How Will Automation Affect Different US Cities? (northwestern.edu)

Casino dealers and fishermen are both likely to be replaced by machines in coming years. So which city will lose more of its human workforce -- Las Vegas, the country's gambling capital, or Boston, a major fishing hub? From a research: People tend to assume that automation will affect every locale in the same, homogeneous way, says Hyejin Youn, an assistant professor of management and organization at Kellogg. "They have never thought of how this is unequally distributed across cities, across regions in the U.S." It is a high-stakes question. The knowledge that certain places will lose more jobs could allow workers and industries to better prepare for the change and could help city leaders ensure their local economies are poised to rebound. In new research, Youn and colleagues seek to understand how machines will disrupt the economies of individual cities. By carefully analyzing the workforces of American metropolitan areas, the team calculated what portion of jobs in each area is likely to be automated in coming decades. You can run your city's name, and also the job position you're curious about here.

Comments

Boston?

[110010001000]

Boston is a major fishing hub? Is this the 1800s?

Re:Boston?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boston is a major fishing hub? Is this the 1800s?

Boston is home to many large fish processing and preparation businesses. If you're in the midwest and you're eating lobster or cod then it probably passed through Boston. These are the jobs that can be automated away.

Re:Boston?

[110010001000]

Really? In Boston? In 2018? You guys need to actually visit Boston. Most cod comes from Alaska and Scandanavia or Canada at this point.

Re:Boston?

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new I.T. closet cleaner overlord.

Re:Boston?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of Gorton"s [gortons.com]? Based in Gloucester? Or as we like to call it, Glostah!

Re:Boston?

[110010001000]

Yes. I didn't realize that was Boston. Who knew?

Re:Boston?

[vtcodger]

There's also the question of whether the folks at Kellog have ever been on a commercial fishing vessel. I haven't been around boats much for about 50 years, But I think that the jobs in the fishing industry might be a bit more complex than they think.

Re:Boston?

[Applehu Akbar]

Boston is home to many large fish processing and preparation businesses. If you're in the midwest and you're eating lobster or cod then it probably passed through Boston.

Ah, Boston. Home of Legal Seafood and illegal prices.

Simple Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Any city/state that raises its minimum wage is going to be on the front line of automation.

Any fast food job in California that can be automated will be automated. At least those that aren't already using illegal alien labor at sub-minimum wage rates already.

The real minimum wage is zero.

Re: Simple Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't count on it, and even if it did, I wouldn't count on other states following suit (believe it or not, most of the rest of us in the country really do think people in CA are unhinged and delusional). Hell, even stores like Fresh and Easy in CA had just as many people on the floor as regular supermarket even without cashiers. You need to get out of California, and apparently your house as well, more often.

Re:Simple Answer

[ShanghaiBill]

Any city/state that raises its minimum wage is going to be on the front line of automation.

... and those that don't raise the MW will only be six months behind. Much of the cost of automation is in R&D. Once the kiosks are developed and being manufactured, they will be deployed everywhere.

Any fast food job in California that can be automated will be automated.

I live in California. The McDonalds nearest me already has ordering kiosks. Tap what you want, swipe your card, and wait for your number to be called when your order is ready. No human interaction at all. My estimate is that about half the customers use them.

Re:Simple Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Casino dealers likely won't go away anytime soon as the gamblers who play tables like the human element, otherwise they'd all be only using the video poker machines and such that have already existed for decades now.

I live in California. The McDonalds nearest me already has ordering kiosks. Tap what you want, swipe your card, and wait for your number to be called when your order is ready. No human interaction at all. My estimate is that about half the customers use them.

I've seen those kiosks at a few around here in the Midwest, I've not seen anyone using them so far as it's much quicker to just go to the register and say "Number 4, large", pay and be done with it. I was surprised that I couldn't just to that when I did try one of those kiosks, it wanted me to select everything separately and I ended up just canceling and going to the counter anyway.

Maybe they get used more when there's a big line or by someone who really wants a complicated custom order (but those people probably aren't going to McDonald's anyway to begin with.)

Re:Simple Answer

[glenebob]

Casino dealers likely won't go away anytime soon as the gamblers who play tables like the human element, otherwise they'd all be only using the video poker machines and such that have already existed for decades now.

I agree with this. It seems like a rather glaring flaw in TFA. People like people, and as such, the service industry will exist for a very long time. People like waiters, bar tenders, dealers, etc. should continue to do pretty well. OTOH, the people in the service industry that you don't see, are in real danger. People don't care about people they don't see, such as line cooks and dish washers.

Re:Simple Answer

[Dorianny]

It is very difficult to find lots of people willing to work odd-hours/weekends for long periods. The reason fast-food chains and other 12/7 operations are heavily investing in automation, is to solve their chronic under-staffing issues rather then save money on wages

Re:Simple Answer

[Rockoon]

When you hit a losing streak on a machine, this machine might be rigged.

When you hit a losing streak with a dealer, this dealer is unlucky for you.

THAT is why Casinos, in spite of trying to change it for decades, still employ dealers.

Re:Simple Answer

[Obfuscant]

When you hit a losing streak on a machine, this machine might be rigged. When you hit a losing streak with a dealer, this dealer is unlucky for you.

Since most poker tables have automated shuffling and the dealer just distributes the cards, then this difference will eventually fade. Oh, wait, a single cut is the "random" input the dealer makes. Other than that, the dealer has no input in which cards go to which player. But yes, currently, the dealer is blamed for bad hands.

I don't think many people blame the dealer at Pai Gow, and that's a glaring example of the difference between manual shuffle and automated, despite there being a dealer present to chat with.

There are also too many people playing video and slots where the games can be more easily rigged for "this might be rigged" to be a serious concern for the casino.

Re:Simple Answer

[Rockoon]

Since most poker tables have automated shuffling and the dealer just distributes the cards, then this difference will eventually fade.

Shallow thinking.

The dealer still cuts the deck in those places. Ask yourself why it was so easy for you to to be so astonishingly wrong.

Re:Simple Answer

[Obfuscant]

The dealer still cuts the deck in those places. Ask yourself why it was so easy for you to to be so astonishingly wrong.

I guess you didn't read my explicit comment that the dealer cuts the cards after taking them out of the auto-shuffler at a poker table. Ask yourself why you don't read the entire comment before replying.

For Pai Gow, which was my example, no, sorry, the dealer does not cut the cards. The shuffler shuffles the desk and spits out packets of seven cards seven times. The dealer may do a wash or hand-riffle prior to putting the deck into the shuffler to make it look like he's doing something to randomize the outcome, but the shuffler takes over from there. For all anyone knows, there is a card reader under the table and the "shuffler" is creating biased packets so a certain seat will have better chances of winning. Remember, the "dealer" seat is chosen before the cards come out. It would be trivial for a rigged "shuffle/dealer" to spit out packets for seat 4 that usually beats the dealer, or at worst pushes.

Maybe a few losses just to make it less obvious. It would be hard for a casual observer to detect, because Pai Gow is one of the games where a conservative player can play for a push if they're not sure they can win. Some people will have a track record of pushes, which would look just like a rigged game.

I would predict that Pai Gow, for one, will be one of the next games to be automated like craps was. The "house way" is fixed, there is no leeway in how the "dealer" plays his cards, that's already automated some places. Shuffling/dealing is already automated, it's just a human dealer going through the same easily taught, easily automated steps over and over. All it would take is each seat gets an LCD display showing their cards, buttons to bet and select two of the seven for the top, and you've got a fully automated system.

Bangalore for the win

[Anonymous Coward]

That's who will win this one.

Re: Bangalore for the win

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you take out their leader. Bagalores wont automate without a leader.

More speculative nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't take anything that uses, 'might', 'will likely', or 'could' as its basis seriously. Those words have been used to describe a great many things that had exactly zero impact on anything whatsoever over a great many decades. Millennial alert.

Re:More speculative nonsense

[LinuxIsGarbage]

I''m just amazed that people think this is something new. Since the industrial revolution technology has been replacing jobs. It's not like it's a new invention.

Ridiculous data

[110010001000]

The backing data is ridiculous. A house cleaner has a 94.5% likelihood of being automated? How? What planet are these people living on, where they see automated robots appearing soon that have the ability to clean a house? The best we can come up with is Roomba, and that is a complete joke. These "researchers" need to get a real job and learn about technology.

Re:Ridiculous data

[SirSlud]

Automated doesn't mean "get replaced by an android". It just means that you'll need less people to do the same work due to advances in automation. Your robot may not clean the whole house, but it will let house cleaners clean a house faster, with less people. It's certainly easy to just say that we don't have the technology now, but in 20 years given advancements in robotics and automation ... I'd put my money on the human not doing the brunt of the work in cleaning a house.

Re:Ridiculous data

[Rick Schumann]

*sigh* it's another case of Media Hype being taken as Fact by people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about, that's what this is. We do not have 'AI', we have 'pseudo-intelligence' at best, and it's not very good in any case. All this talk about this-or-that job being replaced in X-number of years is just a bunch of hot air and baseless opinions.

Re:Ridiculous data

[110010001000]

OK, that isn't what it means, but please explain when this technology will appear that will "automate" house cleaning? Why will it appear in 20 years? Is there some sudden advancement in technology that I am not aware of?

Re:Ridiculous data

[glenebob]

TFA says that Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists have a 61% risk of being automated. How about that?

Re:Ridiculous data

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be one of those people who is stridently confident in their ignorance.

Once upon a time nobody could imagine dish and clothes washing machines either.
We've already got industrial robots that can learn tasks by watching humans do them. Its not hard to imagine wealthy people buying something like that for their homes in 15 years, and those are the same people who currently hire house cleaners today. Or hotels.

Re:Ridiculous data

[Obfuscant]

We've already got industrial robots that can learn tasks by watching humans do them. Its not hard to imagine wealthy people buying something like that for their homes in 15 years,

So the rich people will wind up with robots intended to clean their homes and all the robot will do is watch TV and eat bon-bons? What rich person is going to show a robot how to clean? (Yes, that's facetious. Undocumented workers will still have a job teaching the robots, albeit short-term jobs.)

You seem to be one of those people who is stridently confident in their ignorance.

I simply think back to what technology was like 20 years ago and realize that a lot of things we have today weren't imagined then. Like "Alexa, turn on my bedroom light". Like a Raspberry Pi that has more compute power than a mainframe 20 years ago. What will we have in 20 years?

Re:Ridiculous data

[ShanghaiBill]

We do not have 'AI', we have 'pseudo-intelligence'

According to my dictionary, one of the synonyms for "pseudo" is "artificial".

Re:Ridiculous data

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The rich people will continue to have servants clean their homes. It will be the middle classes who will have robots clean their homes.

Re: Ridiculous data

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheaper textile/related logistics means you can have an extra set of linens. That means the housekeeper doesn't need to wait for the laundry to make the bed. Swiffers don't need to be washed like a mop, just replaced, or even mop bottled. Floors can vacuumed by mini robotic bots and emptied by meat bots.

This shit adds up. You don't transcribe books at a library by hand anymore, you use a copier, or just buy it online instead. When is the last time you ordered something by actual mail? Not received, ordered.

Something is seriously wrong

[rsilvergun]

Based on this finding, Youn says small cities could see an exodus of workers, as well as exacerbated income inequality, since robots are likely to hollow out the middle class there.

Something is seriously wrong with our civilization when robots taking over dull, repetitive tasks leads to an overall worse quality of life.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't find checking AI code to be dull and repetitive? You will...

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Since everything will be automated, there will be no real use for income. Everything will be dirt cheap because labor costs will go to zero.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[CanHasDIY]

Since everything will be automated, there will be no real use for income. Everything will be dirt cheap because labor costs will go to zero.

Right, because that's how it's always worked throughout human history - the rich decide that they don't need the poor, so all the wealthy people suddenly become altruists, and everybody is happy.

Re: Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt this'll lead to a Star Trek-esque utopia where money is obsolete. Human beings will always have wants that can't be satiated by cheap goods, like information or real estate.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Something is seriously wrong with our civilization when robots taking over dull, repetitive tasks leads to an overall worse quality of life.

Not everyone enjoys novelty. Some people like dull, repetitive tasks, and not everyone is suited towards skilled work, be it skilled blue collar, or skilled white collar. I don't really hear people complaining about the nature of the dull, repetitive work. They complain about the pay.

In other words, don't apply your own desires to others. I think I'd hate being an assembly line worker. But for some people it's a fine job that pays bills and supports their family. You're not doing these people a favor by replacing them with robots.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[thinkwaitfast]

I make less than $20k/year, yet am extremely wealthy by 1900's standards, probably 1980's standards by most measures.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[mark-t]

Sure, because we all know how everyone will always pass on their own savings to a consumer instead of just using it as a money-grab for themselves.

Costs won't go down... the rich will just get richer faster.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[CanHasDIY]

I make less than $20k/year, yet am extremely wealthy by 1900's standards, probably 1980's standards by most measures.

Right, so despite technological advances bringing the cost of labor down, your dollar today doesn't go nearly as far as it did before said technological innovation, thus furthering my point - actual cost of labor has fuck-all to do with the cost of goods sold.

Re: Something is seriously wrong

[TimMD909]

Are you bragging or complaining about making $20k a year? I'm nonplussed.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

If you make $20k/year while working a 40 hour a week job - that's terrible. You should go on welfare.
If you make $20k/year while working 0 hours a week - that's terrible. You should get a job.

You just cannot please some people.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[thinkwaitfast]

Inflation adjusted, a 26" color tv would have cost me 21% of my income in 1980. In 2018, a 32" flat panel tv costs me 0.9% of my income.

In 1972 (because I couldn't find 1980 prices), a refrigerator would have cost me 21% of my income, while today it costs 3.7% of my income while using 1/3rd the amount of energy. And the $ ammounts do not include the intangible increases in quality (better for the environment, safer, less energy useage).

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[DNS-and-BIND]

People of below average intelligence - you know, 50% of the population - have no problem with dull, repetitive tasks. In fact, they find learning new things to be a difficult chore. It is only the intelligent people who delight in learning. Because they're good at it, duh. How does an intelligent person overlook such obvious facts?

If you don't have a job, you don't have a place in society. You're not contributing. This is very destructive to the human soul, and people will start killing themselves because they don't know why they're alive. It's not like instead of a job people are going to start going to see independent films and creating art all day. That's just what a very small segment of the intelligent population - the ones high in creativity and trait openness - wishes they could do. They don't speak for humanity, this is painfully obvious to any observer.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Dorianny]

If there is competition in the sector that will inevitably happen as competitors try to wrestle away market share from each other, leading to pricing wars. Of course in this era of corporate giants, consolidations and mega-mergers it is unclear how many healthy competitive sectors still exist in the economy

Re: Something is seriously wrong

[thinkwaitfast]

Neither.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Rockoon]

None of it matters.

You will always be able to trade a day of your labor for a day of someone elses.

The liberals dont get that because they dont believe in the free part of a free market. They will introduce a red herring such as "but the rich..." .. as if the rich has anything to do with me trading my labor for my neighbors. The only time the rich has anything to do with it is when the liberals legislate away my freedom to do so.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The real median personal income in 1980 in 2016-adjusted dollars was $22,038, so your current salary wasn't even above average back then.

In 1901 (PDF) the average yearly household income was $750, which in 2016-adjusted dollars is about $20,274. Compared to 1901, you're currently earning about the same as the average family did back then. While that's above average for personal income, it pales in comparison to the actual extremely wealthy people back then. For perspective, just ask yourself how many railroad empires you own or how many murders you've been rich enough to get away with.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[ShanghaiBill]

Something is seriously wrong with our civilization when robots taking over dull, repetitive tasks leads to an overall worse quality of life.

Something is seriously wrong with our civilization when people read some journalist spouting an opinion, and accept it as objective truth rather than some stupid economic fallacy.

There is no reason to believe that automation is leading to a "worse quality of life".

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Dorianny]

Putting your faith on some abstract idea like "the free market" seems rather idiotic, personally I prefer putting my faith on the "flying spaghetti monster" No matter, liberals don't give a damn about your bartering, what we are concerned about is that you or your "neighbor" doesn't abuse their position of privilege by offering a unfair deal that you can't afford to refuse; "You an work for this peace of stale bread, or you can starve to death," not exactly much of a choice

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Inflation adjusted, a 26" color tv would have cost me 21% of my income in 1980. In 2018, a 32" flat panel tv costs me 0.9% of my income.

Yeah, but they didn't have Trump for a president, so they are still ahead.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Maxo-Texas]

Not only that. Training isn't free.

If you pay $6k for a skill and then lose the job within 2 years, you are in debt and can't retrain.

We need basic income, universal health care, and free education (that includes trade school). Not *debt*.

Re: Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you bragging or complaining about making $20k a year? I'm nonplussed.

The real question is are they living on $20k/year while living in Silicon Valley?

Looks like we may have a new Creimer on our hands.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

People of below average intelligence - you know, 50% of the population

OMG STOP.

It's a bell curve, and "average intelligence" isn't a point on the curve, it's a range. People of below average intelligence are below a range that includes most people on the bell curve. And there's another range above the average range. Below average intelligence folk are markedly less than 50% of the population.

And that's before considering that you're talking about the functional ones (because the below 60 IQ crowd can't even perform dull repetitive tasks), so you're talking about a vanishingly small number of people. Who, by-the-way, do enjoy learning. They just learn slower than you do.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the option of "figure out how to make your own fucking bread"

This is the problem with Liberals and Progressives; they can't seem to get it through their heads that person A's inability to properly provide for his/herself and family does not obligate person B to step in and provide.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like someone needs to revisit this subject and pay special attention to upper and lower bounds.

Far greater than half of the population is below average intelligence.

If you do not understand how this can be true, you are likely in the lower portion.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[kackle]

I'd like to see some unbiased data regarding refrigerators using 1/3 the energy today versus back then. Insulation is not that different today, and pumps are still pumps. (Disclaimer: I work in the pump industry.)

Re: Something is seriously wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Make your own bread? Using uncontaminated water bought from who, on land rented from who with what income to grow wheat, etc how?

If i am rich and own all the land, your wage is less than the incremental electrical cost to replace you with a robot. You need $0.85 a day in cheap carbs to not die within a month? Better hope i need under 8 kwh to do whatever you think i need.

You'll be homeless long before then too, so your caloric needs might go up in winter. Or during the purges when I hunt potential threats using castle doctrine. And drones.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[philmarcracken]

If you don't have a job, you don't have a place in society. You're not contributing. This is very destructive to the human soul, and people will start killing themselves because they don't know why they're alive.

Contributing to what? My bosses vacation plans? The 'economy'? I don't think I would kill myself over something so petty.

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[CanHasDIY]

Inflation adjusted,

Translation: I'm going to selectively consider figures so that I sound better.

You want to make a legit comparison, how about considering real capital purchases, such as:

1) housing

2) automobiles

3) higher education

"China makes cheap crap" is not an argument (and to that end, the 26" CRT you bought in 1980 still works today, but the 32" ChinaVision LCD is going to crap out 30 days after the 2 year warranty is up).

Re:Something is seriously wrong

[CanHasDIY]

Also -

a refrigerator that was built 30 years ago was built to last, and in fact many 1970-1980 model refrigerators are still in use today (like mine, for example, that was built in 1985 according to the tag).

Conversely, a new refrigerator is the victim of planned obsolescence, and is designed to fail catastrophically within the first 5-10 years of operation, requiring a new unit to be purchased.

So - even if the individual refrigerator models today are more efficient than older models, they still produce as much if not more pollution via the continual purchase-break-dispose-purchase cycle.

Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Different Cities and different areas have different economies, different cultural biases, and different customers. So automation could affect people differently in each area.

It will affect people, but in general automation will be a net improvement. As jobs get automated new jobs get created, and it isn't always the repair people for the robots. Fast food/casual dining restaurants are bringing in ordering kiosks, so while you may no longer need someone behind the counter taking the orders, people will deliver your food with a (hopefully) smile, to the table you are sitting at. This type of service for this particular type of company was previously unheard of, because of the long lines you needed someone at the register. Now that people are seated comfortably, you will need number of people to serve the food that is getting ordered at a faster rate. Plus you may need more cooks to meet demand. Previously if you see the line was too long you just walked out, now without lines the restaurant will get more customers, so the will hire more people in general at the cost of the cash register.

Now if some persons ambition is to be behind the register and will not be a server, then chances are their job will go away.

Casinos

[Anonymous Coward]

They already have computerized dealers in Vegas. And human ones for the people who want to play a real game. The machines aren't coming to replace them, they machines are already there and haven't replaced them yet.

Re:Casinos

[DickBreath]

Humans have an important role in being casino dealers. Sex appeal. Are you going to the table with the automated dealer, or the table with the hot guy?

Now consider the role of machine learning. With or without a human dealer, machines might learn to recognize certain subtle human reactions that indicate things. Like when the sucker is about to give up and leave the table. What responses by the dealer are statistically more likely to keep him at the table losing more of his mortgage payment money.

Maybe machines can learn to recognize when players are more or less likely to be manipulated to gamble more. (eg, more susceptible to gamblers fallacy. (google it)

Re:Casinos

[Joe_Dragon]

Some dealers are pushy on the high house edge side bets.

Mechanical Engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

1% bitches. Suck on it.

Re:Mechanical Engineers

[DickBreath]

They may not be very skilled at it. Despite thinking that they are 1% special.

This is just OPINION

[Rick Schumann]

Casino dealers and fishermen are both likely to be replaced by machines in coming years.

That's just someone's opinion. Nothing to see here..

Re:This is just OPINION

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a msmash so you are correct.

Re:This is just OPINION

[thinkwaitfast]

It's true. I was in a casino last years and while I saw maybe 3-4 dozen card tables, I saw hundreds of slot and video game machines. /s

Re:This is just OPINION

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true. I was in a casino last years and while I saw maybe 3-4 dozen card tables, I saw hundreds of slot and video game machines. /s

And if you went back 30 or 40 years the ratio was probably about the same. There's always been more slot machines than tables, the only thing new is the video poker machines replacing some of the slot machines.

Re:This is just OPINION

[Obfuscant]

the only thing new is the video poker machines replacing some of the slot machines.

You are wrong. Casinos love automation. It gets rid of one of their biggest expenses AND security problems. Dealers handle cards and money. Mishandling either one can be theft or simple mistake, but either one costs money. And people to watch the people makes the cost even higher. (I was playing poker one night and everyone at the table misread a hand, including the dealer. About twenty minutes later a floor came by, told me that security had detected the mistake, and gave me $20.) One time a dealer at Pai Gow make a payout mistake, caught it herself, but had to call a floor over to monitor the fix. Play stopped for that period of time, costing the casino money.

They'll replace everything they can. They have automated shufflers for almost all the card games now. They have automated "dealers" for many of them. If you play Pai Gow, you'll see the automated shuffler that spits out packets of seven cards that the "dealer" distributes. The latest innovation I saw at one casino had image analysis to detect the dealer's cards and tell the dealer how to arrange it, faster than any dealer could. That table also had lights to point out the proper place for the "dealer" to put each packet. I didn't see anyone do it while I was watching, but I bet the image detection is applied to the player's hands, too, so the dealer doesn't even need to detect when a hand is misplayed.

Finally, my normal casino has an automated craps table. It doesn't look like a craps table. It's a round domed thing with a shaker underneath and two dice inside, surrounded by half a dozen consoles where players enter bets. There's a button for the shooter to stop the shaking, and cameras inside determine the roll. There are no croupiers, no table captain, no muss, no fuss, and a lot cheaper in the long run.

The only thing stopping casinos from automating the poker room fully is the players. There's too much ambiance from having chips instead of an LCD display. All the rules interpretations that come from having people handling chips will go away when betting becomes a button press. "Hey, you just string bet ..." can't happen when you either press "call" or "raise". There will still be rules that need someone watching, like table talk limits or use of cell phones, but anything that can be automated will be.

Re:This is just OPINION

[Rick Schumann]

Aside from sounding utterly and completely boring and pedestrian, it sounds like a complete waste of time for anyone who wanted to go to a casino in the first place. I mean, gambling is a waste of money to start with and you've got to be dumb or sick in the head to do it in the first place, but at least if you go to a casino there's the ambiance of the place, right? I obviously don't gamble but I'd think if it was reduced to just more or less a video arcade where you shovel money into a slot and push buttons, where's the fun in that? At that rate you may as well stay home and sit in front of your computer in your underwear and gamble away your retirement money on the internet instead, at least the liquor would be cheaper that way. Seriously, aside from roulette, craps is one of the easiest casino games to lose money at, and they won't even let you handle the dice with your own hands? What's the point of it? Guess I'll just call this 'evolution in action'; if casinos want to create their own extinction-level event for their own industry then I guess that's probably best for everyone else anyway.

Re:This is just OPINION

[Obfuscant]

I obviously don't gamble ...

Obviously, and thus your knowledge of casinos, why people go there, and why they gamble isn't very great. Thank you for adding your opinions.

Re:This is just OPINION

[Rick Schumann]

Okay, I'll bite: Why would any intelligent person go to a casino, even if they're a billionaire and have money to burn? You know you eventually lose and that it's all a scam. The only people who 'win' at a casino are the ones who go there for the buffet, which is usually pretty much top-notch. Everyone else is a sucker, a fool who will soon be parted from their money. You MIGHT be able to make an argument for the ambiance of a casino setting, but if you're going to replace everything with machines, then where's the ambiance anymore? You may as well just stay home.

Re:This is just OPINION

[Obfuscant]

I am not going to waste my time trying to explain to you something that you so clearly do not want to understand, and even keep arguing about even when you know you don't understand.

I'll simply say this: not everyone will "eventually lose". There are people who make their livings gambling. When I play Pai Gow, I typically come out ahead, and I'm hardly a pro.

But you certainly are the superior person because you understand so much about the casinos and would never fall for their scam. That's what you are trying to prove by insulting everyone who goes to them, right?

Re:This is just OPINION

[Rick Schumann]

Do you think money appears out of thin air to pay for those exhorbitantly expensive hotel-casinos? Do you think someone donates billions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts because they think that hotel-casinos do so much good for mankind? LOL no. The house always wins in the end. That's where their money comes from. For every one of these people you claim are 'professional gamblers' there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of idiots who are gambling away their rent money, retirement money, or their kids' college funds, absolutely sure that 'their luck is bound to turn around soon'. It's idiotic. Your defense of it starts to sound like a drug addict or a steroid abuser defending their addiction. Maybe you should go get some professional help.

Will?

[thinkwaitfast]

Every city in the US is already highly automated.

AI Rate of Change

[ElitistWhiner]

HorseDung to CarSmog, 50 years it took to dislodge a 4 legged beast in the automobile revolution. (https://thetyee,ca/News?2013/03/06/Horse-Dung-Big-Shift/ ) The computer revolution took 30 yrs. to get to ' the rest of us'.

PeoplePace to BlackBoxAI automation will dislodge our 2 legged friends in the transition. It'll take a scale of systems engineering witnessed in the Computer revolution AND dislodge humans at scale as the Horseless Carriage dislodged beasts to their greener pastures. Yay for the horse that got pasture. Boo the slaughterhouses that made glue. Who will get green? Who get slaughtered?

AI transition has not begun. The revolution will be no surprise but for the numbers. What will it mean for a species like the automobile revolution meant for the planet's climate change smog?

Re:AI Rate of Change

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that what we have right now isn't AI. And AI isn't even on the horizon.
We have task automation. And each task that's even capable of being automated will need to be trained on thousands of carefully gathered data points.

Mass change of society?
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Today's "AI" is the same as a spreadsheet. It's nowhere near skynet or hal9000.

Re:AI Rate of Change

[Maxo-Texas]

What everyone misses, is that in the new scenario we are the horses.

The real reaction...

[datavirtue]

"The knowledge that certain places will lose more jobs could allow workers and industries to better prepare for the change and could help city leaders ensure their local economies are poised to rebound."

What is this guy smoking? The real reaction is more likely to resemble a band of Luddites springing the Unibomber from prison and going on a spree to destroy the machines and those responsible for them.

Replace dealers, no

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the high end gamblers won't games controlled by machines, they already exist, video poker, etc.

In other news, prognosticators well be replaced by AI, because AI is actually right sometimes.

Robot Casino Dealers?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Do people really want to play cards with a robot dealer? It seems a little impersonal to me.

Re:Robot Casino Dealers?

[Obfuscant]

Do people really want to play cards with a robot dealer? It seems a little impersonal to me.

While it may seem impersonal, the growth of online poker should tell you something.

Also, if you can't find a poker table with a human dealer, will you chose not to play? The casino will control what is available.

Re:Robot Casino Dealers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully there is more than one casino, if they don't offer what you want go next door. If they don't have it tell them you'll got to whichever casino chooses to offer it.

Re:Robot Casino Dealers?

[Obfuscant]

In this part of the country casinos are not "next door", they're 30 or 40 miles apart. If their tables are full of people who are happy to play under robot dealers, then your threat will make them laugh.

Where I play, the most common reason that any poker table is not in use is because they don't have a dealer for it. If they don't have to pay someone to come in to deal, they can open a table at almost no cost. Any time there would have been a waiting list of four or more people, they simply open a table with a robot dealer and the list is taken care of, they're making money, and the players are playing. That means the floor space is making money instead of sitting idle, and they don't have to pay a dealer. Nor do the players feel compelled to tip a robot dealer, so they keep more of their winnings. It's a win-win-win.

Fuck you Christopher Dale Reimer!

[Anonymous Coward]

There you are spamming amazon and youtube affiliate links with yet another fake account, you revenue stream hogging disgusting fat sexist tube of lard, Christopher Dale Reimer!

You can be sure I will be watching this fake account too. I know this is you because you told me you were working on your freepass 11 file server and you are so dumb that you can't even masquerade yourself properly.

Now, I told you I was out of meds last week and you didn't even care to contact me you lazy fucker.

How many times do I have to express the emergency of the situation??????

The python click script you wrote for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work!!!!!!

You fucking incompetent python script writer!!!

When it works, I get 4000+ clicks a day on my pheromone revenue stream web site but only 5 or 6 without it!!!!

Now, it seems like you dont care and that you have abandoned me you heartless fucking pig!

Bonus:
Here is a story that creimer told me when convincing me what a hard life he had:

The tree was him and the tree knot was his butt hole!

So, his uncle packed his fat ass with lard and with his cock! Not that it makes much of a difference but anyway, there it is!

Signed:
Ethell, The girl that used to love you and now hates you, burn in hell where you belong you sexist pig!

Re: Fuck you Christopher Dale Reimer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, Ivan

Thinking Wrong

[JimSadler]

The level of chaos caused by a major economic change caused by automation is not fixed. It is a variable. If law, social policies and social services develop sensible policies there should be no distress at all. It is only if we wait and try to patch the harm done after it occurs that problems will be severe. For example we currently have Unemployment Insurance and retraining as our mode of social response. That is no longer a valid path. for example currently if a fifty year old worker suffers job loss we offer a few months of poor pay from Unemployment followed by retraining etc.. Now that is a foolish path to take. Retraining will be useless as more and more jobs yield to automation. So in essence we need to retire that worker and provide a reasonable income for him so that he can make purchases and support businesses. It' s like the old Boy Scout motto "BE PREPARED".

There's so much wrong here it's hard to unpack

[rsilvergun]

it all.

First is the implicit notion that people have to be contributing to society to feel fulfilled. Bullshit. The upper class is full of layabouts, so much so we've got a term for it (the Idle Rich) and I don't see them offing themselves. People will watch TV, sports, drink and hang out with friends and be perfectly happy. Hell, our ancestors had _more_ free time than we did since they spent a lot of it just waiting for crops to grow.

Then there's the subtext that people who can't contribute don't have worth as a human being (e.g. you're comment about "If you don't have a job, you don't have a place in society"...). Here's the thing: from a philosophical, moral and civilization standpoint you've got two options: Either human beings have intrinsic worth or they don't. And if they don't then _none_ of use have any worth beyond what we can claim for ourselves. As Alistair Crowley put it: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

If that's your bag fine man. But don't be surprised when somebody bashes your skull in and feasts on the goo inside (or more likely, forces you to work for slave wages 90/hr/week in a factory breathing poisoned fumes). And if that's _not_ your bag, then you need to realize that the line of reasoning your following leads there and turn away from it ASAP.

Re:There's so much wrong here it's hard to unpack

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you autistic or just projecting?

"The upper class is full of layabouts"

Like who?

"Hell, our ancestors had _more_ free time than we did since they spent a lot of it just waiting for crops to grow. "

Most of it during the winter months and spent inside. No one is yearning for _these_ days of old.

"Then there's the subtext that people who can't contribute don't have worth as a human being"

No there isn't, you're just not bright enough to be able to appropriately infer from context. It's obvious they were referring to "self-worth." There is no larger commentary on the human condition there. He probably didn't realize he needed to accommodate you with explicit detail.

"If that's your bag fine man. But don't be surprised when somebody bashes your skull in and feasts on the goo inside (or more likely, forces you to work for slave wages 90/hr/week in a factory breathing poisoned fumes). And if that's _not_ your bag, then you need to realize that the line of reasoning your following leads there and turn away from it ASAP."

I'm going with autistic.

Re:There's so much wrong here it's hard to unpack

[rsilvergun]

a. Paris Hilton comes to mind. The son of one of the Koch bros only 'works' if you count runny phony baloney businesses set up by his dad as 'working'.

b. Read my post again. Crops don't grow in the winter.

c. Again, read my post again. The subtext is in the phrase "If you don't have a job, you don't have a place in society". It's there whether you realize it or not. It's even more powerful if you _don't_ realize it since it's hit you subconsciously; e.g. without you even knowing it.

d. Insults are fun and all, but they don't solve your problems or mine. Wake up.

TVs are junk

[rsilvergun]

fun junk, but junk. How much is college tuition? How about transportation? Or Housing in a safe neighborhood with good schools and jobs? And if you're an American don't get me started on health care.

Chinese slave labor has made electronics cheap. I just read a story where a US boat went down in a storm and it causally mentioned that the Chinese lose a boat every other day (along with it's crew). Then there's Cancer Villages. And smog so bad you can't go jogging. That's why your TVs are .09% of your income. For the stuff that matters (and that they couldn't outsource to countries with slave labor) you're paying through the nose. As a result your wages have not kept pace with inflation.

Re:TVs are junk

[Maxo-Texas]

Also how much is decent quality food that's not full of pesticides, cellulose, and water?

The water levels in meats are completely insane these days.

Likewise, many home utility items last under 25% as long as they used to.

The guy above mentions a TV set. My friend has a CRT Tv Set which is over 20 years old. I have a dishwasher and a water heater that are both over 20 years old. Today's water heaters last about 9 years. Today's dishwashers breakdown in less than that.

Four years ago, the capacitor on my a/c went out. It was 27 years old. The repairman said, "wow, the new one will probably last under five years. It broke after 2 years." The total appliance and the parts comprising the total appliance are junk.

Microwaves. My friend replaced a 1990s microwave a few years ago. The new microwave is already broken in a couple minor ways. Junk. It costs $1000 to get a good quality microwave (a miele) .

Clothing-- clothing that used to last forever decade (like jeans) are shredding in 8 years. The fabric looks real- but it just doesn't last. It's low quality. And there is no way to tell. Thinner metal, more plastic. Then lower quality plastic.

Everything is slowly dropping in quality and become less reliable. Folks are not getting the bargain they think they are getting.

Have ytou seen humans?

[ne7minder]

I love how the researcher believes if we know what cities and what industries will be the worst hit we will start making changes now to avoid the worst outcomes. Maybe they spend too much time in the lab and have not seen how real Americans behave in the real world.

All these folks loose their jobs?

[whitroth]

And where's the jobs to replace them? And who's going to hire "retrained" folks in their 40s and 50s and 60s?

I see, so all the folks who lose their jobs should leave everything behind, and go die under a bridge.

Or perhaps we need a basic minimum national income, a reverse income tax. Of course, I realize that's anti-efficience...

"Efficiency, n. the speed and frictionlessness that money flows from poor people to rich people", New York 2140, Kim Stanley Robinson