Posted on 09/29/2013 7:01:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The authors of this study - two academics from Oxford - aren't saying that we will definitely lose 47% of current jobs to automation. They are saying its possible as artificial intelligence - AI - becomes reality.
From Slate:
In "The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?," Frey and Osborne estimate that 47 percent of U.S. jobs are "at risk" of being automated in the next 20 years. This does not mean that they necessarily will be automated (despite the way the study has been portrayed in some media outlets)--rather, the authors argue, it is plausible over the next two decades that existing and foreseeable AI technologies could be used to cost-effectively automate those jobs out of existence. Machines may not (and probably won't) do the jobs the same way as people, however--just remember the last time you used an automated check-out system at a grocery store. There's a difference between machines doing something cheaply and doing it well. Frey and Osborne took into account the possibility of such "task simplification" in their analysis.
Which jobs are most at risk? According to The Jetsons, we should expect robots to clean our houses and do other working-class occupations that educated elites have historically looked down upon as "unskilled." But anyone who has done such a job, or has watched an episode of Undercover Boss and seen highly-paid CEOs fumble while trying to carry out the demanding minimum wage jobs usually performed by their underlings, knows that there is no such thing as unskilled labor anymore (if there ever was), especially if you are comparing humans and machines in the same breath. The gap between humans and current AI is vastly greater than the differences between humans.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I agree, the article missed several really important features of the coming of “AI”. IBM has a project that will bring a connection based electronic equivalent (in terms of connection ability) of a brain the size of a two liter bottle of pop. It will burn about 1.5 KW of energy so it could be plugged into a household outlet. IBMs view on the cognitive part...
http://www.research.ibm.com/cognitive-computing/index.shtml
Noting what Watson on Jeopardy! did and what it is being prepped for.
I think, when you combine this with some of the DARPA like projects, Big Dog, some of the powered armor, artificial feeling materials for robotic hands, and some of the perceptual recognition programs this article was not very rigorous. Assisted driving is currently on Mercedes menu. Google has self driving vehicles...as a job skill...when driving is lost as a marketable skill, how many people will not be able to get a “fast food” job?
The economics determine the use of robotics in the workplace. Labor at $9/hour may work at McDs but if the labor goes to $15/hour then a robot may all of a sudden become a viable economic alternative. When the robotic alternative drops below $9/hour...and that has to take into account all customer interactions good and bad. We are in the technology and don’t see the changes unless we look to the forgotten past. Lucy on the assembly line in “I love Lucy” isn’t really part of the current generation’s experience. Those jobs are leaving or gone. And they are certainly out of sight. My garbage truck uses a robot arm to dump the can into the truck. No one injures their back anymore, but anyone can be trained to do it...even a computer...soon. See google.
The author would never work for Wired.
DK
Cars will drive themselves. Soo you tweet your destination and pay the taxi by paypal.
True, and in the past it's always worked, in general, that the jobs lost were replaced by on average better jobs.
Unfortunately, past performance is no guarantee of future performance.
Most of the new jobs created by automation are quite literally beyond the capabilities of those laid off from the old jobs. As an example, it is likely most jobs based on driving vehicles will disappear relatively soon as vehicles drive themselves.
How many truck drivers can be effectively retrained to write apps for the iPad? Not many.
I cannot prove it, but I suspect our economy will become more and more productive at producing "stuff," but each year fewer people will be required or capable of doing the work that is still in demand.
People generally forget that 50% of the population is of below-average intelligence, and each year I believe there will be reduced demand in the market for workers of below-average intelligence.
But I hope I'm wrong.
As surely as businesses can use technology to reduce the need for man hours of effort, people can too. That's why my lawn guy can cut the lawn way faster than I can. He's got better tools than I do - a larger tractor, better mowers, and an air blower instead of a rake. And he knows how to use them very well.
The same is true for many other types of work. It used to be only businesses could afford to own computers, and hired employees to operate them. Now kids own computers and bring their own wordprocessor, spreadsheet, etc. to work.
Soon after robots are available to do complicated tasks in business, individuals will have similar robots. And then they may well send their personal robot in to the shop to work for them on Mondays and Fridays.
All of your points about future trends apply as well to individuals taking advantage of the same technology to empower themselves. We are seeing a bit of that now with how people use smart phones and internet resources to benefit themselves and enable new ways of working. But we need to see a lot of changes in education, taxation, government, and the nature of employment to take advantage of what technology has to offer.
All good points.
But I’d like to reiterate that the crucial issue is that more and more people of lower intelligence will be redundant to the real market.
The challenge is how to provide meaningful lives for people for whom there is no economic role. Past and present examples of societies with this issue (see Indian reservations, etc.) are not reason for comfort.
IMO there is a distinct possibility that capitalism and the free market, with its creative destruction, will eventually creatively destroy itself. Capitalism has had a hell of a run, 300 years or more now, depending on how you define it.
But functioning of markets is not a law of nature, it’s a law of human nature. And if the parameters within which the market must function change sufficiently, the market system may break down. At least insofar as its ability to provide for human needs other than material.
The more mandates and taxes they load onto employers the more that automation will become the better choice.
Maybe, maybe not. But as jobs become more intelligence-based, persons who cannot adapt disappear. At any rate, that is what happened in the past. Many people today who lack the mental or physical resources are kept alive by the state. Is that what we're headed towards? A society that relies on 50% to produce because the other 50% can't? Time will tell.
There is always the trade-off of time and money. If I see the clerk lanes are clogged, I immediately go the auto-teller. Plus, according to my wife who used to work at Walmart, they deliberately underman the human clerk lanes and force you to use the auto-teller. Plus, the company keeps prices lower because of lack of theft from auto-tellers who don’t steal merchandise.
Or they will substitute intelligence provided by technology for what they lack. Just like drivers who aren't good at spatial logic and map reading use GPS devices to get them to their destination, or most of us use spell checking software to reduce our need to remember how to spell infrequently used words, or tax software to figure out our taxes.
A lot of jobs that are considered "unskilled" actually have gotten easier over time with automation and technology. The mistake many in our government and pundit class make is assuming that the future job is, for example, writing software.
The challenge is how to provide meaningful lives for people for whom there is no economic role. Past and present examples of societies with this issue (see Indian reservations, etc.) are not reason for comfort.
The example you cited, Indian reservations, is indicative of what can happen when a social structure changes rapidly and the culture fails to respond, or responds in a dysfunctional way. Other examples of cultures facing similar dysfunction and challenges exist, including groups that are highly dependent on government in inner cities, refugee camps, etc.
But there are other contrary examples as well. Many primitive cultures existed in stable equilibrium for long periods of time due to a surplus of resources. In the particular situations they had most people were able to get by with limited work, and the structure of the society was able to support everyone.
Technology and increased productivity may well have similar effects in a more modern society. If automation reduces the cost of goods enough, then those who are unable to generate much themselves are still able to live a meaningful life. Put more bluntly, if productivity increases enough, then even a lazy bum will be able to afford more luxury than we have today. Just like the poor American of today has more stuff, better healthcare, and a much easier life than most Americans did 100 years ago.
The problem is not the impact of improved productivity, so much as the burden of short term thinking and a governmental and pundit class pushing the ideas of dependency on people, and blocking market opportunities.
So the 47% Romney talked about could be replaced? Serves them right I guess. :-)
That's the standard conservative POV, and I agree it has been proven true many times over the last few centuries.
But my concern is that what has worked over the last few centuries may be approaching its end.
IOW, AI may change the very rules of the game. People who are smart, driven and creative will have a great deal of demand for their services for the foreseeable future.
But I worry that those who lack one or more of the above will be SOOL. Most people just want to have a not-too-demanding job and earn a decent living without being driven or creative. Those types of jobs may be in the process of permanently disappearing.
Labor saving machinery may cause unemployment of some temporarily, but the productivity of labor of the economy as a whole will be increased,which benefits all wage earners in the long run after a period of adjustment.The increase in the productivity of labor raises the real wage rates of the average wage earner by increasing the total productive ability of the economy as a whole, which leads to an increased supply, which leads to lower prices and more buying power of consumers.
Fragile. Very fragile. There are a few who have purchased some automation with the help of government and banks, but most of them are in debt that won’t be paid. Most of the people saying that they’re replacing men with machines (while importing more products from the Asian and other Flintstones instead) won’t be able to take care of themselves.
The usual deal I see is one employee for four automated machines, however. If automation doesn’t save some labor it often doesn’t make sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.