5 ms·
> AI has made tremendous progress in just the last few years. There are very few jobs that can't be automated with technology that already exists. I'm tired of
by harryf 9y ago
> AI has made tremendous progress in just the last few years. There are very few jobs that can't be automated with technology that already exists.
I'm tired of hearing this argument again and again. It amounts to saying this...
> I did a thought experiment and in that experiment is was theoretically possible to replace humans with AI in any job. Therefore we're all fired!
This is not far from saying in a Universe containing 100 billion galaxies there are probably aliens out there willing to work for less than the minimum wage, just dying to make us all redundant! It's also theoretically possible.
But just because something is theoretically possible, doesn't mean it will actually happen. Most jobs won't get replaced with AI because humans will remain the better economic option.
The automotive industry is an exception for economic not technology reasons. There are a small number of car makers making enormous revenue selling cars that are vastly under utilised. Grabbing a share of the revenue by disrupting that industry with self-driving cars makes economic sense; the massive investment required to develop (and maintain!) self driving cars.
- Houshalter 9y agoI'm not saying it's theoretically possible. I'm saying it's absolutely possible. I'd bet money on it. The technology exists right now. It just takes time to deploy it. Right now researchers are demonstrating AIs that can learn to play video games vastly better than humans. There's not a huge leap between that and learning to control a robot. Hell I'm watching a video series right now where a random programmer builds a self driving car in GTA.
- harryf 9y agoI get your point but I still disagree. Take a job like a plumber for example. Could you replace it with AI and robots? In theory yes. Will it ever happen? No. Why not? Because it makes no economic sense to do so. Developing, testing and maintaining robots and AI capable of handling every kitchen and bathroom alone would be massively expensive and for what return? There isn't enough money in the plumbing market to justify disrupting it.
- nodnyl 9y agoThe plumber example is a good one. All the AI breakthroughs you read about seem to have simple "IO" so to speak. Even a self driving car while a challenging task, is reasonably well constrained, an effective solution might be possible with just cameras, throttle, brake and steer angle. A robot I can call about a plumbing problem, that can realize it needs to dig up a pipe in the front lawn, successfully dig up the pipe in the front lawn and fix a leak. Not to mention the rest of the things a plumber does. Now that is hard task and I can't see it being solved any time soon. Any job that has difficult "IO" is a long way from automation in my mind.
- mindcrime 9y agoGrabbing a share of the revenue by disrupting that industry with self-driving cars makes economic sense; the massive investment required to develop (and maintain!) self driving cars. Even more, there's no definite proof (yet) that self-driving cars will even "catch on" and replace traditional human driven cars at all. OK, for shipping / transport and what-not, the economic drivers are pretty clear. But considering that at least some personal driving is actually recreational and that there's no super-strong economic incentive to favor self-driving cars, it's hardly out of the realm of possibility that the self-driving cars will just be a passing fad, or will never amount to anything but a niche market. Note that I'm not saying that things will necessarily play out this way. Just pointing out that it is a realistic alternative to the prevailing "self driving cars are the future" narrative.