patrick.net

Rin says

The IBM Watson server, applied to let's say actuarial support, will be a starting point towards the tipping point where you don't need most ppl in white collar types of occupations.

I don't question whether it will become technologically possible to replace most white collar jobs with computers, and profitably (in the short term).

What I'm thinking is that somehow, this may become taboo in a sense, right around the time of that tipping point, or shortly before. One way this could occur would be if people choose to do business with companies simply because they use people. Even to pay a premium for that.

Even companies that mostly do business with other companies, if they know that ultimately demand can be traced down to the human level, and if they know that demand is needed for the economy to function, then they can agree in much the same way that people agree that polluting the local water supply is not cool, to use people even when automation is cheaper.

Who knows. Maybe it will even need to become law, as bizarre as that sounds. Everyone does their share to keep the people employed. It will be seen as better (and cheaper) than paying taxes to put everyone on the dole. Especially since without demand, they can't even make the money to pay those taxes.

The alternative would be to let the government solve the problem by having a sufficient number of government jobs to pick up the slack. I'm working under the assumption that the corporations might be able to make better use of the people. That assumption may be wrong.

Rin says

Then, something changed ... the development of information technologies and the automation of work. In the beginning, it was small stuff like calculators replacing slide rulers but then, it had expanded all over the place. Today, Gen X, as it's entering full adulthood, will be seeing many jobs disappear by retirement. In fact, I'm convinced that if one doesn't make money in the next 20 to 30 years, it's game over.

Changing technology has been with us ever since they invented the wheel. Workers in dying technologies will always be susceptible to being laid off, retraining and retirement. New generations come in and learn new skill and get jobs that never existed before. The real PROBLEM from my POV is the speed at which new technologies displace old ones. If the speed is slow enough or new skills are easily learnt the damage is contained. If not, we as a society are in trouble. We need an emphasis in job retraining, cutting back the work week and early retirement as they do in Europe to provide more opportunities to more people.

Strategist says

cutting back the work week and early retirement as they do in Europe to provide
more opportunities to more people.

That would require that pensions in the private sector return. However, currently only 18% of private sector employees have one. 401Ks are not even eligible to be withdrawn without penalty b4 age 59.5 so they are at best a bridge until social security for the early retirement purposes.

marcus says

Who knows. Maybe it will even need to become law, as bizarre as that sounds.

I think in this case, the law will be a usage, ala CPU/bandwidth index, value added tax. In other words, the stronger the AI, the more its consumption, in terms of processing power and network bandwidth. This is something that corporations will pay, so that the govt can provide some level of support for the displaced workers.

marcus says

What I'm thinking is that somehow, this may become taboo in a sense, right around the time of that tipping point, or shortly before.

Right now, it's almost taboo, not to have some affinity for an electronic device or two. If I told you back in 2000, that you'd be walking around streets and malls in the year 2015, and 1/2 to 2/3s of the ppl will be engrossed with some smart device or tablet, you'd think I was grossly exaggerating. Yet somehow, it's happened. Now, add a digital personal assistant software or two, currently in Beta state, to these devices. Ppl will soon be having conversations with their computers, more often than with other persons, on the other side of the IM.

Now, the tipping point, as we've hinted, is no longer a simple target, like a Black Friday or the Day that Hong Kong was handed over from the British. It's a continuous sliding cascade of days, months, and years, where more and more of our actual culture & society, start to discover that they can't live without their mobile expert systems. And this may also include virtual reality relationships as well, given the fact that ppl are under so much stress and now, really don't get a chance to meet someone, since everyone's plugged in, and not relaxing in a town center.

Strategist says

If not, we as a society are in trouble.

Yes, we are.

Strategist says

Changing technology has been with us ever since they invented the wheel. Workers in dying technologies will always be susceptible to being laid off, retraining and retirement. New generations come in and learn new skill and get jobs that never existed before.

Until now, most new technology were about doing faster and better things that were already done before. Planting food, extracting ore, producing metals, assembling stuff. The "new" jobs were evolutions of the old ones even if sometime radically changed.

At some point we will see technologies that simply don't require *any* humans. It's not even a question of speed. It will be an integrated self-maintaining machine from ore to recycling.

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

Changing technology has been with us ever since they invented the wheel. Workers in dying technologies will always be susceptible to being laid off, retraining and retirement. New generations come in and learn new skill and get jobs that never existed before.

Until now, most new technology were about doing faster and better things that were already done before. Planting food, extracting ore, producing metals, assembling stuff. The "new" jobs were evolutions of the old ones even if sometime radically changed.

At some point we will see technologies that simply don't require *any* humans. It's not even a question of speed. It will be an integrated self-maintaining machine from ore to recycling.

At that point the robots are the slaves, we are the masters. Let them do the work, we can pursue hobbies. I will require a beautiful female robot to feed me grapes in an island in the Caribbean.

marcus says

One way this could occur would be if people choose to do business with companies simply because they use people. Even to pay a premium for that.

Current people and companies would never do these societal changes: they go to what benefits them. i.e. the cheaper alternative. Even if they understand that demand come from employees, they hope employees of other companies will provide that demand. This is already the case now: some rich corporations could give larger salaries to generate end-demand, the way Ford did. But this is not happening.

Another way that things could balance out would be that as automation ends a lot of white collar jobs, it also eventually creates as many new jobs, related to new products and services that people want that new technologies make possible.

But if that's not the case, then there are basically 3 possibilities:

1) Corporations choose or are in some way nearly forced to create enough jobs as I described above

2) Government play this role, putting people to productive tasks and compensates them for this.

3) A lot of people are on the dole, without having to do anything for that support.

Option 3 isn't even good for the people receiving the support, so I doubt it goes that way.

Heraclitusstudent says

marcus says

One way this could occur would be if people choose to do business with companies simply because they use people. Even to pay a premium for that.

Current people and companies would never do these societal changes

I like electronic devices for some things. E.g. I will go to an ATM over a teller(just to get cash), because it's more efficient.

But if I have a question that has details and nuance to it, I'd MUCH MUCH
rather deal with a person. In fact there are no computers at present that can do this.

All I was saying was that when it gets to the point where a computer can answer my questions as well as a qualified person, but no better, then I probably would choose talking to a person. Especially if I also thought that it was what was best for the world. I might even pay a slight premium for dealing with a real qualified human rather than a computer.

marcus says

But if I have a question that has details and nuance to it, I'd MUCH MUCH

rather deal with a person. In fact there are no computers at present that can do this.

If you recall Terminator II, well over 20+ years ago... when the kid John Connor was beginning to bond with Arnold, Sara Connor/Linda Hamilton was astonished.

Because although she hated AI, she knew that this machine would forever be patient, loyal, and protective of her son over every potential step dad she'd met along her path. And thus, she had a change of heart whereas earlier, she was constantly dour & pessimistic about everything. Of course her final change occurred shortly afterwards but that was a major observation on her part.

In essence, that's the problem you're facing. You see, people tend to not be patient with each other. You can almost tell, when a telephone attendant or a store clerk, is miffed and just wants the interaction to be over. With strong AI, it'll have all the patience in the world with even the most sulking customers. I believe what'll happen is exactly what happened in T2, ppl will bond with their electronic therapist, client relations support, and so forth. In fact, they'd probably have even more electronic friends/acquaintances, esp once they leave college or high school.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/technology-destroying-jobs-135027783.html

BlackRock's Fink says, “In the United States, we've been living with technology transforming the workforce, and most of developed countries have been living with a transformational technology (of) the workforce for many years,” Fink said on Wednesday at the Deutsche Bank Global Financial Services conference. “But what is going on in the developing world that we don't spend enough time (focusing) on: technology's now gutting jobs just as fast in the developing world.”

Thus, even my own overlords are worried about a peasant uprising.

This sort of article is a staple of bad economic times, along with the "today's kids will not attain the living standard of their parents" articles.

I know for sure that there were such articles in the 1930s - kind of obvious time to say such things - and '89-'92 was a banner time for this sort of writing. Titles like "In 20 years, a job may become a status symbol."

I remember wondering 20 years ago that if the ideal company has no employees, and all companies were ideal, who would buy any products?

So far, the working population has endured multiple waves of innovation during which whole categories of work ceased to exist.

Not to say it won't all come true at some point: look at the basic blue-collar workers, who are doing god-knows-what these days. For the types of people who drive trucks or work on assembly lines, how many decent jobs are left?

Iosef V HydroCabron says

So far, the working population has endured multiple waves of innovation during which whole categories of work ceased to exist.

The difference, which started in the late 80s/early 90s is that executives all decided that cutting jobs, was usually the best way to improve the balance sheet and add productivity.

Before then, cutting jobs was mainly based upon genuine business losses, it was not a cavalier management strategy.

Today, I'm always hearing from exec types and yes, anything to let go of 1% to 10% is always on the table. If IBM Watson or *nextgen supercomputing machine algo* whatever, can clear out a room of 25 actuaries and deliver the same results as having two actuarial fellows on full time W-2s, execs will gladly sign up for $500K/yr in licensing fees to save on $6M of salaries.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

if the ideal company has no employees, and all companies were ideal, who would buy any products?

The point is that most execs don't care about the above. For them, worrying about the long term macroeconomic indications for AI is for politicians.

Yet despite all this talk of automation replacing human workers you can still walk into just about any pharmacy in America and have your prescription filled by a human staff. The technology to replace these workers already exists, the human workers command high salaries, the need for 24/7/365 mistake free, high security performance high, yet still there are very few robot pharmacists out there.

WTF?

New Renter says

The technology to replace these workers already exists, the human workers command high salaries, the need for 24/7/365 mistake free, high security performance high, yet still there are very few robot pharmacists out there.

WTF?

At the moment, heath care is not about tech but about licensing and regulation. The pharmacist is the legal intermediary between the customer and the Oxycontin. Thus, each pharmacy will have at least one PharmD there, at any time, for legal reasons.

Likewise, at a clinic, the day when a nurse or a PA can do 100% of an internal medicine doctor's job, with a handheld Watson MD tablet, the GP role will role down to exactly one physician, the one who'll rubberstamp each referral to a specialist or declare that a cold is a cold & send the guy home. Today, when you see your GP for 5-10 mins, in the future, it'll be 20 seconds over a telescreen. His only purpose is so that a clinic doesn't get shutdown for not having one generalist MD on staff.

Understood but the banking industry must have faced similar security issues in the 80s when ATMs were on the table.

A human pharmacist does not provide any added security, indeed less as a human can be robbed easier than a robot.

As to providing the right medication to a customer a pharmacist knows only what is faxed over by the prescribing physician. No human added value there.

USF already has a robot pharmacict so the legal issues may not be as insurmountable as all that.

New Renter says

Understood but the banking industry must have faced similar security issues in the 80s when ATMs were on the table.

Different strokes, it's not the actual security of protecting the Oxycontin from the junkies but the fact that there's an APA, who's given a pharmacist the gatekeeper status.

For the bank, their issue is more business than anything else. If ATMs were continually hacked then customers would stop signing up for ATM cards and would only conduct business at the counter with a Driver's License and a live teller.

New Renter says

USF already has a robot pharmacict so the legal issues may not be as insurmountable as all that.

Yes, but I believe that all university hospitals have a staff PharmD, just in case. You see, that's just the whole point. That single staff member covers the legal requirements, even if he doesn't have a real job.

New Renter says

Yet despite all this talk of automation replacing human workers you can still walk into just about any pharmacy in America and have your prescription filled by a human staff. The technology to replace these workers already exists, the human workers command high salaries, the need for 24/7/365 mistake free, high security performance high, yet still there are very few robot pharmacists out there.

WTF?

I don't see why you cannot have a robot doctor in some cases.
Show your face on camera, answer a few questions and get your prescription.

Strategist says

New Renter says

Yet despite all this talk of automation replacing human workers you can still walk into just about any pharmacy in America and have your prescription filled by a human staff. The technology to replace these workers already exists, the human workers command high salaries, the need for 24/7/365 mistake free, high security performance high, yet still there are very few robot pharmacists out there.

WTF?

I don't see why you cannot have a robot doctor in some cases.

Show your face on camera, answer a few questions and get your prescription.

For the most part, in terms of internal medicine, the physician's assistant has already co-opted that role. Thus, a $100K per year high end nurse person has already replaced a $180K/yr MD GP. It's only the fact that legally speaking, the MD needs to conclude the diagnosis, is why he's kept around as a generalist. In the future, all doctors will have to become specialists to keep their jobs.

Rin says

I don't see why you cannot have a robot doctor in some cases.


Show your face on camera, answer a few questions and get your prescription.

For the most part, in terms of internal medicine, the physician's assistant has already co-opted that role. Thus, a $100K per year high end nurse person has already replaced a $180K/yr MD GP. It's only the fact that legally speaking, the MD needs to conclude the diagnosis, is why he's kept around as a generalist. In the future, all doctors will have to become specialists to keep their jobs.

And if a doctor in India is giving me a prescription the cost would be really low. How much do doctors make there? Cannot be more then what a burger flipper makes in San Francisco.

Strategist says

And if a doctor in India is giving me a prescription the cost would be really low. How much do doctors make there? Cannot be more then what a burger flipper makes in San Francisco.

In order for a clinic to set this up, all they'll need to do is have a ship, some 15 miles off the coast of any US state, and they'll be in international waters. Then, they can practice medicine without being busted by the govt. Of course, if they bring the Rx drugs on-land, they may get busted for trafficking but that's another story.

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

Changing technology has been with us ever since they invented the wheel. Workers in dying technologies will always be susceptible to being laid off, retraining and retirement. New generations come in and learn new skill and get jobs that never existed before.

Until now, most new technology were about doing faster and better things that were already done before. Planting food, extracting ore, producing metals, assembling stuff. The "new" jobs were evolutions of the old ones even if sometime radically changed.

At some point we will see technologies that simply don't require *any* humans. It's not even a question of speed. It will be an integrated self-maintaining machine from ore to recycling.

And the new technologies can think. Previous generations had dumb technology. Now we have Watson and it's ilk. This throws jobs that require human brain power and discretion onto the scrap heap. As AI evolves there won't be anything a human can do better than a computer. We are well on our way to this future and we have to figure out what we will do once no human or only a tiny minority of human artists are qualified to work. Humans have spent thousands of years primarily defining ourselves by our labor and our abilities to acquire resources and now we're on the loosing end of that proposition. I have no idea how this is going to end.

Rin says

Strategist says

And if a doctor in India is giving me a prescription the cost would be really low. How much do doctors make there? Cannot be more then what a burger flipper makes in San Francisco.

In order for a clinic to set this up, all they'll need to do is have a ship, some 15 miles off the coast of any US state, and they'll be in international waters. Then, they can practice medicine without being busted by the govt. Of course, if they bring the Rx drugs on-land, they may get busted for trafficking but that's another story.

What a great idea. You just solved our screwed up medical system. Patients are always going to countries like India and Singapore for surgery at 1/10th the cost. It's easier to get on a boat a few miles off shore.
The prescription can come by mail from somewhere else.

Strategist says

Patients are always going to countries like India and Singapore for surgery at 1/10th the cost. It's easier to get on a boat a few miles off shore.

It better be calm seas if someone's cutting me open.

Let's start with regular medicine on the ship first but then, fly ppl onto a foreign land, for intensive elective surgeries.

futuresmc says

We are well on our way to this future and we have to figure out what we will do once no human or only a tiny minority of human artists are qualified to work. Humans have spent thousands of years primarily defining ourselves by our labor and our abilities to acquire resources and now we're on the loosing end of that proposition. I have no idea how this is going to end.

It's either anarchy or a full blown welfare state.

futuresmc says

And the new technologies can think. Previous generations had dumb technology. Now we have Watson and it's ilk. This throws jobs that require human brain power and discretion onto the scrap heap. As AI evolves there won't be anything a human can do better than a computer. We are well on our way to this future and we have to figure out what we will do once no human or only a tiny minority of human artists are qualified to work. Humans have spent thousands of years primarily defining ourselves by our labor and our abilities to acquire resources and now we're on the loosing end of that proposition. I have no idea how this is going to end.

If artificial intelligence becomes superior to natural intelligence, all humans will be traveling, partying and pursuing hobbies. The money would come from what the smart robots produce for us.

Strategist says

If artificial intelligence becomes superior to natural intelligence, all humans will be traveling, partying and pursuing hobbies. The money would come from what the smart robots produce for us.

But in the beginning, all it needs to be is smart enough, to replace many of the dumb white collar jobs out there. I mean c'mon, does the avg person use any multivariable calculus on his job?

Rin says

Strategist says

If artificial intelligence becomes superior to natural intelligence, all humans will be traveling, partying and pursuing hobbies. The money would come from what the smart robots produce for us.

But in the beginning, all it needs to be is smart enough, to replace many of the dumb white collar jobs out there. I mean c'mon, does the avg person use any multivariable calculus on his job?

Most people cannot even add.

Strategist says

Most people cannot even add.

Thus, we need no where near the so-called Strong AI singularity to completely vanquish the current white collar job market.

Rin says

Strategist says

Most people cannot even add.

Thus, we need no where near the so-called Strong AI singularity to completely vanquish the current white collar job market.

I didn't know what Strong Al is...had to look it up. You have to come down to my level. I know what multi variable regression and calculus is, because I did the shit. Like you said, not once, ever, did I have a need for it. I'm so glad I forgot it all.
You are right, the white collar job market with low skills is soon to be extinct. Look what happened to all the typists.

Strategist says

You are right, the white collar job market with low skills is soon to be extinct

Much of the white collar world is 'low' skills, even if they mimic themselves as high end.

How does a typically Oracle DBA think? 'What's the costliest SQL statement? What's the typical daily load?'

How about a tax consultant, 'What's the implication of a jurisdiction based transaction? How about applying those charges to another business quarter?'

The above can both earn six figures but for the most part, their real talent has little to do with creativity. They're a part of the whole 'dog & pony' show of corporate America. At some point in time, AI will replace many persons like the aforementioned despite not having reached the full intelligence of a so-called human, nevermind a Leonardo DaVinci.

Rin says

Strategist says

You are right, the white collar job market with low skills is soon to be extinct

Much of the white collar world is 'low' skills, even if they mimic themselves as high end.

How does a typically Oracle DBA think? 'What's the costliest SQL statement? What's the typical daily load?'

How about a tax consultant, 'What's the implication of a jurisdiction based transaction? How about applying those charges to another business quarter?'

The above can both earn six figures but for the most part, their real talent has little to do with creativity. They're a part of the whole 'dog & pony' show of corporate America. At some point in time, AI will replace many persons like the aforementioned despite not having reached the full intelligence of a so-called human, nevermind a Leonardo DaVinci.

Many low level white collar jobs are more in danger of being replaced by low paid workers in third world countries, rather then robots. As the wages of third world workers rise, robots will become more of a threat, even to the third world workers.
How would a robot replace a creative mind like Leonardo Da Vinci, or even getting a simple idea? Creativity is a living thing attribute.

Strategist says

How would a robot replace a creative mind like Leonardo Da Vinci, or even getting a simple idea? Creativity is a living thing attribute.

The point is that Leonardo Da Vinci is not a 'job'. He's an independently wealthy person who follows his passions.

Back in Leo's day, he was sponsored by a nobleman. He wasn't an engineer for Honeywell corporation.

Today, most while collar types are corporate b*tches, not Da Vincis.

To be a Renaissance man, you need your own source of funding, independent of corporate things like billable hours or licensing revenues.

"I was reading a book the other day. It's all about civilization or something. A nutty kind of a book. Do you know that the guy says that machinery is going to take the place of every profession?"

--Dinner at Eight, 1934

Rin says

Today, most while collar types are corporate b*tches, not Da Vincis.

In other words, Watson on a desktop = end of white collar-dom.

Sure, a lot of ppl will try to become salesmen a/o some-sort-of lead role but as in musical chairs, those jobs will not be open to all the displaced so-called knowledge workers.

In my actuary example, the two certified actuarial fellows, in place of running a dept of 25 persons, will simply have Watson do all the analysis, pricing, and projections for them. Even the two fellows could one day be replaced but for the sake of appearance and legal statute, it's better if the owners keep that skeleton crew around. So there you have it, 27 jobs compressed into 2. This will happen, industry after industry.

Why would the big 3 accounting firms need to recruit from a 100 universities when all those auditing tasks could be done by a Watson server? Yes, each of the remaining senior auditors will simply be the human face for the Fortune 5000 clients who want to speak to someone about their GL and compliance issues. Again it's a 10 to 1 compression ratio of former human jobs to future human jobs.

Rin says

Again it's a 10 to 1 compression ratio of former human jobs to future human jobs.

Is no one worried? Or has everyone accepted my prognostication?

Rin says

Rin says

Again it's a 10 to 1 compression ratio of former human jobs to future human jobs.

Is no one worried? Or has everyone accepted my prognostication?

Nope, no worries.
By the time it happens, I will be with Pamela Anderson, Britney Spears and Madonna.

New Renter says

Yet despite all this talk of automation replacing human workers you can still walk into just about any pharmacy in America and have your prescription filled by a human staff. The technology to replace these workers already exists, the human workers command high salaries, the need for 24/7/365 mistake free, high security performance high, yet still there are very few robot pharmacists out there.

WTF?

You already have geniuses like Vinod Khosla advocating machines replacing humans as doctors - I'm sure it makes a good speech. The opinions of billionaires are broadcast no matter how stupid or insane they are.

But I don't see people addressing the basic problem: What happens to all the humans who can't get a job because technology has automated and/or replaced it?

I'm glad I didn't grow up in this era - it sucks.

monkframe says

But I don't see people addressing the basic problem: What happens to all the humans who can't get a job because technology has automated and/or replaced it?

What you don't seem to understand is that the heads of corporations, don't care about these cultural and macroeconomic issues. Their concern is their bottomline and their golden parachutes.

There seems to be this nonsensical notion that corporate execs care about maintaining a particular number of employees. Sorry, but that's just not the case.

What's going to happen in reality, is that the dystopia will kick in, before the politicians decide to go for the long term welfare state.

monkframe says

You already have geniuses like Vinod Khosla advocating machines replacing humans as doctors - I'm sure it makes a good speech.

there are some people who are lucky.. right place right time and their are real geniuses... Vinod is just lucky but not very bright.