3 ms·

I understand your point, but that doesn't seem to be what the article talks about. From the linked article: > Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know

by d3nj4l 6y ago

I understand your point, but that doesn't seem to be what the article talks about. From the linked article: > Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that for many years the media has been almost screaming that we entering a big automation revolution, with huge associated job losses, due to new AI tech, especially deep learning. Emphasis mine. Their point doesn't seem to be that automation isn't happening, but that there is no revolution incoming that is driven by new tech. You can see that in their bulleted point summary: > * Which job features predict job automation how did not change from 1999 to 2019. If new tech was breaking the frontiers of automation and making it possible to automate jobs which couldn't be done before, these features should've changed.

_AzMoo 6y ago
I think a lot of people that are in the AI/Tech space are probably a bit detached from the realities of non-tech businesses. While you talk of "new tech" being AI and deep-learning, I'm still in the process of implementing barcoding systems in warehouses. I think the vast majority of businesses just aren't ready to move into the data-driven AI space that you call new tech. They're 20 years behind it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jariel 6y ago
"If new tech was breaking the frontiers of automation and making it possible to automate jobs which couldn't be done before, these features should've changed." This is definitely not self-evident, moreover, I'd totally disagree with it. The authors are essentially missing the point by trying to categorize jobs or features of jobs as 'automatable' when in the grand scheme, it's just not how it works. Everyone's jobs are evolving due to automation. 1) Automation has been steadily happening due to progress in IT for decades. 2) AI, in particular, is a nascent field, moreover, it's really on a 'tool' in the tool chest of IT systems overall. The time horizon for impact for direct impact of 'AI' will be a long way off, and when it is, it won't be directly apparent in most cases. There will be very few jobs where we'll be able to say 'AI replaced me'. Maybe Taxi drivers. 3) And my point - is that automation is tremendously difficult to measure in reality, and that it changes the nature of some jobs more than others, and in ways that cannot be measured by using employment numbers. The 'AI replaced the taxi drivers' example, derived from our 'Industrial Revolution' thinking about automation and productivity, is an outlier. Seeking to find ways in which 'AI replaced cab drivers' is probably worthwhile on some level, but it's going to miss 95% of the revolution. Think of an Amazon product picker - their jobs have changed tremendously due to automation. There may be all sorts of flavours of AI baked into an Amazon warehouse pickers job now and in the future: a lot of AI in the vision/3D control for the robots which incrementally replace humans. AI in the route optimisation, AI in labour scheduling (no longer done by humans), AI in facilities management (ordering parts, service automatically). All of this may lead to considerably more efficient workplace and yet not a single job may be lost nor might it lead us to think of some magic tech replacing some workers in a specific way, rather 'the system got smarter'. The economic equilibrium may in fact lead to considerably more people being hired to do 'different kinds of more automated picking', not fewer. The AI revolution is the same as the information revolution and it's happening across the system in myriad ways that will be very hard to measure as we would like.
- d3nj4l 6y ago
  Their definition of "automation" isn't a binary toggle, but a grade scale based on expert research: > For our purposes, a key ONET job feature is “degree of automation,” ranging from “not at all” to “completely.” [...] (Note, these scores are expert judgements, not model predictions. Such scores for all jobs are found here: https://www.onetonline.org/find/descriptor/result/4.C.3.b.2?r=1&a=1. https://www.onetonline.org/find/descriptor/result/4.C.3.b.2?...) From the linked paper. > The economic equilibrium may in fact lead to considerably more people being hired to do 'different kinds of more automated picking', not fewer. I think you agree with them, then: > Labor markets change more often due to changes in demand, relative to supply.

by d3nj4l 6y ago

_AzMoo 6y ago

I think a lot of people that are in the AI/Tech space are probably a bit detached from the realities of non-tech businesses. While you talk of "new tech" being AI and deep-learning, I'm still in the process of implementing barcoding systems in warehouses. I think the vast majority of businesses just aren't ready to move into the data-driven AI space that you call new tech. They're 20 years behind it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jariel 6y ago

"If new tech was breaking the frontiers of automation and making it possible to automate jobs which couldn't be done before, these features should've changed." This is definitely not self-evident, moreover, I'd totally disagree with it. The authors are essentially missing the point by trying to categorize jobs or features of jobs as 'automatable' when in the grand scheme, it's just not how it works. Everyone's jobs are evolving due to automation. 1) Automation has been steadily happening due to progress in IT for decades. 2) AI, in particular, is a nascent field, moreover, it's really on a 'tool' in the tool chest of IT systems overall. The time horizon for impact for direct impact of 'AI' will be a long way off, and when it is, it won't be directly apparent in most cases. There will be very few jobs where we'll be able to say 'AI replaced me'. Maybe Taxi drivers. 3) And my point - is that automation is tremendously difficult to measure in reality, and that it changes the nature of some jobs more than others, and in ways that cannot be measured by using employment numbers. The 'AI replaced the taxi drivers' example, derived from our 'Industrial Revolution' thinking about automation and productivity, is an outlier. Seeking to find ways in which 'AI replaced cab drivers' is probably worthwhile on some level, but it's going to miss 95% of the revolution. Think of an Amazon product picker - their jobs have changed tremendously due to automation. There may be all sorts of flavours of AI baked into an Amazon warehouse pickers job now and in the future: a lot of AI in the vision/3D control for the robots which incrementally replace humans. AI in the route optimisation, AI in labour scheduling (no longer done by humans), AI in facilities management (ordering parts, service automatically). All of this may lead to considerably more efficient workplace and yet not a single job may be lost nor might it lead us to think of some magic tech replacing some workers in a specific way, rather 'the system got smarter'. The economic equilibrium may in fact lead to considerably more people being hired to do 'different kinds of more automated picking', not fewer. The AI revolution is the same as the information revolution and it's happening across the system in myriad ways that will be very hard to measure as we would like.

d3nj4l 6y ago
Their definition of "automation" isn't a binary toggle, but a grade scale based on expert research: > For our purposes, a key ONET job feature is “degree of automation,” ranging from “not at all” to “completely.” [...] (Note, these scores are expert judgements, not model predictions. Such scores for all jobs are found here: https://www.onetonline.org/find/descriptor/result/4.C.3.b.2?r=1&a=1. https://www.onetonline.org/find/descriptor/result/4.C.3.b.2?...) From the linked paper. > The economic equilibrium may in fact lead to considerably more people being hired to do 'different kinds of more automated picking', not fewer. I think you agree with them, then: > Labor markets change more often due to changes in demand, relative to supply.