Slashdot Mirror


Revisiting the Jobs Artificial Intelligence Will Create (mit.edu)

Long-time Slashdot reader occidental shares a link to the audio of a new interview with the authors of the 2017 article "The Jobs That Artificial Intelligence Will Create" Authors Paul Daugherty and H. James Wilson show that four soft skills are becoming much more valuable as human-machine collaboration advances. These skills include complex reasoning, creativity, social and emotional intelligence, and sensory perception.

88 comments

  1. LOL, the jobs AI will create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You job will be to like the metallic taint of your masters

    AI won't be creating jobs, dumbasses. And due to the law of supply and demand, the jobs which remain will be dropping significantly in pay

    1. Re: LOL, the jobs AI will create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would swap the first for the second. And frankly wouldn't agree at all in general. I could easily choose close to a half dozen different skill sets far more useful or why should anyone believe a list exists at all?

    2. Re:LOL, the jobs AI will create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, A"I".

    3. Re: LOL, the jobs AI will create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An AI could create it's own list with more than a million skills but won't because humans use AI incorrectly. Labels are very limiting.

  2. So 90% of the human race are excluded? by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because they do not have those. This is pretty much on the level of the fairy-tales climate-change deniers tell themselves.
    Only effect: Even less prepared when the inevitable happens.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:So 90% of the human race are excluded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is worse than that. Because when people think creativity, they think either the skill to draw pretty images or ability to create or play music, or ability to write stories. But these are the areas where AI will beat humans.

      Instead the required creativity is ability to think where AI could be used for. If you think that is easy for humans, go on and come up with some new ideas that others have never thought about.

    2. Re:So 90% of the human race are excluded? by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      It's pretty impossible that complex reasoning, creativity, social and emotional intelligence, and sensory perception will ever be done by a machine.

      I mean, all that machines can do for creativity now is create art in multiple styles including abstract weirdness like Dali, create photorealistic art based on crude drawings supplied as source material, write shitty stories, and create pop songs. There's no way that they will ever do more than that in the future, right?

      I'm sure that they will never be able to sense emotions in people, nor will they replace a therapist. We certainly won't try to get AI to determine if people are likely to be criminals or re-offend if they have been convicted before.

      Computers definitely will never be able to see and sort things, smell, recognize songs, or have a sense of touch or feel pain.

      It's one thing to lay out soft skills that a lot of people don't have and say that's where jobs lie in the future. It's a whole different ballgame to ignore the fact that computers are already making inroads there, and already are better than some percent of the population at those things. Unless the authors are expecting technology to suddenly go in reverse, they're packing bags for a ship that's already sailed.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    3. Re:So 90% of the human race are excluded? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem to support a lot of people either. A few of the very best make millions and everyone else scrapes by.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  3. Re:Supply and Demand by gweihir · · Score: 2

    That worked so well in China, where they do not have little things like human rights or real elections to stand in the way.
    As to attrition: That only works in special circumstances. In the west, it will take society with it.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. we are working on an artificial creimer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we are still working on getting its crammar right
    time-travelling tenses are used to be difficult
    computers have no teeth so that's covered
    now we need to program a deep love for sugary coffee water, public transit, and lottery tickets

    we succeeded for five minutes
    then it suddenly discovered youtube and started making hundreds of videos that no one watches

    1. Re: we are working on an artificial creimer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Facts.

    2. Re:we are working on an artificial creimer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That cunt creimer is wearing a "I Shoot People" t-shirt in his latest video.

  5. "Soft skills"? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Complex reasoning is "a soft skill"? Since when? (Also, I'm somewhat dubious that any kind of intelligence can be labeled as "a skill", as opposed to a trait or something.)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re: "Soft skills"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complex reasoning has very serious limitations, unless complex reasoning is a sales tactic.

    2. Re:"Soft skills"? by alvinrod · · Score: 0

      It probably is a trait to some degree, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be cultivated and developed. Michael Jordan clearly had some traits that meant he would be a good athlete, but he still had to work hard in order to translate that into the level of skill he had. I’ll never be as skilled as Michael Jordan was at basketball, but I could be a whole hell of a lot better than I am right now if I worked at it. I think that’s where they’re coming from at least.

    3. Re: "Soft skills"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trait is what people say when they don't understand something and only want to be intellectually lazy

    4. Re: "Soft skills"? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      Skill is "I can repair bicycles." What kind of skill is intelligence? I never said that traits can't be cultivated. Doesn't make them skills, though.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re: "Soft skills"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the golf course Michael Jordan is a liability to a team

    6. Re:"Soft skills"? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Also, I'm somewhat dubious that any kind of intelligence can be labeled as "a skill", as opposed to a trait or something.

      As soon as intelligence as defined clearly, it always turns out to be something that can be developed. It's only when it's poorly defined that it seems magical.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:"Soft skills"? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Has anyone ever disputed that intelligence can be developed? Mental exercises have been a thing for decades, if not longer.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:"Soft skills"? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Has anyone ever disputed that intelligence can be developed?

      Yeah, plenty of people, actually.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:"Soft skills"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably they classify complex reasoning as something that goes beyond the obvious surface level of language. What puzzles me is the inclusion of the sensory perception. Human abilities in this category are limited and the machines already surpass people in this category in the selected areas, just like many animals do.

    10. Re:"Soft skills"? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of nurture component in brain development and we've known about it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:"Soft skills"? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      More to the point, we've never been able to identify a "natural" component of intelligence that can't be developed. Even the ones that seem experimentally certain (like the language module that humans have in our brains that animals don't have in theirs), we haven't been able to define what it is that we have that allows us to do it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:"Soft skills"? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      As soon as intelligence is defined clearly, it always turns out to be something that can be developed into a software package.

      FTFY.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    13. Re:"Soft skills"? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Not really. An example is an IQ test: it's a concrete measure of intelligence. But now that it's concretely measured, a person can study and improve their outcome on the test.

      But computers don't do well on the test at all.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:"Soft skills"? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      If there's a success metric, then you can design a system to "study" and improve their outcome on the test. The test is an n -> 1 mapping and the system is a general optimizer that finds the min/max of that function. I think that's pretty oldskool "AI" -- in general, finding a good metric to match human success criteria is the hard problem.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    15. Re:"Soft skills"? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Well, intelligence is certainly not the same as human success.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Just+A+Gigolo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Must be taxed to the full extent by the goverments, so that billions of people that are replaced by it can be fed, clothed and provided a place to live.

    1. Re: Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^ found the club you can't join

    2. Re: Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Just+A+Gigolo · · Score: 2

      I did not realize that slashdot shitposters are nowadays AI powered!

    3. Re:Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Once some product/convenience is provided by AI, and there is competition between different suppliers of the service, the price drops towards zero, as it can be replicated infinitely. And as such, no higher income needed for the people to benefit from the zero-priced product.

    4. Re:Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Just+A+Gigolo · · Score: 2

      So the raw materials have no value?

    5. Re:Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      UBI is cheaper then paying 30-60K year to lock someone up.

    6. Re: Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a talking furby? Holy shit those are really rare and expensive. Enjoy!

    7. Re: Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even rarer is an A.G. Bear. Wonderful toy that gave the kids feedback but not words. Kids imagined what the toy was saying. Look it up.

    8. Re:Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Just+A+Gigolo · · Score: 2

      Not all unemployed are criminals.

    9. Re:Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      3 hots and cot + access to an doctor is better then the street.

    10. Re:Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Just+A+Gigolo · · Score: 1

      Well you are seeing it in a narrow USA perspective, not all countries have it as bad as yours.

    11. Re: Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will. I have a chucky that chases kids around the house and then subjects them to mild disappointment

    12. Re: Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He isn't American.

    13. Re:Any job that is replaced by AI and automation by majid_aldo · · Score: 1

      corporate taxes exist already

      --
      --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
  7. I'm not a Luddite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But I play one on television. Continued production of technical goodies is not an inevitable goal. For what purpose? If the present life is good, or could be made better in a non-smartphone way, why don't we do that, instead?

  8. Read the article by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    It's long and doesn't have too much I haven't seen already elsewhere:
    It talks about 3 new job classes:
    Trainer
    Data scientists. This is that hard part. It's the part with all the math. This isn't going to be a big job creator because, well, that math is _hard_.

    Explainer
    Project Management job. Easy enough to do, but it'll be 1 job per product line at a company. e.g. an entire Voice Response system for a large company will generate 1 job. Smaller companies won't have this because they won't write their own VR, they'll buy one, and the vendor will have 1 Explainer and a few salesmen.

    Again, not a big job creator.

    Sustainer
    The AI equivalent to IT support. Will generate some jobs for certain. IT always does. But likely to generate fewer jobs that the AI takes over. Why? Because this is an immediate, long term cost sink, like IT always is. So if it makes more jobs than the AI replaces then AI isn't cost effective/competitive.

    As far as AI taking jobs, They found 10% of the work is Human only, 35% automatable and 55% can be 'augmented'.

    He's hoping the increased economic output will offset the job losses and sites Canada expecting $16 billion in new economic activity.

    I think they guy's being naive there. 35% of jobs can concieveably go away. 55% can have a productivity boost that would let companies do layoffs.

    He's hoping we'll "Grow our way out". e.g. they'll be markets for products and such. I'm not sure that's possible. For one thing the environment might not let us. For example, there's not enough metals on the plant to give everybody a car. China is industrializing and becoming a new market. India too. But to do it they're putting out huge amounts of carbon and filling the oceans with plastic.

    These are solvable problems, but then there's the social ones. How do you distribute that $16 billion? Who's going to buy all the products when 35% lose their jobs to automation and maybe another 20% to productivity increases due to augmentation?

    Finally there's the ruling class. We've got one. They were kings of old but today their the CEOs of boardrooms. Go look into it, it's the same people sitting on the board of directors for every company. Every now and then you can join their ranks, but that doesn't make them anything else but kings and queens. Hereditary wealth that doesn't like to share.

    Why does that matter? Because the King didn't need the Serfs to buy their products. The King doesn't need us. If you already own everything you don't care if you can sell stuff. Your power and wealth comes from already owning it all, not from building it and selling it. Wealth inequality is the worst since the 30s and getting worse (America just shifted $1 trillion to the top in the form of a tax cut that was put on the national credit card).

    What I'm saying is we don't have the social and technological resources to "grow our way out". If we don't all want to live through another Dark Ages we'd better do something fast...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Read the article by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Nice summary. I concur on all parts, but would add the following about "sustainer".

      This is an immediate, long term cost sink, like IT always is. So if it makes more jobs than the AI replaces then AI isn't cost effective/competitive.

      I agree on the second part, but not entirely on the first part.

      As we've seen a million times over, a lot of companies will buy technology and then just use it until it's well past end-of-life, with no plans to update or recover from failure.

      Think of all the factories running equipment on Windows 95 boxes still. All the companies still running XP because they built an in-house app that only works in Internet Explorer. All the places where people's sole job is to transfer data between unconnected systems.

      AI is going to be handled just like this in a lot of places. The AI sorting for the factory is going to work good enough, so it's just going to sit there and do it's job until the computer it's on dies or the line is decommissioned. The telephone tree AI is going to mostly work, and Brenda will recognize that all the calls on Product X need to get forwarded to James because the AI doesn't get it right. And that will go on for years.

      And a major selling point of AI is that it self-corrects. It's not like machine learning where if it's consistently wrong you wipe it and provide a better training set. Theoretically, you deploy AI and it figures shit out for itself. That should definitely reduce the amount of labor required.

      I don't disagree on our issues with wealth inequality, but I think you're being a little short-sighted.

      Because the King didn't need the Serfs to buy their products. The King doesn't need us.

      The king might think that, but he's dead wrong.

      If the king wants to watch movies or TV, he needs us to subsidize them. If the king wants to drive on a road, he needs us to subsidize them. If the king wants to eat food, either he's growing it all himself on his estate, or he needs us to plant, pick, process, and transport that food. If the king wants to go on the internet, he needs us to be creating things to do there, or it will be empty. If the king wants to listen to music, he either has to hire thousands of his own musicians, or he needs us to subsidize the vast variety of music in the world. If the king wants a car, plane, or boat, he's going to have to pay for all of the raw materials, all of the processing, all of the engineering, all of construction, all of the spare parts, all of the training, all the infrastructure for all that, or he needs us to be doing all of that already so he can just select he best of that for himself.

      The elite can't have the lifestyle they currently have without all of us doing the shit we're doing for ourselves already. They are definitely able to select the best of the best, but that doesn't exist at all without the rest of us making it for ourselves to begin with.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AI will create new jobs only if it used in new ways that generate money and if it needs humans to help with that work. To create money you need to sell something. Humans buy
      - Food (can't sell much more than you do now)
      - Shelter (can't sell much more, but perhaps better or bigger)
      - Medication (most likely will sell less as we find cures)
      - Entertainment (can't sell more)
      - Transportation (can't sell more, most likely less)
      - Education (in theory can sell more, but as we already employ a lot of people, hard to see any job increase)
      - Information (unlikely that people will buy more)
      - Gadgets (unlikely that people buy more)
      - Empty promises, like religion or diet pills (unlikely to increase)

    3. Re:Read the article by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the king wants to eat food, either he's growing it all himself on his estate, or he needs us to plant, pick, process, and transport that food.

      Yes, once upon a time it took a lot of hands to put food on the king's table. Everyone from the farmer to the miller to the baker and all their helpers had to get rather personally involved in growing the crops and creating that sack of grain, the flour and that particular bread. Something like 90% working in the primary industries, mostly agriculture. Fast forward to today and it's down to about 2% thanks to industrialization and automation, but there's still a farmer doing the farming. Is 0% achievable? Possibly. Maybe soon there is no farmer or farmhouse, it's just a plot of land and machines owned by a faceless mega-company that'll do all the plowing and sowing and watering and fertilization and pesticides and reaping and quality checking delivering sacks of grain in a self-driving lorry to a grain mill. Same goes for the mill, bakery and grocery store - there's food, but nobody makes the food.

      We are seeing the beginning of sci-fi territory where self-correcting, self-repairing machines can keep a society running whether or not the people actually have any clue what it's doing. Where the King has a new set of serfs that aren't so uppity as the old ones, of course it will take a royal court of privileged people like Michelin star chefs to design new food and those who design/maintain/repair the systems but all the rest are just nice-to-have not need-to have. While I don't think we'll have Elysium in space, it's not entirely unlikely we'll end up with something similar here on Earth. A tax heaven with all the rich people, served by robots and the best technology has to offer while everyone else need to fend for themselves. They just have to lose all the support staff they depend on today, but that's a work in progress.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re: Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep talking. I'm feeling it

    5. Re:Read the article by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I think that's a long way off.

      Michelin star chefs need Michelin star ingredients, and those come from all corners of the world, the rarer the better. It's not really feasible to have an army of millions of specialized robots geographically disbursed tending to the thousands of niche crops needed to provide gourmet food. Terrior is a problem we've not really solved fully yet, and we're not that close to being able to create growing conditions locally for anywhere near the number of animals and plants that would be needed. Pink peppercorns, Chardonnay grapes, kelp, sturgeon, truffles, tuna, bananas, civet coffee, vanilla beans, wild blueberries, moose, crayfish, agave.....the list goes on and on.

      The only practical way to have the best of these things available for the elite is if they are cultivated and distributed widely by everyone else. Someone needs to sort through thousands of every one of these things to pick out the best, and something needs to be done with the rest of them. Nobody grows one grape vine and makes one bottle of wine out of it each year because it's the best of the best. The best grapes from an entire vineyard are selected each year, and then the best barrels of the resulting wine are selected, then the best blends of the best barrels is what makes it to the top.

      While theoretically robots could do all of it some day, we're far from robots being able to do any appreciable amount of it now. And that's just for food. Add in all the rest of the stuff and the infrastructure needed for that stuff, and we're a long, long way from the elite being self-sufficient.

      Supply chains are necessary, even for a king.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    6. Re:Read the article by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Michelin star chefs need Michelin star ingredients, and those come from all corners of the world, the rarer the better.

      I find this somehow both true and false, yes they have a tendency so use exotic, expensive ingredients like truffles, saffron and Beluga caviar. Other times it's just about using local ingredients because they're new to globetrotters, like I've eaten quite a bit of moose here in Norway without it being something super exclusive - it's $10-25 per kilo meat depending on cut. But a lot of the time it seems to be fairly mundane ingredients, prepared exceptionally well. Like it doesn't require a lot of special ingredients but it takes a lot of skill and timing to get a perfect raspberry souffle. If you add chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, lemon and a few others you're starting to cover a lot of desserts. Same with a lot of other things you'd find in a well-stocked pantry, but I guess when you're at that level you'll always go the extra mile for that tiny extra zing even if you could make something 95% as good from the local grocery store.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  9. Re: Supply and Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The birth rate is already below replacement in most of the world. You people really need to learn some math. We are still experiencing a demographic hangover of a kind from past high birth rates. However the same exponential forces will shift to operating in the opposite direction. Even if we do nothing but keep all policy exactly the same and develop no knew technology; we will start to see sharp population contractions around the 2050s. Honestly youâ(TM)d better hope A.I. takes some jobs because there wonâ(TM)t be anyone to do them in our golden years

  10. Re:Supply and Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did it work out? China's median age is higher than the US. They will not recover from negative growth. Millions of Chinese men with no wives, and no chance for children. Millions more who will have only one child. They got old before they got rich.

    Future belongs to those who show up for it.

  11. Re:Supply and Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silly discussion anyway because there will always be high quality people to replace the AI for cheaper in order to make coffee money. Take creimer for instance.

  12. The impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If 'artificial intelligence' were viable, maybe. This piece still commits the same grave error as others - it is built on prognostication. What we are talking about is automation, not 'AI', and I doubt it will be any more or less disruptive than any other revolution in automation. The sci-fi crap really isn't useful, and at this point just makes it's proponents come across as naive.

  13. win/win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most of these traits are not held by the common herd so they wo't be able to help. BUT when the planned pandemic hits most of them will be wiped out anyway. Some of them as have the skills for the new world order will be hit as well but the survivors will find their skills in top demand and reap the benefit of their rarity. SAme thing happened with the Black Plague in Europe. Masses were killed freeing up resources for the survivors and the survivors with skills were in top demand and paid high wages.

  14. Re:Supply and Demand by iggymanz · · Score: 0

    lolz, UBI, healthcare and tube tying cost money.

    Cheaper solution, give parasites nothing, they'll either have to create wealth like the rest of us or starve. Problem solved.

  15. Re: Supply and Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly youÃ(TM)d better hope A.I. takes some jobs because there wonÃ(TM)t be anyone to do them in our golden years

    Bullshit, there will always be miracle workers to do all the work that needs to be done!!!

    I know for sure because creimer told me!

  16. Re: Supply and Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey but good thing out country isnâ(TM)t like that...

  17. Re: Supply and Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Healthcare is expensive and in third world countries people don't have the time or money for elective procedures. You're only calling them parasites because their acting like parasites. If it were more profitable to stop being parasites you can bet your ass they would stop.

  18. Re:Supply and Demand by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Cheaper solution, give parasites nothing, they'll either have to create wealth like the rest of us or starve. Problem solved.

    That's not cheaper. They'll come take food from you, and stopping them will be more expensive than just feeding and educating them. Even if you shoot them, you have to dispose of the bodies.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  19. "Our destination is the TALOS stargroup" apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Our destination is the TALOS stargroup. Our timewarp factor 7" from the StarTrek TOS pilot "The Cage" when VINA says:

    "They found, it's a TRAP! Like a narcotic - because when DREAMS become more important than reality, you give up travel/building/creating. You even forget how to repair the machines left behind by your ancestors... you just sit, living/reliving others lives left behind, in the 'thought records'"

    * Makes my point for me in part IF you think about it!

    APK

    P.S.=> Additionally - what I DO KNOW, is that the human body (& MIND) is BUILT TO DO WORK & it gets stronger when it does on ALL fronts noted - take that away? ATROPHE - See above: Illustrates it better than I can... apk

  20. another job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You left out "hunting down runaway androids".

  21. Re:Supply and Demand by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    You'd better spend a lot of that money on insurance and security then, because if you're living around a population of people with absolutely nothing you won't have your stuff for long.

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

    Adapt to it: I've said this before - you're "geeks", right? You're MORE than prepared to do so in robotics @ least - PC/Server w/ servo motors (that'd odds are, you'd replace as needed, not try to "repair" them) pretty much.

    * I don't know IF all this "tech/robotics" stuff is for the good but most of ALL of you here can ADAPT as repair techs, coders, etc. - et al for that much of it.

    (It's a "YES/NO" w/ many facets to it...)

    APK

    P.S.=> I'm wary of such changes!

    1st, economically speaking as we currently structure it: It reduces taxpayers & reduces men to potatos, perhaps not in ALL cases, but I'd wager it would in most - like WELFARE does!

    (Since, imo, a man needs some 'strife' OR responsiblities that weigh on him (belongings/family) unfortunately to bring out the BEST in us - ala "when things are @ their worst, be your best" - necessity is the mother of invention)

    2nd/On another front (war): It can be MISUSED (e.g. war robots - they will NOT disobey orders, have no mercy &/or reasoning shooting a CHILD as a kid's just another infra-red targetted object, nothing more & THAT takes away human judiciousness decision making).

    I.E./E.G. - Picture a BOSTON ROBOTICS "MULE" w/ Vulkan cannons attached, you get my point... apk

  23. "Our destination is the TALOS stargroup" apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Our destination is the TALOS stargroup. Our timewarp factor 7" from the StarTrek TOS pilot "The Cage" when VINA says:

    "They found, it's a TRAP! Like a narcotic - because when DREAMS become more important than reality, you give up travel/building/creating. You even forget how to repair the machines left behind by your ancestors... you just sit, living/reliving others lives left behind, in the 'thought records'"

    * Makes my point for me in part IF you think about it...

    APK

    P.S.=> Additionally - what I DO KNOW, is that the human body (& MIND) is BUILT TO DO WORK & it gets stronger when it does on ALL fronts noted - take that away? ATROPHE - See above: Illustrates it better than I can... apk

  24. Re: Supply and Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Revolutions are borne from such stuff.

  25. Re:Supply and Demand by Q-Hack! · · Score: 1

    . Even if you shoot them, you have to dispose of the bodies.

    Body disposal... Oh, look a new job created that some people can then become productive members of society.

    --
    Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
  26. Re:Supply and Demand by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    If they're hungry, they should just eat cake, right?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  27. Emotional intelligence and the death of empathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Controlling your emotions is important, but so is understanding and identifying with those around you. If empathy and value are zero-sum, we need a new model.

  28. Nobody ever said that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fake News.

  29. Many industries are still coming to terms with She by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and the jump to true artificial intelligence requires acceptance of the foundations upon which machine learning is built.

  30. Parents are the ones who lack empathy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lack of empathy is displayed by the mother who gives birth to her 5th child in an Indian slum. She cares not for that child, or for anyone else around her.

  31. people are bad at math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are bad a math. They are so bad that the global birth rate is still much more than replacement less mortality. https://population.un.org/wpp/

    Perhaps you are bad at math, are misinformed, or are full of sh:it (possibly all three).

  32. Re:Supply and Demand by iggymanz · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wrong. High percentage of gun ownership where I live, more than one per adult, yet zero violent crime. Strange, no? Yet this is near Chicago, a cesspool of crime and gun violence. Guess how we would handle those that try violent shit here?

  33. The Madness of King George by epine · · Score: 1

    I don't usually play the Jurassic card, but I was there in the late nineties when George Gilder whipped the telecosm into leaping headfirst into a giant bluff of Gillette Foamy.

    Is Gillette Foamy thick and rich enough to stop this speeding sports car?

    [Stock car smashes through giant pile of foamy.]

    No. But it's still thick and rich enough for a great shave.

    [Man inverts hand with a lump of fresh Foamy that stays in place.]

    Question left unanswered: what are you lavishing below the elbow which requires an underhand application? It's almost as if Gillette thought to themselves: screw the magnetic screwdriver—we'll invent the magnetic screw head instead.

    [*] Note: this is the seventies, man. Any hint of metrosexual grooming (outside of San Francisco) was a standing invitation to the hombre prom, out behind The Oak and Dagger, at closing time. The proposed use is not for visible grooming.

    Is Gillette Foamy thick and rich enough to support this beautiful women?

    [Beautiful woman lowered on a trapeze bar onto a giant mound, undulating receptively on a swanky swimming, pool sinks without a trace.]

    No. But it's still thick and rich enough for a great shave.

    [Man inverts hand with a lump of fresh Foamy that stays in place.]

    Question answered all too well: why are they lowering this scantily clad woman into your manly foam product?

    Tom Chanter manages in this piece to revive some of the old Gilder magic. "I was there, Gandalf." Deep down, Gilder was barely left of the Taliban, but he a definite knack for massaging the adrenal glands of the unwashed masses to plummy plumes of imminent mass technogasm.

    The Madness of King George — July 2002

    George Gilder listened to the technology, and became guru of the telecosm. The markets listened to his newsletter, and followed him into the Global Crossing abyss, yet he's never stopped believing.

    The predictions Gilder has made in the intervening decade suggest that he vowed to never again permit anyone else to convey a vision of the world more exuberant than his own.
    ...
    In 1996 he foresaw that, because of broadband's potential to deliver online learning, within five years "the most deprived ghetto child in the most benighted project will gain educational opportunities exceeding those of today's suburban preppy."

    It was a preposterous assertion, and hardly the only one that seems absurd in the harsh fluorescent light of the morning.

  34. Re:Supply and Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let me guess - with gun violence, just like them.

    Doesn't sound so different to me. Perhaps they just haven't bothered to come your way yet. And when they do, they'll have as many guns as you. Good luck with that.

  35. shite: accidental cross-post by epine · · Score: 1

    Shite. I had two tabs open at the same time on the future of employment, and landed my comment on the wrong thread, which I've now reposted there in full with a bold header explaining my mistake.

    1. Re:shite: accidental cross-post by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      I was beginning to wonder if you were actually the time-cube guy.

  36. Re: Supply and Demand by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Anonymous Coward 8 hours ago The birth rate is already below replacement in most of the world.

    No.

  37. Re:Supply and Demand by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    You are confused, defending oneself is not legally considered gun violence.

    Those scum did not spend hundreds of hours on the range, they can't hit a target 50 yards away with a handgun, like most beginners their group size is many human lengths in diameter at that distance.

  38. I thought they meant Steve by nastyphil · · Score: 1

    He is a strange loop.

    --
    Dialectician. Archology.
  39. example of jobs created by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. senior hobo with experience in crowd entertainment
    2. junior bum
    3. catlady with 10 years of experience of cat collecting
    4. senior slashdot editor with 10 years experience of bullshit posting

  40. Re:Supply and Demand by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Yes, when a horde of 50 people comes for your stuff, your little shooter is going to help.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  41. Re:Supply and Demand by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Hmm. So you are saying this may have been a lot more sneaky and long-term than was apparent? You may have a point. Got some references to these effects, I would like to have a look. (I am not criticizing or "citation-needed"-ing.)

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.