Slashdot Mirror


The Robot Revolution Will Be Worse For Men

Recode's Rani Molla shares the findings of a new study from the Brookings Institution, which finds that automation will impact men at a higher rate than women. Here's an excerpt from the report: Young people -- especially those in rural areas or who are underrepresented minorities -- will have a greater likelihood of having their jobs replaced by automation. Meanwhile, older, more educated white people living in big cities are more likely to maintain their coveted positions, either because their jobs are irreplaceable or because they're needed in new jobs alongside our robot overlords. The Brookings study also warns that automation will exacerbate existing social inequalities along certain geographic and demographic lines, because it will likely eliminate many lower- and middle-skill jobs considered stepping stones to more advanced careers. These jobs losses will be in concentrated in rural areas, particularly the swath of America between the coasts.

However, at least in the case of gender, it's the men, for once, who will be getting the short end of the stick. Jobs traditionally held by men have a higher "average automation potential" than those held by women, meaning that a greater share of those tasks could be automated with current technology, according to Brookings. That's because the occupations men are more likely to hold tend to be more manual and more easily replaced by machines and artificial intelligence. Of course, the real point here is that people of all stripes face employment disruption as new technologies are able to do many of our tasks faster, more efficiently, and more precisely than mere mortals. The implications of this unemployment upheaval are far-reaching and raise many questions: How will people transition to the jobs of the future? What will those jobs be? Is it possible to mitigate the polarizing effects automation will have on our already-stratified society of haves and have-nots?

271 comments

  1. Uh-huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You need to get out of the bubble of the Bay, millennial. Can Slashdot sink further? Apparently, it can. Remember, before the acquisition, when this site was useful, and dare I say it, entertaining? Boy are those days gone.

    1. Re:Uh-huh by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      shortsightedness is a game that machines have mastered. So when one has a winning solution based on short shortsightedness, the outcome is easily predictable.

  2. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My roomba and dishwasher disagree with this article.

    1. Re: Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wifes job will never be obsolete so I believe this story

    2. Re: Nonsense by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Because it's the oldest profession in the world?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re: Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! She loves me!

    4. Re: Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit. I have mod points but there's no option for +1 savage burn!

  3. Thats why by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    That's why I have started to identify as a woman. So far so good.

    1. Re:Thats why by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Funny

      I suggest you identify as a robot instead.

    2. Re:Thats why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I have started to identify as a woman. So far so good.

      What about all those strong female leads we have now? Seems like a sexist article.

    3. Re:Thats why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here. It's only sexist if it devalues someone "oppressed". You can shit on straight people, white people or men all you want, that's just fine.

    4. Re:Thats why by unixisc · · Score: 1

      That's why I have started to identify as a woman. So far so good.

      Do you happen to do what's traditionally a woman's job, such as teaching or nursing? If no, then that doesn't do you much good. While automation threatens one of the leading jobs of blue collar men, namely truck driving, it so far hasn't done a thing about either education or nursing.

      If it did, both genders would be equally affected, and then all of us could try addressing the bigger issue of salary replacement when our jobs are automated

    5. Re:Thats why by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Well Japan is trying their hardest to automate nursing. Seems to be more male nurses then ever, took a friend to emergency the other day and dealt with a couple of male nurses. Does seem a bit weird but I guess it cancels out the female Doctors. There's quite a few male teachers as well, though in the higher grades. Lots of places austerity is cutting back on the number of teachers with computers replacing, or rather picking up the slack.
      There's also a lot of traditional women's jobs that have already been largely automated away, mostly by computers. Nowhere near the number of secretaries, typists and similar since computers became common.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Thats why by sarren1901 · · Score: 1

      It's funny you talk about truck driving. There is a pretty large shortage of truck drivers in USA. Walmart is paying nearly 90k to drive for them and they are promised two days off and other benefits as well. It's tempting but you need a couple years of experience to be considered.

      Sure, once automation takes over all those jobs will be gone, but in the now there are actual needs going unmet.

      I would says the most likely jobs to stay around are those where you have to figure things out or jobs that are people facing where other people demand people.

  4. Coal Miners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They could just learn to code. Or be robotics engineers.
    Iâ(TM)m sure the ratio of engineers to replaced coal miners will be 1:1 and everybody will have a place at the table.

    1. Re:Coal Miners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capital powerhouses pay the high upfront costs of robots because they're just so eager to send MORE money trickling down to the proles.

      It'll be better than 1:1, we'll need ten repairmen for every robot.

      I can't believe we have to explain these obvious wonders of a future where the gains will be realized by the many.

    2. Re:Coal Miners by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      They could just learn to code.

      No, those jobs are already being snapped up by unemployed journalists.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Coal Miners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good thing you didn't say that on Twitter, you could have gotten banned:

      https://politics.slashdot.org/story/19/01/28/2338259/twitter-might-punish-users-who-tweet-learn-to-code-at-laid-off-journalists

    4. Re:Coal Miners by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      They could just learn to code. Or be robotics engineers. Iâ(TM)m sure the ratio of engineers to replaced coal miners will be 1:1 and everybody will have a place at the table.

      Hard to say. Automation has replaced most coal miners anyhow. In my area a few men, dynamite and draglines can do in days what it used to take a lot of men and months/years to do.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  5. Worse for men? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're not counting sexbots, are they?

    1. Re: Worse for men? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robotic dildos way outweigh robotic vaginas which means you weigh way to much to weigh in on any discussion about the weight of sex toys in the cumming years.

    2. Re: Worse for men? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already exist. Apparently, they don't fulfill their needs.

    3. Re:Worse for men? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sexbots will be outlawed

    4. Re:Worse for men? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sexbots will be outlawed

      noooooo... surely not lucy lui bot?

      or princebot...that bot has wood parts...hard wood ( if you can understand such a little reference hehe *giggles while correcting massive glasses* )

    5. Re:Worse for men? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      They could be - fear the impending "Sybians with legs," motherfuckers!

  6. Robotic Men by mentil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When women lose economic opportunities, marriage rates go up. When men lose economic opportunities, rioting rates go up.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Robotic Men by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Very true. The rise of ISIS is a good example of what happens.

    2. Re:Robotic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The root of the problem is education - a lack thereof. Uneducated people cannot do much in this world and these simpletons can then be influenced easily by crazy leaders.

    3. Re:Robotic Men by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      If you are male, uneducated and unemployed you have little chance of finding a mate. Thus young men will look for other options. Just because you are uneducated doesn't mean you are a simpleton - it just means you didn't have access to education.

    4. Re: Robotic Men by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Nooooooooooo! Everyone who didn't go to an Ivy League university is a toothless cracker who can't spell his own name or count to three. CNN told me so - therefore it _must_ be true!!!1!!

    5. Re: Robotic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the OP - Are you trying to justify Charlottesville?

    6. Re: Robotic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those males can always keep each other company if you get my drift

    7. Re:Robotic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Just because you are uneducated doesn't mean you are a simpleton - it just means you didn't have access to education."

      You can always become President, even when being a complete moron.

    8. Re:Robotic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      indeed, educated men are wimps. Especially ones educated or shall I say: indoctrinated in the western universities.

    9. Re: Robotic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, they leftists still needed to pay people to get their riots.

    10. Re:Robotic Men by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't riot, they elect populists who promise to bring their jobs back.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Robotic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't riot, they elect populists who promise to bring their jobs back.

      Soap box: failed.
      Ballot box: failed.

      Guess what comes next?

    12. Re:Robotic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't riot, they elect populists who promise to bring their jobs back.

      Soap box: failed. Ballot box: failed.

      Guess what comes next?

      Jury box. Jury box is the 3rd box.

    13. Re:Robotic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm male, overeducated, AND well employed and can't find a mate, let alone a single date. Most of the under-educated and unemployed people I know are doing much better.

    14. Re:Robotic Men by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, we have seen increased "education" in America, and the result is Acasio-Cortez.

      Education requires intelligence.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    15. Re:Robotic Men by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      And you might even win a Nobel Prize in the process.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    16. Re:Robotic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because women aren't willing to financially support men like men financially support women.

      We should demand women-as-the-provider legally enforced quotas and watch women riot. After all if we must have legally enforced CEO gender quotas why stop there?

    17. Re:Robotic Men by mentil · · Score: 1

      SCOTUS doesn't use juries.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    18. Re:Robotic Men by outlander · · Score: 1

      And, to some extent, male-female population ratios. Where there are a lot more men than women (e.g., when the ratio gets out of whack, as in some parts of the world), violence and extremism sometimes result.

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    19. Re:Robotic Men by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      Its not all its cracked up to be buddy.. You aint missing much.

    20. Re:Robotic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And she is provably leaps and bounds more intelligent than 99% of right wingers. As you have so illustriously demonstrated.

    21. Re: Robotic Men by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I like your style!

  7. "for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For once, bwcause, you know, women are banned from those jobs or something.

    I'm 40 and never once in my lifetime has it been illegal for a woman to do a job in my lifetime. At 40 I'm at the age where whatever experience I've had is AVERAGE.

    Stop pretending it's 1950.

    1. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop pretending it's 1950.

      How about you stop pretending that because women working isn't illegal, discrimination is not a problem.

    2. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Men must register for the draft, not so for women.
      The overwhelming majority of homeless people are men.
      The majority of suicide victims are men.
      The majority of alimony payers are men.

      Spare me the "for once" bullshit. It is as wrong as it is hostile.

    3. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      You forgot a few.

      More than ninety percent of people killed on the job are men.
      Men's life expectancy is much lower partially because of worse work related stress and working conditions
      Men's education opportunities are limited with less than forty percent of college students being men.
      etc.

    4. Re:"for once" by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      I'd say the problem is that the 'for once' is extra stupid, both for being sexist and wrong. Every slowdown in manufacturing and low skilled labor has had a larger impact on men.

    5. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't really matter why women aren't steelworkers.

      Hmm. Sorry, wrong tense, my bad.

      *It won't really matter why women weren't steelworkers, when it was a service proles could still sell to Our Betters. And they would buy it, if only because they had no choice.

    6. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men "for once"

      It's always men who have borne the brunt of change. Fucking journalists.

      Not only that but I don't actually think it's true in this instance. Most office jobs will be annihilated by automation. Once those are gone, the HR department will be gutted (hallelujah) - and that's about 90% useless women. Even if the non-office jobs go, the HR department will still severely reduced.

    7. Re:"for once" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm 40 and never once in my lifetime has it been illegal for a woman to do a job in my lifetime.

      But if you were 47 that wouldn't be true.

      Stop pretending it's 1950.

      Stop pretending that after centuries of discrimination, flipping a legal switch made everything equal instantly overnight.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re: "for once" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Uh...what's so special about 47 years ago?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re: "for once" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It was still legal to bar women from practicing the law in 1971: that's the year it stopped.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re: "for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus, the people affected are all retired. Nearly close to zero people in the current workforce, knew this time.

      Lets just remember, the men that are heroes for gender equality.

    11. Re:"for once" by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Once those are gone, the HR department will be gutted (hallelujah) - and that's about 90% useless women. Even if the non-office jobs go, the HR department will still severely reduced.

      HR will find a way to protect themselves and probably even manage to come out with some more hires.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    12. Re:"for once" by Drethon · · Score: 1

      A woman can do pretty much any job a man can (military still a bit fuzzy on some but...), however, a job with high strength requirement is going to be something on average a man can do better than a woman. Thus despite improvements in equality, and the notion pushed by some that a woman can do anything the same as a man (yes there are women that area as strong as most men, but on average women biologically do not have the same strength physically, which says nothing about mentally), there are still perfectly valid reasons for job categories to remain split by gender. If the job is also very simple, except for the strength component, it is very easy to automate.

    13. Re: "for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    14. Re: "for once" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Ah, you (probably?) mean the US? In that case, not much has changed from my perspective; for example, the ban on female drivers in Saudi Arabia ended last year, so logically, no taxi drivers. Chances are that somewhere in the world, there's still something wrong in this respect.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:"for once" by f3rret · · Score: 1

      For once, bwcause, you know, women are banned from those jobs or something.

      I'm 40 and never once in my lifetime has it been illegal for a woman to do a job in my lifetime. At 40 I'm at the age where whatever experience I've had is AVERAGE.

      Stop pretending it's 1950.

      Several jobs in the military are still exclusively male, by law.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    16. Re:"for once" by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I'm 47, and not once in my lifetime has it been illegal for any woman to do a job.

      REAN definition of an SJW- a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice. Thanks for giving me my new tagline.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    17. Re:"For once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The kids are watching too many movies. They think every man in history has lived like the most lavish and tyrannical king and every woman has lived the life of a pious, pure if heart house slave.

      It's utter insanity and it needs to end. Stoicism is great, but occasionally you need to rebuff the attack instead of absorbing it all and pretending everything is fine.

    18. Re:"For once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homelessness too. Quick google search indicates 84% of the homeless are male.

    19. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Centuries? Discrimination?

      You vacant eyed cunt. You realize men didn't all live like kings with a dungeon of sex slaves? Have you even looked at a history book? Can you even read?

      Firstly, men met more discrimination throughout all history than women ever will, simply because through most of time you killed it enslaved men and you kept women because children.

      Secondly, yes you flip a switch and you get equal opportunity. Notice how much power women have in first world society, they can kill with a word. You stupid fool. If Women were truly as oppressed as you said only 50 years ago, and it's not easy to change that, then why do they have nearly unlimited power in contemporary society?

      On top of all this, women don't accumulate memories or oppression through lives they never lived. They don't receive the burdens of all the women that came before them. Name a single reason you'd give women a leg up in contemporary society that they needed for past wrongs.

      Are you insisting they've inherited an evolutionary stupidity?

    20. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is so accurate

      Perceive Injustice (generally this stems from a lack of life experience and it misinformation)

      Work to correct injustice (with little or no knowledge of how a complex system works)

      Create larger Injustice directly or through a complex system of unplanned reactions

    21. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most jobs dominated by men are crappy jobs. Women don't want to do them, if they have any choice, and since most women do have a choice, they don't do them.

    22. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the front line roles in the military?

    23. Re:"for once" by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Most jobs dominated by men are crappy jobs. Women don't want to do them, if they have any choice, and since most women do have a choice, they don't do them.

      Nearly all the cashiers at my grocery stores are women. I guess it depends on your definition of crappy but the job would annoy the crap out of me. To each their own I suppose. One meaningless data point in a world of meaningless data points though.

    24. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like women were not allowed in military combat roles until recently.

    25. Re:"for once" by Evtim · · Score: 0

      Yhea, so that's why most men did not leave genetic lines behind but most women did. Add to that that women live longer and are under-represented in nasty statistics such as death at work, death at war, suicide, illness ect.

      So, throughout all of human history (including hunter-gatherers) women had it better when it came to both survival and procreation. Way better.... In other words, the won the only game that matters.

      Cry me a river, cuck!

    26. Re:"For once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know how you know you're livestock? The males get their balls cut off or turned into veal (cattle). The males get thrown in a bucket and ground up for feed (chickens). Natural sexual reproduction is not allowed. You're herded through chutes and live a life completely disconnected from nature until one day there's a man with a strange device standing at the end of the chute...

    27. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not men vs women.

      Both things can be true - women can be discriminated against and men can taken advantage of in the same society.

      Patriarchy doesn't mean that men benefit as much as it means women can't be at the top. But the men who aren't at the top aren't much better off than the women in a patriarchy.

      Men need to renegotiate their roles in society, much like women did over the last fifty years with the feminist movement. That doesn't mean men are reacting in a misogynist way to feminism, just that feminism has made them see what is possible.

      The advent of automation and robots can actually be a boon to men in this way in that they can do the high-risk jobs that men currently do to their detriment.

      It's not a zero-sum game. We are all people. We all deserve an equal shake.

    28. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you think about the workplace death rate; more men die from paying child support than women in childbirth.
      "My money, my choice." ?

    29. Re:"For once" by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      You forgot that the expected lifespan for women is 4.8 years longer than for men.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    30. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add: Overwhelming majority of people killed by police are men.

    31. Re:"For once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

      But when a man "shares his emotions more" and says "hold on a minute" then watch how quickly the women demand he shuts up, that his feelings don't matter as much as a woman's feelings.

      Twice as much online and workplace harassment than women? That doesn't matter since it's harder on women for some arbitrary reason.

    32. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I see the word 'patriarchy' it is painfully apparent that I am reading ideological feminist garbage propaganda. I stop reading and think the writer is a complete fucking brainwashed moron.

      Blow it out your back hole.

    33. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yhea, so that's why most men did not leave genetic lines behind but most women did. Add to that that women live longer and are under-represented in nasty statistics such as death at work, death at war, suicide, illness ect.

      So, throughout all of human history (including hunter-gatherers) women had it better when it came to both survival and procreation. Way better.... In other words, the won the only game that matters.

      Cry me a river, cuck!

      fat red herring

    34. Re:"for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I see...

      So... that means it's a good thing that they will lose their jobs?

    35. Re:"for once" by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yep, more men died in child birth. It is true that as property women were more protected, people look after their property. Now whether being safely owned out weighs the lack of freedom is a question. You could try prison as that is sorta like being owned, might even include the rape that women are traditional on the receiving end of. Definitely you will be taken care off in return for your freedom.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    36. Re:"for once" by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      It's retarded to talk about men and women separately. When those men stop making money, it's their wives and children who suffer. Even if the women have jobs, work gets more demanding in a bad job market, and if their husbands are laid off, it increases the stress level even more.

      Single women are negatively affected too. Besides having to work harder to keep their jobs, their pool of potential mates will shrink, since most still want a man who earns more than them. Or if any of them would prefer to be a stay at home mom instead of going to work, well that's not really a possibility anymore.

      Finally, even if they're not in the market for a husband, having crowds of unemployed men around is not a good thing. The rates of theft, robbery, and civil unrest will all rise.

    37. Re:"for once" by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Not illegal. Policy is not equal to law.

      The main reason women weren't allowed on the front lines was because of specific duties they weren't able to do. Not assumed not able to do, physically not able to accomplish.

      To allow women on the front lines, they had to lower training standards.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    38. Re:"For once" by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Don't forget 'soft' prejudice, like being career sidelined if they have to care for an ailing spouse, parent, or child; losing a job if they don't work a lot more unpaid overtime than a female; losing a job if they say to a woman in the office 'hey you look nice today' - and that being it, no lewdity, etc. Yup.

  8. Neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll automate my stock trading, then do a rural startup using local businesses that gross >$10M/year. I won't care whether I'm profitable or not if the market gains grow exponentially.

  9. Society doesn't want men any more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just the latest thing pushing this agenda.

  10. Limited Future Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will people transition to the jobs of the future?

    They'll be automated. Imagine what your life would be like if you lost your job and couldn't get another. That will be the norm.

    1. Re:Limited Future Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it won't Ivan. I can already see a few of the jobs that will be there and so can those that are looking.

  11. Sexbots will be banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because they break women's absolutely necessary monopoly.

  12. Don't care by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    I've been hearing robot talk for over fifty years. I'm numb to it.

    1. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ayup - they will still need real people when the robot unions call labour strikes.

  13. Robo-penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes

  14. The robots won't take our jobs by alfino · · Score: 1

    So I just gave a talk at LCA2019 on precisely this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    I also thought about arguing in this direction, but then I didn't want to open the gender debate, and so I left it at "humans".

    Enjoy.

    --
    echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
    1. Re:The robots won't take our jobs by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      That's so sad that left-wing identity politics successfully intimidated you into self censorship. We all lose when the truth is blocked from speech by a climate of fear created by threats from fanatics.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:The robots won't take our jobs by alfino · · Score: 1

      Ask someone to hug you. You seem to need it.

      --
      echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
    3. Re:The robots won't take our jobs by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      That's so sad that left-wing identity politics successfully intimidated you into self censorship.

      Indeed: you are the arbiter of all truth. People either speak your truth or they self censor. There is no possibility people actually disagree with your worldview.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  15. Calm down and think by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the problem is that the jobs men traditionally do are most likely to be automated. That's it. That's all there is to it. You can't really automate watching kids, for example, because kids are emotional and except a parental figure to be near. So short of perfect androids that ain't happening. People want nurses still. And yes, they want doctors, but there are a lot more nurses than doctors.

    Also, to be blunt, women do better academically than men. The reason's really simple: girls calm down and start studying and an earlier age than boys so they get an extra year or two of education.

    Yes, this does mean we're going to eventually need to start shifting from helping girls catch up (necessary because they were discouraged from doing anything short of having babies for hundreds of years) to helping boys catch up.

    The trick is doing this rationally and without it devolving into identity politics from both sides used to distract us all from economic issues. Right wing Dems like identity politics because it lets them pretend to be progressive while supporting the same supply side/trickle down economics as the GOP does. Meanwhile the subject is so emotionally charged it's easy to rile people up and point them at the polls to vote for whoever without considering the economic factors involved.

    The solution is a) more education for everyone (if nothing else it'll help absorb some of the unnecessary workforce) and b) be wary of anyone who talks identity politics without also talking sound, demand side economics.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Calm down and think by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The argument is a lie. The dominant male jobs are the trades, plumber, electrician, carpenter, brick layer et al automation in that regard requires full robotics and AI. Labourers will lose jobs but it depends on the labour, some rural industries more than others and that affects women equally, low end labour also counts the food services industry and so the impact will be equally felt by women, more so in fact because low end labour will feature major competition for places between men and women and men being stronger means women forced out ie low end labour will shift from rural to metro and with it job pressures will rise.

      Of course for the psychopaths at the top, they want the labour camps, they want hold and cold minors on tap to abuse, they want war games with the peasants, they are sick fuckers. The automation discussion in the current context, is psychopathically insane, the rich buy robots and the poor die, that is the discussion in reality.

      Where is reduced working hours, sharing the labour and the reward, gone with the dominance of psychopaths, the normies are just there to be used, abused, sexually exploited and killed at a whim by the rich and powerful. Don't get rid of them and the killing will start, just the way it is.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off ivan your rant sheet is obvious and your english is shitty

    3. Re:Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a trite phrase, but that doesn't mean it's not accurate:

      "Women are more interested in people; men are more interested in things"

      It's working with things that is being replaced as a human activity. Ergo, only jobs that appeal most to women have a future.

    4. Re:Calm down and think by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Efforts to help buys academically started long ago. Back in the 90s I remember efforts to help them improve in maths in particular, and to try to take some stigma away from more traditionally female subjects.

      There was a lot of research done in the 2000s but we are still figuring out how to put it into practice. One promising technique is to encourage girls to get involved in traditionally male spaces, so for example building Lego kits or playing football. Of course boys often enjoy things like netball too. Boys and girls are physically equal up to age 8 or 9, before puberty kicks in, so actually mixed sports are a good opportunity. At my school it was hockey.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, to be blunt, women do better academically than men.

      That might have something to do with the fact that colleges, secondary and primary schools, etc. go out of their way these days to encourage females, provide them with special programs and scholarships, indulge their every whim, etc. Boys and men, meanwhile, get fuck-all from the education establishment. The only thing that a university will do for men is throw them out the second any woman accuses them of even looking at them funny. And the only special programs a boy will get in K-12 are ones aimed and teaching them how much they all suck because they're males. So yeah, under those circumstances it's hardly surprising that girls and women are doing better.

      If you want boys and men to do better, how about we stop telling them every five minutes that they're toxic and evil? Or maybe even (*GASP*) try giving them some scholarships or encouragement too for once.

    6. Re: Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was in special programs throughout k-12 && received college scholarships && am male.

    7. Re:Calm down and think by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      You can't really automate watching kids

      Sufficent enough Alexa will change this, whether it's sufficient or not.

    8. Re:Calm down and think by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The argument is a lie. The dominant male jobs are the trades, plumber, electrician, carpenter, brick layer et al automation in that regard requires full robotics and AI. Labourers will lose jobs but it depends on the labour, some rural industries more than others and that affects women equally,

      That begs the question "does automation in that regard require full robotics and AI?"

      Automation can't eliminate those jobs outright, but it can reduce their number by making those jobs easier, in the form of partial automation. For example, if homes are pre-fabbed, they'll come with the wiring built into them, meaning less work for electricians. (The work is easier if done while the walls are being assembled on a table.) And if they're being pre-fabbed anyway, they can easily be assembled in another country! And if you make enough identical structures, you can begin to think about automating that work.

      So really, if you needed full robotics and AI, that would affect women equally, but you don't (at least to make an impact) so the situation will not affect women equally. It will affect men first.

      Your argument also depends on the idea that the dominant jobs, those with the most workers involved, will be affected first. But that's not the claim. The claim is that male-dominated jobs will be affected more than female-dominated jobs. You could be only affecting the fourth or fifth or even tenth-largest job sectors and still affect men more than women.

      While North Carolina probably does not serve as the best proxy for the nation, it ought to be adequate. I found a very nice page on their web describing the situation for NC in 2013, which is probably recent enough to be relevant in this case, so I'll go ahead and use it. Their #1 male-dominated job by number of employees was truck driver, with 75,000 employees, and only 6% female. You didn't even mention this job, which is one of the jobs expected to be automated first. That alone is enough to torpedo your argument. #2 is miscellaneous managers at 57k and 35% female, excess managers are going to stick around for a while unfortunately. That's two male-dominated professions and we still haven't gotten to any of your examples. The next most common job for men by sex is First-line supervisors, that's actually 48% female so it's not male-dominated. Men's fourth most common job is freight/stock mover, 34k and only 15% female, and that's a job that's already being automated right now.

      So what are the most common jobs for women in NC? Elementary and Middle school teachers (71k and 82% female), RNs (69k and 92%), Secretaries and Admin. Assistants (67k and 96%)... As you can see, these are jobs which are much harder to automate.

      So in summary, you don't actually know what male-dominated jobs employ the most people, and that means you don't know what you're talking about.

      Now that's out of the way, let's go back and look at your claim that we'll need "full robotics" (WTF does that even mean?) "and AI" to automate jobs. I say nonsense. You could probably replace 100% of people on a road crew with robots with modern technology — they usually fuck it up anyway, so how badly would a robot do it? Also, just like work is done by specialists in the real world, robots can be specialists too. For example, on a road crew you've got the sign guy*, asphalt guys, gravel guys, dump truck drivers, grader drivers, etc. and none of these guys are interchangeable. You would need strong general AI to have one robot do all of those jobs, but that's not how it would be done. So yeah, some jobs would require that, but many don't.

      * The sign guy may be a sign gal. Everyone else on a road crew is all but guaranteed to be a guy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re: Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait wait wait... You just suggested that men and women are different after puberty.

      You're a literal fucking Nazi, and you can never work at Google.

    10. Re:Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where are the initiatives to get back boys at college/university/medical school/...? Why are we still trying to increase the imbalance by help so much the girls? Why are boys abandoned?

    11. Re: Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off ivan

    12. Re:Calm down and think by f3rret · · Score: 1

      you seem angry, need a hug?

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    13. Re:Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahahaha

      The "other memories" argument.

      Women were mysteriously enslaved, though history lacks this representation

      Women have inherited the past lives of only their female ancestors, though this lacks biological or logical representation

      We don't live in the dune universe, try again.

    14. Re:Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, to be blunt, women do better academically than men. The reason's really simple: girls calm down and start studying and an earlier age than boys so they get an extra year or two of education.

      Could you quantify more, in which areas "women do better"? I understand that there is more women with degree than men. Could you divide this by degree or profession?
      i do not look at the grades, I want to see achievements in the fields 20 years after graduation ...
      take top 5% of the professionals in given field (like neurosurgery or pharma research) and show me that "do better"
      We will see if it is not clustered around "gender studies" .....

    15. Re:Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they don't.

      It depends entirely on which segment of people you look at.

      If you look at top performers - men dominate

      If you look at bottom performers and drop out - men dominate

      Now very often, lazy stats simply average it out - and they find that women do better... what they don't do is consider that the top is squashed down because the system doesn't test everyone to their limit. Those high performing men are crushing it, but getting scores that match mediocre women - because they can't score higher.

      Despite men supposedly doing worse... all the money and validation still goes to women and girls.

      Not only that, there are interesting studies in the UK by the Department of Education showing that female teachers marking down papers that have a boy's name of them (by an average of 3%), male teachers show no such bias. All in all, education is fucking broken. It's run by women and women have massively failed boys. They've failed at the one thing teachers are supposed to do... teach.

      Fire them all. Get feminists out of education.

    16. Re:Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My take though is that we'll only see partial automation in most jobs. Jobs are essentially a bunch of processes made up of tasks. Some of those tasks will be automated but not all. It's like book-keepers: they used to do adding up columns of numbers by hand. That was automated by excel. Book-keepers have not gone away. They do more.

      Take the delivery guy - his job is part driving part loading part unloading. The Loading and unloading part won't go away. The driving part might.
      For long distance trucking it might be close to fully automated.

      Pretty much everything else will likely be partially automated. But there will also be jobs that didn't exist before. Here's one: motivation coach.

    17. Re:Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Playing football. Yes, everybody gets a concussion. Sex neutral concussions for everyone.

    18. Re:Calm down and think by zugmeister · · Score: 2

      Also, to be blunt, women do better academically than men. The reason's really simple:

      And there's where you went off the rails. Schools are developed with girls / women as the gold standard. Resources are all devoted to helping girls / women get ahead. Men are excluded from programs and funding on the basis of their sex. It's gotten so bad now that there are actually more women in college than men but they're still being given special treatment. Add to all that the liberal "You're a fucking white male" attitude on school campuses and you've got a much better argument than "girls... start studying earlier... so they get an extra year or two of education".

      Yes, this does mean we're going to eventually need to start shifting from helping girls catch up...

      You think? Men are wholesale starting to check out of society because they don't see an advantage to playing the game. The time to fix this problem is now.

      ...necessary because they were discouraged from doing anything short of having babies for hundreds of years...

      What a great reason to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sex NOW. Disgusting.

    19. Re:Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They reduce the physical activity time and then drug the boys to hell to get them to sit down with their unspent energy then wonder why the boys have trouble in school.

      Must be all that toxic masculinity. At least Gillette seems to think so.

    20. Re:Calm down and think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Efforts to help buys academically started long ago. Back in the 90s I remember efforts to help them improve in maths in particular, and to try to take some stigma away from more traditionally female subjects.

      Why exactly do guys need academic help? Could it be because the teaching profession has been taken over by radical feminazis? Also, when we move to academia, yes, women earn the majority of degrees these days, BUT degrees in what? Gender studies? We are being told that the majority of university students (at least in the US) today are female and that the student debt dwarfs the real estate debt of yesteryear. Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that the majority of student debt is female? Sure indeed, the AAUW (American Association of University Women) complains that is so, but says it's because women earn 20% less than men when they start working. Check out the video here: https://www.aauw.org/research/deeper-in-debt/ . Advance the video to 10:15 to watch a summary of AAUW's position.

      In a true disingenuous modus operandi for academia, they fail to mention that not all majors are created equal. All those "cultural enrichment" trips to Europe will be paid for—eventually. The question is by whom. My gut feel is by productive men.

    21. Re:Calm down and think by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      I must be missing something, but how does getting girls to play sports help with boys' academics?

    22. Re:Calm down and think by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The boys observe and socialize with the girls and adopt some of their behaviour. Helps them mature a bit faster and take more of an interest in academic stuff. Speaking very generally of course.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Calm down and think by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how that leads to better studying habits. The only behavior they'll be picking up is how girls play sports.

    24. Re:Calm down and think by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And yet it's proven to work. I think maybe you might find it easier to understand if you consider that 7 year olds don't really have "study habits".

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Calm down and think by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Perhaps women do better academically than men because, yes, boys are more boisterous, so they're drugged and can't think because, goodness knows, you can't have schools that let kids move. As for women doing better academically than men, I'd argue that men have more of a range - there are more geniuses and more idiots.

    26. Re:Calm down and think by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't happen to have a link to the study do you?

  16. The only reason they haven't is outsourcing by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    super cheap labor in China & India made automation pointless. Why buy a robot for $100k when you can have a Chinaman for $.30 cents an hour.

    Well guess what, computers and robots are much, much cheaper now and that Chinaman wants a higher standard of living (he's been promised it since Mao and has broke his back for it). The rich don't wanna pay for all that increased standard of living though, so here comes automation.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The only reason they haven't is outsourcing by ghoul · · Score: 0

      Funny thing is its the Chinaman automating their factories. Man are the Indians pissed. They thought they would get the factories when China becomes expensive

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    2. Re:The only reason they haven't is outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yup - it's already happening, called "re-shoring".

  17. Unskilled workers always in danger from automation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've replaced 20 people at work with fairly simple scripts.

    Now I'm working to replace a few $100K+ people who seem to spend weeks every month creating the equivalent of TPS reports. They've been copy/pasting, filtering and sorting inside spreadsheets manually for 20+ years, the same stuff. These things should have been automated 19 yrs ago.

    People don't know what they don't know. That applies to me, you, and these people who didn't know to create a program/macro 19 yrs ago.

  18. The men, "for once" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you know, pretty much constantly since 1980. Men have been falling behind in education, employment, and all kinds of places pretty much nonstop for decades, especially since the 2008 recession. But it's important that you let everyone know that you are overtly not down with the patriarchy, you're part of the solution, facts and context be damned, you've got an absolute dichotomy to prop up, regardless of how ridiculous it sounds.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/25...

  19. Sex Robots by DatbeDank · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pretty sure women are going to be affected just as badly as men.

    Imagine, hundreds of single men with bad game just stop feeding the egos of all these women on social media and instead buy a robot that looks like a straight 10 that will cook, clean, and well **** without complaining.

    That will be a real crisis worth watching. /Sarcasm... Sort of

    1. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we all know you are a virgin just relax and stop being a jackass

    2. Re:Sex Robots by Z80a · · Score: 1

      And you will let him maybe have 0.00001% of chance with you if he stops saying the things you don't want him to say and obey your every order?

    3. Re:Sex Robots by xlsior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some jobs are just easier to automate than others, and many of those professions are predominantly done by men.

      We'll have robots replacing long haul truck drivers and lumberjacks well before we get rid of all the elementary school teachers. (In no small part because groups of kids will always require constant hands-on supervision)

    4. Re:Sex Robots by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some jobs are just easier to automate than others, and many of those professions are predominantly done by men.

      Like science, engineering, technology, and math?

      Come off it. Right now, whatever makes men look bad gets published and gets attention regardless of truth.

    6. Re:Sex Robots by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      The feminist dream will be realized: Men will no longer judge women by their bodies. And that's going to destroy the only leverage women ever had over men.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that the point? Virgin's biggest exploit gets patched. Was that just a vulgar agreement with the prediction?

    8. Re:Sex Robots by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      The feminist dream will be realized: Men will no longer judge women by their bodies. And that's going to destroy the only leverage women ever had over men.

      The reason you're incel is not because you have no game or an asymmetric jaw or the wrong slope of eyes, it's because you despise all women simply because they're women. You probably think you're good at hiding that from the world, but trust me, you're not.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:Sex Robots by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Imagine, hundreds of single men with bad game just stop feeding the egos of all these women on social media

      Yep, women *love* being creeped on on social media.

      nstead buy a robot that looks like a straight 10 that will cook, clean, and well **** without complaining.

      If you're looking to get your lazy ass out of cleaning you can pay someone to do that for you already. I do. You don't need to wait for the robot revolution.

      You can get people to cook for you too. And if you're happy to pay to fuck there are in fact people who will do that already.

      But I must say, if those men just want a "straight 10" who cooks, cleans and fucks on demand and by the sounds of it, nothing else, it's no wonder they're still single. It's not a lack of game that makes them single.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Sex Robots by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Guys like this will be enslaved by sexbots.

      Upgrades, accessories, DLC... It all costs money. And the sexbot has them by the balls, governed by corporate "ethics" that prioritize profit over all else.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Sex Robots by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      The problem with people when they try to imagine the future is that they carry unwarranted assumptions with them when they do it.

      For example trades will be difficult to replace. Only true if we continue to build houses they way we do now. Factory built houses can be made by automation and assemble on site using low skill robots. Of course there will still be trades, because rich people will not want to live in a cookie cutter factory built house. That's for the masses. So there will continue to be a small number of trades.

      Elementary school teachers will be difficult to replace. Assumes that age segregated group education will be the primary method of education in the future. 3% of children in the U.S. are home schooled. With automation, i.e. computer aided education, a much larger percentage of children could be educated outside of the traditional classroom. Considering the poor outcomes of many public education systems this is likely to result in an economic savings that will push for automation in this area. At the present time there is actually a system in place that is paid for by existing school districts that supports remote learning through computer aided education. It still uses teachers but, does not actually require the teachers to personalty engage with students, one of the reasons more women go into education than men. (Women do people better.) Like wise rich people will continue to hire tutors for their kids or send them to private school, so some jobs will be preserved

    12. Re:Sex Robots by judoguy · · Score: 1

      We'll have robots replacing long haul truck drivers and lumberjacks well before we get rid of all the elementary school teachers. (In no small part because groups of kids will always require constant hands-on supervision)

      Pff, a T-800 Model 101 can handle the kids easily.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    13. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Incel!

    14. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foreign born women is what your are talking about, yes?

    15. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you don't realize though, is that feminist chicks are easier to pick up precisely because they expect you to be an asshole.

    16. Re:Sex Robots by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Sorry, did you reply to the wrong comment? I'm not "incel" and how'd you assume that? I did quite well with the ladies before I got hitched.

      Sexbots are going to be a revolution. Men will be able to get sex, and women won't be able to wield that power any more. Men will judge women without reference to their looks. This has been the feminist dream for a long time. It's coming, and sooner than you think.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    17. Re:Sex Robots by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      and well **** without complaining.

      Without complaining? Dude, you're doing it wrong.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    18. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello cuck. is your mangina on its period?

    19. Re:Sex Robots by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Men don't just want sex.

      Men want new sex. Unless there is a burgeoning market for sexbot trade-ins, men will still be looking to score.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    20. Re:Sex Robots by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The sex bots also won't do what they expect: the claims of a grand revolution are not so likely.

      Thing is sex bots solve the problem of sex, but they don't solve the problem of not having sex with a specific person, and of course all the things that usually go along with that. It won't give men the sense of self worth they believe they will get through finding a partner.

      And I say men specifically because these conversations inevitably ignore that women are unable to get sex as well (fun fact, "incel" was coined but a woman about her own situation), and seem to focus on weird power dynamics that don't exist in healthy relationships. Sexbots won't magically cause those to disappear either.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    21. Re:Sex Robots by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Sorry, did you reply to the wrong comment? I'm not "incel" and how'd you assume that?

      You kinda sounded a lot like one.

      I did quite well with the ladies before I got hitched.

      Ah yes bragging about prowess on slashdot. Does anything have more credibility than that?

      Sexbots are going to be a revolution. Men will be able to get sex,

      As will women. So the recolution might not point where you expcet...

      But men (and women) won't be able to get sex with the person they want to have sex with, so that's not going to change.

      Men will judge women without reference to their looks.

      That sounds suspiciously like something that won't happen. Humans judge based on looks. Having advanced masturbatory aids is not going to change human nature.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    22. Re:Sex Robots by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

      But I must say, if those men just want a "straight 10" who cooks, cleans and fucks on demand and by the sounds of it, nothing else, it's no wonder they're still single. It's not a lack of game that makes them single.

      'How dare a man have some kind of standard, he should love me for the big beautiful princess that I am.' lol

    23. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, looks like no one ever told him ether and a rag works wonders.

    24. Re:Sex Robots by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      As will women. So the recolution might not point where you expcet...

      Women don't need sex NEARLY as much as men do. It's not even in the same league.

      Having advanced masturbatory aids is not going to change human nature.

      I disagree. I disagree a *lot*. Sexbots won't be as good as a woman, but they'll be good enough. Good enough that a lot of men will be able to get the satisfaction they crave out of them, and leave them to look at women with a more sober eye. It's going to be a particular boon to those "incels" you posses such hatred towards, as they will lose their grievance.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    25. Re:Sex Robots by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Hmm, maybe. You'll be able to sign up for a subscription service that will rotate your doll out once a week/month. They'll be professionally steam-cleaned and groomed. Choose from a catalog and some guy shows up at your door with one on a hand truck.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    26. Re:Sex Robots by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      Women don't need sex NEARLY as much as men do. It's not even in the same league.

      Yep women don't go and do stupid things because the desire t ohave sex is so strong. that's why teenage pregnancies don't happen.

      Funny thing is it's a modern invention that men are the insatiable horn-dogs. The thinking used to be that it was women who were like that. Funny how opinions can flip entirely in different civilisations.

      I disagree. I disagree a *lot*.

      OK...

      Sexbots won't be as good as a woman, but they'll be good enough.

      Good enough for what, specifically? Sure. Thing is though there's lots of ways you can get yourself off alredy. The thing one can already pay sex workers to get you off, so why not do that before the very high proced sexbots come on the market (they're not going to be cheap).

      The reason is it's not about the sex, not really. It's about the person. Try to think back to your first crush. I mean you were most likely a teenager and horny as hell, but you still really really wanted to BE with that person, not just pump dump.

      Good enough that a lot of men will be able to get the satisfaction they crave out of them, and leave them to look at women with a more sober eye.

      Well crikey! I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I believe I have a higher opinion of my fellow man than you do. I don't think that we men are a bunch of insatiable horn-dogs ruled entirely by our penises.

      On the other hand I also seem to be more realistic about my fellow humans than you do. Good looking people tend to be more successful, both men and women. Most people aren't gay, so how do explain that?

      It's going to be a particular boon to those "incels" you posses such hatred towards

      They're basically a terrorist group now. As in commit and cheer on mass murder to forward their aims.

      as they will lose their grievance.

      Their greivance isn't about sex. Maybe that was a starting point. Their grievance is a stew of hatred towards well probably themselves, but it spews out in the direction of basically everyone else. Women and men. They hate good looking men about as much as they hate women.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    27. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason is it's not about the sex, not really. It's about the person. Try to think back to your first crush. I mean you were most likely a teenager and horny as hell, but you still really really wanted to BE with that person, not just pump dump.

      You probably lost the guy with this. The problem with liberals and the left, like you, is that they have empathy and literally think that because they do so do conservatives.

      Conservatives don't. That's their defining trait. That's why Trump can make it government policy to deter legal asylum seekers using a policy claiming they're illegal, using this as a pretext to steal their children, placing their children in facilities where they'll be tortured, and why people like the one you're arguing with will argue until the cows come home that (1) Obama did it too (he didn't, his administration only separated a small number of families suspected of trafficking, it was never government policy to pretend asylum is illegal. Also Obama was heavily criticized by the left for his immigration policy anyway, so what does that have to do with anything) or (2) people legally coming here to claim asylum who are in the middle of claiming asylum are criminals who deserve it.

      You cannot have empathy and do that shit. Even if asylum seeking was illegal for whatever reason, it's fucking evil to do this.

      But let's focus on DNS-and-BIND here, and look for a moment on his views on women. You think he's after female companionship? He's obviously not spent any serious amount of time with women except perhaps in some one-sided relationship where the woman herself felt unable to communicate with him. He might want someone to fuck, but he doesn't to "be with" anyone with a vagina. He may be sexually heterosexual, but he's essentially socially homosexual, if that makes sense. Women are to him, to many conservative men in general, "the other", which is why they find it threatening when women complain about sexual harassment and assault and other stuff that might, if the dice is rolled correctly, and if 15 other women make the same allegation about the same men, and if a man actually cares about it, might, might, possibly result in someone male losing their job.

      It's not that he plans to sexually assault anyone, don't get me wrong. It's about the fact white heterosexual men are his crowd, and women are the other, and an attack on one of his crowd by the other is an attack on all.

      Empathy. You have it. He doesn't. Your empathy is flawed because it doesn't take into account that not everyone has it, which is a flaw of empathy in general, it's hard to have empathy if you can't imagine someone like yourself in the same shoes.

      So no, the sentence I've quoted is incorrect. No he's never had any desire to do anything but fuck his crush.

    28. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing is it's a modern invention that men are the insatiable horn-dogs.

      Funny indeed, as modern feminism is one of the main inventors. To convince people that women are oppressed, they needed to invent an oppressor. And the best kind of oppressor is one that is vague and formless, able to take on any form at anytime, anywhere, and disappear just as quickly.

      In other words, feminists created this monster themselves. They would they were helping women, when in fact they're doing the opposite.

      It's like crying wolf, and the wolves heard you, so they showed up and put one of their own in the Oval Office.

    29. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a single statement in your comment is true. Not one. You don't even apparently know what Feminism is. How can you be seriously that moronic, or is that what people believe in Russia?

    30. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Home schooling needed to be secularized years ago. The fact that most homeschool programs are fundamentalist Christian means that most companies are incapable of hiring people that were homeschooled. I know for certain that my company will throw out any resume that mentions being homeschooled, as we've been burned too many times by utter idiots trying to cram indoctrination at the workplace when they should just be doing a job.

    31. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I'm all for evolution doing it's job by removing a pre-dominantly right wing demographic from the gene pool.

    32. Re:Sex Robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People will assume you are an incel when you spout viewpoints that only idiot incels believe. Just like if you advocate for the murder of all non-white people, people will assume you're a Nazi. Only incels with a fragile grip on reality and their own self-esteem believe women wield "power" through sex.

  20. Yeah, dominante male professions by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    like brick layer

    Moreover if you've been paying any attention there's been massive productivity boosts in all those fields. My company is throwing up a new building for a little over 1000 employees in 10 months. When I was a kid that kind of thing took years. They've had these puppies for at least 10 years now. I'm sure you can find equivalent tech in plumbing if you know where to look.

    As for carpentry, I know some blue collar guys pissed because they used to get free wood at job sites when the job was over. That's all stopped. They order exactly what they need and it comes pre cut. There's your automation. It happens at a factory and a computer automatically handles the logistics of getting it there. Before long you won't even need the drivers. Just a couple of day laborers to unload it all and hammer it together...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Yeah, dominante male professions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd bet that you have never ever donned a hardhat and worked at a construction site.

      You have no idea what you are talking about well into the realm of trolling.

      For my own sanity, I will believe you are merely trolling 100% of the time. The other option is you are so delusional you are a threat to yourself or others and need to be committed.

    2. Re: Yeah, dominante male professions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Asia, I just watched a dozen 46 floor highrises go up in 10 months. No robots or exotic automation. Just lots & lots of workers, some good engineers, and - most importantly - the political will for it to happen.

    3. Re: Yeah, dominante male professions by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Yeah the problem with organ exactly what you need is list of third of what you get is going to be twisted by the time you need to use it. Especially with the new shortcuts they're using for killing the wood. The contractor who doesn't order twice what they need and send back what's Twisted ends up missing their deadlines. sometimes you make a cut into a board it releases tension and the entire board twists up. And it depends on what you're using that wood for, for example a crossbeam versus, a crap wall that's just for show and doesn't actually support any of the houses weight.

    4. Re: Yeah, dominante male professions by edris90 · · Score: 1

      The problem with wood. Correction

    5. Re:Yeah, dominante male professions by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      Those puppies would be good if everything is prepped beforehand (I assume you're used to new or commercial construction?).
      Taping is the quickest part, mudding takes forever (waiting for each layer to dry).

    6. Re:Yeah, dominante male professions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's your automation. It happens at a factory and a computer automatically handles the logistics of getting it there. Before long you won't even need the drivers. Just a couple of day laborers to unload it all and hammer it together...

      So buildings will be vastly cheaper, and then land owners will order more buildings. Lots of work for these day laborers then.

      Also, when everything is automated, the need for security personnel goes up. With workmen everywhere, no need for security. If outsiders try to steal materials, there will be less pay (or less for themselves to pilfer), so they deal promptly and harshly with thieves. Office guys may be weaker, but with office guys everywhere, there is eyes everywhere. So the few guards you may need, will quickly be alerted if anything happens.

      But automate everything, and there is nobody around who notices. Thieves could work round-the-clock shifts stealing from your fully automated factory - day after day - you wouldn't notice until deliveries are missed. Similarly, they can unload your autonomous vehichles. Just cause a traffic stop, disable any alarm, then grab the good stuff. You might not notice until the truck reaches its destination with a hole in the side and the alarm circuit in "debug mode". Train robbers could come back - who could stop them on an autonomous train. Hackers could re-route an autonomous vehicle, then erase all electronic traces. Perhaps even steal the vehicle itself.

      So there will be guards. Instead of drivers, you'll have a guard or two on a truck convoy. The autonomous train saves the need for skilled engineers and conductors, but they'll have train guards instead. Humans are smart, and will usually find ways around robot security. Common low-life knows to hide their faces from cameras, or stand in dead zones. Hackers will develop trick devices to get around security systems, and sometimes sell to "the interested public".

    7. Re: Yeah, dominante male professions by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Here in Asia, I just watched a dozen 46 floor highrises go up in 10 months. No robots or exotic automation. Just lots & lots of workers, some good engineers, and - most importantly - the political will for it to happen.

      Also loads of corruption, inhumane working conditions and a disrgard for workplace safety.

      but apart from that, good going!

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    8. Re: Yeah, dominante male professions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Asia Iâ(TM)ve seen shoddy workmanship. Balconies collapsing, bridges shedding concrete onto roadways, cranes toppling over killing workers and pedestrians, toxic dust and pollution

      Just because you can do something fast doesnâ(TM)t mean you can do it well.

    9. Re:Yeah, dominante male professions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is going to be robbing trucks on the road. Don't be ridiculous. You sound retarded.

  21. As long as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can get a cheap robot to fetch my beer, I'm good.

  22. Who is going to X the X-men? by louzer · · Score: 1

    The robots are going to be repaired by men.

    --
    Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
    1. Re:Who is going to X the X-men? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The robots are going to be repaired by men.

      No, they aren't. They will for a while, but later they will be repaired by robots. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is that the technology is moving quickly enough to where robots require few repairs before they are obsolete. As robotics technology matures, the churn reduces, and the total number of robots increases, more effort will be spent in making robots which can easily be repaired by other robots. Robots can already perform all the necessary tasks; for example there is automated robotic probing of PCBs to find faults. A robot could pull a module out of another robot, and drop it on a shipping cart which is itself a robot. That robot takes the module to the shipping department, where another robot packs it up and ships it off to a repair facility where robots sit waiting to receive parts for analysis. They will load the schematic and PCB design, then follow a test plan or even simulate the circuit to determine what they should find at test points. The problem found, the parts roll down a conveyor (or get moved by another robot) to the one which will desolder and replace the defective components...

      As long as you don't expect one robot to do the whole job, we can do this with modern technology. Every single piece in the above scenario has been implemented independently, and now it's a matter of integration and improvement. It's not a question of if*, but rather when it becomes more cost-effective than shipping the modules to the third world to be repaired by effectively-enslaved humans.

      * Okay, there is the question of whether humanity will be around that long. At this rate, possibly not. Otherwise, it will happen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. School teachers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want to bet robots will do a worse job than human teachers ?

    I'm not belittling teachers here but it's relatively low paid with a high attrition rate and rural areas always have problems getting staff here. So - for the robots it's an easy entry - provide something that works better than no teacher at all and work up from there.

    A lot of professions will have a lot more regulator problems and I'd hope that robots molesting the kids will never be an issue - that's a step up for a start.

  24. SexBots Will Leave Men Exhausted, Sated,... by littlewink · · Score: 1

    There will be no uprisings, gratefully, as we transition from users surfing porn to users ravaging sexbots to exhaustion while surfing porn. Women, well, who knows? Possibly the same.

  25. $50/hour and $10,000 bonus in Texas by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > I'm not belittling teachers here but it's relatively low paid

    Is it? Let's take a state with relatively low cost of living.
    Teachers are paid an average of $53,300 salary plus excellent retirement benefit for nine months of work. Summer school pays $30-$50/ hour plus a bonus of up to $10,000. So something like $65,000 in Texas. Texas teachers are required to work six hours a day, 187 days per year. That's not terrible.

    1. Re:$50/hour and $10,000 bonus in Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I did say "here" as in Australia.

      Even in the US I'd guess that there aren't many part time jobs you can use as income fillers as a teacher either. And summer school may be boosting the income, but it's also cutting into those days they supposedly don't work. Teachers do have to do quite a bit of prep. work and out of official hours activities so it probably works out close to most office workers in practice - and they have to put up with kids as well.

      And note, I was talking about rural areas where they have major problems keeping teachers - and here that can be very rural. Point being that if someone comes up with a robotic replacement that more or less works out in areas like that then they have an easy way in. It only has to be better than no teacher at all to get a foot in the door.

      Then those expensive fill in teachers ?, hey we have a solution for that.

      Could be surprisingly fast.

       

    2. Re:$50/hour and $10,000 bonus in Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds good. We'll try to have something ready for the fall semester.

    3. Re:$50/hour and $10,000 bonus in Texas by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "Texas teachers are required to work six hours a day, 187 days per year."

      I actually know a Texas teacher, and she not only has to buy supplies with her own money if she wants to teach effectively, but she also has to do a lot of unpaid work as well. They don't get their summers off scot-free, either. They have continuing education requirements. When you count all of the extra work involved and subtract what's spent on giving paper and pencils to unfortunate students whose parents can't or won't supply them for school (like I was) it doesn't look quite so nice.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:$50/hour and $10,000 bonus in Texas by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Texas teachers are required to work six hours a day, 187 days per year. That's not terrible.

      I don't know what it likes in texas but here teachers generally work 3x the hours the actually teach. Unless you think reports write them selves, assignments just appear and are magically marked, lessons come pre planned and differentiated etc etc etc. Obviously it varies with subject and level but the idea that teachers only work while they teach is a stupid as saying soldiers only work when they fight.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re:$50/hour and $10,000 bonus in Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The whole argument about teacher's pay is because of the huge variability in the effort they put in. Teachers I have worked with fall into three broad groups:

      1) newly qualified teachers, who put in crazy hours preparing lessons, grading work and running after school clubs and events. They often think that their talent and hard work will make a real difference even in a bad system. Schools fight hard for these kids, then treat them like crap. Everything is based on seniority, so they get the shit classes, schedules, parking spots and pay. They are so idealistic; it's like watching someone kick a sack full of puppies every September.

      2) Teachers who hate their jobs. Five minutes of Googling, find a couple of youtube videos and a worksheet on the subject, hit print, and then spend their class screaming at the kids for not paying attention to the screen whilst they read the paper in the corner, or that they are dumb for not being able to complete the worksheet they themselves haven't read. They can't get fired because there isn't anyone to replace them, and they've been there forever so the administration thinks they must know what they're talking about.

      3) Oldskool teachers who have been teaching the same un-changing subject for decades, and already have written good lesson plans and create all the resources they need. The only real prep work they have to put in is if the curriculum changes, or the technology they use (chalkboards, overhead projectors) becomes obsolete. Several of my favourite staff fall into this category; one complained bitterly when the DOS-based software that they'd been using forever stopped working with win 10.

      Groups 1 and 3 absolutely deserve generous compensation, group 2 deserve to be run out of the profession. Unfortunately what ends up happening is that G1 burns out after a few years; some become G2s, the rest leave for a "real job". G3 is almost exclusively on the edge of retirement at this point; even if they weren't, they don't want to deal with the behaviour problems created by shitty parenting and compounded by the G2s and administrations who don't respect their profession. There just aren't enough people who want to do the job to fire all the G2s.

      If we want teachers to have the same high professional standards that we demand of doctors and lawyers then we need to pay them like way pay doctors and lawyers. It's a very valuable career for our society, but we seem happy to pay mediocre people mediocre pay to do a mediocre job, and then wonder why all the good people who go into it for love soon decide to do something else.

  26. Truck drivers and retail clerks by ghoul · · Score: 2

    The job held by most men in US - Truck driver. Google is coming out with a self driving truck

    The job held by most women in the US - Retail Clerk/cashier. Amazon has already brought a cashierless retail store

    The rioting is not far away

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:Truck drivers and retail clerks by turp182 · · Score: 1

      It's interesting to look at the list of jobs with the largest employment. And then consider which ones could be automated.

      https://www.careeronestop.org/...

      I can't believe there are so many retail salespeople.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  27. Yeah, but the Robot Programming revolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, due to the overwhelming proportions of men in current engineering and programming positions (around 80%), the number of new jobs created by the Robot Revolution in training, programming, repair and construction will also be dominated by men.

  28. White people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Was it seriously necessary to single out one race like that? I stopped reading after that, because whoever wrote this is obviously some racist idiot who needs to get a life.

  29. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  30. THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't believe in this motherfucking 'robot revolution', it's all hype and nonsense, and nobody else should believe it either. Clickbait at best, fake news at worst. FUD in any event. Nothing to see here..

    1. Re:THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe in this motherfucking 'robot revolution'.

      More like a fatherfucking robot revolution according to the article.

    2. Re:THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's more of an AI revolution, which is also why it's in doubt.

      When machines first started replacing humans it was hard for people to transition, but there were new jobs for them because we couldn't build really intelligent machines. When AI reaches the point where it can do clerical jobs as well as a human there will be fewer options for people to find new work.

      The question is if AI is anywhere near that point. I think not. AI is always much harder than pundits think and proponents promise.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Ask people what kinds of new jobs will be created, and they will say, "I don't know, they haven't been created yet!"

      It's not the robots that have people worried... it's the lack of social planning. "Don't panic, everything will be fine" is not a solution.

    4. Re:THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that some highly trained professionals are being made obsolete instead, like radiologists or fund managers. Deep neural networks are better than whole teams of professionals right now, and are expected to improve in the future with more capable hardware. Also, a lot of bank tellers and people working at post offices will be redundant in a few years.

    5. Re:THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When AI reaches the point where it can do clerical jobs as well as a human there will be fewer options for people to find new work.

      Automation is already reducing the need for clerical work, and replacing it with a smaller amount of more technical work. For example, digital documents. Nobody seems to be paperless, but a lot of industries have reduced the amount of paper they produce, which means less need for file clerks. AI doesn't have to do clerical jobs as well as humans for technology to produce a noticeable effect in job reduction.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Of course, not to mention technical jobs. People are always so naive on these things. They obsess over incredibly expensive robots that can perform some sort of manual labor when it is NN 'bots' replacing high paid jobs they should worry about. Why spend all that money cutting out your lowest paid jobs when you can spend it cutting out some of your highest paid ones?

    7. Re:THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filing is still a nightmare, whether on paper or electronic.

    8. Re:THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Wringing your hands like a worried old grandmother over media-driven bullshit isn't particularly smart either and I reject it entirely, and furthermore encourage everyone else to do the same. Everything anymore is all hype and bullshit intended to stir everyone up and it's usually over nothing. Clickbait, and spreading FUD for ratings. Screw all that.

    9. Re:THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      The so-called 'AI revolution' is all a bunch of marketing department and media company driven bullshit. The shitty excuse for AI everyone keeps hyping is nowhere near as good as they all claim it is and everyone needs to understand that. I don't care what parlor tricks they've got the things doing it's still mostly smoke and mirrors. Show me a general AI that can pass for a human being in ALL circumstances and we'll have a different conversation but until then these half-assed 'learning algorithms' are just garbage.

    10. Re:THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      AI can do a few very specific tasks better than the professionals. They're very far from doing all tasks better.

      A major part of the problem is that we can't even foresee what tasks someone like a doctor might have to do, as they regularly encounter novel situations for which there aren't millions of documented cases to train a NN on.

    11. Re:THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYBODY PANIC!!!11! by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      "They're very far from doing all tasks better."

      They don't have to. They just have to them well enough.

      "A major part of the problem is that we can't even foresee what tasks someone like a doctor might have to do, as they regularly encounter novel situations for which there aren't millions of documented cases to train a NN on."

      That isn't really how it works. We focus on one thing at a time. At some point the low hanging fruit and individual tasks the AI and automation can perform can be stitched together to take over most of the work. Now you need an AI supervised by a couple doctors instead of 200 doctors. Eventually the cases where the AI falls down are few enough to just let those fail, after all the doctor fails sometimes as well.

      Right now there are massive classes of surgery where the doctor basically performs the surgery by pressing a button to tell the machine to do the work. The need for a doctor is being artificially supported in the device. There is already software which has been tested alongside doctors in hospitals and was more successful at diagnosis.

      Your logic regarding novel situations falls down because if they were commonly encountered they wouldn't be novel and the doctor who is actually good in a novel situation isn't typical.

  31. Fembots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the invention of fembots, men don't need women anymore. The human race will perish thanks to feminists.

  32. Great talk but topic needed refining by Morgaine · · Score: 1

    That was an excellent talk, containing some really great analysis. The analysis was so clear and thorough though that I was puzzled why it left one very important matter very fuzzy and poorly defined --- the title and main topic of the talk, of all things!

    This is the problem: the word "jobs" (or equivalently "work") means two very different things to us, and these two things have been conflated into one single idea by our history over hundreds of years. Those two things are: (1) Doing something useful in a place of employment, and (2) Getting paid for it and using that money as the enabler of our personal survival.

    I put it to you that your talk conflated the two ideas as strongly as everyone else does, and used the fear of losing (2) as the basis for examining whether AI would eliminate opportunities for (1). This is a crucial distinction to make, because survival is a non-optional imperative for most humans, whereas having an interesting occupation is merely nice-to-have and can easily bear periodic interruption.

    I am an engineer, and as an engineer let me tell you something that isn't a secret among engineers but is rarely stated so directly: the practical purpose of engineering and of the science which underpins it is to eliminate (2) from the burden carried by humanity, and to enable a focus on (1) --- in other words, to give you the time to do something interesting with your life. It is sometimes said that this is the aim of civilization too, although a better observation would be that having to work for your survival is not civilized at all. Indeed, it is barbaric.

    I expect that you will be giving that talk again, as the subject is a very interesting one and is highly topical today. I would definitely recommend though that in future you explain its title in more detail, because very few rational people would complain if AI eliminated the need for humans to work for their survival.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:Great talk but topic needed refining by alfino · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much for that excellent feedback. This talk was to a technical audience. I will be giving this talk again to a humanist audience soon, and you are absolutely right that I need to focus on precisely the point you raise!

      --
      echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
    2. Re:Great talk but topic needed refining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Image this issue from the perspective of a westerner living in the year 1880. 80 percent of people are employed in the farming industry. Their jobs will soon be eliminated by automation. From their perspective, life in 2019 has achieved your (2) goal. Comparatively minimal work is required to keep you alive and healthy by 1880 standards. Human work will always be valuable to humans. The jobs will be different but there will be jobs for those who want them. This is all a made up issue that will solve itself will a little help from education.

    3. Re:Great talk but topic needed refining by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Work is the something interesting most of us do with our lives. People are most satisfied when they are doing challenging, meaningful work.

      Automation strips us of that and leaves mindless machine-tending or welfare in it's place.

    4. Re:Great talk but topic needed refining by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of people will be very happy spending the rest of their lives playing video games and creating content within those games.

      The idea that you can only find meaning in real life is already outdated today. It will be forgotten by the time automation could replace humans on a massive scale.

    5. Re:Great talk but topic needed refining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only for the most miserable, self-loathing of humanity. Some of the best woodwork I've ever seen comes from a UPS driver I know. If he didn't have to spend 8 hours a day delivering packages for people to merely survive, he could focus on his art and refine it to where he can make big bucks with it. In this current day and age, only the wealthy have the luxury of living off their parents so they can perfect their craft.

  33. LOL at "minorities" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, you mean the 'global majority' who still have their own countries, because nobody else wants to live around them?

    Unlike white people, who are 'evil' for wanting to not have their countries invaded by millions of non-whites who will eventually turn whites into MINORITIES within our OWN countries? We have nowhere else to go. Who decided we were the bad guys, just because we want to exist?

    Why, the eternal Jew...

    www.codoh.com

  34. Misandry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The misandry is strong in this one "it's the men, for once"

  35. Vonnegut say it coming: Player Piano by shanen · · Score: 2

    Your comment was barely modded into visibility, but I don't see why. I was actually looking for any reference to Player Piano and stumbled across your accidentally relevant "joke".

    In 1952 one of the characters in Vonnegut's book threatens to replace a woman by creating a sexbot. Overall the book is shockingly prescient from before I was born... I'm still in the middle, but it's an remarkably plausible dystopia.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  36. Re:Vonnegut saw it coming: Player Piano by shanen · · Score: 1

    Oh noooooo.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  37. "the men, for once" FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Men commit suicide twice as often as women and die violently three times as often.
    Boys are behind girls at EVERY level of education.
    Men work more hours for more years and retire later than women.

    Stop sexism, stop the feminazis.

    1. Re:"the men, for once" FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Carlin: Do you realise, that right this second, right now somewhere around the world some guy is getting ready to kill himself. Isn't that great? Statistics show that every year a million people commit suicide. Thats 2800 a day. That's one every thirty seconds.

      [Stares at watch]

      George Carlin: There goes another guy! And I say guy because men are four times more likely than women to commit suicide, even though women attempt it more. So men are better at it. That's something else you gals oughta be working on. Well if you wanna be truly equal you're gonna have to start taking your lifes in greater numbers.

  38. "For once" by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "However, at least in the case of gender, it's the men, for once, who will be getting the short end of the stick."
    Setting aside suicide, drug use, drug abuse, being a victim off violent crime, fighting in wars, at-work deaths, shorter life spans, vulnerability to disease, aids, heart disease, yes, "for once" men get the short end of the stick.

    --
    -Styopa
  39. Another possible explanation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for the Fermi Paradox. Just say'n.

    1. Re:Another possible explanation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Fermi paradox, or Fermi's paradox, named after physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations.

    2. Re:Another possible explanation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A graphical representation of the Arecibo message, humanity's first attempt to use radio waves to actively communicate its existence to alien civilizations The Fermi paradox, or Fermi's paradox, named after physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi (1901–1954) and Michael H. Hart (born 1932), are:

      There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are similar to the Sun, and many of these stars are billions of years older than the Solar system.

      With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets, and if the Earth is typical, some may have developed intelligent life.

      Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step the Earth is investigating now.

      Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.

      According to this line of reasoning, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens.

      In an informal conversation, Fermi noted no convincing evidence of this, leading him to ask, "Where is everybody?" There have been many attempts to explain the Fermi paradox, primarily either suggesting that intelligent extraterrestrial life is extremely rare or proposing reasons that such civilizations have not contacted or visited Earth.

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

  40. It's a law. Might be stupid , but it's law by raymorris · · Score: 1, Insightful

    > lessons come pre planned and differentiated etc etc etc.

    Think about what they teach in public school, as opposed to college. Arithmetic, reading, basic civics like "how a bill becomes a law".

    They are teaching the same thing that 100,000 other schools are teaching at the same time, and the same thing they taught last year, and the year before, and they decade before. Algebra hasn't changed. Heck Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just a Bill" is still better than whatever lesson most teachers would come up with and it's from 1976. So yeah those lessons do come pre-planned. If you're making your own lessons instead of using the lessons 100,000 other teachers are using for the topic, you're doing it wrong.

    > assignments just appear and are magically marked

    Uhm yeah there's this thing called a "computer". When I was in grade school it was called "Scantron". Now it's called the "form" tag.

    1. Re:It's a law. Might be stupid , but it's law by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      > lessons come pre planned and differentiated etc etc etc.

      Think about what they teach in public school, as opposed to college. Arithmetic, reading, basic civics like "how a bill becomes a law".

      They are teaching the same thing that 100,000 other schools are teaching at the same time, and the same thing they taught last year, and the year before, and they decade before. Algebra hasn't changed. Heck Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just a Bill" is still better than whatever lesson most teachers would come up with and it's from 1976. So yeah those lessons do come pre-planned. If you're making your own lessons instead of using the lessons 100,000 other teachers are using for the topic, you're doing it wrong.

      > assignments just appear and are magically marked

      Uhm yeah there's this thing called a "computer". When I was in grade school it was called "Scantron". Now it's called the "form" tag.

      Like I said it depends on subject on and level and yeah math is math, but what bits of math do you teach in what lessons to what students? If you just plan one set of math lessons and deliver that on repeat regardless then you would be a shit teacher.

      You would more than likely use a computer to make an assignment but there's a bit more to it than writing a question at the top of a page and leaving it there.

      If you just use other people's stuff then you are doing it wrong. Maybe that's why people always say the american public education system is shit, maybe they are just doing it wrong. I mean, I can make a functional website by cutting and pasting code from the web together but that doesn't make a developer and if it does, not a good one.

      There's a lot more to teaching than just standing at the front of a room and talking at kids. Well, if you want to be a good teacher anyway.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    2. Re:It's a law. Might be stupid , but it's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ray has no idea what he's talking about, if he thinks assignments are graded by 'scantron'. My mother, sister, and wife are all teachers in Louisiana and spend about 12 hours a day working. It comes home with them. They all are responsible for creating their own lesson plans, and have no magic machine they can hand tests or essays to for grading.

      Also, the pay is crap. Especially for all the continuing education and certifications they have to keep up on, out of their own pockets.

    3. Re:It's a law. Might be stupid , but it's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm yeah there's this thing called a "computer". When I was in grade school it was called "Scantron". Now it's called the "form" tag.

      We just passed our papers to another student and the teacher went through the test, telling us what answer was correct and answering questions.

    4. Re:It's a law. Might be stupid , but it's law by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      I've looked at the work most of the teachers do and concluded that there is a reason they are not paid more. They're idiots. Glorified nannies. They took some lame classes in college and got a degree in "Education", because they didn't have the skills to get a real degree. They either refuse or are unable to educate themselves on available technologies that will eliminate six of those twelve hours of work. They show a complete lack of imagination on how to improve their own lives. If your mother, sister and wife are all working 12 hour days, they deserve it.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    5. Re:It's a law. Might be stupid , but it's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go to hell you stupid bastard faggot

  41. Rural Australia made a robot teacher called Moodle by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Rural Australia is exactly why Martin Dougiamas made the premier open source Learning Management System, Moodle. It's very good.

  42. swath of America between the coasts? by jageryager · · Score: 1

    This statement triggered my BS detector.. "These jobs losses will be in concentrated in rural areas, particularly the swath of America between the coasts"

    Isn't -all- of America "between the coasts."

    --
    "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-B.Franklin
    1. Re:swath of America between the coasts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't -all- of America "between the coasts."

      Yes, Sheldon. You're right.

    2. Re:swath of America between the coasts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This statement triggered my BS detector.. "These jobs losses will be in concentrated in rural areas, particularly the swath of America between the coasts"

      Isn't -all- of America "between the coasts."

      If you mean the U.S., no. Hawaii. Puerto Rico.

    3. Re:swath of America between the coasts? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Not to mention even in NY and CA you need builders, plumbers, electricians, etc. - you know, those jobs that guy do.

  43. They overlook something by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    Yes, men do the actual physical work, but women more and more have been in supervisory and management positions over those men working in the physical world. In recent years women have come to exceed men in those supervisory jobs. As the physical work disappears, the jobs supervising and managing men in those jobs will disappear, impacting women also.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  44. More Liberal bs from Brookings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    World to end tomorrow... Minorities and Women hit hardest! Get real people. Anyone can be replaced at any time by new technologies and techniques. "Da Evil White Man" is not exempt. Robotics will do exactly what other technologies have done, displace some workers and open up jobs in other areas.

  45. Re: Rani Molla ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think you're making us more brown, but we're making you more white.

    Don't you have a street to shit in, Apu?

  46. not so sure about this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    once again, i'm suspicious that those studies focus too much on manual labor. imho it's the non-manual jobs that don't need complex robots that will get replaced first. Accounting, Secretary / Assistant to the management, phone-jobs, human resources, cashier...

  47. We'll need new electricity sources by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Before any serious automation can take place in rural areas more than it already has.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  48. The questions are already answered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just read Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano.

  49. Robot Meritocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry guys, but the robot revolution is based on MERIT, so if men lose out more often it is simply because they have less merit.

  50. SOCIETY is worse for men, as a whole. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Men will be cast aside AGAIN is what this article shouldve said. War, famine, sinking ships, divorce, criminal punishment, opportunity of all variety, LIFE ITSELF, the list goes on.

    Does no one bother with history? Logic? Observation?

    For everything positive a man gets from society a woman gets more.

    This isn't difficult to figure out for yourselves, the reason women are being portrayed as oppressed is to generate the largest possible following for political and social gain.

    Enough is enough.

  51. Awesome! We have different viewpoints on basic pri by raymorris · · Score: 2

    It looks like we have some different points of view on an underlying principle. That's awesome, I love to hear different viewpoints.

    You've also pointed out something I'm doing a bit wrong in a way, maybe.

    > I mean, I can make a functional website by cutting and pasting code from the web together but that doesn't make a developer and if it does, not a good one.

    Based on my 20 years developing software and web sites professionally, it's been my experience that developers who make full use of well-known, mature libraries and frameworks and both more productive and produce higher quality than those who have NIH syndrome, who write their own libraries and try to make their own Javascript to simulate "liquid" layouts. Understanding how to use a well-written library or framework is a lot faster *and* more effective than writing one. (Obviously using one without understanding it is just lazy.)

    My experience, *most* teachers don't consistently produce better learning materials than the best teachers do, so their students would be better served by them choosing already-prepared lessons, rather than trying to assemble something while they're eating dinner. Same with the overall curriculum. Yes, they should *choose* when it's time to move to the next lesson, the next prepared lesson that is freely available to them.

    I teach a lot at work. The last series I did was a deep dive into SQL, really understanding what it is about. The next is a CISSP course I'm teaching. For SQL and for most of my lessons I made all of the learning materials. For CISSP, maybe I'd be better off presenting well-made material. Obviously I'll choose which modules to present, and how much time to spend on each.

  52. Re:Awesome! We have different viewpoints on basic by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Good points. I'm not trying to say unless a teacher creates every piece of everything from scratch then they suck, someone who actually insisted on doing that would probably be just as bad. It's all about balance at the end of the day. All I was really trying to say is there's more to teaching than most people give it credit for. As you have some experience of it I assume you know you have to be adaptable and sometimes your lesson is going to go out the window, now expand that to all day everyday lol.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  53. lol, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Robot Revolution will be the end of Capitalism.

    It will be better for all of humanity.

  54. Means of production by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Productivity will go up but there will be an awful lot of human casualties. Expect Oxy use to rise - it's not quite the Soma we were hoping for but it's close! When the rich can afford machines that do the work of ten or a hundred men, they will get even richer at the expense of hundreds of unemployed. This will even go for Lawyers and GPs and other middle-class jobs though

  55. White Collar folks will be the hardest hit,M&F by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robot revolution will be bad, for all. But worse for WHITE COLLAR kids with expensive degrees, that they are still repaying loans on, when the robots and elites who own the robots come and make their jobs obsolete.

    Those are the easiest jobs to have automated, self driving car automation is a HARD technical problem, automating someone how whose jobs it to look at data in a digital format (excel,web pages, ), then make some "intelligent decision" and put that decision into another digital system, yeah, that's pretty low hanging fruit for automation.. A lot of office workers today do just that...

    Case in Point: Why don't you go ask how many medical students are excited about a career in radiology ... hint not many.. https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/256816/how-technology-ruined-the-radiology-profession

  56. Worse? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    That depends on how you define "worse". When robots get advanced enough to put most men out of work, they'll be advanced in other ways, too. Out of work because of a robot? You'll have more time to make love to your robot "girlfriend"...

    1. Re:Worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having sex with a robot girlfriend will make you more and more and more depressed until you kill yourself.

      Robot girlfriends will more likely be pushed by society shapers because they have microphones and cameras, and can spy on someone who is "getting worse", then drag them back kicking and screaming to do some half-assed job on something that later collapses because the moron who did it didn't care.

  57. Pussy market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, pussy rental is hard to automate and there will be no shortage of natural pussy supply after automatization of women jobs anyway Ppll talking about sexbots, how are you going to buy them if you have no job? I predict that sexrobots replacing women have no future, of course there will be some more sofisticated concepts, better ones than exist today, but anyway no reason for economic success

  58. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Men won't need pussy anymore from human beings lolololol..

    You worthless women can go extinct now.. I can use my own stem cells if I want children. Robots will cook my dinner and clean my castle.

  59. And you have a point as well by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I'd certainly agree that a teacher who always follows a rigid day-by-day formula, always teaching the exact same lesson on day #14, probably isn't doing a great job. (With some exceptions possible).

    Also, if you've been teaching trig for 12 years, and every year you make the lesson about right triangles over again, that would be silly. You'd be better off re-using last year's material, and the presenting a well-made lesson from someone who is really good at writing maths curriculum is probably even better. Either way, of course you're going to allot time for questions and make sure that your students are following along.

    So like you said, balance.

  60. White collar has already been automated heavily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For decades everything that can be done to reduce the need for humans has been happening in white collar type jobs. At one point I used to type in names, addresses, etc, into form letters, and then we made it so a computer did that. This meant 1 person now does the work of 25.
    Then they got rid of the one, as the guy running the printer now gets the file, and prints the form letter w/ data, doing more letters in 1 hour, folded, in an envelope, stamped, and ready for pick up than 25 people could do in 5 days in the old days.

    We used to have a person whose main job was to manually enter in survey results, 1 by 1. Now we toss a stack of them into a scanner that does it all in 20 minutes. Guess who got laid off?

    Look at most task done in an office in quantity... the push has always been to get rid of the human. This is easier to do with data than physical work, so all the low hanging fruit is gone from white collar jobs... and now they have the tech to do the same in blue collar jobs.

  61. What about the sex bots? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Seems like they are going to put a lot more women than men out of work! (Does a vibrator qualify as a "sex bot"?_

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  62. So the contractor does that by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and gets their twisted wood and sends it back. But a computer tells that contractor exactly how often "sometimes" really is. Occasionally they're off a bit in the wrong directly... and modern logistics gets him his shortage in a few days instead of weeks.

    Folks really underestimate how tight the supply chain's gotten and what computers have made possible. I think we were expecting flying cars by now. What we got was cheap 2 day shipping. But if you're old enough to remember sending away for something and waiting 8 weeks you understand what a revolution that is...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:So the contractor does that by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      8 weeks? Has Hobby King's China wearhouse gotten better?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re: So the contractor does that by edris90 · · Score: 1

      And I have built enough of those prefab houses and buildings to know, that they are crap. And then what you get is crap Lumber being used, and a whole lot of problems with the building the are completely avoidable if it had been built right. The people who actually build it, make Corrections, alter the blueprints, and jerry-rig the city would and the place because there's no arguing with a computer and this building still needs to go up in x amoumt a time or nobody can get paid. In the end what you have is buildings that aren't worth the money that you paid for them, that are going to have more problems sooner then if you build them properly. What looks good on paper or on the computer often does not Translate to the variable conditions of the real world. Especially in wood framing

    3. Re: So the contractor does that by edris90 · · Score: 1

      Sure you can have a couple guys nail that shit together the way it comes, then it will not meet code and more importantly you will not have a safe building. I'm prefabs you spend most of your time looking at blueprints for how you can make this well-intended but naive prefabrication fit this particular piece of environment , prefabs are The Emperor's New Clothes of construction. sounds like a wonderful idea but when you look at everything involved just say that it takes someone highly-skilled on the job site to make the set of adaptations necessary to get the prefabs to work while not make it obvious that they had to modify them, because if you rock the boat they'll just hire someone else who doesn't give a shit, and will do the modifications necessary to make it work out of pocket, and ptetendIt work just the way it came. Cuz if they don't they won't get that next installment, and as a result lose all their decent workers to another job. In construction their are not interviews. You take your tools and show at a job site and say I want a job. and they try you out. Cuz the only way to know if you're worth a shit is to see what you can do. Your fuck around with your good people and they leave. They know that they can get a job anywhere. Prefabs lead to people who are not qualified or paid for such things to error correct on the blueprints and to fix the prefabs out-of-pocket , because the ideal works great on paper but lousy in real life. And it's the subcontractor who took the prefab who takes the hit, along with his guys that work for him.

  63. No, that's not the reason by Kartu · · Score: 1

    Also, to be blunt, women do better academically than men. The reason's really simple: girls calm down and start studying and an earlier age than boys so they get an extra year or two of education.

    There are many reasons, but let me point out a couple of glaring ones:
    1) There are plenty of "for women" scholarships and numerous women only programs, even though it is at least 55% girls vs 45% boys in colleges (and growing)
    2) Strong gender bias among teachers who happen, hold on a second, be mostly women (it gets hilarious at times and she isn't even fired, by the way)
    3) Education concept of "listen, remember and do what I say" not well suited for boys and men
    4) When girls fall behind, system is being changed to address it vs no fucks given when boys are disadvantaged

    The first time "but what about boys" was asked, was nearly 3 decades ago, an equity feminist (rare type), Christina Sommers wrote "The War Against Boys" book calling out lies in mainstream "myth of shortchanged girls".. She predicted the gap will only widen, and, hey, look, we are soon to hit 60% vs 40% "more equality". (UN for Women sounds alarm when there is 5% gap in boys favor (it still happens in crazy places like Sudan).

  64. Y2K of the 2020s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work in the AI field and after my recent experiences looking for a new job, it amazes me how incompetently so many large companies are implementing automation of all types. Lots of science projects but few actual business problems truly solved. Managers often push the hype to its limit, making assumptions that can bankrupt companies. The level of human stupidity vastly outweighs any so-called artificial intelligence. I am a lot less worried about robots replacing jobs than corrupt management running things into the ground and getting a bonus for firing people as the sinking ship falls beneath the waves.

  65. totally disagree by suezz · · Score: 1

    once the robots come they will replace everybody. everyone's job in a corporation can be replaced. just because you are a senior manager doesn't mean your job is safe. The robots will build better robots and they will eventually not need humans. AI is a very dangerous slipper slope.

  66. Re:Awesome! We have different viewpoints on basic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > by them choosing already-prepared lessons

    That's like saying I could do better as a motivational speaker by memorizing some of George W Bush's speeches and reciting them at a podium instead of giving my own speech.

    I'd rather hear from an actual experienced teacher on this subject than some know-it-all Dunning-Kruger like yourself.

  67. I thought you were progressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought you were a progressive? What's this "Chinaman" bullshit? That's racist as fuck and has been since telegraphs were new. Hypocrite.

  68. Racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did they have to add "white" to the second sentence?. Like Asian, Black, and Latino executives will still be replaced by robots? Really? There's nothing in the TFA to support that. The dash of racism suggests a lot of stupid in the authors

  69. Electricians and Plumbers ? by CyclistOne · · Score: 1

    Will electricians and plumbers be replaced by robots? I wouldn't bet on it.