We all think our jobs are safe from automation
technologyreview.com
technologyreview.com
So far these all still involve a person operating them. However, what if things get good enough that you don't need massive teams of people as before? There are so many things that can be automated. There is no way the thought of being safe from automation applies to 94% of people. Just shows how naive/deluded we can be as people. If this poll's sample represents the average population's view on the topic we are in for a rude awakening. If that is the case it would seem majority of us are just coasting along in la-la land instead of being aware.
With Roomba quality software a blower, an electric pressure washer, a few soap reservoirs, valves and maybe a squeegee can do the majority (by time) of a janitor's job in a bathroom more thoroughly. Being able to press "go" and have it find the floor drain, wash-down everything in the room below a set height and then herd all the water to the floor drain with the squeegee and blower and make a noise when it's done or needs to be refilled.
You're not replacing the janitor just narrowing the scope of their job. Putting up the toilet seats and letting a robot foam and pressure wash them down with some chemical you can't sell in California (so you know it must be good) is a big improvement over cleaning toilets manually, especially for anyone with back problems.
She doesn't consider AI as much of a threat... but I don't think she fully understands the leaps and bounds by which software is getting better at detecting patterns in images. As a software developer, I know that my field is still in its infancy. I wonder what it's like to look back on your profession, knowing your generation is the last of its kind.
Image/pattern recognition is already being used intensively and the only thing that keeps it from being used more is legislation and humans.
Having more than a thousand moles and having had two melanomas I am still hoping for the arrival of a system that can do complete scan of me and automatically figure out the areas of concern.
Currently I am at Sloan Memorial and using Molesafe as a more manual way to do the same. My dermatologist on of the best with regards to melanomas in the world using colonoscopy to see if there are any melanomic cells, there is even a 3model of me in blue spedos.
But I really would feel much better when they start taking the shots regularly and have the computer look for the odd ones out.
That's why, although I LOVE what I do, part of me thinks I need to make sure I'm in a position to move into management at some point - because I see a lot less ability for automation in areas that require "people" skills over the next few decades. On the other hand, I LOVE what I do. What's that French phrase? C'est la vie? I think it translates into "you're screwed, one way or another."
I can already see a future, a dark future, where pre-trained models on pictures of people are sold on darkweb and you can just plug the model and hook it up to some live cam in your area and stalk anyone. This is almost if not already possible today and I can't imagine Facebook not already having something caple of this.
I have to wonder though: if >50% of people currently employed lose their jobs to automation... who will be there to fuel the consumerist economy? Who will buy ads on Facebook and Google that peddle widgets and services for which there no more consumers with disposable income to market them to?
Ideally nobody has to work and everything you'd ever want is free.
but in reality, people who don't have investments in the automation will just starve and die, while people who _do_ have such investments reap many rewards.
Ford famously gave employees relatively high wages and weekends off specifically so they had money and reason (free time) to buy the very products they manufactured.
How would this work? You can’t invest in shares, if companies have no consumers. You can’t invest in property if no one can afford rent. You would need not financial independence but independence from finance
In fact, turns out Scott Adams wrote a post on the topic: [1]
> ... My prediction that robots will dominate management before they dominate blue collar jobs is based on The Dilbert Principle which observes that the least skilled employees are promoted to management. You need your most skilled people doing interface design, engineering, and the hard stuff. Management is mostly about optimizing resource allocation, and that is something a robot can learn relatively easily, at least compared to most skilled jobs.
> You might wonder if a robot can have enough leadership qualities to be a manager. I would point out that most humans in management have zero leadership skills, so the bar isn’t set high ...
[1] http://blog.dilbert.com/2012/12/19/the-future-of-middle-mana...
Slide 58 to be exact - https://www.slideshare.net/mintek/future-of-engineering-and-...
Between 2015 and 2022 most of the industries on the list are expected to go from a 5-10% automation rate to a 60-90% automation rate.
I'm trying to stay a step ahead and work "above the algorithm" - learning skills that will always be needed and can't be automated (creativity, team management, translating analytics into actionable insight).
It's difficult to tell how quickly the need to adapt is and the best way to adapt to automation.
(If that is not clear enough - a scientific way to extract all your available economic margin by ways of manipulating you. Of course in a race with competitors to the bottom, knifing each other with the same algorithms. I should write a dystopic scifi book.)
I'd recommend looking into ways to create/review/optimise automations. That way you get to blend tech and marketing, and get to lead on integration of new technologies.
What will likely happen is that individual marketers will be able to do more with less, so marketing teams may well slim down to individuals who simply coordinate the tech involved.
There are still parts through that need a human touch - such as creative work and translating data into insights/analysis for various stakeholders.
Thing is, this has been the case for at least 200 years, dating from the Luddites. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite , "Luddites feared that the time spent learning the skills of their craft would go to waste as machines would replace their role in the industry. ... The Luddites were not afraid of technology and did not attempt to eliminate technology out of fear. Their goal was instead to gain a better bargaining position with their employers."
(As a reminder, "It is a misconception that the Luddites protested against the machinery itself in an attempt to halt the progress of technology.")
Or Phil Ochs "Automation Song" from 1964, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSTnuXv_3Y
Now you've got new machines for to take my place
And you tell me it's not mine to share.
A strong labor union, or a more socialist form of government interested in supporting labor and workers, could help reduce the hurt of disruption, either by effective trade negotiations or higher taxes on those profiting from automation.
That's why your average dishwasher is blissfully unaware of what's coming for a job function that's relatively simple while computer programmers may be similarly optimistic - but for good reason.