3 ms·

A brief dig through different occupations reveals that much if not all of this is made up garbage not worthy of rational consideration. Technical writers are 8

A brief dig through different occupations reveals that much if not all of this is made up garbage not worthy of rational consideration. Technical writers are 89%, maids and housekeepers are 69%, but "commercial pilots" are 55% and "airline pilots, copilots" are only 18%? Hah. Sure. 30% for "Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists"? 20% for "Funeral Service Managers, Directors, Morticians, and Undertakers"? 34% for "Detectives and Criminal Investigators"? 28% for "Athletes and Sports Competitors"? What?

andrepd 9y ago
Only 0.4% for physicians?
whatusername 9y ago
1.2% for pharmacists 95% for Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers
CannisterFlux 9y ago
Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners are 91% "You are doomed". Off-the-shelf instruments are notoriously badly set up, and that'd probably be the kind of "good enough" level that robots could get to. For anything more organic you'd need a human luthier or whatever. After all a human is going to play the instrument, not a robot, given musicians themselves are at a 4% "totally safe" level. Barbers are at 80%. The amount of R&D that would be needed couldn't be justified by the low waged worker the robot would replace ($24k avg apparently). There's just so much hidden complexity with all these fine-motor skill jobs. It reminds me of those old physics problems "assuming a perfectly spherical head...". Nice idea, but in practice the incentives to create a robot barber just aren't there.
- dagw 9y ago
  Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners are 91% I guess it's a question of how to interpret the numbers. Does it mean that there is a 91% chance that no one will work as a Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners or that we will only need 9% or the current Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners. The former sounds very unlikely, while the latter sounds quite reasonable.

andrepd 9y ago

Only 0.4% for physicians?

whatusername 9y ago

1.2% for pharmacists 95% for Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers

CannisterFlux 9y ago

Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners are 91% "You are doomed". Off-the-shelf instruments are notoriously badly set up, and that'd probably be the kind of "good enough" level that robots could get to. For anything more organic you'd need a human luthier or whatever. After all a human is going to play the instrument, not a robot, given musicians themselves are at a 4% "totally safe" level. Barbers are at 80%. The amount of R&D that would be needed couldn't be justified by the low waged worker the robot would replace ($24k avg apparently). There's just so much hidden complexity with all these fine-motor skill jobs. It reminds me of those old physics problems "assuming a perfectly spherical head...". Nice idea, but in practice the incentives to create a robot barber just aren't there.

dagw 9y ago
Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners are 91% I guess it's a question of how to interpret the numbers. Does it mean that there is a 91% chance that no one will work as a Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners or that we will only need 9% or the current Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners. The former sounds very unlikely, while the latter sounds quite reasonable.