patrick.net

Rew says

To manufacture, program, and maintain said robot ... that's a lot of work. When Raquel gets sick, you are either going to pay for a house call

Ok, but the technician, possibly a 'bot itself, will still need to get through my security sentry, to work on Raquel's orifices or curves. Raquel is only a bodyguard, if the sentry is deactivated.

Rew says

I think you greatly under-estimate how much work will need to go into making said robots. This isn't a snap your fingers and manual labor is dead sort of thing.

The thing is that back in the 80s/90s, the idea of embedding objects into other office tools, like Excel sheets inside Word docs, etc, almost made it look like we needed most ppl, instead of studying material science, biology, etc, study computer science. Well today, a lot of that stuff is mature and maintained globally. And likewise, every subsequent wave will not require the entire graduating class of science/engineering students worldwide, but a subset of them. At some point in time, software will write or at least modify software and then, the critical mass of technical personnel will start to go down, with each wave.

Back in the 1920s, it was predicted that the job market for telephone operators would grow by leaps and bounds. Thirty years later, despite the exponential growth of telephony, much of that work was automated, with probably 5% of that workforce leftover.

Rew says

You can see this coming, sure, but my god, we have maybe another 200+ years before that occurs.

What you're talking about are fundamental shifts in areas like surface chemistry, material science, and so forth, where present day science/engineering paradigms are limiting their applications. Thus, it's highly unlikely that we'll be able to manipulate matter, in a way different than how we already do it now, for another century. This even includes 3-D printing which is really just applying software to do a cascade of manual types of jobs. And thus, nanotechnology is a distant future, as present-day applications are basically add-ons to preexisting ideas of miniaturization.

marcus says

A big part of the reason that government jobs are the answer, is the so called multiplier effect. People must be kept occupied, and the incomes they receive mostly go back in to the economy.

Marcus is a good Apparatchik as well.

These mutts actually believe this shit, oh Magoo you are good.

Quigley says

What's never going out of style is creative work. Someone needs to create new things, exciting things. Someone needs to dream up new devices we are all going to want, write stories we will want to hear or see on the screen, make new taste experiences, new fashion, new things to do, new games to play, and so on. Creativity will be the measure of success rather than hard work, so much. Although it must be said that creativity needs to be coupled with perseverance to attain proficiency. Whether it be photography or quilting or rug weaving in Afghanistan, creative work will be the new gold standard

Agree -- what automation will get rid of is many of the low-skill/low-education jobs where people are basically drones already. Things that require thinking and analysis will still often need a warm body. This is bad for blue collar automatons, but good for those who have skills and can adapt to new things.

As Rew said, automation will require a lot of work, and there will be many many jobs in designing, building, and repairing robots. Even now, many industrial robots aren't allowed to roam among people and must be in safety cages because we can't guarantee safety without doing so.

corntrollio says

Things that require thinking and analysis will still often need a warm body.

Spin offs, from projects like IBM's Watson, could also replace an entire actuarial dept for an insurance company.

The company will only need to maintain two actuarial fellows, to monitor the work and then, sign off on the work, for the clients & for legal reasons.

That'll save at least $6M-$10M per year in headcount for high end salaries. And if the licensing fee for that is $500K/yr or less, why wouldn't an executive VP not go for it?

My hope is that there be heavy tax and regulation on dumping old obsolete technology gadgets(including robots) that eventually has to go out in the trash. This might be an impediment to robots replacing human labor. It's bad enough that we send so many old devices (phones, computers, etc), toxic to boot, to landfills without even considering how dumped robots would add to that volume of toxic waste.

Rin says

Millennials will be the 1st generation to see the end of work

Once the top 0.01% has robots to do the job, they will send drones to exterminate the rest of the insects that plague this planet.

Rin says

they were the generations which had actually experienced an era where one's labor was of value to society

No: Struggling to survive is what gives life true meaning, and its true savor.

Rin says

Millenials despite all their adoration for smart phones and automation tools, will see that their actual work is of no value.

Millenials will be uploaded in computers, their bodies disposed of, and they can work tirelessly for Google till the end of times to answer searches for the next generations, or what remains of it.

Rin says

Today, Gen X, as it's entering full adulthood, will be seeing many jobs disappear by retirement.

If job losses were due to automation, which should see a huge spike in productivity, which we don't.

Give people a computer and they spend time on Facebook and Patnet. Hardly added productivity.

Low job and wages growth in the US is due to trade. China is like 500 millions robots doing jobs for us.

The economy grows in new ways after a correction/recession, the problem starts when the government prevents the nascent growth to occur. Yous like government does not know how this is going to occur, and only shits on it when it tries.

Rin says

Spin offs, from projects like IBM's Watson, could also replace an entire actuarial dept for an insurance company.

The company will only need to maintain two actuarial fellows, to monitor the work and then, sign off on the work, for the clients & for legal reasons.

So, Watson will come up with new insurance products and how to model them?

corntrollio says

what automation will get rid of is many of the low-skill/low-education jobs where people are basically drones already. Things that require thinking and analysis will still often need a warm body. This is bad for blue collar automatons, but good for those who have skills and can adapt to new things.

This is a very narrow vision of what computers will do in the future.
I wouldn't bet on warm bodies being needed.

corntrollio says

Watson will come up with new insurance products and how to model them?

The two certified actuarial fellows come up with products and give next gen Watson the go-ahead, to model 'em for optimization and suggested alterations. Before, that work was done by a whole dept.

Heraclitusstudent says

Give people a computer and they spend time on Facebook and Patnet. Hardly added productivity

You've answered the question right there, we don't need ppl.

Our hedge fund did not hire a $400K tax consultant. Instead, that fixed cost was used for a prop trader.

We've automated the tax server, bring in a contractor periodically to check the work, prior to submitting it to the auditors. In fact, we're on the phone all day with clients. At my firm, everyone who's not trading, is a salesmen including the receptionist.

Why work when you can simply flip houses for $$$$$$$. In the future, labor will be done by robots. People will earn money by flipping houses.

Rin says

did not hire a $400K tax consultant. Instead, that fixed cost was used for a prop trader.

We've automated the tax server, bring in a contractor periodically to check the work, prior to submitting it to the auditors.

Just to give you the cost savings ... the full timer is $33.3K per month. The contractor, on the other hand, charges $250/hr and bills us 10-20 hrs/month or $2.5K-$5K. Thus, tax server automation has saved a lot of money right there, as we won't have a full timer, sitting around reading Facebook all day, since his actual work is not that special, once you factor in computer automation.

Rin says

we won't have a full timer, sitting around reading Facebook all day, since his actual work is not that special, once you factor in computer automation.

Right now, this connection to PatNet is via private VPN.

On my other console terminal, I have an IM with clients. I'm glued to that and the telephone, all day long, ready to go into meetings, at any time.

If a wannabe full timer, let's say a technical or financial person, doesn't do his job plus being a salesman for the mothership, we don't extend an offer. The only exception here are prop traders, who're executing orders and need undivided attention on the markets.

Rin says

On my other console terminal, I have an IM with clients. I'm glued to that and the telephone, all day long, ready to go into meetings, at any time.

If a wannabe full timer, let's say a technical or financial person, doesn't do his job plus being a salesman for the mothership, we don't extend an offer. The only exception here are prop traders, who're executing orders and need undivided attention on the markets.

Investing could well be a fully automated function.
Given enough information, programs will take over.

Heraclitusstudent says

Investing could well be a fully automated function.

Given enough information, programs will take over.

The further one moves up in a company, sales becomes the only thing which seems to matter.

From my perspective, in terms of corporate hierarchy, this is probably the highest echelon I'll reach in life, as I'm a junior partner here with an equity stake, the "starting dozen".

Whenever I meet folks, who're actually worker bees like equity analyst, tax consultant, etc, part of what they do is project this *aura*, that their knowledge is secret, elite, and so-forth. For the most part, it's not. It's just that they've carved a niche, based upon business leaders being too scatterbrained to care or to take into account how this *excess headcount* is generating revenue or is just a drain on a cost center.

Thus, as this firm took off, one of my main contributions, aside from being in the starting crew, was that I'd guided the senior partners to not rely upon industry experts, so that fiefdoms don't grow, reducing the P/L statement. The idea was that in order to attract and retain the best prop traders, the guys who bring home the bacon, the bonus pool had to be skewed in their favor over a cascading hierarchy of so-called experts. The strategy has apparently worked and we've been doing quite well for the past few years.

So once you're not a trader, then what's one's role? It's all sales because we need to corral clients monies and give 'em a sense that they're special. We play this game, day after day, month after month. In the end, our traders have more capital to work with, the P/L & bonuses grow (of course traders getting more of it than us), and our book value increases with the hope of a merger with a larger firm down the road.

Rin says

Whenever I meet folks, who're actually worker bees like equity analyst, tax consultant, etc, part of what they do is project this *aura*, that their knowledge is secret, elite, and so-forth.

Rin says

what's one's role? It's all sales because we need to corral clients monies and give 'em a sense that they're special.

In other words you cut people who are doing commodity jobs by not buying into their sales pitches, and then turn around and do a sales pitch to your own client to project that *aura* that your special, elite, etc...

I guess human beings not being very rational, there will always be money to be made BSing.

What percent of hedge funds beat the SPY consistently?

Heraclitusstudent says

Investing could well be a fully automated function.

Given enough information, programs will take over.

I dissagree, that is, I don't see that as a certainty, any more than I think that one day there will not be humans who can consistently beat the best computer chess programs.

But the best human traders will use trading programs extensively.

Heraclitusstudent says

What percent of hedge funds beat the SPY consistently?

What does that even mean ? Protracted bear markets occur. During those times, a majority of hedge funds will beat the SPY. Obviously, in a year that the stock market goes up 20% you wouldn't even expect many hedge funds to do better.

Heraclitusstudent says

In other words you cut people who are doing commodity jobs by not buying into their sales pitches, and then turn around and do a sales pitch to your own client to project that *aura* that your special, elite, etc...

I guess human beings not being very rational, there will always be money to be made BSing.

That's not the point.

The point was that executives, on the whole, do not like this notion of employees. Thus, the idea that software can automate roles/tasks is enticing to most business owners & their executive suites. This is why I'd made this thread. Ppl do not control whether or not they have a job. It's the top dogs in corporations who set the trends and if/when tools like IBM Watson infiltrate the white collar space, watch out! We'll be seeing a mass dystopia among formerly secure white collar professions.

Heraclitusstudent says

What percent of hedge funds beat the SPY consistently?

Usually, under 15%, I believe, esp during bullish cycles.

marcus says

any more than I think that one day there will not be humans who can consistently beat the best computer chess programs.

Humm... you don't think computers consistently beat humans at chess?

Heraclitusstudent says

marcus says

any more than I think that one day there will not be humans who can consistently beat the best computer chess programs.

Humm... you don't think computers consistently beat humans at chess?

Wasn't chess settled already, back with Deep Blue and Kasparov in the 90s.

THe best chess players against the best computer chess programs ? Draw at best, for the computers (usually). So no, I don't think the best computers beat the best chess players consistently.

If a human was allowed to use a computer, against a computer, and the human computer team would certainly win.

Likewise trading will be done by humans with computers as tools. It already is.

Rin says

Wasn't chess settled already, back with Deep Blue and Kasparov in the 90s.

All that was settled was that computers could beat the best chess players, sometimes. And that was using conventional human time controls, a huge advantage for the computer.

Rin says

It's the top dogs in corporations who set the trends and if/when tools like IBM Watson infiltrate the white collar space, watch out!

I see your point. But the value the top dogs add themselves is in large part bringing all these human skills together.

Once they are just sales people sitting on a layer of commoditized automated operations, they may find their businesses themselves are becoming commodities for their customers.

marcus says

THe best chess players against the best computer chess programs ? Draw at best, for the computers (usually). SO no, I don't think the best computers beat the best chess players consistently.

You're kidding right?
Kasparov got his ass kicked in the 90's.
Now almost 20 yrs later, it wouldn't even be close.

marcus says

Rin says

Wasn't chess settled already, back with Deep Blue and Kasparov in the 90s.

All that was settled was that computers could beat the best chess players, sometimes. But not that they usually will.

Ok, but a decade & half has past and from what I'd heard, Deep Fritz has been able to keep the disparity to 2:1, even against the likes of a Kramnik and on less hardware.

Heraclitusstudent says

I see your point. But the value the top dogs add themselves is in large part bringing all these human skills together.

Once they are just sales people sitting on a layer of commoditized automated operations, they may find their businesses themselves are becoming commodities for their customers.

Yes, and the purpose of this 'sales', call it polite society *Boiler Room* antics, is to grow and merge with a larger house, down the road, and then, I get a bronze parachute while the principal partners get golden ones.

Heraclitusstudent says

You're kidding right?

Kasparov got his ass kicked in the 90's.

I guess if a slight victory in the rematch, using human time controls is what you call getting his ass kicked.

Rin says

Ok, but a decade & half has past and from what I'd heard, Deep Fritz has been able to keep the disparity to 2:1, even against the likes of a Kramnik and on less hardware.

I don't know that much about it, but I'm thinking that with more time, it would usually be a draw, or the human might still have an edge. The extra time helps the human a lot whereas it does nothing for the computer.

marcus says

Likewise trading will be done by humans with computers as tools. It already is.

Depends upon the firm.

Some famous ones like Renaissance Tech, heavily uses automated trading systems. They have a huge highly technical staff in the applied sciences, who continually tweak models and re-optimize algos. They charge a lot in management fees, which we've used to our advantage.

Others, like the one I'm in, use algos for position management and risk assessment but the traders rely more on their intuition and experience in making the final decisions. This mixture seems to work for us.

marcus says

I guess if a slight victory in the rematch, using human time controls is what you call getting his ass kicked.

Ok it was still close at the time. But not now.

The larger point is that a playing chess is essentially a search in a well determined space, and this is the type of thing computers are good at. Humans are still better if the space is extremely large, like go, but eventually progress in software means humans are losing.

What about trading?

What are traders doing? Sitting at a desk, getting specific information, and making decisions on simple actions, buy, sell etc... Already a large amount of the trading is done with computers, still controlled by traders, so far...

As every business transaction in the world is increasingly captured in computers in real time, the inevitable consequence is that the role of humans in trading will diminish and the role of computer increase until this is as much of a utility as routing phone calls.

Heraclitusstudent says

As every business transaction in the world is increasingly captured in computers in real time, the inevitable consequence is that the role of humans in trading will diminish and the role of computer increase until this is as much of a utility as routing phone calls.

Why do you think I'm trying to get out, so quickly. This isn't a field to be in, long term.

Afterwards, I'll be attending medical school and do my own research.

Then the crash comes.

Edit: Rin beat me to the punch with the last post.

Heraclitusstudent says

As every business transaction in the world is increasingly captured in computers in real time, the inevitable consequence is that the role of humans in trading will diminish and the role of computer increase until this is as much of a utility as routing phone calls.

I just don't know. A lot of market behavior is related to human behavior. Programs can be programed to predict human behavior, but when the humans are removed, what do you have then ? IS it more predictable ? Less? I don't know.

I understand your opinion. I just don't know. I would say at about the same time that AI gets really good, computers may trade better than humans. But there are some interesting paradoxes and bewildering thought experiments this leads to if you ponder it.

Computational power is relatively cheap, and there will be a lot of money looking for good returns. Which computers will be the ones that can best predict what this new set of circumstances lead to ? OR will it be humans that see it first ? I don't know.

Will we be polling computers for their sentiment to try to predict market tops and bottoms ?

marcus says

A lot of market behavior is related to human behavior. Programs can be programed to predict human behavior, but when the humans are removed, what do you have then ? IS it more predictable ? Less? I don't know.

I would say at about the same time that AI gets really good, computers may trade better than humans. But there are some interesting paradoxes and bewildering thought experiments this leads to if you ponder it.

Wasn't this the basis for Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" series? That mathematically speaking, the behavior of the masses could be predicted and manipulated throughout history?

marcus says

I just don't know. A lot of market behavior is related to human behavior. Programs can be programed to predict human behavior, but when the humans are removed, what do you have then ? IS it more predictable ? Less? I don't know.

Actually I think so far computers are changing the way things are done, and where the jobs are, but they have not caused massive unemployment. We are still relying massively on human labor at every levels. Even for repetitive physical tasks low wage labor in poor countries may be cheaper than robots.

The problem is real AI. We may well see rapid progress in terms of what AI can do, and such a technology would change the world radically.
This will not be a good news for most of mankind.
And I think it is coming.

Heraclitusstudent says

The problem is real AI. We may well see rapid progress in terms of what AI can do, and such a technology would change the world radically.

This will not be a good news for most of mankind.

And I think it is coming.

Yes, it's coming and it spells the doom, for white collar workers everywhere.