2 ms·
I think this is a mischaracterization. In my decades of writing software I have seen it replace some job descriptions but typically (and especially for skilled
by kevindamm 2y ago
I think this is a mischaracterization. In my decades of writing software I have seen it replace some job descriptions but typically (and especially for skilled labor tasks) the person enjoys more capability with less effort.
I've seen hardware replace people. I've seen software upend industries. But I haven't yet seen software replace people.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoTranslators, transcriptionists, bookkeepers, CAD draft engineers, studio musicians -- that's just off the top of my head. Hasn't eliminated those professions completely, but greatly reduced the need for them.
- kevindamm 2y agoI looked up statistics from the Dept of Labor, those jobs still pay decently well and haven't seen a significant decline in available positions in the past decade or more. How has software reduced the need for these roles? From where I'm looking at it, the jobs still exist but more people have access to automatic versions in software. While the software has gotten good enough for hobbyist or solo-venture needs, commercial enterprise and governments still use humans. Translators and bookkeepers may use software to help them do their job faster or easier but it hasn't replaced them. CAD designers and studio musicians are still much better than their software counterparts. Transcriptionist is a weird one, though the office typist has been outmoded as basic computer skills (including typing) have become minimum expectations for any office job, the specialist versions of the role (especially in medical records and court stenography) are still in demand, and aren't likely to be replaced by software either.