3 ms·

That’s very easily googled: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Number-of-Elevator-Operators-1870-1990-22_fig3_321640625 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Num

by herval 2y ago

That’s very easily googled: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Number-of-Elevator-Operators-1870-1990-22_fig3_321640625 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Number-of-Elevator-Opera... There were more elevator operators before elevators became easily operated by the passengers - as expected

9rx 2y ago
That indicates that there are effectively no elevator operators today, which is clearly false. Elevator manufacturers put a lot of effort into incorporating an array of buttons for the operator to push for good reason – and push them the operator does. I witness it every time I enter an elevator. Are you confusing operating an elevator with operating an elevator professionally? We were never talking about the later, and even called attention to how it is not a good career choice today to really drive home that idea.
- herval 2y ago
  So your point is that since anyone can use an elevator, we’re all “elevator operators”? So basically that everyone will be a software writer, therefore nobody will get paid to write software anymore?
  - 9rx 2y ago
    Does having a point not imply some kind of effort to communicate with a human, not sending strings of text to a faceless, inanimate computer program like I am doing? Furthermore, even if I had some reason to make a point to a computer program, if such a thing is possible, it still could not be my point. It explicitly states that it is taken from the perspective of the grifter. If there is a point found in there somewhere, it would be their point.
    - herval 2y ago
      ...what?
  - frank_nitti 2y ago
    Not GP but I'd say yes - if and when computers are as easy to operate to their desired potential, with as simple an interface as elevator buttons, then of course. The operations we desire from computing systems has a bit broader scope than elevators. Just as we still need experts in electrical hardware systems to fix/improve the implementations of those simple elevator interfaces - we will still need people to understand the "hard part" underneath all of these, even if Average Joe can make apps for himself (as long as they only involved 'solved problems' the models can apply). The fact that the AI grifters are calling for children to stop studying computer science that seems transparently reckless and self-serving, though I'd love to hear if any informed users on HN have any insightful arguments in support of Jensen Huang et al
jeremyjh 2y ago
There were more professional elevator operators. But now, there are far, far more people operating elevators. My kids have been doing it since they were 2.
- herval 2y ago
  And the point is…?
  - jeremyjh 2y ago
    If everyone can simply tell a computer what to do, and it does that, we don't need professional programmers. Just like we no longer need human computers.

by herval 2y ago

9rx 2y ago

That indicates that there are effectively no elevator operators today, which is clearly false. Elevator manufacturers put a lot of effort into incorporating an array of buttons for the operator to push for good reason – and push them the operator does. I witness it every time I enter an elevator. Are you confusing operating an elevator with operating an elevator professionally? We were never talking about the later, and even called attention to how it is not a good career choice today to really drive home that idea.

herval 2y ago
So your point is that since anyone can use an elevator, we’re all “elevator operators”? So basically that everyone will be a software writer, therefore nobody will get paid to write software anymore?
- 9rx 2y ago
  Does having a point not imply some kind of effort to communicate with a human, not sending strings of text to a faceless, inanimate computer program like I am doing? Furthermore, even if I had some reason to make a point to a computer program, if such a thing is possible, it still could not be my point. It explicitly states that it is taken from the perspective of the grifter. If there is a point found in there somewhere, it would be their point.
  - herval 2y ago
    ...what?
- frank_nitti 2y ago
  Not GP but I'd say yes - if and when computers are as easy to operate to their desired potential, with as simple an interface as elevator buttons, then of course. The operations we desire from computing systems has a bit broader scope than elevators. Just as we still need experts in electrical hardware systems to fix/improve the implementations of those simple elevator interfaces - we will still need people to understand the "hard part" underneath all of these, even if Average Joe can make apps for himself (as long as they only involved 'solved problems' the models can apply). The fact that the AI grifters are calling for children to stop studying computer science that seems transparently reckless and self-serving, though I'd love to hear if any informed users on HN have any insightful arguments in support of Jensen Huang et al

jeremyjh 2y ago

There were more professional elevator operators. But now, there are far, far more people operating elevators. My kids have been doing it since they were 2.

herval 2y ago
And the point is…?
- jeremyjh 2y ago
  If everyone can simply tell a computer what to do, and it does that, we don't need professional programmers. Just like we no longer need human computers.