5 ms·

I happen to agree with this. Have a listen to the last twimlai.com podcast about "deep genomics". From an ML point of view, they're still finding their way, but

by wwarner 10y ago

I happen to agree with this. Have a listen to the last twimlai.com podcast about "deep genomics". From an ML point of view, they're still finding their way, but from an economic point of view two things seem clear. 1) ML + genetics are going to have a massive economic impact. 2) Not a single job will be lost as a result of advancement, as the sector doesn't yet exist. Whenever I hear someone say there won't be any jobs after AI surpasses some threshold, I always ask them how many jobs were lost as a result of railroads? Was it so awful that the Pony Express went out of business after the transcontinental railroad was finished? Or that all those scribes had to quit copying their mistakes over and over again after the printing press came around?

ewjordan 10y ago
And every person that tells you that there won't be any jobs after AI passes a threshold has already considered your railroad question, and decided that for various reasons the AI shift is different. There's a big difference between crossing a threshold where machines do one or two specific things better than we do and crossing one where they do everything better. There's certainly an argument about whether or not that's likely or imminent, but it's impossible to deny that strong, singularity-style AI, if discovered, would be a lot more of a disruption to our usefulness than railroads were.
- wwarner 10y ago
  And genomics?
- ianai 10y ago
  They probably won't do tasks that people want a human to do better. i.e. I think there will always be human card dealers because, despite being able to gamble against a machine just as well, some people prefer to gamble against a human. There are many customer-centric jobs such as that. I've got no idea how that will work out.
- wwarner 10y ago
  I'm simply pointing out that there are lots of applications of AI that will create work. And to those that say that machines will just solve all those problems by themselves, I would ask them to produce some evidence besides an estimated trajectory.

by wwarner 10y ago

ewjordan 10y ago

And every person that tells you that there won't be any jobs after AI passes a threshold has already considered your railroad question, and decided that for various reasons the AI shift is different. There's a big difference between crossing a threshold where machines do one or two specific things better than we do and crossing one where they do everything better. There's certainly an argument about whether or not that's likely or imminent, but it's impossible to deny that strong, singularity-style AI, if discovered, would be a lot more of a disruption to our usefulness than railroads were.

wwarner 10y ago
And genomics?
ianai 10y ago
They probably won't do tasks that people want a human to do better. i.e. I think there will always be human card dealers because, despite being able to gamble against a machine just as well, some people prefer to gamble against a human. There are many customer-centric jobs such as that. I've got no idea how that will work out.
wwarner 10y ago
I'm simply pointing out that there are lots of applications of AI that will create work. And to those that say that machines will just solve all those problems by themselves, I would ask them to produce some evidence besides an estimated trajectory.