6 ms·

Yeah, unfortunately it's fairly easy to rebut this paper. I only had to read the abstract and the first paragraph. The last line of the first paragraph: > ...

Yeah, unfortunately it's fairly easy to rebut this paper. I only had to read the abstract and the first paragraph. The last line of the first paragraph: > ... the more advanced a control system is, so the more crucial may be the contribution of the human operator. This is absolutely true. The human operator working with an automation system needs to be way more skilled, more educated, and smarter compared to a human working as a cog in a sweatshop. But this still doesn't support the thesis that it expands the problems associated with human operator, for the very simple reason: You are replacing 1000 low-skilled sweatshop workers with 5-10 (or less) highly-skilled engineers and experienced technicians. And at the same time increasing the throughput of your production system by an order of magnitude or more. It's a complete win. And I didn't even need to invoke the role and/or potential of modern AI (i.e., one based on ML/DL/DRL/CV etc, etc), which is going to take the automation to the next level. Highly recommended watch: CGPGrey 'Humans Need Not Apply' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU (in the video just look at the human labor chart regarding agriculture, at 15 second mark, and you'll understand what I'm saying).

cm2187 8y ago
Agree. Which is also I think a key argument against "AI will replace everything". You will still need operators to create and maintain the algorithms, and these will have to be pretty skilled and costly. There will be many applications where the cost is simply higher than a few blue collar workers (or white collars!). In essence it's not new, software has replaced many tasks, but there is a huge amount of manual tasks that could already be automated righ now with non-AI code but where it is simply uneconomical to maintain a highly skilled dev team. Also there are many domains which are so obscure and complex that really only specialists can write software for it. For some professions it does happen (engineering, finance) some others it doesn't (accounting, law).
- fizixer 8y ago
  > Which is also I think a key argument against "AI will replace everything". Thank you for agreeing with me, but I'm sorry I did not make an argument against "AI will replace everything". When 990 of the 1000 previously fully employed workers are now all of a sudden put out of work, yes "AI/automation does replace pretty much everything". It creates a massive disruption in society. Again, in the video I linked, during the whole of 20th century tens of millions of people in the US were put out of work, and only one new kind of job was created (computer programmers) that resulted in more than a million new jobs. Even then it's 30th in rank (in terms of total jobs), after 29 types of jobs that were there even in the 19th century. I don't understand how you can see a comment that links to CGPGrey's 'Humans Need Not Apply' and conclude that the commenter is making a point against 'AI will replace everything'
detaro 8y ago
It'd be helpful if you argued against the contents of the paper and not some idea you got from the first few lines of what you think it is about. You seem to be mostly talking past it, and it contains counters to your "very simple reason", even if we assume all systems fit that example (which they clearly don't, e.g. which 1000 unskilled workers does a plane autopilot replace?)
logifail 8y ago
> this still doesn't support the thesis that it expands the problems associated with human operator In some circumstances it might. Look at Air France Flight 447 and the role of the co-pilot in stalling the aircraft. "Neither weather nor malfunction doomed AF447, nor a complex chain of error, but a simple but persistent mistake on the part of one of the pilots" [0] An aircraft like that has so many highly automated systems it is impossible for the human operators to fully understand them. [0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-ha...
- lmm 8y ago
  > An aircraft like that has so many highly automated systems it is impossible for the human operators to fully understand them. The aircraft was stalling because the pilot kept the flight stick pulled all the way back. Nothing automated or complex about it - a wood-and-canvas biplane would have had exactly the same problem.
  - detaro 8y ago
    If I remember correctly: Due to sensor issues the plane dropped out of autopilot and switched into a different control mode ("Alternate law"). The pilot had to suddenly take over and had a wrong mental model of the state and configuration the plane was in, and likely didn't realize the consequences of the different control mode, among which is that it doesn't provide the same level of automated stall protection as the normal case. Since automation normally works, the pilot wasn't trained or experienced in flying in this mode. While in the end the operator made the wrong decision, these automation ironies fit very well contribute to why he made those decisions or wasn't prepared to make the right ones.
    - lmm 8y ago
      > While in the end the operator made the wrong decision, these automation ironies fit very well contribute to why he made those decisions or wasn't prepared to make the right ones. Not at all convinced. Hauling back on the stick and just keeping it there would never have been the right decision under any circumstances. At the same time it's a reasonably common panic reaction, and was long before any kind of cockpit automation. A pilot who had been in tense situations before would have been more likely to make the right decision, sure, and modern automated systems may well mean that the first truly deadly situation occurs later in a pilot's career than it might otherwise. But by definition there's no safe way to test how a pilot will handle genuine danger.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
Never underestimate the individual and organizational ability to cut corners. If your system depends on supervision of a highly-skilled and highly-trained human, better be sure it has a solid process around it that enforces the supervising human is actually skilled and trained.
lm28469 8y ago
> You are replacing 1000 low-skilled sweatshop workers > It's a complete win Complete win for who exactly ? How do you reconcile automation and the current economy of consumption ? As far as I can tell they don't work hand in hand very well. These 1000 workers will still want their part of the cake, to do so you'll have to get them new jobs. I wouldn't be surprised if every time we go through a cycle of automation we also go one layer deeper in the "bullshit jobs" creation. It's all fun and games until you have to take into consideration the soci-economical aspect of automation. "Automation, the most advanced sector of modern industry as well as the model which perfectly sums up its practice, drives the commodity world toward the following contradiction: the technical equipment which objectively eliminates labor must at the same time preserve labor as a commodity and as the only source of the commodity. If the social labor (time) engaged by the society is not to diminish because of automation (or any other less extreme form of increasing the productivity of labor), then new jobs have to be created. Services, the tertiary sector, swell the ranks of the army of distribution and are a eulogy to the current commodities; the additional forces which are mobilized just happen to be suitable for the organization of redundant labor required by the artificial needs for such commodities." - The society of spectacle.
- 2019ideas 8y ago
  >Complete win for who exactly ? The sweat shop workers, the company, the customers. Sweat shop workers are losing their ability to do mindless labor, next up, they will be using their brains to make low skill decisions where automation cannot. Think Amazon Turk. Customers get lower cost, likely higher quality products. Company gets more reliable workforce. >It's all fun and games until you have to take into consideration the soci-economical aspect of automation. This has already happened in history. You COULD make it illegal, but then your countries technology will be out performed by another country. --- Its easy to disagree, its harder to come up with your own solutions.
  - lm28469 8y ago
    What would be the end goal of such a system ? Looks to me like a rat race.

cm2187 8y ago

Agree. Which is also I think a key argument against "AI will replace everything". You will still need operators to create and maintain the algorithms, and these will have to be pretty skilled and costly. There will be many applications where the cost is simply higher than a few blue collar workers (or white collars!). In essence it's not new, software has replaced many tasks, but there is a huge amount of manual tasks that could already be automated righ now with non-AI code but where it is simply uneconomical to maintain a highly skilled dev team. Also there are many domains which are so obscure and complex that really only specialists can write software for it. For some professions it does happen (engineering, finance) some others it doesn't (accounting, law).

fizixer 8y ago
> Which is also I think a key argument against "AI will replace everything". Thank you for agreeing with me, but I'm sorry I did not make an argument against "AI will replace everything". When 990 of the 1000 previously fully employed workers are now all of a sudden put out of work, yes "AI/automation does replace pretty much everything". It creates a massive disruption in society. Again, in the video I linked, during the whole of 20th century tens of millions of people in the US were put out of work, and only one new kind of job was created (computer programmers) that resulted in more than a million new jobs. Even then it's 30th in rank (in terms of total jobs), after 29 types of jobs that were there even in the 19th century. I don't understand how you can see a comment that links to CGPGrey's 'Humans Need Not Apply' and conclude that the commenter is making a point against 'AI will replace everything'

detaro 8y ago

It'd be helpful if you argued against the contents of the paper and not some idea you got from the first few lines of what you think it is about. You seem to be mostly talking past it, and it contains counters to your "very simple reason", even if we assume all systems fit that example (which they clearly don't, e.g. which 1000 unskilled workers does a plane autopilot replace?)

logifail 8y ago

> this still doesn't support the thesis that it expands the problems associated with human operator In some circumstances it might. Look at Air France Flight 447 and the role of the co-pilot in stalling the aircraft. "Neither weather nor malfunction doomed AF447, nor a complex chain of error, but a simple but persistent mistake on the part of one of the pilots" [0] An aircraft like that has so many highly automated systems it is impossible for the human operators to fully understand them. [0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a3115/what-really-ha...

lmm 8y ago
> An aircraft like that has so many highly automated systems it is impossible for the human operators to fully understand them. The aircraft was stalling because the pilot kept the flight stick pulled all the way back. Nothing automated or complex about it - a wood-and-canvas biplane would have had exactly the same problem.
- detaro 8y ago
  If I remember correctly: Due to sensor issues the plane dropped out of autopilot and switched into a different control mode ("Alternate law"). The pilot had to suddenly take over and had a wrong mental model of the state and configuration the plane was in, and likely didn't realize the consequences of the different control mode, among which is that it doesn't provide the same level of automated stall protection as the normal case. Since automation normally works, the pilot wasn't trained or experienced in flying in this mode. While in the end the operator made the wrong decision, these automation ironies fit very well contribute to why he made those decisions or wasn't prepared to make the right ones.
  - lmm 8y ago
    > While in the end the operator made the wrong decision, these automation ironies fit very well contribute to why he made those decisions or wasn't prepared to make the right ones. Not at all convinced. Hauling back on the stick and just keeping it there would never have been the right decision under any circumstances. At the same time it's a reasonably common panic reaction, and was long before any kind of cockpit automation. A pilot who had been in tense situations before would have been more likely to make the right decision, sure, and modern automated systems may well mean that the first truly deadly situation occurs later in a pilot's career than it might otherwise. But by definition there's no safe way to test how a pilot will handle genuine danger.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Never underestimate the individual and organizational ability to cut corners. If your system depends on supervision of a highly-skilled and highly-trained human, better be sure it has a solid process around it that enforces the supervising human is actually skilled and trained.

lm28469 8y ago

> You are replacing 1000 low-skilled sweatshop workers > It's a complete win Complete win for who exactly ? How do you reconcile automation and the current economy of consumption ? As far as I can tell they don't work hand in hand very well. These 1000 workers will still want their part of the cake, to do so you'll have to get them new jobs. I wouldn't be surprised if every time we go through a cycle of automation we also go one layer deeper in the "bullshit jobs" creation. It's all fun and games until you have to take into consideration the soci-economical aspect of automation. "Automation, the most advanced sector of modern industry as well as the model which perfectly sums up its practice, drives the commodity world toward the following contradiction: the technical equipment which objectively eliminates labor must at the same time preserve labor as a commodity and as the only source of the commodity. If the social labor (time) engaged by the society is not to diminish because of automation (or any other less extreme form of increasing the productivity of labor), then new jobs have to be created. Services, the tertiary sector, swell the ranks of the army of distribution and are a eulogy to the current commodities; the additional forces which are mobilized just happen to be suitable for the organization of redundant labor required by the artificial needs for such commodities." - The society of spectacle.

2019ideas 8y ago
>Complete win for who exactly ? The sweat shop workers, the company, the customers. Sweat shop workers are losing their ability to do mindless labor, next up, they will be using their brains to make low skill decisions where automation cannot. Think Amazon Turk. Customers get lower cost, likely higher quality products. Company gets more reliable workforce. >It's all fun and games until you have to take into consideration the soci-economical aspect of automation. This has already happened in history. You COULD make it illegal, but then your countries technology will be out performed by another country. --- Its easy to disagree, its harder to come up with your own solutions.
- lm28469 8y ago
  What would be the end goal of such a system ? Looks to me like a rat race.