Signs That a Job Is Due to Be Automated
fastcompany.com
fastcompany.com
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/jobs-that-robots-will-take-20...
It will be interesting to see the first businesses that are run almost entirely by algorithms. If that becomes common, or the norm, why would we even need separate companies? Maybe the algorithms will merge their "businesses." Maybe Skynet starts not via military algorithms but business algorithms.
EDIT: I recently left a medical device company, whose products without a doubt save and improve lives. This business was started decades ago, with two obvious goals: make money, and improving lives. Part of the direction and goals for that company has always been service to society (humans), and I know that many or most of the people working there think of it in exactly that way: they're serving society (and happily making money while doing it). That's how I felt about it.
What incentive would an algorithm have for starting and running a business like that? Particularly as fewer humans are required to serve that and other "businesses" (processes?), might such a company be seen as a waste of resources? Why not just let most of the humans die?
But then, following that thought to its sci-fi conclusion, once human civilization has all but disappeared, what would the purpose of any Skynet-like business algorithm be? Would it start shutting itself off, business/process by business/process?
An algorithm might do some of those things, if the human that created it wanted that to be the case, or they didn't but the implementation was buggy.
A human writing an algorithm to run an automated medical device company would presumably include some terms which would ensure that the company's resources were used in a way that served the public good, to the extent that that was compatible with whatever other objectives that human had for the algorithm, such as making profit, or avoiding kinds of research that human considered immoral.
A human who writes an algorithm to run a company which prioritises "something" over the survival of human civilisation and resists any attempt to adjust its priorities once the error is obvious enough to be noticed, and then runs that algorithm on a system with the capability to actually cause the end of human civilization, is a super-villain or a super-idiot.
Both of which exist, and have enough effect that they have to be considered and guarded against. And sometimes they succeed. :)
If we design and/or generate an algorithm for starting and running business, that's what it'll do. There's no extra "incentive" needed.
"Workers not meeting productivity metrics are at risk of automation." - The Mgt.
It's a great time in AI and ML, don't risk another AI winter by creating unreasonable expectations.
I read an article about how you don't need to go to the doctor anymore for most problems (persistent cough, fever, etc) because you can just pull up your smartphone and video-conference with a doctor 150 miles away.
Another example is Coursera and the like. You have Ivy League schools recording their lectures. Well... if I can learn CS 101 from MIT for free...
It's super convenient, and also means we in aggregate need a lot less doctors and teachers and, well, everything else. But those we need we REALLY REALLY need.
So then the question is... what the hell are we all going to do with ourselves? and... if you only need the super-experts... how do you ever get the chance to be one?
Pretty interesting stuff! Exciting times we're coming to live in.
This is an interesting train of thought, and I don't think it plays out that way for most people.
My son recently started college. At the orientation sessions, it was stressed to us parents over and over that students are more likely to succeed (graduate) if they interact frequently with professors, assistants and other school resources.
The poor graduation rate of US colleges is getting a lot of attention. Some people graduate, some people don't. According to the studies cited at our orientation, which sounded reasonable to this tired father sitting in a lecture hall absorbing Too Much Information, the ones that do are much more likely to have interacted and integrated, and the ones that don't are much less likely to have done so.
Which leads me to ask the question: where is the interaction and integration in Coursera et al? It sounds great for a la carte, targeted needs, but maybe not for the broader in-discipline education you get from a degree program. Of course, the question is begged, do you need a degree program to succeed? I think for most average people (and most people are closer to average than not, what with the bell curve and all), the answer is probably yes.
Today's NYTimes has an interesting article on this very subject. Spoiler: engagement is key (though not sufficient in itself, obviously). http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/opinion/sunday/conquering-...
True! Abstractly, 100% perfectly true for everyone.
However... most people don't really learn well in a non-interactive environment where they most be completely self-directed. So in practical terms, it's far from ideal for most learners. It's not a coincidence that non-completion rates in MOOCs are quite high.
"I can watch recorded CS 101 lectures from MIT" is really not the same as "I learned CS 101 while attending MIT and being in an instructional environment".
That said, completion rates do matter. If completion rates remain so sharply low, it will suggest that perhaps MOOCs are not quite the perfect replacement for instructional institutions they are often cast as.
After all, success rate is the difference between telling a randomly selected American kid "Anyone can become President!" and them actually doing so.
You will have to set some point in the course at which you begin to compare, say for example you will start to compare all students who have completed the first half or third of the class.
Comparing an MIT MOOC to night school is much more accurate. Completion rates there suck too.
In fact it's quite likely that only the MIT educated candidate would get as far as an interview.
This might change if employers see a benefit but at the moment a degree from a recognized institution will trump any amount of actual expertise for most jobs unless you can show decades of relevant experience.
Edit: s/Harvard/MIT/
For the most part, that doesn't really eliminate medical jobs, though; the doctor will spend the same time whether the patient is local or remote.
What could reduce those jobs would be automated diagnosis systems, but I really doubt they'll be allowed to issue prescriptions autonomously for a long, long time.
I'm amused that the canonical Sysadmin humor series (BOFH) always had two, the master and the apprentice, er, PFY.
Like most things "about to be automated". "The most frequent jo in America is about to get automated". Yeah. In about 100 years of constant infrastructure investment. About 80% of truck driving will be automated.
Doesn't quite ring like other titles though, does it? Or the wet fantasies?
Or even less than that. At the level of everything's automated just hire another company or even the DC you're housed in to handle the odd issue.
Exciting? Hardly. When you have everything you have nothing. How do you get over the asocial aspect of self learning?
I don't see any real meaning in this statement. The "nothing" of having all your material needs and wants met at your whim, is better than having to struggle all day every day just to survive - except for people whose entire value system is built around the virtue of hard work and struggle, or for people who think it's valuable and important that humans rely on other humans, and therefore like arrangements in which individuals will fail on their own and are forced to cooperate with others in order to survive.
Those value systems are not inherently right, and not everyone holds them. Why is there anything to "get over" about the not-necessarily-social aspects of individual freedom and opportunity?
Meetups for the weekly and conferences for the monthly / quarterly.
There are a number of slack channels I'm on for various interests. That gives me the daily.
All said there is no substitute for real human interaction. But you have to play the cards you are dealt.
Right, just like one programmer can ultimately generate millions of programs. That's why now that computers are so cheap and abundant, there are so few programming jobs left.
Where running faster means being better at operating the new machines.