1 minute ago, Boogyman said:

No there is not. I made the money, I'll spend it how I please. For the record I'm not even a car guy and I live fairly simple life.

You’re getting defensive.  I’m not saying I know what is ethical.  I completely empower you, the money earner, to decide what you think is right.  But that’s still an ethical consideration.  What you think is right

1 minute ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

You’re getting defensive.  I’m not saying I know what is ethical.  I completely empower you, the money earner, to decide what you think is right.  But that’s still an ethical consideration.  What you think is right

Not defensive at all. And your last sentence is pretty much what every single human on earth does anyway so I don't even know what point you are trying to make anymore.

2 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Let’s go back to the car.  The problem with luxury vehicles I gather is usually they require a lot of man hours from particularly skilled workers to create.  People with that sort of skill could be using their hands repairing hearts or potentially anything else that requires great skill.  Instead you would have them create you a vehicle that has stuff you don’t really care about except to impress other people so they don’t think your poor.

I don't want any parts of a vehicle made by hand.

Vehicles are manufactured by engineers and software nerds. 

One of the downsides of the modern economy is that those with the ability for skilled labor but who may not have a strong disposition towards math and logic are underemployed. 

A capitalist economy will never waste potential in the way you fear. But those with an innate ability for space and design may find it harder to find a place.

I don't have any idea what we're going to do with those who lack both mental acumen and physical ability to labor. Darwin says they should just die out.

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I don't want any parts of a vehicle made by hand.

Vehicles are manufactured by engineers and software nerds. 

Simply ignorant. Sure, there are major components where precision and repeatability is key, like the engine, or any gearing, but there’s also aspects where the human hand is preferable, like leather trim and upholstery. Humans are the weak link in any system, but they can also provide a level of comfort, and nuance, that machines can’t.

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I don't want any parts of a vehicle made by hand.

Vehicles are manufactured by engineers and software nerds. 

One of the downsides of the modern economy is that those with the ability for skilled labor but who may not have a strong disposition towards math and logic are underemployed. 

A capitalist economy will never waste potential in the way you fear. But those with an innate ability for space and design may find it harder to find a place.

I don't have any idea what we're going to do with those who lack both mental acumen and physical ability to labor. Darwin says they should just die out.

That last bit isn’t really a problem because it happens over a long time period where relatives can take care of certain people they like but who have no skills.   Then in a few decades gradually you’ll probably see fewer of them produced in the first place.  So it’s not like we have to kill anyone

3 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Simply ignorant. Sure, there are major components where precision and repeatability is key, like the engine, or any gearing, but there’s also aspects where the human hand is preferable, like leather trim and upholstery. Humans are the weak link in any system, but they can also provide a level of comfort, and nuance, that machines can’t.

Ok.

I'm referring to the mechanical parts of the engine.

Didn't mean to offend anybody.

 

12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Ok.

I'm referring to the mechanical parts of the engine.

Didn't mean to offend anybody.

 

We all (well mostly all) know what you meant. Eventually there will either be a drastic drop in population (how? Who knows?) or there will need to be a basic living wage or some other system where basic living needs have no cost

UBI will be the death of what makes our system dominant.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

UBI will be the death of what makes our system dominant.

It almost had to happen in some form as tech advances, no? I mean that or using humans as prey for sport hunts?

22 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

It almost had to happen in some form as tech advances, no? I mean that or using humans as prey for sport hunts?

Just let them be to figure it out for themselves. Many will fail and thats ok.

7 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Just let them be to figure it out for themselves. Many will fail and thats ok.

That may be how it passes as well. Just saying eventually "menial labor" will eventually be a thing of the past, and the jobs people work to just get by will not exist. Perhaps new industries that do not require special skills or much physicality will pop into existence.

2 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

That may be how it passes as well. Just saying eventually "menial labor" will eventually be a thing of the past, and the jobs people work to just get by will not exist. Perhaps new industries that do not require special skills or much physicality will pop into existence.

Service cant be outsourced at least not physical. But these jobs are not intended to support a family. So how do you convince dumb people to stop making dumb decisions? Only by letting them suffer the consequences.

24 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Service cant be outsourced at least not physical. But these jobs are not intended to support a family. So how do you convince dumb people to stop making dumb decisions? Only by letting them suffer the consequences.

Yeah I get all that and I agree. But there are lots of labor intensive jobs that pay enough to raise a family but only require mediocre skill. When those go you will have people that want to work but no jobs available for them. Maybe that is really far away, maybe not.

 

Also, AI may eventually replace a lot of high paying, white collar jobs someday. My wife wrote a couple papers on AI bots future roles in her profession last year which made this thought pop in my head.

AI is a long long way from doing that. because ultimately you have the same humans building the models and underpinning assumptions. all models are wrong - some are useful. AI will be limited for quite a while by the limitations of our knowledge. Take drug development. I've watched AI attempt to make inroads in both R&D and clinical data, with very little to show for it. where it has accelerated things would be areas like data analysis - protein folding/x-ray crystallography being one area I can say it has sped things up. but you're talking about hours instead of a week. hardly earth shattering. sequencing would be another. 

we're not limited by power and capacity, but by the boundaries of what we know. AI is unlikely to move that needle too much. its not a question of horsepower. we cant just bulldozer through these advanced questions.

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

AI is a long long way from doing that. because ultimately you have the same humans building the models and underpinning assumptions. all models are wrong - some are useful. AI will be limited for quite a while by the limitations of our knowledge. Take drug development. I've watched AI attempt to make inroads in both R&D and clinical data, with very little to show for it. where it has accelerated things would be areas like data analysis - protein folding/x-ray crystallography being one area I can say it has sped things up. but you're talking about hours instead of a week. hardly earth shattering. sequencing would be another. 

we're not limited by power and capacity, but by the boundaries of what we know. AI is unlikely to move that needle too much. its not a question of horsepower. we cant just bulldozer through these advanced questions.

So research and development type jobs, sure. Pretty far away. But lots of other jobs are not as far away from being replaced. The general topic of her papers, for instance, were AI in the quality and compliance workspace in pharmaceuticals. This is a huge area of employment, from 2 year degrees to masters and higher. Obviously I am using this as a specific example but you can get the idea. 

2 hours ago, Boogyman said:

It almost had to happen in some form as tech advances, no? I mean that or using humans as prey for sport hunts?

No. We have been at nearly full employment for a generation, yet all we hear about is how automation is going to take all the jobs? 

Don't be a Luddite.

Not saying it's impossible, but there's no signs of it happening. Our economy needs consumers. 

Academics like to write what they dont understand. Much like consultants…

to quote Jules, that sure sounds great, but that aint the truth. 
 

AI cant understand human error or intent. Its algorithms are what turns customs into a mess. Meta analysis of clinical or outcomes data? Gingo. Where is consistently fails is its inability to see something is missing. Flagging redundancy or missing a checkbox is barely valuable as it mostly creates rework loops instead of adding actual value or insight.

55 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

AI is a long long way from doing that. because ultimately you have the same humans building the models and underpinning assumptions. all models are wrong - some are useful. AI will be limited for quite a while by the limitations of our knowledge. Take drug development. I've watched AI attempt to make inroads in both R&D and clinical data, with very little to show for it. where it has accelerated things would be areas like data analysis - protein folding/x-ray crystallography being one area I can say it has sped things up. but you're talking about hours instead of a week. hardly earth shattering. sequencing would be another. 

we're not limited by power and capacity, but by the boundaries of what we know. AI is unlikely to move that needle too much. its not a question of horsepower. we cant just bulldozer through these advanced questions.

Yes. AI is a boogeyman. Useful for political speeches but little more. Yang should know better, and I'm glad he lost the NYC Mayoral race.

Most of what is considered "AI" is simple machine learning. It's literally fishing for patterns. 

Most things are only mildly predictable.

Machines are a long way from being able to do more than react to stimuli. Let alone think and plan.

29 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

No. We have been at nearly full employment for a generation, yet all we hear about is how automation is going to take all the jobs? 

Don't be a Luddite.

Not saying it's impossible, but there's no signs of it happening. Our economy needs consumers. 

I'm obviously talking pretty far down the line. And I'm just spit balling here for conversation purposes, no need to call me a Luddite. I embrace tech advances.

28 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Yes. AI is a boogeyman. Useful for political speeches but little more. Yang should know better, and I'm glad he lost the NYC Mayoral race.

Most of what is considered "AI" is simple machine learning. It's literally fishing for patterns. 

Most things are only mildly predictable.

Machines are a long way from being able to do more than react to stimuli. Let alone think and plan.

You would be surprised how many jobs revolve around "patterns" in some way. AI bots are already replacing job functions. It's not a stretch that those replaced functions become replaced or much reduced manpower.

Again, a small example. At my former job we used to order batch records, a person would assign them a batch number, log it, and print it out. A few years ago they implemented a system where we would email a form requesting batch sheets to a bot. The bot would print, assign numbers and log it. Now that's one job function in a relatively small plant. I am simply going past this to the next step. It doesn't seem all that far to me, considering Email wasn't even a thing (well maybe barely) when I was born 44 years ago.

5 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

You would be surprised how many jobs revolve around "patterns" in some way. AI bots are already replacing job functions. It's not a stretch that those replaced functions become replaced or much reduced manpower.

Again, a small example. At my former job we used to order batch records, a person would assign them a batch number, log it, and print it out. A few years ago they implemented a system where we would email a form requesting batch sheets to a bot. The bot would print, assign numbers and log it. Now that's one job function in a relatively small plant. I am simply going past this to the next step. It doesn't seem all that far to me, considering Email wasn't even a thing (well maybe barely) when I was born 44 years ago.

Neither were all the coding and IT jobs

35 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Academics like to write what they dont understand. Much like consultants…

to quote Jules, that sure sounds great, but that aint the truth. 
 

AI cant understand human error or intent. Its algorithms are what turns customs into a mess. Meta analysis of clinical or outcomes data? Gingo. Where is consistently fails is its inability to see something is missing. Flagging redundancy or missing a checkbox is barely valuable as it mostly creates rework loops instead of adding actual value or insight.

All you are doing is listing all the tasks that cannot be replaced by tech right now. A lot can. And when the costs line up they will be, as they should. Like I said before, I've sent an email to get tasks done by a computer that I used to ask a person to do. 

3 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Neither were all the coding and IT jobs

True, that's why I threw out the idea of new industries popping up to replace jobs that may be more feasible by a machine or a bot, and was wondering what those might be.

5 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

All you are doing is listing all the tasks that cannot be replaced by tech right now. A lot can. And when the costs line up they will be, as they should. Like I said before, I've sent an email to get tasks done by a computer that I used to ask a person to do. 

Everyone has

you also deal with people you never had to in the past

1 hour ago, Boogyman said:

You would be surprised how many jobs revolve around "patterns" in some way. AI bots are already replacing job functions. It's not a stretch that those replaced functions become replaced or much reduced manpower.

Again, a small example. At my former job we used to order batch records, a person would assign them a batch number, log it, and print it out. A few years ago they implemented a system where we would email a form requesting batch sheets to a bot. The bot would print, assign numbers and log it. Now that's one job function in a relatively small plant. I am simply going past this to the next step. It doesn't seem all that far to me, considering Email wasn't even a thing (well maybe barely) when I was born 44 years ago.

That's the type of work I do. So I'm not surprised. Automation is very different from AI. ML can fill in some blanks at decision points in algorithms, but you don't have true AI.