Will you lose your job to a robot?

[C C]

https://theweek.com/articles/866339/lose-job-robot

EXCERPT: . . . Law firms now use artificial intelligence (AI) — ­sophisticated computer programs that can learn from ­experience — to conduct contract analysis, hunt for client conflicts, and even craft litigation strategy. McDon­ald's is replacing drive-thru workers with order-taking AI, and cashiers with self-checkout kiosks. Walmart is automating truck unloading, while Cal­i­for­nia farms are employing robots to harvest lettuce. From 1990 to 2007, robots replaced about 670,000 U.S. jobs [...] by 2030 robots will have forced 16 million to 54 million ­Americans — as many as a third of U.S. ­workers — to retrain for a new job.

What jobs are most at risk? Generally speaking, those involving repetitive physical tasks in predictable environments. ... The Palm Beach County Court recently began using four robots ... to read court filings, fill out docket sheets, and input data into its case management system. In theory, at least 91 percent of a short-order cook's tasks can be automated using existing technology. It's 100 percent for a dredge operator, plasterer, stucco mason, motion picture projectionist, and logging equipment operator.

Conversely, jobs that involve managing people, creative thinking, and social interaction will see less automation. But even the jobs you'd think are safe aren't. The Guardian Australia newspaper published its first article this year written entirely by a computer. The Indian e-­commerce site Myntra recently created one of its best-selling T-shirts by delegating the design to two algorithms that analyzed previous designs and invented new ones. Sales of AI-designed shirts are "growing at 100 percent," said Ananth Narayanan, Myntra's CEO. "It's working."

History has shown that previous apocalyptic warnings about technology wiping out the need for human labor have proved untrue ... So will the impact be modest? Not necessarily. The futurist Martin Ford acknowledges the "long record of false alarms," but argues that this time is different. The pace of automation, he says, is no longer linear, but exponential, like the growth in computing capacity predicted by Moore's Law. The economy, Ford says, will not have time to create new professions to absorb the tens of millions of workers displaced by automation. By some estimates, Amer­i­ca is less than a decade away from autonomous ­vehicles — and yet 3.5 million Amer­i­cans still work as truck drivers. White-collar jobs are also at risk for the first time, Ford says. On Wall Street, the number of financial workers has already plunged by 50,000 since 2000, as computers can process 100,000 transactions in a tenth of a second. Radiologists may lose their job analyzing medical images. Displaced workers might find new jobs, but at much lower salaries. (MORE)

[billvon]

Law firms now use artificial intelligence (AI) — ­sophisticated computer programs that can learn from ­experience — to conduct contract analysis, hunt for client conflicts, and even craft litigation strategy. McDon­ald's is replacing drive-thru workers with order-taking AI, and cashiers with self-checkout kiosks.

Well, none of those are robots.  But the underlying point is valid - we are going to need a lot less labor very soon.  Solutions could be Universal Basic Income, a 30 or 20 hour work week, or a switch away from a capitalist model.  All three have big problems, of course.

[Syne]

But the underlying point is valid - we are going to need a lot less labor very soon.  Solutions could be Universal Basic Income, a 30 or 20 hour work week, or a switch away from a capitalist model.  All three have big problems, of course.

No, the needs for the labor will just change, not go away. AI will only substitute mental labor, which will free it up to handle more complex problems AI cannot handle. The same with physical labor, where robotics can substitute routine labor, freeing it up to do more problem solving labor...like repairing said robotics.

Just like the advent of the steam shovel didn't require UBI, 20-30 hour work week, or socialism, the advent of AI and robotic won't either.

[billvon]

But the underlying point is valid - we are going to need a lot less labor very soon.  Solutions could be Universal Basic Income, a 30 or 20 hour work week, or a switch away from a capitalist model.  All three have big problems, of course.

No, the needs for the labor will just change, not go away. AI will only substitute mental labor, which will free it up to handle more complex problems AI cannot handle. The same with physical labor, where robotics can substitute routine labor, freeing it up to do more problem solving labor...like repairing said robotics.

Just like the advent of the steam shovel didn't require UBI, 20-30 hour work week, or socialism, the advent of AI and robotic won't either.

It will go away.  There is no longer a need for ANYONE to take your money at a store.  No "better jobs" at the store.  Automation replaces people.  We will soon see this with pilots and truck drivers as well.

It's nice to imagine that therefore people will be freed up to be more creative and whatnot.  But Walmart doesn't need a dozen former checkout clerks dreaming up new ways to post pictures of their cats, and they CERTAINLY don't want them all involved in changing their business model.  Of those ten clerks, you might get one retrained to fix the checkout machines.  Now you only need jobs for 9.

Steam shovels absolutely replaced workers, and indeed, there are plenty of examples of government planners using a hundred people with shovels instead of the better solution because that was the only way to save their jobs.  You can mandate such things, of course - but again, that's socialism.

[Syne]

But the underlying point is valid - we are going to need a lot less labor very soon.  Solutions could be Universal Basic Income, a 30 or 20 hour work week, or a switch away from a capitalist model.  All three have big problems, of course.

No, the needs for the labor will just change, not go away. AI will only substitute mental labor, which will free it up to handle more complex problems AI cannot handle. The same with physical labor, where robotics can substitute routine labor, freeing it up to do more problem solving labor...like repairing said robotics.

Just like the advent of the steam shovel didn't require UBI, 20-30 hour work week, or socialism, the advent of AI and robotic won't either.

It will go away.  There is no longer a need for ANYONE to take your money at a store.  No "better jobs" at the store.  Automation replaces people.  We will soon see this with pilots and truck drivers as well.

It's nice to imagine that therefore people will be freed up to be more creative and whatnot.  But Walmart doesn't need a dozen former checkout clerks dreaming up new ways to post pictures of their cats, and they CERTAINLY don't want them all involved in changing their business model.  Of those ten clerks, you might get one retrained to fix the checkout machines.  Now you only need jobs for 9.

Steam shovels absolutely replaced workers, and indeed, there are plenty of examples of government planners using a hundred people with shovels instead of the better solution because that was the only way to save their jobs.  You can mandate such things, of course - but again, that's socialism.

I guess I'm finally getting an answer to this simple question: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-7470-p...l#pid31016

Who said there would be better jobs "at the store"? That's a straw man and an artificial qualifier.

Just like laborers in the fields had to learn to either operate a tractor, work industrial assembly line (not "in the field"), etc., obsolete unskilled jobs often do require retraining.

No one but you said that people would "be freed up to be more creative". That's another straw man.

"Shovel ready jobs" is ineffective policy. If people didn't find new work, there would still be a need for that kind of government intervention today and those 9 people would still be out of work. Both preposterous claims.

[Leigha]

I doubt I'd lose my job to a robot. I'm part of a marketing design team, so...unless robots become as creative as meee...then, maybe.

From what I've noticed, robots are filling jobs that are repetitive in skill...and transactional. (think replacing the person who takes your order at the Starbucks drive thru window, or is part of the assembly line of an automotive factory, etc)

[Zinjanthropos]

Combine job loss with an anti-aging pill and you can be unemployed for 100+ years. Might create a strain on Old Age Security, Pensions, Unemployment Insurance etc. I predict massive human protests but how can gov's not try to keep up with the other guy. Laws will change . Would you trust an AI to fight a war for you, especially against the other guy's AI.....whose side are they on?

[billvon]

Who said there would be better jobs "at the store"? That's a straw man and an artificial qualifier.

Just like laborers in the fields had to learn to either operate a tractor, work industrial assembly line (not "in the field"), etc., obsolete unskilled jobs often do require retraining.

No one but you said that people would "be freed up to be more creative". That's another straw man.

"Shovel ready jobs" is ineffective policy. If people didn't find new work, there would still be a need for that kind of government intervention today and those 9 people would still be out of work. Both preposterous claims.

Yes.  Up until now, machines let people be more productive.  A man driving a steam shovel could be as productive as 100 men with shovels.  

But now we are seeing a step change.  Now we need zero men to be as productive as 100 men with shovels.  In mines we are already seeing driverless trucks.  That means fewer truck drivers.  Improvements in logistics let stores be more efficient, with more goods available, faster/easier ways to buy them (think instant credit) and new ways to get the item home (i.e. free home delivery.)  And with each new improvement you needed more people - more checkout clerks, more phone operators, more delivery drivers.

That no longer holds.  Now you can grow your store and hire FEWER clerks and FEWER drivers.

obsolete unskilled jobs often do require retraining. 

It's a nice fantasy to think that anyone can migrate to jobs requiring more and more skills.  History has demonstrated that that is not true.

[Syne]

Who said there would be better jobs "at the store"? That's a straw man and an artificial qualifier.

Just like laborers in the fields had to learn to either operate a tractor, work industrial assembly line (not "in the field"), etc., obsolete unskilled jobs often do require retraining.

No one but you said that people would "be freed up to be more creative". That's another straw man.

"Shovel ready jobs" is ineffective policy. If people didn't find new work, there would still be a need for that kind of government intervention today and those 9 people would still be out of work. Both preposterous claims.

Yes.  Up until now, machines let people be more productive.  A man driving a steam shovel could be as productive as 100 men with shovels.  

But now we are seeing a step change.  Now we need zero men to be as productive as 100 men with shovels.  In mines we are already seeing driverless trucks.  That means fewer truck drivers.  Improvements in logistics let stores be more efficient, with more goods available, faster/easier ways to buy them (think instant credit) and new ways to get the item home (i.e. free home delivery.)  And with each new improvement you needed more people - more checkout clerks, more phone operators, more delivery drivers.

That no longer holds.  Now you can grow your store and hire FEWER clerks and FEWER drivers.

Not true. You still need maintenance (second law of thermodynamics), so this is just another step toward making people more productive. One man maintaining a fleet of automated power shovels. You seem to be of the misguided notion that truck drivers can only ever drive trucks, checkout clerks checkout, etc.. I'm not even sure if there is a job where a person only ever does checkout, and doesn't stock, clean, etc. as well. In which case, they could move on to stocking vending machines (even team up with the drivers) or janitorial work.

It does still hold. Now you can grow your store, but only if you have the IT support to run/maintain/secure/design your website, people to stock your shelves (if you're still doing brick and mortar...we still have physical books, which were predicted to go away too), and/or people to advertise your business is an increasingly competitive market, with less overhead.

obsolete unskilled jobs often do require retraining. 

It's a nice fantasy to think that anyone can migrate to jobs requiring more and more skills.  History has demonstrated that that is not true.

First, no one said "anyone" could acquire more/new skills. Another in your very long list of straw men. But some skills, or lack thereof, are transferable. Fruit and vegetable picking jobs are only looking into automation because of labor shortages.
Second, do you have any specific examples, or just talking out of your ass? O_o Humans have a very long history of successfully adapting.