4 ms·

There are many things a robot with "IQ" 85 cannot do that a human with "the same" IQ can: childcare / elder care, social work, basically anything that requires

by bloppe 4y ago

There are many things a robot with "IQ" 85 cannot do that a human with "the same" IQ can: childcare / elder care, social work, basically anything that requires garnering trust and a lot of social interaction, but not necessarily complex skills. There will probably be more jobs like this in the future. Even now, people pay extra for handmade items when the technology to mass-produce the same thing for cheaper has been around for decades, so even if a robot can do your job, that doesn't necessarily make your skills worthless.

gecersiznick 4y ago
It’s safe to talk about EQ in addition to IQ regarding some jobs then. It’s more and more going to be about EQ jobs where AI feels lacking now, emphasis on the now.
sharperguy 4y ago
Automation in theory SHOULD, in the process of destroying jobs, make many things cheaper so people are able to afford things that were previously out of reach, creating new jobs in those sectors.
- brunoborges 4y ago
  Last I checked, no grocery store got price drops thanks to self-checkout.
  - klipt 4y ago
    Due to stickiness prices almost never drop, but they can grow slower than inflation, which in the limit has the same effect.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    In addition to the other comment, the cashier is almost none of the price. Assuming £10/hour and a cashier that can scan an average of 20 items per minute (which is probably 20 items in 20 seconds and then waiting 40 more for the customer to dig out their wallet), that's 20*60 items per hour = 1200 items per hour = 120 items/£1. I assume it's mainly useful for other reasons?
  - sharperguy 4y ago
    This is why I put emphasis on the word "should".
ben_w 4y ago
> There are many things a robot with "IQ" 85 cannot do that a human with "the same" IQ can: Only if you don't take IQ tests seriously — I think I've heard them dismissed as "only good at measuring your score on an IQ test". If you do take them seriously, then by definition an AI which genuinely scores 85 (and isn't, say, just programmed to be good at that specific set of puzzles), then it must be able to do what a human of that IQ can do. In this case I mean the latter, what with it being a thought experiment to demonstrate why we get problems well before having to ask if the AI can take over. Practical issues like "a native speaker with IQ 85 is almost certainly more fluent than an IQ 160 polyglot on their 53rd, but for an AI they're all equal", or "we can easily hard-code in an algorithm for winning chess and another for doing calculus" likewise don't really matter. > childcare / elder care, social work, basically anything that requires garnering trust and a lot of social interaction, but not necessarily complex skills One of the problems right now with ChatGPT is that people trust it waaaay too much, and it's not really even trying. > that doesn't necessarily make your skills worthless. worthless != longer economically employable The arts have significant social value, and I suspect may be to humans what tails are to peacocks; but at the same time, painters and novelists and musicians and actors and playwrights are infamous in their collective struggles to earn enough to get by on those careers alone.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  > then it must be able to do what a human of that IQ can do. Has anyone ever said this about any test? Are there any tests that are so general that anyone who does better on it is better at every single task than someone who does worse? Is such a test even possible?
  - ben_w 4y ago
    That's pretty much exactly the claims that the strongest proponents of IQ tests are making. I lack the skills to determine that, so I am limited to trusting the people who tell me the tests are "pretty good but not perfect".
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago

by bloppe 4y ago

gecersiznick 4y ago

It’s safe to talk about EQ in addition to IQ regarding some jobs then. It’s more and more going to be about EQ jobs where AI feels lacking now, emphasis on the now.

sharperguy 4y ago

Automation in theory SHOULD, in the process of destroying jobs, make many things cheaper so people are able to afford things that were previously out of reach, creating new jobs in those sectors.

brunoborges 4y ago
Last I checked, no grocery store got price drops thanks to self-checkout.
- klipt 4y ago
  Due to stickiness prices almost never drop, but they can grow slower than inflation, which in the limit has the same effect.
- ben_w 4y ago
  In addition to the other comment, the cashier is almost none of the price. Assuming £10/hour and a cashier that can scan an average of 20 items per minute (which is probably 20 items in 20 seconds and then waiting 40 more for the customer to dig out their wallet), that's 20*60 items per hour = 1200 items per hour = 120 items/£1. I assume it's mainly useful for other reasons?
- sharperguy 4y ago
  This is why I put emphasis on the word "should".

ben_w 4y ago

> There are many things a robot with "IQ" 85 cannot do that a human with "the same" IQ can: Only if you don't take IQ tests seriously — I think I've heard them dismissed as "only good at measuring your score on an IQ test". If you do take them seriously, then by definition an AI which genuinely scores 85 (and isn't, say, just programmed to be good at that specific set of puzzles), then it must be able to do what a human of that IQ can do. In this case I mean the latter, what with it being a thought experiment to demonstrate why we get problems well before having to ask if the AI can take over. Practical issues like "a native speaker with IQ 85 is almost certainly more fluent than an IQ 160 polyglot on their 53rd, but for an AI they're all equal", or "we can easily hard-code in an algorithm for winning chess and another for doing calculus" likewise don't really matter. > childcare / elder care, social work, basically anything that requires garnering trust and a lot of social interaction, but not necessarily complex skills One of the problems right now with ChatGPT is that people trust it waaaay too much, and it's not really even trying. > that doesn't necessarily make your skills worthless. worthless != longer economically employable The arts have significant social value, and I suspect may be to humans what tails are to peacocks; but at the same time, painters and novelists and musicians and actors and playwrights are infamous in their collective struggles to earn enough to get by on those careers alone.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
> then it must be able to do what a human of that IQ can do. Has anyone ever said this about any test? Are there any tests that are so general that anyone who does better on it is better at every single task than someone who does worse? Is such a test even possible?
- ben_w 4y ago
  That's pretty much exactly the claims that the strongest proponents of IQ tests are making. I lack the skills to determine that, so I am limited to trusting the people who tell me the tests are "pretty good but not perfect".
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago