5 ms·

Is there really a lot of AI replacing highly trained professionals? There is a lot of hype around the idea, but I don't see any evidence of it happening in larg

Is there really a lot of AI replacing highly trained professionals? There is a lot of hype around the idea, but I don't see any evidence of it happening in large scale. Using an AI tool will increase efficiency of course, but we've always had new developments that increase efficiency. People undervalue how radically the word processor and spreadsheet changed how offices are run. But it didn't lead to a mass layoff of office workers. I bet not even a single doctor has lost his job to AI yet.

ThomPete 9y ago
It's not happening yet because it takes time to mature but it will happen and the more it happen the faster it will go. Under Bush and Obama almost all the jobs created were temp jobs, they even had to expand the definition of what constitutes a job.
- jml7c5 9y ago
  >they even had to expand the definition of what constitutes a job. Can you cite a source for this? The Bureau of Labor Statistics etc. has been using the same U1-U6 unemployment metrics for decades.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Yeah but which one they focus on matters. They focused on U3 rather than U6. I will see if I can find a more official source than this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambr...
    - jml7c5 9y ago
      That's a (valid) critique of using U3 instead of U6. But the US government has been using U3 as the "official" unemployment since at least 1994. You asserted that "they [the Obama and Bush administrations?] even had to expand the definition of what constitutes a job," which is not supported by that article. I have had this debate before, and I have yet to find any evidence for the claim.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambr... They changed the U3 focus under Bush I will see if I can find the article about it I read way back.
Havoc 9y ago
>Is there really a lot of AI replacing highly trained professionals? There is a lot of hype around the idea, but I don't see any evidence of it happening in large scale. Near zero I'd imagine. That's beside the point though. The fact that it's possible is what matters. The actual roll-out of it is just a matter of time.
neutralid 9y ago
With the advent of word processors and spreadsheets, work shifted from secretaries to other already employed office workers. https://newrepublic.com/article/121712/slow-death-secretary https://newrepublic.com/article/121712/slow-death-secretary A similar shift is occurring with paralegals. Combine AI with massive legal data, firms could drastically reduce the hours of legal staff: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artificial-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artifi... The same could occur for support staff in the medical field, e.g., radiology. Doctors and lawyers themselves are unlikely to be as affected in the next several decades, except they may be under pressure to take up more clients or including more sophisticated analyses increasing workload. Job requirements will likely require higher and higher levels of education.
- mistermann 9y ago
  I'm under the impression that doctors and lawyers, and their well-funded professional associations, have significant input into legislation regulating their industries, so I suspect they will be far more vulnerable to obsolescence than most other industries.
glangdale 9y ago
The naive picture of automation is always to picture a room full of 10 doctors (or lawyers, or burger flippers, or what have you) and imagine that until we can replace all 10 doctors with a machine then nothing is happening. Instead, what really happens is that someone makes an incremental advance that allows 9 doctors plus a machine (plus, probably, some tiny increment of people servicing the machines) to do the work of 10. All it takes is to find the most routine aspect of some job and automate that away... You provide the perfect example in your utterly incorrect summary of the effect of office software. This almost entirely wiped out a huge number of secretarial jobs.
- emmab 9y ago
  > Instead, what really happens is that someone makes an incremental advance that allows 9 doctors plus a machine (plus, probably, some tiny increment of people servicing the machines) to do the work of 10. All it takes is to find the most routine aspect of some job and automate that away... Isn't there a shortage of doctors already? Doesn't seem like the most vulnerable field to incremental automation.
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    Wiping out 10% of the work would probably not have a discernible impact, however, what's another 10-50 years of AI advancement going to achieve? A 20-40% level of automation would be devastating for any industry.
    - lucozade 9y ago
      > A 20-40% level of automation would be devastating for any industry. Devastating to an industry in its current form. Taking medicine as an example, I just don't see any reason to expect that, if you automated away 50%+ of the current job, you'd require less, highly trained, medical staff. Sure they'd be doing quite different jobs, for the most part. Sure some of the current crop won't want those new jobs. But everything I've seen wrt automation encroaching on highly skilled employment would suggest that there's little to no reduction in employment. Quite the opposite. I tend to look at it a different way. What is the likely limit on the need for medical expertise ad how far away are we from that limit? I would suggest that we're currently a very long way from capacity for medical expertise and you could automate away a significant portion of the current roles without substantially affecting numbers. I could, of course, be wrong. And, of course, one can extrapolate to a point where AI has perfect knowledge of all human anatomy, natural and enhanced, as well as having innovation and design skills well in advance of humanity. But we're an awful long way away from that.
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
AI's are already underwriting insurance. It will have the the most immediate impact on the fields of Finance, insurance, and medical diagnostics.

ThomPete 9y ago

It's not happening yet because it takes time to mature but it will happen and the more it happen the faster it will go. Under Bush and Obama almost all the jobs created were temp jobs, they even had to expand the definition of what constitutes a job.

jml7c5 9y ago
>they even had to expand the definition of what constitutes a job. Can you cite a source for this? The Bureau of Labor Statistics etc. has been using the same U1-U6 unemployment metrics for decades.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Yeah but which one they focus on matters. They focused on U3 rather than U6. I will see if I can find a more official source than this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambr...
  - jml7c5 9y ago
    That's a (valid) critique of using U3 instead of U6. But the US government has been using U3 as the "official" unemployment since at least 1994. You asserted that "they [the Obama and Bush administrations?] even had to expand the definition of what constitutes a job," which is not supported by that article. I have had this debate before, and I have yet to find any evidence for the claim.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambr... They changed the U3 focus under Bush I will see if I can find the article about it I read way back.

Havoc 9y ago

>Is there really a lot of AI replacing highly trained professionals? There is a lot of hype around the idea, but I don't see any evidence of it happening in large scale. Near zero I'd imagine. That's beside the point though. The fact that it's possible is what matters. The actual roll-out of it is just a matter of time.

neutralid 9y ago

With the advent of word processors and spreadsheets, work shifted from secretaries to other already employed office workers. https://newrepublic.com/article/121712/slow-death-secretary https://newrepublic.com/article/121712/slow-death-secretary A similar shift is occurring with paralegals. Combine AI with massive legal data, firms could drastically reduce the hours of legal staff: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artificial-intelligence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artifi... The same could occur for support staff in the medical field, e.g., radiology. Doctors and lawyers themselves are unlikely to be as affected in the next several decades, except they may be under pressure to take up more clients or including more sophisticated analyses increasing workload. Job requirements will likely require higher and higher levels of education.

mistermann 9y ago
I'm under the impression that doctors and lawyers, and their well-funded professional associations, have significant input into legislation regulating their industries, so I suspect they will be far more vulnerable to obsolescence than most other industries.

glangdale 9y ago

The naive picture of automation is always to picture a room full of 10 doctors (or lawyers, or burger flippers, or what have you) and imagine that until we can replace all 10 doctors with a machine then nothing is happening. Instead, what really happens is that someone makes an incremental advance that allows 9 doctors plus a machine (plus, probably, some tiny increment of people servicing the machines) to do the work of 10. All it takes is to find the most routine aspect of some job and automate that away... You provide the perfect example in your utterly incorrect summary of the effect of office software. This almost entirely wiped out a huge number of secretarial jobs.

emmab 9y ago
> Instead, what really happens is that someone makes an incremental advance that allows 9 doctors plus a machine (plus, probably, some tiny increment of people servicing the machines) to do the work of 10. All it takes is to find the most routine aspect of some job and automate that away... Isn't there a shortage of doctors already? Doesn't seem like the most vulnerable field to incremental automation.
- chrisco255 9y ago
  Wiping out 10% of the work would probably not have a discernible impact, however, what's another 10-50 years of AI advancement going to achieve? A 20-40% level of automation would be devastating for any industry.
  - lucozade 9y ago
    > A 20-40% level of automation would be devastating for any industry. Devastating to an industry in its current form. Taking medicine as an example, I just don't see any reason to expect that, if you automated away 50%+ of the current job, you'd require less, highly trained, medical staff. Sure they'd be doing quite different jobs, for the most part. Sure some of the current crop won't want those new jobs. But everything I've seen wrt automation encroaching on highly skilled employment would suggest that there's little to no reduction in employment. Quite the opposite. I tend to look at it a different way. What is the likely limit on the need for medical expertise ad how far away are we from that limit? I would suggest that we're currently a very long way from capacity for medical expertise and you could automate away a significant portion of the current roles without substantially affecting numbers. I could, of course, be wrong. And, of course, one can extrapolate to a point where AI has perfect knowledge of all human anatomy, natural and enhanced, as well as having innovation and design skills well in advance of humanity. But we're an awful long way away from that.

FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago

AI's are already underwriting insurance. It will have the the most immediate impact on the fields of Finance, insurance, and medical diagnostics.