theverge.com
>as many as 800 million jobs could be lost worldwide to automation.
should we be worried?
As many as 800 million jobs could be lost worldwide to automation
Bentley Cook
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Lincoln Sullivan
no do not worry my fellow human
Carter Jones
>could
Tyler Hill
Can some boomer in Engineering talk about how it will affect process design engineers of civil, mechanical, chemcial disciplines?
t. just graduated millenial
Brayden Kelly
en.wikipedia.org
People talking about how laborers and low-skill workers will lose their jobs when it's the big brain nibbas in many cases threatened the most.
Jace Perry
>Robots do things.
>Humans get paid to repair them.
>Higher pay, shorter workweek.
>Existential crisis kicks in
>Humans find God in their free time
Best timeline.
Camden Wright
You know it probably wouldn't be hard to build robots capable of repairing robots, and then just have enough of those repair robots such that if one or a couple of them break down the other remaining ones can fix them, what do the mechanics/repairmen do then?
Julian Stewart
the "high-level reasoning" mentioned to on that page refers to business-type people who don't produce any meaningful work. The researchers and engineers actually building these automation systems are effectively unreplaceable with the current state of AI.
the first smart-person job to be replaced will be that of the mathematician. computers today are already better at pumping out proofs than humans, but there is still work to be done on figuring out which of those proofs are interesting to humans.
Matthew Green
No. Automation of agriculture replaced huge numbers of workers, and that's a good thing.
James Sullivan
If you are a brainlet = yes
Otherwise no
Xavier Thomas
> the first smart-person job to be replaced will be that of the mathematician
>computers today are already better at pumping out proofs than humans
No, that's wrong, computers can really only do numerical proofs and proofs in domains where theoretical computer science has established certain bounds on proofs which high-level mathematical programmers and language engineers can then construct numerically computational or isomorphic constructs for which then become a type of de facto numerical proof.
Good luck getting a computer able to do any actually creative shit like what will be needed to solve/find a proof for the Riemann Hypothesis or the Navier-Stokes Existence and Smoothness Problem.
Caleb Lee
I'll have to encourage people to read it twice the next time an automation thread gets my attention. Thank you for your input.
Juan Gomez
Learn to code or learn to fix mechanical machines. You'll be fine. Every tech revolution brings huge amounts of new wealth and opportunities to rise to next social-economic tier. Surf the wave.
Grayson Howard
i understand what you are saying, but i'm confident that any problem can be solved by more computers optimizing cost functions and larger datasets
Benjamin Thomas
It unironically was. It allowed us to do other things and grow the economy
Lincoln Cooper
Were quickly nearing the cutoff for the general populace, Predominately high iq individuals will dominate the working environment leaving most individuals completely out of work. You can see this already in the 40+ year people.
Luis Robinson
Well then your confidence is misplaced, that's akin to thinking that the best way to solve computational problems is brute force and just throwing more computer resources at it instead of optimization/minimization via analysis and theoretical breakthroughs which are the products of unique human minds.
Lucas Sanders
Takes years to develop it in a single job field. Just get a job in robotics and you'll be fine.
Connor Brooks
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
John Nguyen
your job will be super safe, same for technicians and everybody involved in designing, building and maintenance of machinery
Noah Bailey
we want the stuff, not the jobs. if we can make more stuff with less work, that means either you can have the same stuff, but you don't have to work as long, or it means we'll keep working the same amount, but for new things that weren't economically feasible when our labor was going to what it is now.
all this assumes the state won't suck up this extra wealth and spend it bombing people or whatever.
Ryan Kelly
I'm sure the trucking companies will let the drivers keep their jobs, just chill in the cab while the AI drives. Capitalists are generous, caring people.