4 ms·
> The industrial revolution actually led to an increase in the size of the workforce. New qualifications were required to handle technically-complex industrial
by moooo99 4y ago
> The industrial revolution actually led to an increase in the size of the workforce. New qualifications were required to handle technically-complex industrial equipment instead of the simple production methods of the pre-industrial world.
This is generally true, but also ignores a key difference. When processes first became mechanized and then industrialized, they we're fairly similar in their nature. Sure, they were different and did require some qualifications, but in the end the imaginary jump from a blacksmith to someone who works in an manufacturing plant building components out of metal is not too severe. With the increasing automation, the jump would be from a machine operator to a software engineer/automation engineer. While this are certainly all teachable skills, they require an extremely different skill profile than the ones they're replacing.
Overall, automation is nothing new. And although the capabilities continue to develop from a manufacturing standpoint, there is nothing disruptive about most new things in that area. With the tasks that are currently not automated, the cost is mostly the limiting factor, closely followed by technical complexity. And while there is certainly some change in terms of costs coming down thanks to technological advancements, it's still not completely disruptive. But that is all for blue collar work.
But what I think is overlooked way too often overlooked is white collar work. Working in a large company myself, I very frequently witnessed people whose job was essentially the human equivalent of a for loop with a bunch of if conditions. These jobs were hard to automate efficiently, mostly because of the lack of consistently digitally accessible process artifacts, but that is continuing to change. As (traditional) companies continue to shift towards completely digital business, it will become increasingly easy to automate "paper pusher" jobs like these.
Beyond that, I hate to be that person, AI will likely have an impact as well. Recent developments, namely GTP-3 or ChatGPT, have shown the current level of AI. And while there things to be criticized about those models and their abilities are still limited, they are significantly more advanced than what most people (outside of those closely following) deemed possible. And while they lack the creativity for original work, these models are already very good at transferring knowledge. And considering that many jobs don't necessarily need original problem solving skills, I can see how automation can have an impact there. It might not completely automate people away, but it certainly has to potential to boost productivity significantly.
But will it really put many people out of jobs? Who knows. Given the less than ideal demographic structure of many (european) countries, companies operating here do certainly need any productivity boost they can get. As for countries without those demographic issues? Who knows.
Generally my experience in automation projects: the people who many think will be the first ones to be automated away, the people doing the actually physical work, are significantly safer than the ones not expecting it. No matter how much AI or 3D printing houses you throw at the problem
- dudeofea 4y agoI can't speak to the second half of what you said, but for the first half: The jump is not as big as you think for any competent piece of automation. Using your example of a blacksmith upgraded to machine shop worker, then later upgraded to robotic machine shop worker. In the first upgrade, the blacksmith no longer needs to hammer iron as this is done by a drop press. The skill lost (big arms for hammering) is replaced by a many fold increase in productivity and a removal of many people alternating hammering. In the second upgrade, using robots for production, you do need to learn some programming, but the programming is centered on such industrial applications. In modern cobots you don't need 3D math or almost any programming knowledge. You just need to give it a set of steps to follow and you can lead it by hand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iCLK__7ymY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iCLK__7ymY As with most automation, the initial prototype is more cumbersome to use, but eventually it becomes a tool like any other.
- intended 4y agoThe economic term which is relevant here is under employment. A factory foreman/skilled labor -> burger flipping/unskilled labor. Retraining into entirely new skill sets is hard - even if you don’t have debt/ bills/ dependents.
- sandstrom 4y ago> …the jump would be from a machine operator to a software engineer/automation engineer. While this are certainly all teachable skills, they require an extremely different skill profile than the ones they're replacing. They're not though. You need higher intelligence to be a software engineer, compared to a machine operator in most manufacturing plants. Certain jobs are simply out of reach for most people. It's not controversial that in the 18-century logging wood was out of reach for some people for lack of strength. But somehow it's controversial to admit that certain modern jobs are out of reach because of lack of intelligence.