could your job be done by a powerful computer?

xp - Brodie I wouldn't want a robot handling my luggage and I certainly wouldn't tip one, so I think your job is safe.

like here would be a sweet assignment: write an ILX bot that can some ILX-centric version of the Turing Test.

I'll work on the Geir related subroutines if you do the Ned related ones.

I'm in a sales-related position (basically, a sales rep without the commissions, but also without the pressure to "make numbers"), and part of my job involves pretending to be interested in discussions of golf and college football. I am beyond certain that a computer could do a far better job of that than me.

Google has already tested out computer controlled cars

They aren't the first. They probably won't be the last. But attaining a product that can be sold is not going to happen anytime in the next 20 years, and I am guessing longer than that, unless we see a sharp decrease in personal vehicles and their replacement almost entirely by mass transit.

Not to mention convincing people to trust them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeIy2MHZ0xE

I like how when he says the line, "Anger is more useful than despair," he sounds exactly like Werner Herzog.

Someone's still gotta run said powerful computers, and thats why I work in IT. Well, thats what I keep telling myself anyway.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. It depends on which comes first: computers that can look after the other computers, and even design new computers and robots, or computers that can perform every other type of job. I have a feeling some more menial, low wage jobs will be safe for far longer than IT.

I'm a graphic designer and the more I think about it, I'm sure my job could be done by a computer. Design is irrelevant to computers, so they would have no point of reference for evaluating the quality of their output, and a human would be needed to judge the results. But you could fairly easily create a system that would try out different things, allow a human to provide feedback, and the computer could then learn the person's taste in the process. After some rudimentary training from expert designers, such a system could probably be used directly by the client so they instantly get a bunch of acceptable variations and pick and choose what they want. Over time and through machine learning (and depending on the clients), I bet the system would eventually get to the point where its initial output was at a high enough level that no human intervention would be needed.

my dream would be for all cars to be computer controlled -- if my current commute to work could involve sleeping or reading i would be a much less stressed person i think

They aren't the first. They probably won't be the last. But attaining a product that can be sold is not going to happen anytime in the next 20 years, and I am guessing longer than that, unless we see a sharp decrease in personal vehicles and their replacement almost entirely by mass transit.

We need a log of confident long-term predictions that might turn out entirely false. Regarding mass transit, computer controlled motorway driving could be a perfect sweet spot between that and personal vehicles - you can have all the comfort of your own car, the ability to get to any destination at any time you like, but the actual motorway driving, which I'm sure many regard as something of a chore, done for you. And 'platoons' of cars on autopilot can actually increase road capacity - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon_(automobile)

work in IT Testing so reckon by its very nature it cannot.

Robocop 5: Stacking shelves at nights because being a policeman doesn't pay very well

Yeah, I think a powerful computer with arms could stack shelves. Or hopefully will soon enough that no-one has to do such an inane job in the future. And then they all turn out to be faulty and explode, leading to the great Tesco fire and food riots of 2028.

I assume that the brain can be modelled as a complex (and probably random) physical system and the job is to predict its probable behaviour in response to stimuli;

yeah i tend to agree with this.

No, because computers can't tell clients that "you're fucking stupid for pissing your money away like that because you won't use the policies that we've formulated on your behalf" with a degree of tact.

I am a computer programmer. My current job is to find ways to automate processes that a lot of the end users would probably be surprised to hear needed someone to work on instead of them just working by magic.

So, someone's still got to do that for these supercomputers, I guess. But on the other hand, in my current case, the end users are pretty much right - even basic, obvious things have been a surprising pain in the arse to get automated. So my current specific job definitely contains large elements that a computer really ought to be able to do.

in the year 2400, computers will be the aristocracy

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

my job bumping this thread was done by a powerful computer

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

so I guess 27 / 58 of us will have full-time jobs

I mean a few of us will have to feed the robots too I guess

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/our-unpaid-extra-shadow-work.html

ilx is at 17% unemployment apparently! that's gonna hurt obama in the election

my job could be better done by a powerful computer tbh, implacability a bonus

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/11/artificial-intelligence

They already have robots that can lift and carry patients, and I'm assuming that changing their diapers will be the next automated task.

Lawyers are in a similar boat now that smart algorithms can search case law, evaluate the issues at hand and summarise the results. Machines have already shown they can perform legal discovery for a fraction of the cost of human professionals—and do so with far greater thoroughness than lawyers and paralegals usually manage.

Anyone know what this is referring to? I'm certain this is a crazy exaggeration of what the software does - I'd guess they're just talking about a fancy search engine whose results need to be filtered/summarised by experts - but I'm curious anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html?pagewanted=all

here's an article on that.

I think the fact that law firms get to bill by the hour and don't strictly compete on price is one reason why places might be hesitant to adopt this tech. but as w/ siri etc. this software is gonna improve and the efficiency gains are gonna be too attractive to pass up.

my job being done by a computer looks like horse_ebooks, basically

ya but what if google invests a billion dollars developing snarky blogger AI

Thanks for the link iatee - as I figured, it's mostly retrieval with a bit of network analysis and sentiment. You're still going to need humans to make sense of everything (for the time being anyway) but I see how it gets rid of a lot of high-paid routine work.

i've never seen that legal software, but it makes sense. it won't replace lawyers, though. for instance, software that "evaluates the issues at hand," and maybe predicts a likely outcome, depends on how a human lawyer inputs and describes the facts (a client could also input and describe facts, but presumably they're far more biased than the lawyer). and a client may reject the predicted outcome from such a program. and many times, a client pursues a litigation strategy for reasons arguably apart from the likelihood of success (e.g., to gain leverage in negotiations; as a matter of pride, not economics; to achieve a broader institutional goal, regardless of the outcome in a given case). finally, software can't craft persuasive, fact-sensitive briefs. even if it could, you'd need human lawyers to refine the work and argue it before a Judge.

yeah I don't think anyone thinks computers can completely replace lawyers anytime soon, right now this is mostly w/r/t the act of legal discovery. that's work done by struggling temp lawyers and is gonna make the struggling temp lawyer market even more miserable.

otoh I think where computers will replace lawyers-lawyering will be people willing to look at increasingly sophisticated online legal info sites instead of consulting w/ a lawyer over something small.

i guess. broadly speaking, that phenomenon is already true: people or businesses with small issues "wing-it" many times. i'm a litigator, so i think this type of software would impact me less (it could impact the consulting work i do (e.g., advising companies or people about how to avoid litigation problems)).

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012/01/bifurcated-society-technology-jobs.html

And one notable area of consumption that by definition differentiates the classes, that of conspicuous consumption, is going by the wayside. Yes, I believe we are seeing the twilight of the era of conspicuous consumption. Not that Gucci and Chanel are going to go out of business, but for most people that sort of status statement is increasingly becoming irrelevant. No matter what you are wearing and driving, a far better picture of you and your status is just a few clicks away. You don’t have to drive a Ferrari to let everyone know you are rich and successful. If you are driving a Ferrari, what it will convey is that you – who as everyone who cares to Google you knows is running a hedge fund and is worth tons of money – must like a Ferrari.

I'm not sure I buy this, but it's an interesting argument

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002656-the-three-laws-future-employment

Law #1: People will get jobs doing things that computers can’t do. Law #2: A global market place will result in lower pay and fewer opportunities for many careers. (But also in cheaper and better products and a higher standard of living for American consumers.) Law #3: Professional people will more likely be freelancers and less likely to have a steady job.

y/n

I predict more adult babies.

these arguments have been around since, if not the industrial revolution, then at least the time of the production line, iirc?

i can't remember how it works out, something along the lines of increased leisure time & consumption & existential angst, keeping modern economies running on the triple engines of hbo, ten buck lattes and pyschotherapy.

who will the american consumers be

unless it means machines

that consume americans

'american consumers' will be a hit tv show devised by cowell where awful people by crap in front of a crowd then tv viewers vote for the awful person buying the crap they liked the most.

Because we will all have so much leisure time, this will get 3 billion viewers, 24 hrs a day

these arguments have been around since, if not the industrial revolution, then at least the time of the production line, iirc?

yeah but technological change back then is not comparable to the kinda change that's happening now - machines that can replace physical labor vs. machines that can beat people at jeopardy

Inventing a machine that replaces physical labour has a considerably greater impact on humankind than a machine that wins jeopardy

I wouldn't argue w/ that, but that led to a world where people could do service sector jobs, the machine that wins jeopardy doing your legal paperwork or whatever frees up labor but doesn't necessarily create demand for a new type of labor

no, but it'll probably create demand & space for non-necessary labour

there's no economic principle that suggests that that demand for non-necessary labor will make up for what's lost

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/04/can-the-computers-at-narrative-science-replace-paid-writers/255631/

I work as an admin assistant in the civil service so yes it fucking could

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/03/sam-altman-is-not-blithering-idiot.html

http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/4340.html

Could a powerful computer artificially inseminate goats?

NB: This is not my job at present, but I am merely curious about this in a general sort of way.

it could not naturally inseminate goats

what if they were using nanotechnology?

or if the computer was really goat hot?

na-a-a-a-anotechnology

i'll get me coat

It would have to be a very powerful computer

hahaha i met a bright-eyed young engineer at work who told me he'd come up with a logarithm that "does what you guys do"

There are a few recurrent aspects of my job that could totally be done by a script or handful of scripts and it is immensely frustrating to me that they are not. Like, that's what computers are for, surely, to do tedious repetitive tasks. It's 2013. What the fuck.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/krugman-sympathy-for-the-luddites.html

i met a project management guru the other week who is flatly, calmly convinced that robots will replace at least 50% of the jobs people currently have and that it would have happened sooner except no one knows how to replace the lost demand

maybe we can find aliens to buy our products and let the preponderance of humanity starve