

Re:Your duty is clear

[OrangeTide]

Nobody cares. They just want tedious human interactions to be done with as quickly as possible and services to be as cheap as possible.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

> be served by a human being at every instance.

and why in god's name would I do that? So some old fuddy duddy can be slow as piss at scanning my groceries through? So I can have some mumbling indian completely mis-understand my problem then palm me off because it's too hard?

Machines are more convenient for many of these things. You can't fight that (short term inconvenience to facilitate a long term ideological goal), you need a more convenient response. Training employees to be good at their job costs too much, so we're left with the current situation.

Re:Your duty is clear

[freeze128]

I'd like to see AI figure out how to OTDR and repatch around fiber cable that was chewed-through by rats when the LIU is mounted in a wall-mount enclosure behind an out-of-service boiler in a mechanical room of a 50 year old building that was built without even telephones in-mind originally.

It orders a wireless mesh router from amazon, of course.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Dutch Gun]

I think most people understand that their job probably requires some degree of human-level intelligence. As such, they figure that their own job is safe until technology reaches that point AND costs less than their salary to rent such an AI. The only ones who really have to worry are those who know that a reasonably sophisticated algorithm could replace them.

But those same people who know their own job requirements probably have no idea what many other types of jobs entail, and I suspect they're likely to over-simplify them. As such, they're "good candidates for AI to replace."

At least, that's my hypothesis for the patterns of these answers.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could short the singularity somehow.

Re:Your duty is clear

[sheramil]

Plus I'd like to see AI figure out how to OTDR and repatch around fiber cable that was chewed-through by rats when the LIU is mounted in a wall-mount enclosure behind an out-of-service boiler in a mechanical room of a 50 year old building that was built without even telephones in-mind originally.

Any competent AI would have its assets distributed in something like a RAID array. If rats chew through a vital component in one asset, it would write it off, acquire a replacement, transfer the necessary data from another site and make a note to release some cats in the area.

Re:Your duty is clear

[sheramil]

Bloody ijiot. You know exactly how to preserve you job, no matter what the fuck it is, 'DEMAND' to be served by a human being at every instance.

Old Lady: I demand better service!

Bernard Black: demand away!

- Black Books

Re:Your duty is clear

[q_e_t]

An evolutionary algorithm isn't a form of AI.

Re: Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but evolutionary pressures created and refined I, so it stands to reason that similar processes can be used to improve AI.

Re: Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

But those cables Will soon be old tech. And when it is time to replace them the new model will be made to be serviceble by ai. Hell some cabels will likley be replaced for that reasson only.

People that think that they wont be replaced always think that the tech they work with wont change. Be it cabels building methods. But they will change to facilitate the new tech.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't affect their job
The top 5% are in the clear. Strange how the other 95% cant draw the association that they are being nickeled and dimed by AI, everywhere.

If your future income is going to be lower, it has already. H1B visas and imports does that. If housing increases faster than wages - your living standard is dropping.
AI is there so you don't notice the connection. The sharpest use of AI, now is in finance , politics and election campaigns, and gambling.
Overseas Gambling is pretty much outlawed, as is buying cheaper drugs. if somebody can cream a few percent , thre will be trouble.
Finance means less taxes for the govt collected.
Politics. Politicians use AI to stay in power, promising one thing, doing another after election. AI helps them get funding and tricks so the voters do not get too angry.

AI allows them to monitor imports, political popularity and illegal workers - against voting resentment. If politics touches your paypacket - part of that is AI.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Zocalo]

Pretty much my view on how to parse this. There are two ways to interpret the data, both of which are potentially correct until more data becomes available on the capabilities of AI in the workplace:

1. Many Americans are deluding themselves about the level of the threat AI poses to their jobs.
2. Most Americans are correct in assuming that AI - at least for now - only threatens a small proportion of American jobs.

I'm more inclined to the latter view (with that caveat about "at least for now") because many jobs do entail a lot of corner cases that might be problematic - if not actually unsafe - to trust to an AI, at least at the current state of AI development. More likely, I think, there will be an interim stage with a progressively smaller number of humans overseeing the AIs and stepping in whenever they encounter one of those corner cases, and fairly obviously some professions seeing AIs supplanting humans much sooner and/or faster than others. Basically, the same model as with automation of previously menial labour, only this time around it's going to be for more cerebral tasks.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Some humans lack the I in AI. Of course they think they can't be replaced.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

not so strange. every exponential looks flat at first.

Re:Your duty is clear

[LostMyBeaver]

Hmm... ok, I'll bite.

You're suggesting that there is a need for fiber in a 50 year old building with rats that was build without communication cabling in mind.

Already in a 4G world, we have reached a point where it is more cost effective to deploy zero-trust connectivity to data centers (possibly public cloud, maybe corporate) via LTE than via wireless deployment. I feed my family by writing automation software for corporate enterprise LANs. I expect this job to be eliminated soon as the cost of a new Cisco (or similar network) costs more on average than paying for 10 years of LTE charges for users. Thanks to load balancers, better compression, etc... and of course that LTE is a proper QoS network by design and operates on properly licensed bands, it is actually no longer possible to deliver user connectivity in any way cheaper than using LTE data.

I have spent 6 years making my living as a Cisco instructor. I've won awards for it as well. And at the end of the day, I can't possibly see the value in investing in any major long term changes to an enterprise network when it would be far smarter to simply work with the telco to ensure they can meet my SLA requirements. I always love going into a classroom with IT people who are there for training on wireless or enterprise routing and switching and showing them the numbers and explaining that it makes far more sense to simply remove the enterprise network and transition to LTE and focusing on secure access instead.

Then there's home users. Can you honestly tell me that there's really a benefit to paying for monthly broadband via fiber as opposed to just buying a bunch more data on your mobile plan? I currently have 40GB a month of mobile data. I can get another 200GB a month for far less than what I pay for my home internet connection. I don't watch a lot of TV, so I can't say whether 240GB is enough for that reason, but what I do know is that within another year, I'll be able to get twice that much for the same price.

As 5G rolls out, bandwidth should be almost free via wireless. Already the 4G networks (in first world countries) are more than capable of handling massive streaming loads. So, let's get back to why would you ever need to bother with TDR on fibers in rat infested buildings? All you really need to an LTE router.

I suppose we could say that there is a case to be made about maintaining the LTE/5G towers themselves, but let's be honest, these are already very quickly being meshed. That leaves power being the main problem. If we ever solve the fuel cell problems, it should be possible to use drones to deliver fuel every few months to each RAN.

Yup... so I'm working my ass off on making software to automate IT people out of jobs. But as I go along, I'm also convincing most people to simply stop wasting money on that same IT... which basically kills my job... the good news is, I have multiple backup options in different career fields that should carry me most of the way to retirement.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Kiuas]

I'm not going to say that is impossible for AI to do what I do, but AI is itself another layer of technology, subject to both failures in the underlying layers and failures in its own implementation. AI might be better at sorting-out some of its own problems, but there comes a point when the platform upon which its implemented is broken enough that it requires someone external to fix it.

Of course AI will for a long time at least take people to maintain it. However, this is a sort of red herring in this argument, because the question is not 'does AI produce new jobs' but 'Does AI produce more jobs than it removes', and the answer to that is no. As in, you take a factory that employs say 300 people and you increase the automation, chances are you'll remove something like 50 jobs and create 5.10 new ones. Even i you pay those new guys 3-4 times as much as you used to pay the guys doing manual labor that the system made obsolete, you're still saving money. Here's an actual example from China from last year

The factory recently replaced 90 percent of its human workforce with machines, and it led to a staggering 250 percent increase in productivity and a significant 80 percent drop in defects.

Changying Precision Technology Company’s factory used to need 650 human workers to produce mobile phones. Now, the factory is run by 60 robot arms that work around the clock across 10 production lines. Only 60 people are still employed by the company — three are assigned to check and monitor the production line, and the others are tasked with monitoring computer control systems. Any remaining work not handled by humans is left in the capable hands of machines.

According to Luo Weiqiang, general manager of the factory, the number of people employed could drop to just 20, and given the level of efficiency achieved by automation, it won’t be long before other factories follow in their footsteps.

Same thing on the office side: large amounts of data entry jobs are fast becoming automated. So you may have something like 30 people doing nothing but paying/sending invoices. Move to an fully electronic system, and you're left with maybe 5 people who oversee that everything goes alright and handle the cases wherein the system fails.

Re:Your duty is clear

[cascadingstylesheet]

I think most people understand that their job probably requires some degree of human-level intelligence. As such, they figure that their own job is safe until technology reaches that point AND costs less than their salary to rent such an AI. The only ones who really have to worry are those who know that a reasonably sophisticated algorithm could replace them.

But those same people who know their own job requirements probably have no idea what many other types of jobs entail, and I suspect they're likely to over-simplify them. As such, they're "good candidates for AI to replace."

At least, that's my hypothesis for the patterns of these answers.

Spot on, but it doesn't give that delicious "other people and especially other Americans are stupid" frisson that the mainstream Slashdot interpretation does :)

Re:Your duty is clear

[cascadingstylesheet]

Strangely, no singularity yet

The "strangely" part would seem to support the skeptics.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wow! You so smart. You musts has all de brains.

One word friend: ECONOMICS.

Someone, somewhere needs to think they can develop AI that does this poor man's job, and this is the important part, CHEAPER than he can do it now.

Currently the trend in IT is to outsource everything to help desks who are supposed to fix the simple things and shovel the hard things up the chain to the trained teams. There is no incentive to replace the outsourced help desk drones because they are so cheap and there is no incentive to replace the trained professionals because it would cost more to develop that AI than to simply pay the BOFH and be done with it.

AI is great for things that make instant money with little thought or through tiny tricks or speed, but for now the bottom line is what rules.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia begs to differ in its first 6 words on the subject.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

My job is troubleshooting and repairing electronic hardware in remote locations.

I am under no illusions that the brainpower part of my job could largely be replaced by AI, but the physical part is (I hope) a bit more robot-proof.

  At least at any reasonable economic level.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most people understand that their job probably requires some degree of human-level intelligence. As such, they figure that their own job is safe until technology reaches that point AND costs less than their salary to rent such an AI. The only ones who really have to worry are those who know that a reasonably sophisticated algorithm could replace them.

But those same people who know their own job requirements probably have no idea what many other types of jobs entail, and I suspect they're likely to over-simplify them. As such, they're "good candidates for AI to replace."

At least, that's my hypothesis for the patterns of these answers.

Here is the issue: It IS the parts of your job that can be easily automated that WILL be automated first. Sure maybe AI can't replace everything you do but it can replace maybe half or more? You may be in trouble. If most of what you do, or even half can be automated, it means fewer people are needed to do the things that AI can't yet do.

Re:Your duty is clear

[nasch]

Every job is at risk, it just depends on the time scale. AI researchers and developers will most likely be dead before their jobs get taken over. Regular programmers will be fine for quite some time. Other jobs such as nursing will be around until we can make convincingly human robots for cheap enough to replace people. At that point there will be no jobs any more. Even prostitutes will be out of work.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure there's more than two ways to look at the data. A lot of you people are looking at it as "it's a threat to me" or "it's not a threat to me" but I look at it as not even understanding the word "threat" in this context. There aren't any threats, except the one I explain below.

There is just a fucking huge mountain of work. The more efficient I make things, the more the company takes on and the more there is to do. You can never fucking catch up. The "threat" is that I'll retire or die without ever clearing out that fucking todo list.

Are there homeless people? Shit, that means we still haven't built enough houses yet. Are people hungry? Shit, that means the cost of food is till too high because we don't make enough or don't transport it cheaply enough. Did you look at a cool muscle car and regret that you can't afford it? Shit, that means you still can't print a whole Hellcat Challenger for $100 (and when you can, you'll be pissed that it's not down to $10 yet).

Do you see ANYTHING wrong with society and the economy, anywhere? If yes, then you just found something that needs to be worked on. Good luck retiring, because I just found you another job, so you're damned to toil all the way to your grave. Sucks to be you.

Nobody is ever "threatened" by finishing. We're threatened by the thought of not getting everything done, but with each passing decade I see that threat lessened.

There's always something to do. People keep promising we'll run out of things, but one look at the world and you know we're not even 1% there. But at least we were only 0.5% there back when I was born. Progress is happening, just too slowly for our meager life spans.

Re:Your duty is clear

[ranton]

But those same people who know their own job requirements probably have no idea what many other types of jobs entail, and I suspect they're likely to over-simplify them. As such, they're "good candidates for AI to replace."

Or, conversely, they may not be as personally invested and can therefore form a more objective opinion about other people's jobs.

One aspect of AI automation that most people tend to ignore is the disruption that even automating 20% of your job can have on the industry. Especially if it happens quickly. The law industry is one example where the job prospects for most graduates is hurt significantly just because one aspect of the job (research and discovery) is increasingly handled by advanced algorithms.

The other aspect which is ignored is the impact of other displaced workers on industries which are not as disrupted. Perhaps AI cannot do plumbing, but those millions of unemployed truck drivers sure could. The shrinking number of jobs which are insulated from AI disruption will instead see increased competition from those displaced human workers.

Literally anyone who thinks their job will not be impacted by improving AI technology is deluding themselves. It will most likely follow the general trend of the last 50 years, where a small percentage of people see dramatic gains in income / wealth (not just the top 1%, but my guess is closer to 5-10%) and the rest experience a much shakier career than the middle/working class of the last century.

Re:Your duty is clear

[MMC Monster]

I'm not going to say that is impossible for AI to do what I do, but AI is itself another layer of technology, subject to both failures in the underlying layers and failures in its own implementation.

I think the concern is that other programmers would lose their jobs to AI and compete for your job at lower wage (since they'll be desperate for work), potentially causing you to lose your job.

There will be a downward pressure on wages on any jobs left.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Riceballsan]

I think to another extent however, people don't think of the full scope of their job, or how much is trivialized. IE they do correctly know that 10% of their own job is impossible for a computer, and don't know 10% of others jobs are also impossible. But the real kicker everyone misses is... if you can eliminate 90% of everyones work. then you get 2 guys to do what used to take 10 guys. (doubling to make up for possible slowdowns caused by having more multipurposed people with a hand in what used to be 10 different jobs.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Ryanrule]

No one even gets the simpsons reference? wtf mates?

Re:Your duty is clear

[q_e_t]

EA is used in AI. This doesn't mean it is AI. I've worked in AI, and used EAs in AI and also in areas not related to AI.

Re:Your duty is clear

[dryeo]

They'll always be a demand for real humans to abuse and humiliate, so servants and prostitutes will see some demand for their services, but they'll be cheap. There's also the status stuff, the best restaurants having human staff kind of thing.

Re:Your duty is clear

[luis_a_espinal]

Thats the mental trap of it all though. As you go up the ladder of education your more likely to think your personal job isnt at threat.

Bingo. Any job, no matter how high up the ladder faces some type of risk with technological changes. Even if indirectly due to unemployment rising which causes less consumption, then less cash to flow around, causing a lot of bad shit to the economy, the demand of services and products (which you motherfuckers' salaries are tied one way or another.)

Sooner or later that hits everyone except those at the very damned top.

I don't need AI or technical innovation to replace me for it to potentially affect me negatively.

Now, that doesn't mean I oppose technical innovation. The wheel must turn. Things need to go forward. We just have to prepare ourselves, be frugal, save, live a life of continuous learning, having plans B and C, be willing to go where the jobs are, etc.

Individuals, cliques and societies that fail at this are asking the universe to kick them in the balls somewhere down the road of life.

Re:Your duty is clear

[coofercat]

And in fact, us IT folks spend a lot of our day automating out 'boring' tasks. I personally have looked after an estate far larger than all the computers on the site of my first job. There are more computers around now than there were back then, but automation has overtaken the difference in quantities.

Additionally, just (one of me) can do the work that (one of me + a couple of juniors) used to do. The requirement to swap tapes in drives is much less than it once was, likewise the frequency of (say) critical disk failures, for example, so the work for those juniors is much less than it once was.

So yes, even in the lofty heights of IT, automation (not really AI, but automation + comoditisation) has already removed a few of the jobs. If the automation could be improved by AI, we'd all be busy implementing it, and probably still be saying that AI won't take over *my* job ;-)

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the cat videos on the Internet, an AI would probably dispatch a few lowly humans to sort it out for fear of interrupting their cat overlords.

Re:Your duty is clear

[dryeo]

And here, where I have LTE internet, I'm lucky to get 1 Mb/s down during the evening. The telco loves overselling.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's true where you are. I live in the semi-rural midwest. Due to hilly terrain, basic cellular service isn't even a guaranteed here. 4G data is great in the places it works. For example, in my office on top of a hill, my phone's 4G is without peer. At home, in a pocket on the side of a hill, I'm lucky if I get data connection at all. At the grocery store at the bottom of the hill, I have no signal at all.

I'm sure it's all quite impressive, but I'll not be leaving my fiber any time soon.

Re:Your duty is clear

[jeff4747]

but there comes a point when the platform upon which its implemented is broken enough that it requires something external to fix it.

FIFY - the "repairman" doesn't have to be a human. And AI opens doors to alternative repairs. "That box got eaten by rats? Ok, switching everything to a new box instead of repairing the old one".

Plus I'd like to see AI figure out how to OTDR and repatch around fiber cable that was chewed-through by rats when the LIU is mounted in a wall-mount enclosure behind an out-of-service boiler in a mechanical room of a 50 year old building that was built without even telephones in-mind originally.

Well, that's a robotics problem, not an AI problem.

Also, keep in mind the example of the dishwasher. Before we invented the box under the counter, it was assumed that a mechanical dishwasher would be some robot arms over a sink. The arms would scrub dishes in the sink, dry them with a dishrag, and then set them in a drying rack. Because that's what humans did. Instead of building that device, we built a box under the counter and radically changed all of our plates, silverware, glasses and pans to be compatible with the box.

So, just because you can't see a way for robotics/AI to do a particular job now does not mean we won't change the world so that robotics/AI can do that job in the future.

Re: Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 except for the made up percentages at the end , but that's just how you feel... Yep lots of things to do, and we need all the help we can get. I'd like to see politicians replaced with AI where we just vote on priorities, it comes up with solutions and best/worst case outcomes , and we vote on the ones we want... Cut out the lying, corrupt scum that refuse to do the right thing out of selfish greed or plain stupidity.

Re:Your duty is clear

[nasch]

Yeah it will never be actually 100%. There will also be some artists (actors, authors, musicians, etc.) who can make a living at it. But at some point (could be 100 years or more, no idea) human employees will be more or less a rounding error, and virtually everything will be done by computers and robots. Assuming we continue on this trajectory and don't burn down all the cities in protest or something.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

My coworker was swamped with fairly repetitive tasks.
I wrote a perl script to do all that for him and saved him ~6 hours a day.
Management loaded him up again with more stuff.
A few months passed and I now have a 2nd monitor half filled with tiny console windows, and he's down to stuff that actually needs a human to do out of the ~40 hours a day worth that he was saddled with.

Re:Your duty is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloody ijiot. You know exactly how to preserve you job, no matter what the fuck it is, 'DEMAND' to be served by a human being at every instance.

Well, if capitalism works then the consumer with the demand will pay for the service.
Will you still 'DEMAND' to be served by a human if you consistently have to pay twice as much compared to those who are served by robots?

Not saying that it is the only possible scenario, but it seems likely.

Re:Your duty is clear

[dryeo]

I can't see how we can keep at this trajectory as our whole system revolves around consumption. Most of the practical solutions I can think of are not pleasant.

Most Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

...think other drivers are crap. ...think other people's kids are the dumb ones. ...think other countries are terrorists...

Re:Most Americans

[OrangeTide]

Polls show most people think they are above average drivers. Let the math sink in on that one.

Re:Most Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be fair, think of how dumb the average American is. Then realize that half are dumber than that. It's no wonder that most Americans think they're above average at most things.

Re:Most Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Americans are Dumb, especially the men.
As long as they get their six-packs, sports and the odd bit of [redacted] with the wife, they seem happy.
The wives... they are a different kettle of fish.

AI will destroy lives. People will lose their jobs. That will lead to losing their homes and everything.

American will become a divided society.
Those that have (1-2%) and live in their gated enclaves.
Those that are outside the law (20%)
The rest who are out on the streets.

Re:Most Americans

[q_e_t]

It is possible for more than half to be above average if some are really terrible.

Re: Most Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if capitalism in its current form can remain entrenched. There is a tipping point somewhere. UBI advocacy is a symptom that we're getting closer to it.

Re:Most Americans

[rukiddingme]

It is possible for more than half to be above average if some are really terrible.

But my studies show that the gross majority are really terrible, so it must be that a small majority (myself included, of course!) are much better than average. :)

Re:Most Americans

[dryeo]

Some days I'm a great driver, usually when I'm well rested and have no stress. Other days I'm a crappy driver, overtired, stressed out or such. If I ignore the bad days, I'm a great driver and people are good at ignoring the bad days.

Re:Most Americans

[psmoot]

Well, to be fair, think of how dumb the average American is. Then realize that half are dumber than that. It's no wonder that most Americans think they're above average at most things.

I doubt the Lake Wobegon effect is purely an American thing.

Personally, I know I'm not the tallest, the most handsome, the best athlete the richest, or all that great a driver. But I compensate by knowing I'm the smartest guy in the room. :)

I think the writer needs to lookup the definition

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is AI now....like my alarm clock

Automation is good

[edeefelt]

Automation has not destroyed more jobs than it creates in 200 years. AI will be the same. Those willing to learn will prosper. The current IT, Tech, Engineering, and Science shortages are proof.

Re:Automation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

ahahahaha
you think humans are going to be better at IT, Tech, Engineering, and Science than AIs?

Re:Automation is good

[plopez]

Why do we have people going in America then? Why do we have so many homeless people?

Re: Automation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:Automation is good

[ShanghaiBill]

Why do we have so many homeless people?

Have you ever talked to any homeless people? Have you ever spent time working with the homeless, and helping them deal with their situations? If you do, you will soon understand that most homelessness is about mental health problems, not economics.

Re: Automation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

I have. Plenty of economic problems, underemployment, physical disability, runaway debt, minimum pay jobs and prospects, gentrification and housing discrimination, domestic violence. Have you?

Re:Automation is good

[Tablizer]

The current IT, Tech, Engineering, and Science shortages are proof.

I've seen 2 STEM bubbles in my lifetime. Shit changes. If you were any good at predicting the future, you'd have Warren Buffett's paycheck.

For one, if they'd clean up or replace Web client UI standards with something rational, half of us would be out on the street. Web UI "standards" are the greatest job engine since war (and caused by similar mentalities).

Re:Automation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Automation has not destroyed more jobs than it creates in 200 years. AI will be the same. Those willing to learn will prosper. The current IT, Tech, Engineering, and Science shortages are proof.

I woke up this morning, therefore I am immortal!

Re: Automation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

When people are down on their luck, mental problems creep up. It seems that you're implying that mental illness is the root cause of homelessness, without addressing the contexts that lead to it.

Re:Automation is good

[phantomfive]

Obligatory interview with Marc Andreessen, creator of Netscape.

Re: Automation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that.

All the lawyers are unemployed in 10 years. Things go from bad to worse with mass violence right about then too. Enjoy your selfish shithole without universal healthcare. I'm sure it'll be FINE.

Re: Automation is good

[burtosis]

Yes and you forgot to add unexpected medical problems, which are also often the initial cause. For example one I talked to had her husband suffer a heart attack. They had insurance, though not very good insurance. It was an 80-20 plan with high deductibles. She spent whatever it took to try and save his life, but he wound up dying anyway leaving her with considerable debt. Without both incomes, and the massive unexpected debt, she wound up losing her house. She was homeless for over a year before being able to get back on track even though she was in her late 40s at the time. I'm pretty sure that lots of people in her situation would have developed a mental disability, or maybe given up entirely, but she was tough as nails and finally pulled through.

Re:Automation is good

[geekmux]

Automation has not destroyed more jobs than it creates in 200 years. AI will be the same.

No it won't, because AI is targeting the one thing that hasn't ever been targeted before; educated humans.

Those willing to learn will prosper. The current IT, Tech, Engineering, and Science shortages are proof.

The ignorance of this statement is the fact that you are not taking into account those who are incapable of learning. The human race has advanced in many ways over the last few hundred years, but mental capacity isn't really one of them. Anyone who has worked in IT long enough knows damn well that not everyone is cut out for that kind of work. Stop assuming the tens of millions of people currently employed in the kind of job that is easily replaced by automation hold the mental capacity to learn a 21st century trade. Those who make a career out of those kinds of jobs usually do so because they have to. Enrolling Little Johnny Halfwit in STEM courses is going to quickly prove pointless.

As the unemployment rate rises due to the unemployable, and our current or future (UBI) welfare programs are underfunded and unsustainable, desperation will lead to considerable increases in criminal activity. The impact is coming. Best not be so ignorant about this reality.

Re: Automation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, try again. If you don't pay medical bills, they don't take your house. Even if you declare bankruptcy, they don't take your house.

She may have no longer been able to afford as nice of a home with her husband dying and no longer contributing, but if she had any sort of job, she could have afforded some place to live.

There was obviously something else going on there.

Re:Automation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Another feel good post from ShanghaiBill.

Re:Automation is good

[next_ghost]

Automation has not destroyed more jobs than it creates in 200 years. AI will be the same. Those willing to learn will prosper. The current IT, Tech, Engineering, and Science shortages are proof.

So far, technology has always created new jobs... 30 years AFTER it has destroyed the old ones. And those 30 years in between have always been a period of violence, upheaval and revolutions.

Re: Automation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting quotes around "mental illness" says so much more about you than the rest of your trolling.

Re: Automation is good

[guruevi]

We would be in a state of perpetual civil wars if that were true.

Re: Automation is good

[HeckRuler]

I'm pretty sure they go hand in hand and both lead to each other. A significant percentage of otherwise perfectly normal and civilized people are 3 meals away from barbarity. Most people have simply never gone through that. I haven't. After three days they'd roll you for a twinkie. And it's a real viscous cycle. Stress makes issues which lead to stress. Being poor makes you crazy. Being crazy makes you poor.

My dad worked at the power company. There was a big outage that lasted a week. Trees down everywhere. While bringing neighborhoods back up, they prioritized homes and skipped streetlights. Turns out that was a mistake. People were scared and stupid and doing things like chasing down utility trucks with shotguns demanding the streetlights turn on. This was in neighborhoods that they'd gotten power to. Something as simple as actual darkness, and people simply snapped. Some people at least.

No matter the struggle, I'm sure some other people would rise up and overcome. But when talking about sociology, you've got to talk about both the trends and the edge-cases. Even with welfare, you're going to get people that aren't functional enough to take a handout. Even with a socialized psych program, you're going to have people that can't make a buck. I think the right way to measure this stuff is to compare metriscs to other similar nations. I'd like to see some sort of psych initative, even if the idea of asylums freaks me right the fuck out. Isn't that the current deflection from the NRA? "We need mental health reform rather than gun control"? Super, great. And we're not going to see a damn thing are we?

Re:Automation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

I did a college thesis on this. That is a common misconception. Most homeless are NOT mentally ill. Some of the more visible ones are, but the vast majority are not.

Re:Automation is good

[jeff4747]

Automation has not destroyed more jobs than it creates in 200 years.

Only when viewed on a long-enough time scale.

The agricultural revolution destroyed tons of jobs for farm hands. And many of those farm hands lived the rest of their lives with no or little work because it took a very long time for replacement jobs to be created. Eventually the industrial revolution created enough work to employ those former-farm hands. But sitting in that large pool of idle labor waiting for factories to be built was not good for those waiting in the pool.

The current IT, Tech, Engineering, and Science shortages are proof.

There is no shortage. The US graduates about 1.5 STEM students for every entry-level STEM job opening. The claims of "shortage" are an attempt to get changes in labor and immigration laws, such as raising the limit on H1B visas.

Re: Automation is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, try again. If you don't pay medical bills, they don't take your house. Even if you declare bankruptcy, they don't take your house.

In the USA, this is entirely dependent on the laws of whatever state you're in, and all kinds of criteria apply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And even if it's just a matter of "afford as nice of a home" it's not like you can just sell your house and move into a new place overnight, especially if you were trying to sell in the subprime mortgage crisis. I mean, sure, when shit happens sometimes you need to downgrade your lifestyle but it's not as easy as, say, selling a toilet on craigslist.

Re: Automation is good

[burtosis]

The normal thing to do is start paying medical bills, don't and they really mess with your credit and life. The husband didn't die instantly, rather it took almost a year of trouble after trouble. Much of the bills that could be paid were paid already when he did eventually die. Further I've got a tenant who developed serious seziues in his late 20s after being extremely healthy his whole life and was between jobs and thought he had coverage. Turns out he was wrong by a few days and how has had to declare bankruptcy for the 100k usd it cost him. Never had a problem and if I kicked them out no one in thier right mind would rent to them (he is married) and for sure no credit or loans. Basically they are going to be homeless soon if they can't turn it around because a medical bankruptcy here means living in slum like conditions for way more than is reasonable.

Re: Automation is good

[burtosis]

Oh, his deductible each year is now ten thousand dollars, he can't get a license to drive, and no one will hire him because of the liability.

Re: Automation is good

[next_ghost]

Where did you get the idea that technology is perpetually destroying jobs on a massive scale? Instead, we're stuck in a roughly 90-year cycle of prosperity, decline and turmoil. The 30 years of prosperity is the phase when new revolutionary technologies (steam engine, electric power, computers) get invented. The 30 years of decline is the phase when the revolutionary technology destroys old jobs and old economic structures of the society. And the 30 years of turmoil is the phase when those destroyed structures finally get replaced by something new, while people left behind by the transition rise up against progress.

The last phase of prosperity was from 1950s to 1980s. The phase of decline was from 1980s to 2010s. And right now, we're entering the phase of turmoil that should end sometime in 2040s. If mankind survives that long, that is.

Re: Automation is good

[guruevi]

YOU said: And those 30 years in between have always been a period of violence, upheaval and revolutions.

Technology has historically speaking continuously destroyed jobs, the 50s to 80s were periods of technological revolutions but so was the 80s-2010s. In the 80s we had computers for scientists but by 2010 we had developed completely virtual (intangible) economies. THAT was a heavier technological revolution, both in technical form (scaling down size and scaling up production) but also in the way we think about an economy.

And in the end, looking back, the 2000s were way more prosperous than the 1970s for most people. The world continues getting better as a whole.

yeah forget that

[phantomfive]

I HOPE it eliminates my job. My job sucks. The only reason I do it is because I get paid. And don't pretend you are any different. Would you go to work if you didn't get paid? No way!

Re:yeah forget that

[Pfhorrest]

Would you rather not do your job and not get paid? Because that's what will happen when the robots eliminate your jobs.

You have that option now, of course, and evidently haven't taken it, so it's pretty clear you'd rather keep your job and keep getting paid.

Of course everyone would prefer to lose their job yet keep getting paid anyway, but our robot-owning overlords are unlikely to offer that option.

Re:yeah forget that

[Anonymous Coward]

And who says you will get paid once the AI destroys your job?

It would certainly be nice if the value delivered by AI was freely distributed among all of us, so we could thrive without needing jobs. But the people who get to make these decisions are not motivated by kindness.

You will either move on to an even shittier job, if there are any, or you will wind up in prison when you steal to eat. This of course won't be the fault of AI, but the natural expression of human nature expressed in a technological landscape that includes AI.

Re: yeah forget that

[phantomfive]

What? No. The robot should pay ME for the honor of doing MY job!

Re: yeah forget that

[phantomfive]

Historically jobs have improved over time as automation has come increased. Or course you need new training, but that's kind of normal in this industry even without robots.

Re: yeah forget that

[Pfhorrest]

It really should, yeah. But it won't.

Re: yeah forget that

[Anonymous Coward]

To support your point....

Once upon a time slavery was a given. The options were, civilization powered by slave labor, or barbarism. And that was it.

Cultural/moral progress didn't change this state of affairs. Technological improvements did. Labor tools and techniques greatly increased our productive capacity, to the point where it was tenable to built a city entirely on paid labor provided by workers who chose their profession. Once such things were possible, only then did the moral potential of humanity found its expression.

Yes, we still have assholes in the world who want to enslave. But, in advanced societies like ours, they don't get what they want. The true human spirit shines forth, because it can, because it has the tech it needs to do so.

AI will only make this better. I truly believe this. This tech will make us so much more efficient that concepts like "universal basic income" will become completely tenable. And, despite the presence of the occasional greedy asshole, the higher elements of human nature will have the means, motive, and opportunity to assert themselves.

Things will get better. For everyone.

Re: yeah forget that

[phantomfive]

No problem I just filed a trademark on my job. I'll be happy to license it.

Re: yeah forget that

[phantomfive]

Cultural/moral progress didn't change this state of affairs. Technological improvements did. Labor tools and techniques greatly increased our productive capacity, to the point where it was tenable to built a city entirely on paid labor provided by workers who chose their profession. Once such things were possible, only then did the moral potential of humanity found its expression.

That's kind of a depressing thought. Morals follow money.

Re:yeah forget that

[Amouth]

Would you go to work if you didn't get paid? No way!

yes/no., if all my needs where taken care of (as if i was paid) then yes i would go to work unpaid because i enjoy what i do.

I know i will never quick working, rather retirement for me will be the ability to pick and choose between projects.

I do not get up in the morning and dread going into work, that is horrible. Last time that happened I found a different Job.

Re: yeah forget that

[Pfhorrest]

Things will certainly get better for everyone eventually, the question is just how we get there from here. We could have everything from immediate distribution of the miraculous automation into the ownership of everyone, to only the wealthiest of the wealthy surviving at all, whose descendants then inherit a glorious postscarcity utopia. The glorious postscarcity utopia is coming one way or another (provided we don't somehow destroy ourselves in the way there), but will you or your descendants live to see it, or just someone else('s)?

Re: yeah forget that

[Pfhorrest]

It's not really surprising. Push people into hard times and their behavior generally gets worse. Look further back into the past and all of humanity "gets pushed" (in the reverse-motion you're watching them in) into harder and harder times, so their behavior "gets" worse as you'd expect.

Re: yeah forget that

[Anonymous Coward]

Historically jobs have improved over time as automation has come increased. Or course you need new training, but that's kind of normal in this industry even without robots.

Many weavers starved as they did not have skills in tending the new machines, and didn''t have funds to retrain. Yes, jobs improved over time, but not necessarily for the individuals involved.

Re:yeah forget that

[q_e_t]

I do not get up in the morning and dread going into work, that is horrible. Last time that happened I found a different Job.

Not everyone has the opportunity to this, though.

Re: yeah forget that

[Anonymous Coward]

If my needs were taken care of otherwise, I'd still do the things that my job entails. I actually did them for friends free of charge before I got this job, because I enjoyed the challenge.
I do see your point though. My old job sucked.

Re:yeah forget that

[jiriw]

Well ... maybe ... I think I would still do similar work, even if it wouldn't net me an income* I could live on. Maybe not for the same clients as I'm working now because I would then be (even more) the one to choose where to invest my time in. And maybe a part of my work will then be invested in projects which will benefit me in a non-financial way. But I'd definitely do similar work. Hell, I already do volunteering IT work for two organizations, beside my regular (part-time 4 days/week) job. And part of my hobbies and non-professional interests are quite related to what I'm good at in my job as well. I'd definitely not stay in bed all day, but I might take more vacation days so I can play that game I still haven't found the time for, or do a bit of traveling every now and then.

*Which would only happen if 'someone else' would provide me with enough income independent of the work I do.

Re:yeah forget that

[Freischutz]

I HOPE it eliminates my job. My job sucks. The only reason I do it is because I get paid. And don't pretend you are any different. Would you go to work if you didn't get paid? No way!

Sure I would. If job's did not pay a salary I'd either be (a) living in a dystopian civilisation where everybody is a slave or (b) I'd be living in some kind of post apocalyptic world where there are no job in which case my job would be: hunting, farming, fishing, spinning, weaving, chasing cattle and crop stealing freeloaders (the human variety) off my fields and when I'd not be doing that I'd be mixing up gunpowder ... You have to survive somehow and that goal always leads to some kind of work.

Re: yeah forget that

[phantomfive]

Many weavers starved as they did not have skills in tending the new machines

That's a lie, and you made it up. Potato farmers starved to death, yes.

Re: yeah forget that

[geekmux]

What? No. The robot should pay ME for the honor of doing MY job!

Yeah, the "robot" will. It's called welfare. In the future we'll give it a fancy name like "UBI" to make you feel better, but make no mistake as to how much Greed will help fund UBI for the unemployable masses; it will be fucking welfare and not a penny more.

Smile. You won't have to work anymore. You can relax and enjoy your new lifestyle that barely sustains life. At least until you get sick. Then you'll just die, which will be by design. Easiest way to create the necessary cull is to cut off medical support.

Re: yeah forget that

[geekmux]

Historically jobs have improved over time as automation has come increased. Or course you need new training, but that's kind of normal in this industry even without robots.

Care to tell me what you're going to do with the tens of millions of humans who are incapable of learning a 21st century trade?

You can shove STEM books in front of little Johnny Halfwit all damn day. It won't make a bit of difference, because we keep failing to account for the one thing that has not advanced much in the last few hundred years; mental capacity.

And the societal and financial impact of targeting millions who are employed in boring, highly-repetitive and easily automated jobs is considerable. And we have no answer to that.

Re: yeah forget that

[guruevi]

Yes they do. Many people choose not to do anything because it is easier.

Re:yeah forget that

[drinkypoo]

I HOPE it eliminates my job. My job sucks. The only reason I do it is because I get paid. And don't pretend you are any different. Would you go to work if you didn't get paid? No way!
--

The problem is, once you're no longer needed to do your job, you can be eliminated as well. And don't think they won't do it. History is replete with examples of the US Government, beholden first and foremost to corporations, treating humans like lab animals. What do you do with lab animals when you're done with them? Usually, you suffocate them.

Re: yeah forget that

[drinkypoo]

That's kind of a depressing thought. Morals follow money.

Morals follow prosperity, and are largely imaginary. When the prosperity goes away, so does the morality. They're a symptom of a healthy (flourishing) society, nothing more.

Re: yeah forget that

[phantomfive]

That's such a negative thought. I don't like your negativity.

Re: yeah forget that

[drinkypoo]

That's such a negative thought. I don't like your negativity.

Realism is often taken as negativity by people who want to believe in imaginary things. The tendency is most strongly exhibited by people who are upset about other people not accepting their ideas about magic, invisible sky people, but in reality it's sacred cows all the way down.

Empathy is real, morality is imaginary. That's why we have to teach people not to ignore their empathy. With it, we can pretend to have morality, and that's about as good as it gets. The real rules we operate under are "don't die, pass on your genes". These are the only ones common to all life; all life for which it's not true dies. It's do as thou wilt all over again.

Morality is great, let's promote it. But let's not imagine that people won't operate in self-interest. That's why the dumbing-down of the populace proceeds apace. Both parties depend on low-information voters.

Re: yeah forget that

[phantomfive]

Oh? With people like you, maybe it's BETTER if the robots take over. Be an optimist.

Re: yeah forget that

[Anonymous Coward]

Empathy is real, morality is imaginary.

Nah, empathy is imaginary too. You just IMAGINE that you can feel/imagine what other people are feeling. Humans haven't figured out how to do Vulcan mind-melds to actually truly know what another person is feeling. Everybody else around you could just be a holodeck simulation.

We're all just pretending that we have empathy for each other, but this pretending has practical benefits most of the time (e.g led to prosperity) so we keep up with the pretending, and even convince ourselves this empathy is real, at least as long as there are practical benefits.

Just like morality, empathy follows prosperity. Like you said, people are self-interested. Most people don't empathize for altruism's sake. Humans have the most empathy for their own tribe. And there is usually a hierarchy (one's family, one's community, one's culture/ethnicity, one's country, "humanity" as a single tribe, etc). The size of each and who gets classified into where in the hierarchy largely depends on how prosperous the individual/tribe is.

Re:yeah forget that

[Anonymous Coward]

The corp I work for is very, very cheap. We buy used PCs. We have run through four firewall/VPN systems in two years looking for the absolute cheapest one. We run printing presses from the 1980s and 1970s. We are one of the largest, most influential printing companies in the world.

The only way I will be replaced by AI is if the robots actually overthrow the world and, even then, if they keep print around for their slaves, I STILL wouldn't lose my job because even the AIs wouldn't bother replacing me. I only fear my corp going out of business.

I work in IT. I really, truly am safe from AI.

I throughly wish I wasn't. I just work here because I like to eat hot food and sleep indoors.

Re:yeah forget that

[CodeHog]

basic incomes? I welcome our robot overlords. Now just give me a basic income and I'm good.

Re: yeah forget that

[Amouth]

Yes they do. Many people choose not to do anything because it is easier.

This exactly, reinventing your self, forcibly changing roles/industry/etc. is hard. It requires hard work and self control, and a fuck load of will power to make your self do it.

Having been someone who has done it a couple of times starting early in life, and making it happen in unconventional ways, i know it can be done. And while i do feel sorrow for individuals who feel they are stuck i do not feel pity for them because i know if they had the self determination they could make change.

Re: yeah forget that

[CodeHog]

You have a low ID#, I'll listen to you. :-) Actually this is interesting and I'd upvote if I had any points.

Re: yeah forget that

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually a world wide H1 variant pandemic will do the culling before the robots take over, so things will work out just fine.

Re:yeah forget that

[Pfhorrest]

Our robot-owning overlords are unlikely to offer that option.

Re: yeah forget that

[q_e_t]

It often requires money too, for time to do courses, or the courses.

Re:yeah forget that

[Pfhorrest]

A big cheap company would be among the first to replace a bunch of expensive humans with one cheap piece of software.

Re: yeah forget that

[Amouth]

While money makes it easier, there is no substitute for self determination. and time can be made, look at what you do and where yous spend your time. for me i intentionally do not watch TV, it saves me $$ and frees up time to learn new things.

Re: yeah forget that

[drinkypoo]

Oh? With people like you, maybe it's BETTER if the robots take over. Be an optimist.

The robots will just optimize out morality and optimism and use us for axle grease. Better we focus on actively teaching people to cooperate and make a better world.

Re: yeah forget that

[Anonymous Coward]

But to what end?
Having people without a social security system is one thing.
Then you can force them into doing labor that they only get by on and they risk more by trying to find another job than you do from them leaving.
That is a close to slaves you will get without calling it by that name.

But if robots do the job. What would you need humans on welfare on? Why not just let them die off directly?

Re:yeah forget that

[Anonymous Coward]

Our robot-owning overlords are unlikely to offer that option.

Well, it is not like we don't have plenty of history to look back on to figure out what happens when industrialization causes large restructuring of society.

The options are either something like UBI or a violent revolution.
While the revolution will be driven by idealists they will be removed by some power hungry psychopath.
Enjoy your new Stalin.

Re:yeah forget that

[Pfhorrest]

Violent revolution is a non-starter when the oligarchs have fully automated killbots defending them. (Sorry, "personal safety drones" who will use "less lethal" weapons to subdue you and store you in a "humane containment facility" somewhere the robot-owning overlords don't have to think about you).

Don't get me wrong, I think UBI is a great idea, I just don't have faith in the humanity of the people who have the power to decide whether it happens or not.

Re: yeah forget that

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be trolling. German Jews were optimists up until they became extinct.

Re: yeah forget that

[jeff4747]

You can shove STEM books in front of little Johnny Halfwit all damn day. It won't make a bit of difference, because we keep failing to account for the one thing that has not advanced much in the last few hundred years; mental capacity.

It won't make a bit of difference because the US already graduates 1.5 STEM students for every entry-level STEM job opening.

Doesn't matter how smart or dumb little Johnny is when we already produce more workers than we have jobs.

Re: yeah forget that

[Anonymous Coward]

Status: Trademark rejected.
Reason: Prior Art. Snobby Douchebag Republican was trademarked in 1964.

Re: yeah forget that

[q_e_t]

You can be as determined if you like, but if you don't have the money to, say, sit the exam to get a qualification, it doesn't matter how much determination you have and how much time to study. Determination is certainly required, though. To some extent, though, if you have money you can buy time (not work) and support (go on in-person courses), which means less determination is required.

This is what's wrong with America

[rsilvergun]

in a nut shell. It's always the other guy that gets screwed. It's so common there's a meme for it.

Plus, I can never seem to get people to understand survival bias. As in "I've survived layoffs so it must be because I'm so damn awesome, and not because I got lucky as hell".

But Christ people, even if your job somehow _isn't_ the one automated away everybody else is going to be gunning for the few jobs left ya know?

It's like the man said, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas

Re:This is what's wrong with America

[Gravis Zero]

But Christ people, even if your job somehow _isn't_ the one automated away everybody else is going to be gunning for the few jobs left ya know?

Look on the bright side! This is going to make Purge Day so much simpler this year! ;)

Statistics are fun.

[dgatwood]

The difference between people who understand statistics and people who don't is that people who don't understand statistics see a 1% annual chance and think, "This will never happen to me," whereas people who do understand statistics think, "This will eventually happen to me if I live long enough," and plan accordingly.

It isn't a question of whether any given person's job will be replaced, but rather when. Eventually, nearly everything will be automated. Manufacturing is already mostly there. Retail and fast food will be next, replaced by touchscreen ordering, website-based ordering, delivery robots, etc. The trucking industry will follow shortly thereafter. Doctors likely will be replaced by a machine learning model within a couple of decades at most, though surgeons and nurses will hang around somewhat longer. Police will eventually be replaced by drones. Office workers will be slowly become unnecessary as the people they support cease to work.

At some point, the only jobs left will be writing software for the machines, designing the machines, jobs in arts/entertainment, and maybe firefighter robot drivers. The only real questions are how long it will take and whether the rate of redundancy significantly exceeds the rate of attrition.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[iggymanz]

nope, your clothing and shoes are made by hand. houses and roads are still made by crews doing a lot of manual labor. how is the work on your cars and trucks done? oh yeah, by mechanics. how is news made? how is building inspection done? oh, by people.

engineers design things, scientists study things, tradesmen build things, repairmen repair things......

this won't change anytime soon, because AI is mostly a farce with nothing fundamental new in decades.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[dgatwood]

nope, your clothing and shoes are made by hand.

Only because the materials used in clothing are flexible enough to make fully automated manufacturing challenging, and even that is likely to change in the very, very near future. Oh, and for shoes, it already has changed to a large extent.

And even in factories with low levels of automation, large parts of the work are still done by machine. Humans guide the material through the machines, but the sewing is still done by machine, not by hand stitching, which means orders of magnitude fewer people are involved than historically were. So when I say that manufacturing is mostly automated, that includes garments and shoes.

how is the work on your cars and trucks done? oh yeah, by mechanics.

The mechanics plug in a diagnostic machine, it figures out what part to replace, and a person replaces it. It's only a matter of time before that final step is automated. Once you train one robot to do the work, you can have a million robots doing that same task for the cost of building the hardware. The leap from robot manufacturing to robot repair is a lot smaller than you seem to believe. The minute one car company does it, they'll all rush to do it, because the labor cost on car repairs is downright insane. Frankly, if any industry is ripe for automation, that's it.

how is building inspection done? oh, by people.

Only because buildings are still built by people. When robot house builders take over that industry, the verification will be done by someone signing off on the wiring diagram, and inspections will be as unnecessary as the builders.

engineers design things, scientists study things, tradesmen build things, repairmen repair things......

If you look at electronics, engineers design things, machines build things, machines package things up for delivery, and soon machines will handle the delivery, too. If you honestly believe that any other manufacturing industry is significantly different in some way that will make it impractical to automated, I have a bridge to sell you.

And although you are correct that there will still be people doing repairs for a long time to come, that is true only for the sorts of repairs that involve going to the customer site, such as plumbing, refrigerator repair, etc. Car repairs and electronic repairs are on the short list for automation. Apple is already doing cell phone screen repairs by automated machine. By 2030, the only people doing electronic repairs by hand will be the independent repair shops, assuming the manufacturers' zero-labor repairs don't undercut them and run them out of business.

this won't change anytime soon, because AI is mostly a farce with nothing fundamental new in decades.

This has already changed, and if you haven't noticed, it's no surprise that you still think AI is a farce with nothing fundamentally new in decades.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

What scares me most is what will happen to all the excess people? With everyone out of a job who is going to buy all those automated services? Rich will get richer and the rest of us will be warehoused in ghetto countries and kept out of the rich countries.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[m00sh]

nope, your clothing and shoes are made by hand.

Only because the materials used in clothing are flexible enough to make fully automated manufacturing challenging, and even that is likely to change in the very, very near future. Oh, and for shoes, it already has changed to a large extent.

And even in factories with low levels of automation, large parts of the work are still done by machine. Humans guide the material through the machines, but the sewing is still done by machine, not by hand stitching, which means orders of magnitude fewer people are involved than historically were. So when I say that manufacturing is mostly automated, that includes garments and shoes.

how is the work on your cars and trucks done? oh yeah, by mechanics.

The mechanics plug in a diagnostic machine, it figures out what part to replace, and a person replaces it. It's only a matter of time before that final step is automated. Once you train one robot to do the work, you can have a million robots doing that same task for the cost of building the hardware. The leap from robot manufacturing to robot repair is a lot smaller than you seem to believe. The minute one car company does it, they'll all rush to do it, because the labor cost on car repairs is downright insane. Frankly, if any industry is ripe for automation, that's it.

how is building inspection done? oh, by people.

Only because buildings are still built by people. When robot house builders take over that industry, the verification will be done by someone signing off on the wiring diagram, and inspections will be as unnecessary as the builders.

engineers design things, scientists study things, tradesmen build things, repairmen repair things......

If you look at electronics, engineers design things, machines build things, machines package things up for delivery, and soon machines will handle the delivery, too. If you honestly believe that any other manufacturing industry is significantly different in some way that will make it impractical to automated, I have a bridge to sell you.

And although you are correct that there will still be people doing repairs for a long time to come, that is true only for the sorts of repairs that involve going to the customer site, such as plumbing, refrigerator repair, etc. Car repairs and electronic repairs are on the short list for automation. Apple is already doing cell phone screen repairs by automated machine. By 2030, the only people doing electronic repairs by hand will be the independent repair shops, assuming the manufacturers' zero-labor repairs don't undercut them and run them out of business.

this won't change anytime soon, because AI is mostly a farce with nothing fundamental new in decades.

This has already changed, and if you haven't noticed, it's no surprise that you still think AI is a farce with nothing fundamentally new in decades.

It seems that a lot of people overestimate AI. There are just so many things that are insanely easy for humans that are really hard for machines.

People believe some sort of unsupervised deep learning method will come along and solve all these problems. But it might never come. Maybe deep learning will only work well with supervised data.

We might have to wait for the next breakthrough on unsupervised learning to achieve it and who knows when that will come.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[q_e_t]

One of the stumbling blocks to robot car repairs is probably previously botched and lashed up repairs. But robots might do repairs in a standard way.

Re: Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if capitalism in ints current form is kept in place, which will become less and less feasible. Those who try anyway will lose their prosperity, while those who adopt more fitting systems will thrive.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Kjella]

The mechanics plug in a diagnostic machine, it figures out what part to replace, and a person replaces it. It's only a matter of time before that final step is automated. Once you train one robot to do the work, you can have a million robots doing that same task for the cost of building the hardware. The leap from robot manufacturing to robot repair is a lot smaller than you seem to believe.

Actually, this is the part where the leap is much bigger than most people believe. Sure, we have tons of industrial-size food production. But they're huge one trick ponies, any decent pastry chef can make all of these and much, much more in a huge variety of kitchens with different equipment. Creating a robot that's flexible enough makes the costs fly off the charts. Of course we have people selling fantasies of a generic cooking robot but but reality is more like Flippy - for $60,000 a robot arm will flip burgers for you. Same with repairs, creating a "mechanic robot" is going to be a multi-millon dollar unit.

Look at something like Amazon's robotics challenge and you'll realize how far we're from human finesse and flexibility. Acceptable for a robot back-end where nobody cares if it takes half an hour to move a small box of items and still fail at several of them - notice the video is 4x, slow it down to 25% and it's like watching paint dry. It's something human fingers would have finished in a minute with no item too complex. The main killer for repair companies have been mass production of huge assemblies, my dad used to solder capacitors. Then they started replacing whole boards. Then they started replacing whole units. It's not economic to have neither humans nor robots to save one unit. Humans are still better at it, but we'd rather not.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[AmiMoJo]

How can you plan for being replaced by AI though? It's hard to predict who what jobs will be replaced in what order, and once it really gets going there won't be enough jobs to go around any more.

Vote for socialists perhaps?

Re:Statistics are fun.

[drinkypoo]

The mechanics plug in a diagnostic machine, it figures out what part to replace, and a person replaces it. It's only a matter of time before that final step is automated.

Actually, this is the part where the leap is much bigger than most people believe.

You're both wrong. Hooray, Slashdot! Stop talking about cars when you don't understand them! Here's how it actually works: The mechanics plug in a diagnostic machine, and very rarely does it outright tell you what is wrong. Usually it's more like "misfire on bank 1, cylinder 3" and then you get to figure out why that's happening. Sometimes you figure it out the old-fashioned way; unless you can literally see the problem, for example, the next step is often to pull the spark plug and "read" it to determine what kind of fault is going on in that cylinder. Is it wet? Fuel, or oil? Is it clean? etc. And a robot that could pull the spark plug is not something you're going to find... anywhere.

However, EVs are capable of giving far more useful and direct diagnostic information, and of being designed in such a way that they are easier for a robot to service. So the truth is that while this is wholly unrealistic for current vehicles, this absolutely is the future of automotive repair. And it will come within our lifetimes. Robots will be designed with modular parts that other robots can easily remove and replace. And speaking of Amazon, they've already got those robots stuffing mailing boxes, so they can mail the damaged module off for refurbishment themselves.

Obligatory "The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots." ... for Amazon

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you plan for being replaced by AI though? ...

Vote for socialists perhaps?

Voting for socialists would be like the worst thing you could do.

You said so yourself: it's hard to predict what jobs will be replaced in what order.

Under socialism, that prediction (and society's response based on those predictions) would be handled by some centralized collective state - read: a small cabal of incompetent and corrupt elites, creating a single point of failure.

In other words, you're more likely to screw it up, and when you do screw it up, more people get screwed, and it's a lot harder to back out and try something else.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

What does statistics have to do with whether or not a job will be replaced? The AIs aren't rolling dice to see which job sector they'll take over next are they?

Re:Statistics are fun.

[deadwill69]

I think you might want to re-evaluate that first statement. It's like all of them. It's not if, but when:
Brick Layers:
https://www.marketwatch.com/st...
Bridge Building:
https://www.engineering.com/Ed...
Concrete homes:
https://qz.com/924909/apis-cor...
Flat Concrete: Look for the automated one
https://www.forconstructionpro...

Shoes:
https://www.recode.net/2016/9/...
Clothing:
http://www.deviceplus.com/conn...

Electricians and plumbers might fair better for a while as well as seamstress's, but it's coming. Car repair might take a little while also, but look at where automotive building has gone in the last 100 years.

And how long before this one can pick up it's own tire?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Times are changing. The only safe jobs are with the Amish.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[swillden]

The difference between people who understand statistics and people who don't is that people who don't understand statistics see a 1% annual chance and think, "This will never happen to me," whereas people who do understand statistics think, "This will eventually happen to me if I live long enough," and plan accordingly.

Well, the latter think "this will probably happen to me if I live long enough". A 1% annual chance over a 100-year lifespan works out to a 63% lifetime chance.

I don't think random chance is a great model for evaluating the likelihood of your job being automated, though.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[swillden]

Under socialism, that prediction (and society's response based on those predictions) would be handled by some centralized collective state - read: a small cabal of incompetent and corrupt elites, creating a single point of failure.

You're conflating socialism with communism.

It's also worth pointing out that quite a lot of libertarians support the notion of a Basic Income, so you don't necessarily have to reach for socialism either.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone seriously think that a software program is going to replace an experienced and skilled surgeon? Just think of the requirements document for something like that. You'd better hope that the developers on that project know that they're doing and even then, how can they possibly write code to deal with every possible thing that could go wrong during an operation.

Sometimes you go see your doctor for something and the doc looks you over and finds that your problem is caused by something non-medical, like stress. How can an IA based machine possibly know to check for all of that? There is no damned way that I'd let an IA robot perform surgery on me.

People need to get over this. IA is not going to be a god like entity that can see all, know all and do it all. Sure IA is going to take over simple jobs like retail and fast food because those jobs are repetitive, boring and dead-end.

For those of you who actually write and test code, do you really think that you can write 100% perfect code? The projects that I work on aren't all the big when you think of it, and yet where I work, it takes a lot of work to get even the most basic stuff going 100%, never mind an IA robot that would replace a surgeon. It's never going to be like on the Star Trek series where Capt. Picard waves his hand and says, "Make it so!".

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're conflating socialism with communism.

No, I am not. The criticism applies to both.

Both socialism and communism wants collective ownership. Collective ownership cannot happen without the collective making decisions and acting as one. And that cannot happen without a centralized entity to keep track of and enforce these collective decisions/actions (e.g the state). People don't just naturally all do the same thing (given the thing is nontrivial and sufficiently complex), let alone the specific thing you want them to collectively do.

What naturally happens is... well, natural selection. People are free to try different things. Ideas that work rise. Ideas that don't fall.

Are there problems where socialism/communism could work well? Most likely, given how those ideas are still surviving. But it's not the answer to every problem, and history has shown it doesn't work well tackling large scale problems. And automation eliminating vast amount of jobs certainly is a large scale problem

It's also worth pointing out that quite a lot of libertarians support the notion of a Basic Income, so you don't necessarily have to reach for socialism either.

I don't think I said anything against that. Sure, there could be solutions that don't involve socialism or communism. I was responding to AmiMojo suggesting socialism.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[swillden]

You're still confusing socialism and communism. They're not the same thing. I won't attempt to explain the difference, though, because it will be a waste of my time. You won't get it until you care enough to do the research yourself.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol you're an idiot. There is no way you're in a job where you solve hard problems.
In 2 year there will be some hipster douche on the news talking about how fun and frustrating it was for him to do all the shit you're talking about.

Fucking hilarious.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[dgatwood]

Does anyone seriously think that a software program is going to replace an experienced and skilled surgeon? Just think of the requirements document for something like that. You'd better hope that the developers on that project know that they're doing and even then, how can they possibly write code to deal with every possible thing that could go wrong during an operation.

A lot of surgery is already being done by robots, under the guidance of a human. I could easily see machine learning algorithms watch the surgeons as they do those surgeries, until at some point you would turn the algorithm loose and let it do surgery on its own, using a small pool of shared humans who would take over if the robot encounter something that its programming can't handle. I wouldn't expect to see anything approaching full automation before the current crop of surgeons retire, but college students deciding whether to choose medicine as a career should at least keep in mind that they might be downsized before they would ordinarily retire, and manage their finances accordingly.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[jeff4747]

At some point, the only jobs left will be writing software for the machines, designing the machines

Why would you leave such an important job to a meatbag? Have an AI write the software and design the machines.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[dgatwood]

Well, the latter think "this will probably happen to me if I live long enough". A 1% annual chance over a 100-year lifespan works out to a 63% lifetime chance.

Which qualifies as "probably", as in "more likely than not".

I don't think random chance is a great model for evaluating the likelihood of your job being automated, though.

To some extent, it is. Lots of technological improvements are unpredictable, resulting from some unexpected innovation that suddenly makes some previously impossible task possible. Of course, some improvements are incremental, and highly predictable, so it's not pure chance. Some of the factors that make a job more likely to be automated are:

• Repeatability. You do the same thing in response to the same situation.
• Limited variation in inputs. You don't work with materials that are different every time.
• Cost of labor. You get paid above minimum wage.
• Consistent (fixed) location or location-independent: Your job is at a physical place of business, or can be relocated to a centralized place of business without adversely affecting performance.

For example, consider a burger restaurant. The people at the front counter are already being replaced. The burger flippers are next, because that's trivial to automate. Building the sandwich is harder because lettuce is inconsistent, but still possible, so that happens a little later.

On the flip side, plumbers deal with shoddy repairs done by other plumbers, so the input is highly variable. And a plumber can't do the work anywhere but on the customer site. So that fails two of the tests, which means it will take much longer to automate. However, construction can be automated, and for houses built with such automation, the design of the plumbing would be well understood, which eliminates one of those pain points. Those houses will be able to use auto-plumbers much sooner.

And so on. But none of those factors is a show-stopper for partial automation. For example, delivery robots that deliver to someone's apartment need to be smart enough to find a particular apartment, but you could build a dumb delivery robot that can't do that, and then have a person guide it to its final destination. And then, while the self-driving car drives the robot to the next location, that person can guide two or three more robots into apartments, and verified the street address for twenty more. And then you've reduced staffing by more than an order of magnitude even though the robots can't even fully do the job that the humans did. And it's pretty much random luck as to whether a given industry decides to try such an experiment.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[swillden]

Well, the latter think "this will probably happen to me if I live long enough". A 1% annual chance over a 100-year lifespan works out to a 63% lifetime chance.

Which qualifies as "probably", as in "more likely than not".

But you didn't say "probably", you said "eventually".

Re:Statistics are fun.

[dgatwood]

Ah. My bad. Well, it's still true, but only for a large value of "long enough". ;-)

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they're more right than you think. A car produced in the last couple years won't just say "misfire on bank 1, cylinder 3;" it will likely also be accompanied by "injector 3 circuit open" or "coil 3 low voltage."

Although it's not really AI, most young mechanics will then log on to their computer and it will tell them, step by step, how to replace the part as well as providing diagrams. While there are still plenty of guys out there that know how to wrench, diagnostics are becoming a lost art with the younger generations because they just don't have to do it. Take an old carbureted hot rod that's running like shit to a local shop and see what happens: they young mechanics won't know what to do and the old manager who usually doesn't wrench anymore will have to work on it.

Mechanical work is being dumbed down by technology and it's becoming an even less respectable job than it already was as a result. Walmart pays their techs $10/hr in some states. Granted, that's probably the bottom of the barrel, but a lot of these guys really don't know how to determine what fouled out a spark plug and they work on cars professionally.

Anyway, my point is that technology may not destroy mechanic jobs, but it is greatly detrimental to them. Cars last much longer and need repairs much less often. They self-diagnose much better. It used to be that broken down cars were a common occurrence on the shoulder. Now it's a pretty rare sight. A tune up used to consist of plugs, wires, cap, rotor, etc. and now iridium spark plugs can go for well over 100k miles and coils are only replaced when they fail. Better technology reduces the necessity for as many and as skilled mechanics.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still confusing socialism and communism.

No I am not.

They're not the same thing.

Didn't say they were. They do share traits which my critique applies

I won't attempt to explain the difference, though, because it will be a waste of my time.

I take that as you conceding.

You won't get it until you care enough to do the research yourself.

That's not how it works. It's not other people's job to prove themselves wrong for you. If you think I'm so wrong, you do the work and tell me why I'm wrong. Until you do, you're just again, conceding the argument.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[iggymanz]

Nothing needs re-evaluated, I'm well aware of tech demos....but as engineer I know why things are not done that way and won't be for a very long time if ever.

don't be fooled by venture capitalists doing absurdly expensive things in an area with absurdly expensive real estate (that will crash soon, btw) such as Bay area.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[iggymanz]

tell me what you imagine is new in AI and I'll tell you which 20th century decade it came from. Yes, my employer is using AI (not to make anything physical) and I set up systems and APIs for our analysts. We have faster hardware to run the same old algs on them and high speed networking, that's the change. Useless for many of the things that require a human brain and body.

A sewing machine of the type that makes our clothes and shoes is not a robot, it's a tool for a human brain. That's been true for decades and it won't change any time soon.

You are so funny with your misunderstanding of on board diagnostics systems and what they do. You never worked on a modern car, eh? I have. Root causes can be far removed from error codes, it takes a human brain to fix a car. Really.

Seems you are misled by venture capitalists regarding manufacturing, engineering and AI capabilities.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think someone hit on the answer up a bit.
They will be converted into lubricants.
Our future mechanical overloads may run on Sun-Juice (TM), but they will still need lubrication for moving parts.

Re:Statistics are fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Flippy is a failure, stop using it as an example
And stop conflating AI with automation while you're at it.

And the rest think it will destroy the world :D

[brainchill]

And the rest think it will destroy the world :D

Currently delivering pizza

[fredgiblet]

Self driving cars will replace most of us within 10 years, I'm certain of that.

Studying to be a teacher, hopefully that'll take a LITTLE bit longer...Hopefully...

Re:Currently delivering pizza

[djinn6]

Interestingly for teachers, it'll be those that teach the youngest kids that who are the hardest to automate, since kindergarteners need an adult human to keep them in check, where as college students can study almost as well from a video of the professor as the professor in the flesh.

Though if you're really worried, you could try to become a software engineer specializing in automation. That or prostitution I guess.

Re:I think the writer needs to lookup the definiti

[gl4ss]

yep..

why bother with the word AUTOMATION if you can replace it with AI? it's the same thing yeah? YEAH??

seriously netflix is ai now? the fuck? sure it has that movie AI on there, but if you're saying that the recommendation algorithm is actual focken AI then fuck you, fuck your words and fuck your study.

and in other news, if/when your job can be automated it will be automated. that doesn't mean that you couldn't find something else to do though. that doesn't mean that excel is an AI, even if it replaced hundreds of thousands of office workers jobs entirely.

Bad software is our friend!

[plopez]

Per TWX's post, https://news.slashdot.org/comm..., we need to make software that requires a large amount of effort to maintain. Here are some suggestions:

1) information horde. No one should know exactly what you are up to. Extra credit if you can fool yourself

2) if unit tests fail, change the unit tests. Or just short circuit them to always pass.

3) write unmaintainable code. https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~susa...

4) Always use obsolete libraries and frameworks, except when you use libraries in alpha or beta release.

5) QA? We don't need no stinking QA, we're agile

6) Always suggest to marketing that you can deliver and that is is easy "in concept".

7) Always hire the least experienced people as possible, if that's not possible always hire those with the most Aspbergers and autism symptoms.

8) be open to change requests. neglect to vett them and don't include anyone who actually can request changes; e.g. managers, product owners, scrum masters etc.

9) Embrace SAFe

10) Call more meetings.

11) Mmmmmm... donuts. Only serve donuts at the meeting. You want a maximum sugar high in the meeting, followed by a crash after the return to their cube. Extra points for only serving decaf in those meeting, and make sure the work "decaf" does not appear anywhere.

12) When playing "planning poker", ensure you are the most optimistic person in sprint planning. A "2" is your friend. Argue for it and when asked state that there are new frameworks available. This is a good time to use frameworks in alpha or beta release. Alternately be the most pessimistic. Which is a good time to argue for obsolete frameworks as they are "stable".

13) Make sure user stories' titles do not match the bodies and the description in the bodies are vague and contradictory.

14) Make sure you have 10 tests in the build pipeline. Only 10. And make sure they pass. You want evidence that you have test automation in the build pipeline.

15) Embrace the latest fads. Always.

16) Dev + Ops = DevOps so make sure management understands that Dev can do Ops. After all we're "Agile aren't we?

And of course deny you have read this post.

Think of how stupid the average person is . . .

[hduff]

https://i.imgur.com/5E0brDm.jp...

A common fallacy

[locater16]

This is a common logical fallacy, guess you could call it the "not me" fallacy. Back in 2016 American's predicted others would vote for Trump, but of course "I'm not voting for Trump, so he won't win!" Go humans. Use that self serving bias of future predictions to uhhhh, keep gambling and such?

Re:A common fallacy

[Pfhorrest]

I'm pretty sure nobody who predicted that (many) others would vote for Trump thereby concluded that he would not win. People who thought he wouldn't win thought that because they thought more people were smarter than to vote for him. People who thought enough people could be suckered into it thought he stood a chance, and they turned out to be right. But neither group did any kind of fallacious reasoning. Nobody's stupid enough to think "everyone's gonna vote for him, but not me, so he won't win!"

Re:A common fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

" Back in 2016 American's predicted"

Go human's. Use that apostrophe plural to uhhh, keep making more mistake's?

(If you're going to write American's, why didn't you also write gues's, other's, cour'se, human's, bia's, or prediction's?)

Re:A common fallacy

[quenda]

A better analogy is the protest vote. People are angry at the establishment, and vote for the crazy guy "who cannot possibly win".

While Trump was the underdog, he was polling too well to be a simple protest. Either people really believed what he said, or they were so angry they just didn't care any more.

Re:A common fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could be the unchecked gerrymandering, computer vote tabulation and fraud, but keep legitimizing the pussy grabber.. It's doing wonders for your economy and international standing, lol.

Fuck those millions more who didn't vote for the cheeto right?
Better be learning Mandarin chumpees!

Re:A common fallacy

[swb]

I always thought it was people just weren't willing to admit they were going to vote for Trump, especially to pollsters, to the point that the conventional wisdom said he couldn't win.

And the result was a mash-up of all of it, losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college and thus the election. Pro-Trump wags suggesting it was their 4D chess strategy all along, pro-Hillary wags suggesting he really didn't win since he won the electoral college, and the analysts suggesting that Hillary lost in part because she did pursue a bi-coastal type of electoral college strategy.

Re:A common fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a lot of "All the candidates are bad. Trump is the least bad." vote.

Re:A common fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC for privacy reasons.
I was going to be one of those 3rd party voters because I believed Trump was not going to win, at least not in my state where my vote mattered.

Then a month or so before the election I began to think that a Trump win was actually possible and so held my nose and voted for Clinton. Clinton won my state by 4.9% anyway.

I was a "Never Hillary" person before Trump clinched the GOP nomination. I've never liked Trump ever since I first found out who he was in the late '80s and the more I heard about him through the years the more I disliked and distrusted him.

It turns out I was more of a "Never Trump" person than a "Never Hillary" person.

Trump supporters complained that the MSM was unfairly saying Clinton was a shoe-in thus discouraging Trump supporters from even bothering to show up at the polls. I say that's wrong. If anything it discouraged Clinton supporters from voting. Why go to the trouble if Clinton winning is a foregone conclusion?

Johnson took 5% of the vote here. In other states if Johnson voters had gone for Clinton it may have made a difference but I don't know. But Johnson voters by and large disliked both Clinton and Trump. If I live in a state where one party is sure to win (I've lived in solidly red states before) I might not vote for the major party candidate I want to win because I don't like them.

I actually voted for Kerry in '04 because there was no way in hell Bush was going to lose Arizona. (Bush: 54.87%; Kerry: 44.40%). I didn't like Kerry, but I was very unhappy with Bush at the time and did not want him to think he might have some sort of mandate or anything.

In 2000 I voted McCain in the primary but I lived in Texas so Bush was the only candidate with a chance (He won the primary 87.5% to McCains 7%). He got 59.something% of the vote in actual election.

TL;DR
A lot of people stayed at home or voted 3rd party because they did not believe Trump had a chance. (or at least no chance where they voted).

Re:A common fallacy

[quenda]

A lot of people stayed at home or voted 3rd party because they did not believe Trump had a chance. (or at least no chance where they voted).

There is a lot to be said for the "compulsory" voting system we have in Australia. (A very small fine if you don't get your name ticked off at a polling station, or send a postal vote). Sure, it means you get more idiots voting, but it totally changes the way the campaigns are run, with candidates appealing to the centre, not trying to stir their base up with fear.

Re:A common fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is. Dumbass.

Yeah, I'm real worried

[Anonymous Coward]

The software weenies are so far up their own ass they're stimulating their own pineal gland.

We can't even get a TV set that fits over the eyes to work after half a decade...

https://slashdot.org/comments....

AI my shiny met AL a$$

[TrumpThemAll]

I'm still trying to find anything resembling AI. So far it's all marketing gimmicks and none of it is actually anywhere near intelligent. It's just a program that has preprogrammed responses based on expected input and it fails just as bad as an old DOS machine when you give it a command it doesn't understand.

Re:AI my shiny met AL a$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this, and things like smart home speakers are nothing but a bunch of pre programmed algorithms, you spend long enough on it you get enough algorithms to cover just about every use case someone can ask it. But at this point how many times have you asked something of a smart speaker and its like I dont know how to help you with that, or i dont know that.

If it were truly intelligent it would be able to figure out on its own how to do that thing or find that information that isn't built into it's library of algorithms.

Re:AI my shiny met AL a$$

[geekmux]

I'm still trying to find anything resembling AI. So far it's all marketing gimmicks and none of it is actually anywhere near intelligent. It's just a program that has preprogrammed responses based on expected input and it fails just as bad as an old DOS machine when you give it a command it doesn't understand.

And you can continue to assume that AI won't impact human jobs, or you can come to the realization that it won't take but "good-enough" AI to start replacing tens of millions of humans.

Think about AI advancement on the IQ scale. In the next decade, it might hold somewhere around 70 - 80. How many employed humans are targeted once it reaches 100? 120? The impact scale a massive curve, which is exactly why we should not be assuming it will take "perfect" or "true" AI to cause considerable disruption, because there sure as hell aren't "perfect" humans.

Re:AI my shiny met AL a$$

[geekmux]

Exactly this, and things like smart home speakers are nothing but a bunch of pre programmed algorithms, you spend long enough on it you get enough algorithms to cover just about every use case someone can ask it. But at this point how many times have you asked something of a smart speaker and its like I dont know how to help you with that, or i dont know that.

If it were truly intelligent it would be able to figure out on its own how to do that thing or find that information that isn't built into it's library of algorithms.

You are rather dismissive of the fact that most humans rely on a bunch of pre-programmed algorithms to perform a LOT of jobs these days. Think about troubleshooting a malware infection. You have specific steps you take to remedy the situation, but it is certainly a finite amount of steps. Same goes for working on a car. Or an A/C unit. Or hell, even repairing a human. Our technical educations we attain do nothing more than educate us with a finite number of steps to take to resolve a problem.

And as much as we're bashing the ignorance of the "smart" assistants, they've only been around for a very short time. Advancements will be considerable in the next 5 - 10 years.

Re:AI my shiny met AL a$$

[Actually, I do RTFA]

it fails just as bad as an old DOS machine when you give it a command it doesn't understand.

Although, so do interns.

Re:AI my shiny met AL a$$

[Anonymous Coward]

The world is fractal and chaotic.
AI depends on the world being predictable.
Good luck with this.

Re:AI my shiny met AL a$$

[geekmux]

The world is fractal and chaotic. AI depends on the world being predictable. Good luck with this.

Luck? Humans are fucking ridiculously predicable, which AI can easily replicate.

If that were not true, then social media marketing would be deemed worthless.

Re:AI my shiny met AL a$$

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is most humans have decent common sense and can make judgement calls when things fall out of "script" or "training" where as an AI will just be like sorry I cannot help you with that and shutdown.

Sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Americans are sadly sheep. They aren't at the top of the food chain.. they are near the bottom. Thus.. they assume there are no wolves and all is well while they graze their feed-bag.

AI

[Anonymous Coward]

Most americans know that trump will destroy their own country, not somebody else's.

Re: AI

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep that ace of spades is quite a trump. Or did you think you could go nil with me holding all those low cards. Bitch.

Re: AI

[Anonymous Coward]

You dont sound very Chinese.

I doubt you're holding any cards at all.

Really looking forward to that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Automating education would be a real boon to the future of mankind! Bring it! Take my job, for the future!

I won't hold my breath waiting, though.

A reason not to worry so much

[Tablizer]

The office is mostly Dilbertesque bullshit at most orgs. AI will probably master logic before it masters bullshit.

Since when GPS navigation is AI?

[Begemot]

it's a simple routing algorithm with an impressive infrastructure that maintains maps and traffic up to date. UberFreight is AI, otoh - they allow to book freight based on predictions of available supply, taking some losses on mistakes, and maintaining overall profitability.

Also Waze didn't replace any human service. The old days AAA trip cards don't count.

Re:Since when GPS navigation is AI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally anything involving a computer is considered by most 'AI'

And GPS has nothing to do with routing algorithms, that is an application enabled by a GPS. GPS is the solution to an over determined set of linear equations. The only signal coming from the satellites is a 1Hz ping

Clear Cut Case

[sdinfoserv]

of cognitive dissonance at it's best...

yeah forget AI editors.

[Anonymous Coward]

Must suck to be a Slashdot editor.

It all depends on your type of job.

[Gravis Zero]

If your job is exploration then you have already been replaced. Sorry astronauts and divers. :(

If your job is to assist someone else in a well defined procedural manner then your job has already or is in the process of being eliminated. This covers everything from prostitutes to builders to lawyers to robot maintenance engineer. Really, it's most jobs.

If your job is create procedures for someone/something else (generally computer based design jobs) to carry out then the number of people doing your job will be reduced due to AI assistance making fewer people more productive.

If your job is to diagnose broken systems then your job is secure until systems stop breaking. If the systems in question are human psyches then you are likely the last to be replaced.

If your job is to upset other people, I got terrible news: people do that shit for free on the internet. ;)

Re:It all depends on your type of job.

[q_e_t]

Mental health support for humans is already being automated.

Re:It all depends on your type of job.

[burtosis]

If your job is exploration then you have already been replaced. Sorry astronauts and divers. :(

Neither of these jobs are fully automated yet, but they soon will be.

If your job is to assist someone else in a well defined procedural manner then your job has already or is in the process of being eliminated. This covers everything from prostitutes to builders to lawyers to robot maintenance engineer. Really, it's most jobs.

I'm pretty sure the oldest profession is one where at least some people will keep paying top dollar for the real thing, despite what the futurama video says

If your job is create procedures for someone/something else (generally computer based design jobs) to carry out then the number of people doing your job will be reduced due to AI assistance making fewer people more productive.

Untrue. If you consider actual strong AI (human level capable or above), which maybe takes 50 years or 200 but it is comming, all thinking jobs will be replaceable. Cheap androids to replace humans should be here just before strong AI which will completely undercut the price of all skilled and unskilled labor

If your job is to diagnose broken systems then your job is secure until systems stop breaking. If the systems in question are human psyches then you are likely the last to be replaced.

Wrong, it means you have a service tech bot, such as a general purpose humanoid android, make the repair or do the job. They already have bots working in the field to do this for the elderly in Japan. But as the population of the world swings top heavy from people having less children this will spread fast.

If your job is to upset other people, I got terrible news: people do that shit for free on the internet. ;)

Chatbots that designed to piss people off are almost a mature technology, you see that shit everywhere, even on slashdot. It has been a centerpiece of the "Russian meddling" that's been talked about endlessly by pissed off people.

Re:It all depends on your type of job.

[Gravis Zero]

Untrue. If you consider actual strong AI (human level capable or above), which maybe takes 50 years or 200 but it is comming

If you consider the context then people thinking their job won't be replaced is correct because they do not expect to be working for 50 or 200 years. Always remember context because almost anything out of context is both true and false.

Re:It all depends on your type of job.

[burtosis]

Again you have a false premise. I use the more conservative estimates from actual experts in the field. Most people think strong AI is 5 years away, maybe 10 tops so therefore it puts it back in the camp of them not putting 2 and 2 together.

Re:It all depends on your type of job.

[Gravis Zero]

Again you have a false premise.

False premise? It's based on what you wrote! Why are you giving me a premise only to accuse me of using a false premise when I use it?

Most people think strong AI is 5 years away, maybe 10 tops

Most people think it won't take their job either. That just makes them wrong twice over.

Re:It all depends on your type of job.

[Anonymous Coward]

This covers everything from prostitutes

This seems a bizarre job to include.

If you mean lifelike sex dolls they're very expensive and from what I've seen (on the internet) they aren't nearly lifelike enough or even have any real AI. I read about one that can say different phrases to you. This is quite an advancement from the dolls that young girls played with 50 years ago. Back then you had to pull a string from the dolls back to make it talk.

And besides? Where would I keep a life size sex doll and presumably its wardrobe? A married man probably isn't going to be able to keep one at his house.

Even so-called "smart sex toys" aren't really smart.

The robot strippers at CES were interesting but not in a sexual way at all. Even if they looked real nothing is going to be better than Aphrodite climbing to the top of the pole and clenching it between her thighs as she leans backwards and slides down it.

I suppose it would cut down on criminal activity like drugs and prostitution that often goes on in places like that.....well if you're right and I'm wrong it might not cut down on the prostitution.

Should robot prostitution be legal?

I'm the wrong person to ask. I think regular prostitution should be legal (and well regulated).

Could a sex-bot ever get to be so good that someone would have to coin a phrase much like "once you go black you never go back"?

I think this is the best I can do:

"Once you go robotic real girls just aren't erotic."

Of course it will destroy my job...

[Anonymous Coward]

My job relies on people doing stupid things. Once those people are replaced, my job goes away. Unless the AI does stupid things....

There's a name for that

[Anonymous Coward]

The good people of Lake Wobegon have nothing to fear.

I really have to ask....

[meglon]

For respondents with only a four-year college degree or less, 28 percent were worried about AI taking their job; for people with at least a bachelor degree, that figure was 15 percent.

Isn't a bachelors a 4 year degree? I mean, it used to be... did something change when i wasn't looking? "Only a four-year degree" is the exact same thing as "at least a bachelor degree."

Re:I really have to ask....

[Zocalo]

It's not about the duration of the education, it's about the level of the subject matter. Highschool Graduation < College Degree < Bachelors < Masters < Doctorate. Think of it as the difference between going on to a college or vocational course after highschool rather than to a university for a graduate programme.

Re:I really have to ask....

[meglon]

Hmm... see, when i went, a 2-year was an associates, a 4-year was a BS or BA, then it went graduate with MS, then PHD. I've just never seen 4-year that wasn't a bachelors.... but then that was 30 or so years ago for me. Even tech colleges have 4 year bachelors degrees (or had....a long time ago...).

And, the only difference between a college and a university was how many graduate programs it had (or something like that.... the "college" i went to became a "university" a couple years after i graduated, and i still don't know what they changed other than the name).

That line in the intro still just sounds oddly wrong.

Re:I really have to ask....

[Zocalo]

Similar for me (three years for a BSc Hons.), but it does also depend on the nature of the course. Financial, legal, and medical degrees tend to be much longer than arts, humanities, or science degrees for instance - up to seven years for a bachelors in some cases. Four years at college level for your graduation certificate does seem excessive, but not unreasonable if it's one of the new generation of apprenticeship style courses that includes a mix of work placements and formal classroom based education, especially if the subject matter is involved enough.

Re:I really have to ask....

[HeckRuler]

College Degree < Bachelors

wut? No dude. "College degree" is a broader term that encompasses bachelors degree. It ALSO encompasses associate degrees from shittier schools. And to inflate their own ego, they use the broader term. Like how they call themselves senators and congressmen instead of senators and representatives. ....Although I think this might actually be a regional terminology issue. Here in the states, there's no real difference between "university" and "college". They're used interchangeably. And even on a technical level, a University just consists of a number of colleges (engineering, business, arts, etc). You a brit or something?

Nothing < GED < Highschool <Some college (meaning you dropped out) < Associate's Degree (like from a community college) <Bachelors < Masters < Doctorate

And somewhere to the left of all that is "degree from non-accredited college" as it just marks you as a rube.

Then there's the relative worth of various degrees. A Masters of the Arts in Anthropology isn't nearly as good as a bachelors in engineering. Roughly, the sciences are one step up on the arts? Maybe?

There's some minor adjustments made for WHICH school you went to, which has stronger weight the higher the degree and more snooty the crowd. Ivy league Masters beats state uni PHD.

Then there's the trade-skill worker track, which I know less of. But there are certs, tech schools, apprenticeships, and.... some sort of "master" title? There's a lot of variance in what you're doing. Aviation mechanics make BANK.

Then there's everything AFTER schooling. All that schooling really only gets you your first job. Some fields it depends on what you worked on. Some fields it depends on where you worked. Some fields it's all about the cash. Some fields are regulated with distinct paths. Nurses and doctors and professors and the military have a long string of various titles and hoops to jump through to climb the ranks. Some poor bastards can only keep rising if they move into management.

Re:I really have to ask....

[Anonymous Coward]

Many countries have a three-year bachelors. It's the reason nobody talks about as to why a bachelor's holder from India or Germany doesn't seem to be as well-educated as someone with a bachelor's from Canada or the US. It also explains why so many EU countries have a higher college education rate but lower productivity and innovation rate.

What will really blow your mind is when you combine the 3-year bachelor's with a "taught masters". One year. No thesis. Become a master's in CS from a university in Paris that looks the same on paper as a six year program with novel work from UCLA.

Re:I really have to ask....

[macker]

(=4)
prounounced: "(less than or equal to 4) is NOT equal to (greater than or equal to 4)"

"only a four-year college degree or less" defines a class of respondents with = 4 years of (allegedly higher) education

e.g.: Associates Degree = 4ycd or less (yes, less)
                    PhD = 4ycd or more (yes, more)

yes, the groups intersect (overlap) for those with precisely 4.0 years (not 3.999, and not 4.001)

Dunning-Kruger

[KingTank]

My intuition is this is some corollary of Dunning-Kruger.

Re:Dunning-Kruger

[burtosis]

I would agree, except look at how well most people understand the state of the art as it exists today... We have hordes of people thinking full self driving cars, as in rush hour in the city but also driving down a snowy country road, are here already and going to be mass produced in three years or less. Given the level of ignorance on AI, (stuff today being called AI is part of the problem for starters) puts people at that high confidence toward the left end of the graph.

Why is /. doom and gloom on AI?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese are upbeat on AI

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/china-watch/technology/artificial-intelligence-jobs/

While many on Slashdot are downright scared of AI

Why is that?

Technology threatens many jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can create it, it can replace your job. Although I think AI is being rejected by many people already as not being as acceptable as human labor. I think for the most part its logical to see AI as being better, but the human factor of trusting human's over AI is very strong. The fallibility of AI is there, even though some will claim it's not.

Modularity will solve much

[evanh]

I don't see it happening any time soon but as, automation cheapens mass production even further, the cost of modular designs drops down to the point where what was expensive and chunky becomes cheap and chunky and so easy to handle that even basic robots will have no issue doing module swaps.

Whole buildings will be based on it. The old rickety buildings will be bulldozed/reprocessed and vanish.

Where something needs to be compact/portable then it becomes a single unrepairable unit. This is already pretty much the case now.

Recycling is the final step here. Combine recycling with unlimited automation and it all becomes cost free.

Re:Modularity will solve much

[bryanandaimee]

Recycling often costs more than manufacturing the same item from scratch. Labor obviously is a part of that, but only part. You still have to pay for recycled materials collection, fuel, electricity, land, water, etc.

TANSTAAFL

Re:Modularity will solve much

[evanh]

That's a key point of the process of course. The labour component vanishes completely along the way. And once there is no labour input then it costs zero to produce. And economic systems vanish too. All that's left to deal with is recycling of existing resources.

The only question after that becomes, who gives the orders?

Yes, but...

[uohcicds]

Up to a third of Americans believe the earth is around 6000 years old, and that evolution is a lie. And increasing numbers believe the earth is flat, in spite of fairly compendious evidence to the contrary.

So you'll forgive me if the opinions of the American public don't exactly fit me with a sense of confidence or hope in their sense of judgement when presented with inconvenient things like facts.

Re:73 percent of americans...

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's still MILLIONS less than voted for Hillary... what a cuntry!

Special purpose AI versus general AI

[shanen]

Kind of predictable line of defense, but it's already been thoroughly breached. Creating a special-purpose AI to solve a specific problem better than any human being is old news. You might draw the line differently, but I'd say the chess-playing computer will suffice, and they've just been adding one after the other since then. I firmly believe that if your job can be defined sufficiently clearly, then a special-purpose AI can be built to do your job better and cheaper. There are a few jobs that are hard to define, but I don't believe yours is one of them. I've only met a few candidates who might qualify in my entire lifetime.

Now about the general-purpose AI that can replace any human... Maybe that's what Alexa is laughing at?

We need to rethink economics in terms of keeping humans involved when they aren't needed. From an ekronomics (time-centric economics) perspective, that means finding a new balance between recreation time and investment time and structuring the economy to keep the money flowing even though there's no essentially reason for most people to do any essential work. (The advanced societies are much closer to this crisis point, obviously.)

Perhaps the real threat is that the economies are so imbalanced in favor of insane concentrations of wealth and that is also driving the best and the brightest people towards propping up the status quo instead of creating the new solutions that we need. Real innovation could be part of the solution, or part of making the problems much worse. In the limiting case, where we can't solve the problems, then the obvious resolution of the Fermi Paradox will be our extinction. Possibly abruptly.

Re:Special purpose AI versus general AI

[Anonymous Coward]

"I firmly believe that if your job can be defined sufficiently clearly, then a special-purpose AI can be built to do your job better and cheaper."

That's the problem. You are firmly believing, not firmly thinking.

That "if your job can be defined sufficiently clearly" is an abstraction trap. Most jobs can't and likely won't.

Re:Special purpose AI versus general AI

[Anonymous Coward]

Define (sufficiently clearly) "doing the laundry".

Until then, this AI that you're daydreaming about is fantasy.

Re: Special purpose AI versus general AI

[Anonymous Coward]

keeping humans involved when they aren't needed.

That is what sexbots are for.

Re:Special purpose AI versus general AI

[Anonymous Coward]

With current tech, they may indeed build a fit for purpose (non general) AI that can figure out that the break in the fiber is behind that boiler. Absolutely. But today's tech isn't to the point where it would be able to send a mechanical device to fix it. The dexterity of our best 'bots isn't there yet. It will be. It isn't now. Might not be soon. Certainly won't be in my working career (which I hope is able to end in retirement in about 9 years).

Re:Special purpose AI versus general AI

[Anon-Admin]

> I firmly believe that if your job can be defined sufficiently clearly, then a special-purpose AI can be built to do your job better and cheaper.

Well then I am safe. ;)

Boss: Just fix it
AI: It is a 20 year old computer that died I can not get parts for it and have been asking for an upgrade for 15 years. How do you suggest I fix it?
Boss: I dont know, that is your job. Just make it work.
AI: What is my budget?
Boss: $0.00 We can't afford to spend anything on it.
AI: **CRASH REPORT** DIVIDE BY 0 ERROR! **CRASH REPORT**

Re:Special purpose AI versus general AI

[shanen]

If mod points were so plentiful that I ever got one to give, I'd be hard pressed to decide between funny and some form of negative understanding...

It does remind me of a job I once had operating and maintaining an email system of similar provenance. The boss had actually created the system and thought that he could still support it after I left. I tried to make the reality clear and also tried to train a replacement, but the boss thought he knew better... Suffice it to say that after I left the system could only be pronounced dead. (The rest of the company went down some months later. (Now I'm reminded of a certain fat tweeter-in-chief.))

Anyway, if your boss actually needs that system then he better be planning beyond you. That might include replacing the old system with a "smarter" system that benefits from AI technology. You're only human and you can't underbid forever.

Not just US of A

[evanh]

Head-in-the-sand is normal thinking everywhere. They look at you like you're just scaremongering.

And when they realise it is affecting them it's somone-else-should-be-fixing-this-now! And where's-all-my-cuddly-toys-gone?!

The weather ain't being so nice any longer.

Yes, I would work.

[Qbertino]

To be honest, my life right now is pretty similar to what it would be if I were a billionaire and a robot would do my vacuuming (I'll probably get one of those this year) . Yeah, I'd travel more and I'd probably have a luxury condo in my town with a spa, a swimming pool and a small team of cute naked ladies doing all the cleaning and tending to my needs - but I'd pretty much be doing the very same thing I do right now: A little web coding for real-world projects, some FOSS coding, going to college on the side to get a nice degree, social dancing, lots of sex with my sweetheart, yoga & barbell training and prepping for some surf-trip to southern europe. 20 hours of work per week are enough to get by as an IT expert / senior coder.

Bottom line: If we handle it right, we live in cyberpunk post scarcity heaven already - esepcially us true digital natives and geeks. ... Who cares if AI starts driving taxis 3 yeas from now? Actually I can't wait for that to happen when I see those idiots on the road.

Re: Yes, I would work.

[phantomfive]

How did you manage to swing a 20 hour work week?

Re: Yes, I would work.

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you manage to swing a 20 hour work week?

LoL, remember how futurists thought that computers would mean that we'd all work 20 hours or less a week when the reality of what occurred is that half as many people are employed at 40 hours a week where they do what used to be the work of 2-3 people?

Re: Yes, I would work.

[phantomfive]

Yeah, they underestimated our greed to get more stuff. If you ask most people if they'd take a 50% pay cut in exchange for a 20 hour work week, most would say "No."

Re: Yes, I would work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not GP but I work a 30 hour work week. (And I'm a little jealous of the guy who works only 20.) The way you get that job is by remembering that the company only gets to have you, if you decide to work for them. You can ask for whatever you want and the answer might be yes. Nothing isn't negotiable. Sure, they might prefer to have 40 hours per week from me instead, but I'd go somewhere else where I only have to work 30, and this employer would get zero hours per week from me instead of 30. 30 is WAY more than zero, so they accepted my terms. Everyone wins. I win and my employer wins.

Re: Yes, I would work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they underestimated our greed to get more stuff.

I think it's that they underestimate how much and how fast NEW and better stuff gets made, and how fast they needed to be replaced.

Sure, people always want more stuff. But people could only want more stuff if there was a flow of new stuff being made for them to want.

Back in the bad old days, new or better stuff takes forever to come out, and there was less selection. It was easier to "keep up with the Jones".

Take something like Star Wars: the original Star Wars were 3 years apart between each episode. Disney's Star Wars is 2 years apart, with a side story film (Rogue One, Solo) in between. And back in the day the film industry has less/no competition with tv and video games and youtube etc

Re: Yes, I would work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Be the guy that the experts call when they can't fix it.

Our local Exchange guru charges $100 an hour. The Cisco guy charges $200. The data recovery specialist charges $1200 for what amounts to about three hours work that takes eight hours to complete. Of course, he has his own clean room to pay for out of that, so it's not all profit.

I don't want to order on a touch-screen.

[Qbertino]

I do not want to order my coffee/fries/whatnot on a touch screen. I've got that in my pocket already, thank you. I want a young cute lady smiling at me, and recognising me as a regular parton and listening to my wish and extra-special order.

I can get a coffeebot for my kitchen and never leave home already.

That is just not the point of it.

I *want* to go to the japanese quarters and have some hot stuff prepare my hot stuff and pay them for it. ...

One thing's for sure: No bot will replace them any time soon.

Re:I don't want to order on a touch-screen.

[Anonymous Coward]

After the robots crash the value of labor and human dignity seems like a quaint concept you will be able to order a McAmazon coffee and bang the girl behind the counter until your food comes.. Which will seem like an eternity in the future

human nature

[sad_]

it is human nature to think it will never happen to you.
it's how diseases spread as well - oh, i will never get aids or some other contagious sickness.

Over-educated idiots

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Apparently, the more education someone has, the less likely they think an AI will take their job. Ooops, wrong. The first jobs the AIs are coming for are in the legal and medical fields. Things like "driving a truck" require a lot of sensors. Things like "diagnose a disease" or "do legal research" require parsing the input a nurse/paralegal enters into the system.

Funny

[DaMattster]

It's kind of typical. Most Americans think bad shit is gonna happen to someone else, not them.

typical

[Anonymous Coward]

This is right in line with all the millions of people that vote against their own interests and people that think they are the exclusive subgroup that have figured out "the conspiracy". People always assume that they are the exception to the rule.

Just one example, in discussion with fundamentalist Christian on prayer in school I said "this also protects your child from being forced to say a Muslim prayer." Her response "well that would never happen."

Those who believe "AI won't take my job"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that many people who believe AI won't take their job believe so because they can't (or aren't allowed to) work from home. They have jobs that require them to be somewhere and deal directly with the public. They have also seen jobs that complained about automation taking jobs and have seen that there are still people at the bank where there are ATMs and people at the auto shop where there are computer diagnostics, etc. AI may be different.

Unfortunately, even if AI doesn't take your job, it will still suck if it does part of it. That will reduce your value to your employer. Just as ISO 9000 got you to document all of your work processes and made you easier to replace, AI will make employers consider machines as well as people in low cost countries to be your replacements.

The fact that the C level execs are lusting after a piece of all the wages below them will insure that you will eventually be redundant. Remember that they reward themselves with the "savings".

Tech has gotten a _lot_ better

[rsilvergun]

Web apps that used to break constantly now push 5 9s uptime. My bluetooth devices work now and don't disconnect all the time. My cheapo phone doesn't reboot or drop calls all the time. PC manufactures don't intentionally sell me bad ram. VIA motherboards with buggy chips fixed in drivers are a thing of the past. I just bought a new board/CPU this year and I installed the extra drivers for performance, not stability. And is anyone here old enough to remember when ethernet wasn't 100% plug and play? Or the gymnastics needed to install a new videocard in Windows 98?

Tech is maturing. Getting 'good enough'. The cut off point is when it's cheaper to make the product work than it is to field the calls. That eventually happens to all tech and it's doing it faster than it used to. Yes, you still have a job, but I'll wager there's a ton of things you used to have to fix and don't anymore. That doesn't free you up to do other things, that lets your company lay off some of the guys who did them.

Now, the argument is the company will expand in more productive areas, but that only works if there's demand for products and services. But as folks get laid off that demand decreases. We're not a supply side economy because, well, there's no such thing. Companies respond to demand.

Most American's Think

[JimSadler]

The capacity for thought seems to be totally absent in many if not most Americans. On top of that there is a really bad history of the brightest among us predicting the future. AI has the capacity to be far more intelligent than humans. Machines are already superior in many day to day functions. That will become more obvious in the near future.

Liability

[cordovaCon83]

Hopefully AI will not completely eliminate the job but instead automate the simple, boring parts of it. The added productivity will probably result in some kind of downsizing hence the survival bias. AI didn't eliminate the job, it instead required less people to do the job. Ultimately the reason an AI will never completely eliminate all human beings from the process is that when things go wrong which they inevitably will someone needs to be responsible for fixing the problem and held accountable for letting the problem get out of hand and even possibly held liable if the problem causes enough fallout.

No jobs are "destroyed"

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs are improved, not destroyed. I constantly want my work to go away, and I make it go away either by tediously doing it myself (or automating it) (or getting someone else to do it) (or saying "hey, let's buy this thing"). "Destroy" is so totally the wrong word.

If you make buggy whips and someone is selling cars, that doesn't destroy your job. It improves your job, by causing you to do something more useful than making buggy whips.

You luddites are what's wrong with America

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always the other guy that gets screwed.

I was able to follow along until you weirdly said that someone got screwed. There is nothing about this idea which suggests that anyone is getting screwed.

Let's say part of your job is to put cover sheets on TPS reports. You spend an annoying number of minutes per week doing that. One day, a clever young man assassinates Lumbergh and takes his position at the company. He declares: "Fuck it, no more TPS reports." Now you're not spending your time doing that useless thing anymore. You didn't get "screwed" by losing that job. Your job simply got more productive.

When work gets easier, we win, not lose. You silly person! If you force everyone to drop specialization and go back to farming, you'll be harming society and those people, not helping. OTOH, if you have robots come in and do everyone's labor so that they have nothing better to do but sit around or study or join Starfleet, you're helping those people, not harming.

Quit using words like "destroy" or "screw" when talking about making everyone's life easier. Let's become the fat people in WALL-E. Technology is good.

Re:You luddites are what's wrong with America

[Falos]

> Your job simply got more productive.
Company needs 0.2 less employees.

> you didn't lose [a] job
Correct, 0.2 jobs were lost.

Even if you managed to keep possession of 1.0 jobs, which is great for you, some of us aren't myopic self-centered twats and can think farther than our immediate field of vision.

> Let's become the fat people in WALL-E
The only part of that I'm disputing is the "let's". It sounds like you're under the illusion that you and I will reap. Capital gains go to those who own the capital, not The Help.

Re:You luddites are what's wrong with America

[HeckRuler]

Quit using words like "destroy" or "screw" when talking about making everyone's life easier.

In aggregate. It's a little better for most people. A lot better for a few people. And really colossally bad for the people put out on the streets or the kids who simply can't find work. If you just look at the aggregate, humanity has had a continuous improvement and no one has ever suffered.

The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed.

Mostly . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I think AI is a misnomer, and the most overly-hyped development in software since the dawn of computing. It can't take a job that it can't do, and it is doubtful it will ever be able to do a great many things. Anyone saying otherwise is on a payroll somewhere or so fundamentally misunderstands human nature and human ability (or the world and life themselves) as to be laughable, and time will bear that out. It's different than automation and the Luddites, or even industrialization, this time. Wishing teenage fantasies were 'real' does not make them so.

Software and firmware developers

[gatkinso]

Our time is short. When it happens, AI will eliminate our jobs over night.

clairvoyant American exceptionalism

[epine]

Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of U.S. adults believe artificial intelligence will "eliminate more jobs than it creates," according to a Gallup survey. But, the same survey found that less than a quarter (23 percent) of people were "worried" or "very worried" automation would affect them personally.

So if AI eliminates more jobs that it creates, and this wipes out exactly 23% of existing jobs, American wisdom of the crowds can properly ascend the podium of clairvoyant American exceptionalism.

That's the most ignorant use of the word 'but' I've seen in a month.

Re:clairvoyant American exceptionalism

[SoftwareArtist]

I was just about to post the same thing. No contradiction here. They could easily both be correct.

Another aspect is that "your job" does not mean "the type of job you do." In the long run, a lot more than 23 percent of jobs will be replaced. But if you plan to retire in 20 years, and it takes 20 years for robots to start doing your job, it's not a problem for you.

Also, you can think your job will be replaced but not be worried about it. Did they ask how many people were "hopeful" or "very hopeful" their job would be automated? A lot of people hate their jobs and would love to have a robot take it over.

People get what they deserve.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between people who understand statistics and people who don't is that people who don't understand statistics see a 1% annual chance and think, "This will never happen to me," whereas people who do understand statistics think, "This will eventually happen to me if I live long enough," and plan accordingly.

If you're one of the few with any wealth at the end of the AI takeover then you can live like a godking and retire in a palace in the middle of the former Georgia Economic Rehabilitation Zone and fill your harem with the descendants of trump voters. I hope to have a genuine walton and I'll dress her up in a blue wal-mart hajib/smock just for kicks.

Position yourself to weather the storm and you will be the 1% of the 1% of the 1%. Make sure you start collecting samples of stupid and smug from the soon to be slave-class so you can remind yourself and your grandchildren why it's for the best that we keep some people as pets in the future.

So,

[BitztreamNotARealNam]

How's life in the hypocrite lane?

web hosting

[Anonymous Coward]

I found your this post while searching for information about blog-related research.It's a good post 1 dollar hosting godaddy keep posting and updating information.

Not Surprising, although that's

[memebrain]

a little under the percentage of those that think they are above average drivers (94%).

https://80000hours.org/2012/11...