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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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/
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
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.
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.'"
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.
. 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.
If they're hungry, they should just eat cake, right?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Anonymous Coward 8 hours ago The birth rate is already below replacement in most of the world.
No.
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.
He is a strange loop.
Dialectician. Archology.
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.
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.