5 ms·

high skill jobs are at risk too. It's reasonable to assume, given recent tech developments(AI, low code for software, generative design for graphic design/engi

by petra 8y ago

high skill jobs are at risk too. It's reasonable to assume, given recent tech developments(AI, low code for software, generative design for graphic design/engineering and architecture, blockchain for professions working on trust in transaction like accounting, some automation in the legal field, automation in insurance) that many high-skill professions will suffer unemployment too. And can someone with high-skill job always shift to another high-skill job? pretty hard, many high skill jobs have very high barriers to entry. And could they aim for the low skill burger flipping job ? Who will get the job, some spoiled engineer, or someone who is used to working hard doing hard labor for low pay and may be younger ? So why is everybody under the assumption that high skill jobs are safe ?

albertgoeswoof 8y ago
I don’t think a single one of your examples have resulted in the loss of jobs from those areas. If anything it’s the opposite.
lgessler 8y ago
Software engineering seems safe, if that is what you are primarily thinking of in your question. Developing software at the same level of a skilled engineer is a problem we'd only be able to solve with general AI. Even if program synthesizers (things that take declarative high level requirements and produce code) worked (and they don't at the level required for an non-technical user to use), most engineers today must be involved in the design process, and finding requirements and formulating solutions is a skill that requires humanistic and non-technical intuition.
- gpm 8y ago
  It's not at all clear that software engineering is safe. Sure there will probably always be a few programmers, but as tools (and soon I expect AI) gets better those programmers can do more and more of the work. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the number of software engineers decreasing in the not too distant future. The only reason it hasn't already is that we've managed to grow the number of things software developers are doing at the same rate as the increase in number of software developers * the increase in efficiency per software developer. And in some parts of software development (e.g. games) it has.
  - realbarack 8y ago
    It's possible that you are right. That said, tools are already better than ever before, and yet demand for software engineers has only increased. That's because most tools which are powerful enough to do all the things we need aren't simple enough to be applied without human-level intelligence. Not to mention—the tools themselves are software that also requires programmers. Personally, I'm of the opinion of the commenter above you—automating most software jobs will require strong AI. Replacement of those might happen someday, but it's sufficiently far away to not think about as an imminent threat to your job (though I agree we should be doing high-level planning about how as a society we will cope with strong AI).
  - tlear 8y ago
    Some of it has nothing to do with ML/AI, docker probably killed more Sysadmin jobs then all of ML combined. Better tools allow us to do more, faster etc. Thing is amount of things software can do that it is not doing yet is absolutely immense and ML only opens more and more of it. I think any actual reduction is so far in the future we have no concept of when that will happen and how. I mean a am I huge proponent of self driving car.. when is that coming? When it works it will absolutely change economy as massive amount of people are now involved or depend on those that are.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    From your comments I feel like I cam safely assume you do not do any serious work in ML/AI. It's not even close, and none of your examples are being threatened by advances in this area.
  - thrower123 8y ago
    If current trends are any indication, the only way I can foresee the number of software engineers decreasing is if we make the job so complicated that the IQ floor on being able to perform at an acceptable level rises too high. We are currently piling the abstractions higher and higher, and we're patching them up with duct tape fast enough to keep most of the leaks at bay, but when things go south into Here-Be-Dragons territory, there are just a helluva lot more dragons lurking around these days, and they can be some nasty Lovecraftian dragons.
- bootlooped 8y ago
  It's easy to see how lots of programmers could be replaced, just look at Zapier. Now imagine where something like that is going to be in a decade.
  - ryanwaggoner 8y ago
    You’re completely right! I’ve thought this myself: Zapier and the ecosystem that enables it is such a good example of how something that used to take a programmer days or weeks can now be done in minutes. I wonder if the end result of things like Zapier will ultimately be unemployment for devs. Perhaps, but maybe it’ll just free them up for something else. I mean, is the demand for programming really fixed? Or will more and more powerful force multiplier tools like Zapier just free up devs for new demands that we can’t predict now? Hard to say and I’m concerned like you, but it’ll definitely be interesting to watch. So yeah, I agree with you and I think Zapier is a great example. I think we all just have to wait and see if that ends up replacing devs in the long run or just shifting what they do.
- tsunamifury 8y ago
  It already has eaten the lower ends of programming on the web side with centralized services and templated web development. You can keep defining software engineers as those who haven't been automated away yet -- but I'd wager many already have. For example most companies are not spinning up their own hardware anymore, and less and less of their own software.
stale2002 8y ago
People are under the assumption that high skilled jobs are safe, because that's what the actual facts on the ground show. Engineering salaries and jobs have skyrocketed in the past decade, and they only show signs of continuing to increase. I have heard people yell about how we are all going to be replaced, every year, for the last 10 years, and yet here we are, with that future not coming true. Eventually, after making so many predictions, and getting it wrong so many times, people need to reevaluate their guesses, and instead use a fact based analysis of what the market looks like.
- cf498 8y ago
  You assume a continuing trend based on what exactly? Because it worked that way in the past under different circumstances? The different circumstances are kind of the point. Where are actually market ready solutions for automation of high skilled jobs today or in the past? Once market ready solutions exit, this will very likely be a completely different situation. And there is a wide array of even high skilled jobs, where it is feasible, that automation can replace people in the next generation. Maybe not next year or in 10 years, but it is on the horizon for quite alot of professions. Starting such a career now has a different risk scenario then 50 years ago. It is similar to lower skilled jobs like truck driver or warehouse worker. We are not there yet, that they go the way of the street lamp lightener, but assuming a positive trend for warehouse workers, based on past demand seems to be rather distorted. The difference is a warehouse worker doesnt spend years and years and thousands of dollars to enter his field.
mmcconnell1618 8y ago
The jobs you listed have largely been augmented rather than replaced. You’re also not accounting for new jobs we can’t even imagine yet. Ten years ago no one would think YouTuber or Instragram model would be viable jobs for some people. Social media directors at companies large and small have to find unique ways to engage with other humans. The guy that fixes cracked screens on smartphones couldn’t have done that in 1999. UX developer/designers craft human interactions to be better. Automation taken to the end game may create a Star Trek like world where material goods are so cheap as to almost be free. The economy could shift to value knowledge, art, creativity, novel experiences and more.
- petra 8y ago
  Great comment. Actually, people did think that the internet would greatly increase niche markets pretty early. And that requires marketers to support. And people did think people will own something like a smartphone, so it makes sense some people will be responsible for maintenance. So maybe with all those new technologies coming(which some do new jobs), someone will need to build and support them, and who knows how many people that will take.
- lovich 8y ago
  Augmenting is enough to massively disrupt industries. Look at law which used to be a safe middle class job and is now in a bimodal distribution of super high paid and low wage work. All that came from just having cheap OCR which let firms replace legions of well educated law grads searching through paper documents with "Ctrl+f" for the lawyers actually running the case. Automation like this has led to new jobs everytime there's been a major change in the past and has been better for humanity. The problem is that this sometimes takes years or decades and the old workers are told to eat shit in the meantime while the capital owners collect all the newfound wealth. Are you willing to live in abject poverty while your bosses get increasingly wealthy just because it'll be better for people in some distant future? That's a question that's usually answered with "No" and that societies don't want to even have asked if they wish to remain stable
- int_19h 8y ago
  The key word is could. It could also create a hyperstratified neo-feudal society a la "Diamond Age". That's exactly the point - we need to be conscious of these possibilities, and steer towards the one that is preferable.
giobox 8y ago
I can’t help but think about what this thread would read like if it was thousands of software engineers displaced by machines writing code. I’m guessing there would be significantly less preaching about economics 101...

by petra 8y ago

albertgoeswoof 8y ago

I don’t think a single one of your examples have resulted in the loss of jobs from those areas. If anything it’s the opposite.

lgessler 8y ago

Software engineering seems safe, if that is what you are primarily thinking of in your question. Developing software at the same level of a skilled engineer is a problem we'd only be able to solve with general AI. Even if program synthesizers (things that take declarative high level requirements and produce code) worked (and they don't at the level required for an non-technical user to use), most engineers today must be involved in the design process, and finding requirements and formulating solutions is a skill that requires humanistic and non-technical intuition.

gpm 8y ago
It's not at all clear that software engineering is safe. Sure there will probably always be a few programmers, but as tools (and soon I expect AI) gets better those programmers can do more and more of the work. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the number of software engineers decreasing in the not too distant future. The only reason it hasn't already is that we've managed to grow the number of things software developers are doing at the same rate as the increase in number of software developers * the increase in efficiency per software developer. And in some parts of software development (e.g. games) it has.
- realbarack 8y ago
  It's possible that you are right. That said, tools are already better than ever before, and yet demand for software engineers has only increased. That's because most tools which are powerful enough to do all the things we need aren't simple enough to be applied without human-level intelligence. Not to mention—the tools themselves are software that also requires programmers. Personally, I'm of the opinion of the commenter above you—automating most software jobs will require strong AI. Replacement of those might happen someday, but it's sufficiently far away to not think about as an imminent threat to your job (though I agree we should be doing high-level planning about how as a society we will cope with strong AI).
- tlear 8y ago
  Some of it has nothing to do with ML/AI, docker probably killed more Sysadmin jobs then all of ML combined. Better tools allow us to do more, faster etc. Thing is amount of things software can do that it is not doing yet is absolutely immense and ML only opens more and more of it. I think any actual reduction is so far in the future we have no concept of when that will happen and how. I mean a am I huge proponent of self driving car.. when is that coming? When it works it will absolutely change economy as massive amount of people are now involved or depend on those that are.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  From your comments I feel like I cam safely assume you do not do any serious work in ML/AI. It's not even close, and none of your examples are being threatened by advances in this area.
- thrower123 8y ago
  If current trends are any indication, the only way I can foresee the number of software engineers decreasing is if we make the job so complicated that the IQ floor on being able to perform at an acceptable level rises too high. We are currently piling the abstractions higher and higher, and we're patching them up with duct tape fast enough to keep most of the leaks at bay, but when things go south into Here-Be-Dragons territory, there are just a helluva lot more dragons lurking around these days, and they can be some nasty Lovecraftian dragons.
bootlooped 8y ago
It's easy to see how lots of programmers could be replaced, just look at Zapier. Now imagine where something like that is going to be in a decade.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  You’re completely right! I’ve thought this myself: Zapier and the ecosystem that enables it is such a good example of how something that used to take a programmer days or weeks can now be done in minutes. I wonder if the end result of things like Zapier will ultimately be unemployment for devs. Perhaps, but maybe it’ll just free them up for something else. I mean, is the demand for programming really fixed? Or will more and more powerful force multiplier tools like Zapier just free up devs for new demands that we can’t predict now? Hard to say and I’m concerned like you, but it’ll definitely be interesting to watch. So yeah, I agree with you and I think Zapier is a great example. I think we all just have to wait and see if that ends up replacing devs in the long run or just shifting what they do.
tsunamifury 8y ago
It already has eaten the lower ends of programming on the web side with centralized services and templated web development. You can keep defining software engineers as those who haven't been automated away yet -- but I'd wager many already have. For example most companies are not spinning up their own hardware anymore, and less and less of their own software.

stale2002 8y ago

People are under the assumption that high skilled jobs are safe, because that's what the actual facts on the ground show. Engineering salaries and jobs have skyrocketed in the past decade, and they only show signs of continuing to increase. I have heard people yell about how we are all going to be replaced, every year, for the last 10 years, and yet here we are, with that future not coming true. Eventually, after making so many predictions, and getting it wrong so many times, people need to reevaluate their guesses, and instead use a fact based analysis of what the market looks like.

cf498 8y ago
You assume a continuing trend based on what exactly? Because it worked that way in the past under different circumstances? The different circumstances are kind of the point. Where are actually market ready solutions for automation of high skilled jobs today or in the past? Once market ready solutions exit, this will very likely be a completely different situation. And there is a wide array of even high skilled jobs, where it is feasible, that automation can replace people in the next generation. Maybe not next year or in 10 years, but it is on the horizon for quite alot of professions. Starting such a career now has a different risk scenario then 50 years ago. It is similar to lower skilled jobs like truck driver or warehouse worker. We are not there yet, that they go the way of the street lamp lightener, but assuming a positive trend for warehouse workers, based on past demand seems to be rather distorted. The difference is a warehouse worker doesnt spend years and years and thousands of dollars to enter his field.

mmcconnell1618 8y ago

The jobs you listed have largely been augmented rather than replaced. You’re also not accounting for new jobs we can’t even imagine yet. Ten years ago no one would think YouTuber or Instragram model would be viable jobs for some people. Social media directors at companies large and small have to find unique ways to engage with other humans. The guy that fixes cracked screens on smartphones couldn’t have done that in 1999. UX developer/designers craft human interactions to be better. Automation taken to the end game may create a Star Trek like world where material goods are so cheap as to almost be free. The economy could shift to value knowledge, art, creativity, novel experiences and more.

petra 8y ago
Great comment. Actually, people did think that the internet would greatly increase niche markets pretty early. And that requires marketers to support. And people did think people will own something like a smartphone, so it makes sense some people will be responsible for maintenance. So maybe with all those new technologies coming(which some do new jobs), someone will need to build and support them, and who knows how many people that will take.
lovich 8y ago
Augmenting is enough to massively disrupt industries. Look at law which used to be a safe middle class job and is now in a bimodal distribution of super high paid and low wage work. All that came from just having cheap OCR which let firms replace legions of well educated law grads searching through paper documents with "Ctrl+f" for the lawyers actually running the case. Automation like this has led to new jobs everytime there's been a major change in the past and has been better for humanity. The problem is that this sometimes takes years or decades and the old workers are told to eat shit in the meantime while the capital owners collect all the newfound wealth. Are you willing to live in abject poverty while your bosses get increasingly wealthy just because it'll be better for people in some distant future? That's a question that's usually answered with "No" and that societies don't want to even have asked if they wish to remain stable
int_19h 8y ago
The key word is could. It could also create a hyperstratified neo-feudal society a la "Diamond Age". That's exactly the point - we need to be conscious of these possibilities, and steer towards the one that is preferable.

giobox 8y ago

I can’t help but think about what this thread would read like if it was thousands of software engineers displaced by machines writing code. I’m guessing there would be significantly less preaching about economics 101...