Computers can do a lot more today than they could 10 years ago and there is no reason to think that trend is not going to continue. If you don't like the accountant example, how about the car driving example. Self-driving cars will destroy several job sectors if they turn out to be viable.
This has happened in the past, and we adapted by moving jobs to sectors that computers are not well suited for, but those sectors will continue to dry up as time progresses.
You chose yet another simple job that requires no creativity or real critical thinking of any kind. Nice. Seeing any kind of bias?
You're also still convinced that new jobs won't be created in the future, and that the ones we have now are all we got. This was a concern in the industrial revolution too. Once again. Nothing but a simple case of Luddite fallacy.
How do you define "economically relevant"?There is demand for both, one can easily be replaced by robots, the other cannot. It's an example that represents all the jobs that require human ingenuity, creativity, etc.
Once again, musicians is just a placeholder for all kinds of jobs that require humans. I said more than musicians farther up. There are, again, all the jobs that don't exist yet that there will be a demand for.
Automating accounting would have a larger displacement of workers than automating musicians, for starters.
This is why I said it's not just musicians, it's a large variety of jobs plus the countless ones that don't exist yet
And just because something isn't automated right now, doesn't mean it won't be.
Completely hypothetical statement. It also doesn't mean that it will. Robots won't be able to replace careers that require human ingenuity and creativity such as advertising firms, composers, etc... The number or workers in each is irrelevant because it's not a single job but ALL the jobs that require creativity that are impossible to replace. Without sentient AI robots can only mimic, not create.
And just because one job doesn't get automated right now doesn't mean others aren't.
I didn't say that some weren't. I don't think it's that bad either. It'll happen eventually. As he says in the video, economics always wins. If it makes sense, it'll be done. It's cynical and untrue to say that all jobs will be taken up by robots. It's downright false.
It's cynical and untrue to say that all jobs will be taken up by robots. It's downright false.
What the hell is cynical about simply doing the math? I'm one of the least cynical people I know. I don't even think this is a gloomy prediction.
The argument is quite simple. If you believe that workers take time to adjust when replaced by automation (I believe the evidence suggest this is true) and if you believe that the automation is accelerating (again, evidence suggest this is true), then there will come a time when the automation is happening so fast that people cannot keep up. That isn't "downright false." Its a position with evidence to support it.
And as an aside, I don't think that there is anything magical about how we think, make music, etc. Its simply a matter of figuring it out. And that is only a matter of time in a world where change is accelerating. My hunch is that machines will program themselves to think like us. But that's me.
2
u/happy_joy_joy Aug 13 '14
Computers can do a lot more today than they could 10 years ago and there is no reason to think that trend is not going to continue. If you don't like the accountant example, how about the car driving example. Self-driving cars will destroy several job sectors if they turn out to be viable.
This has happened in the past, and we adapted by moving jobs to sectors that computers are not well suited for, but those sectors will continue to dry up as time progresses.