4 ms·

Why are the 'masses' not capable of knowledge jobs?

delucain 12y ago
Currently, they certainly are not. Our education systems (non-higher education) are largely designed to produce good workers for a manufacturing/labor economy that we're (relatively) quickly automating out of existence. And our higher education systems are being "dumbed down" to handle the influx of students not capable of handling the old curriculum. Anecdotally, most of my extended family couldn't write a line of code if their lives depended on it; nor could they design a serious science experiment or write a novel. They aren't trained for those things, and that training has to start young or come with serious motivation, time, and effort. Not one of those people have any interest in learning those things. I think it's possible to have a knowledge based economy, but we would have to drastically redesign our education systems and our culture in ways that I find it hard to even imagine how we would do so. But, I think it's only a matter of time before we gain more skill in writing programs that automate out even the most complex knowledge based jobs. Watson is already showing the potential to be a better doctor than any human. The program named "Emily Howell" can already write symphonies that pass whatever the musical version of the Turing Test is. How long before we apply those things to all the other knowledge based jobs? What'll be left? More automation and maintenance programmers? How many of those will we even need?
cb18 12y ago
Why are the 'masses' not capable of knowledge jobs? If you accept that certain jobs[1] to be performed at a worthwhile level require a certain degree of general intelligence, or at the very least, the vast majority of people performing certain jobs have a measurable general intelligence above a certain level, and you accept that things like general intelligence, height, and other observable, measurable phenotypic traits of a species occur on a more or less normal('bell-curve') distribution, two things that are pretty much taken as a given outside the PC deluded, "I love me some outrage!," "Wow, just wow." crowd, then there is your answer. Is it not? You might think you're doing good for the world by saying 'everyone is equally capable,' but you'll probably have more success in doing good for the world by understanding the world as it presents itself upon clear-eyed observation. [1]"Software is an IQ business." -Bill Gates
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  I guess the question is then, "What is General Intelligence?" It's a question that CS has struggled with for decades and I haven't heard anyone give a compelling definition, certainly not one that could be tested with any confidence.
  - cb18 12y ago
    What? I'm not sure why you invoke CS(by which I assume you mean Computer Science,) I wasn't refering to artificial general intelligence, which could be said to fall under the domain of CS.[1] I was refering to the 'general intelligence' that is an attribute of human beings, what iq tests measure basically.[2][3] It is a matter that has undergone much study since the early 20th century, and there is indeed agreement on what it is among those who study it.[4] certainly not one that could be tested with any confidence. Why so certain? It can indeed be tested and has been. Taking intelligence to mean 'ability to deal with complexity,' and taking something complex like say, life on earth, people with higher IQs on average make more money, and live longer. Not to say the amount of money one makes is wholly indicative of successful living of course, but it can be used as a rough proxy since it is something many people seek to do in the complex environment that is Earth and the Universe. Also, I think the ability to 'live sucessfully' and to find out what doing so entails is an ability spread evenly throughout the population. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intellige...
- flycaliguy 12y ago
  I think there is knowledge to be created but the process of it's creation is not the exclusive domain of the brilliant or even the above average.
gnaritas 12y ago
Have you met the masses? Half the population has an IQ below 100, those are not and won't ever be knowledge workers; those are the people that machines will easily replace. They currently live off of either manual labor or service jobs, both of which are being decimated by machines and that trend will only continue.

Currently, they certainly are not. Our education systems (non-higher education) are largely designed to produce good workers for a manufacturing/labor economy that we're (relatively) quickly automating out of existence. And our higher education systems are being "dumbed down" to handle the influx of students not capable of handling the old curriculum. Anecdotally, most of my extended family couldn't write a line of code if their lives depended on it; nor could they design a serious science experiment or write a novel. They aren't trained for those things, and that training has to start young or come with serious motivation, time, and effort. Not one of those people have any interest in learning those things. I think it's possible to have a knowledge based economy, but we would have to drastically redesign our education systems and our culture in ways that I find it hard to even imagine how we would do so. But, I think it's only a matter of time before we gain more skill in writing programs that automate out even the most complex knowledge based jobs. Watson is already showing the potential to be a better doctor than any human. The program named "Emily Howell" can already write symphonies that pass whatever the musical version of the Turing Test is. How long before we apply those things to all the other knowledge based jobs? What'll be left? More automation and maintenance programmers? How many of those will we even need?

cb18 12y ago

Why are the 'masses' not capable of knowledge jobs? If you accept that certain jobs[1] to be performed at a worthwhile level require a certain degree of general intelligence, or at the very least, the vast majority of people performing certain jobs have a measurable general intelligence above a certain level, and you accept that things like general intelligence, height, and other observable, measurable phenotypic traits of a species occur on a more or less normal('bell-curve') distribution, two things that are pretty much taken as a given outside the PC deluded, "I love me some outrage!," "Wow, just wow." crowd, then there is your answer. Is it not? You might think you're doing good for the world by saying 'everyone is equally capable,' but you'll probably have more success in doing good for the world by understanding the world as it presents itself upon clear-eyed observation. [1]"Software is an IQ business." -Bill Gates

jsprogrammer 12y ago
I guess the question is then, "What is General Intelligence?" It's a question that CS has struggled with for decades and I haven't heard anyone give a compelling definition, certainly not one that could be tested with any confidence.
- cb18 12y ago
  What? I'm not sure why you invoke CS(by which I assume you mean Computer Science,) I wasn't refering to artificial general intelligence, which could be said to fall under the domain of CS.[1] I was refering to the 'general intelligence' that is an attribute of human beings, what iq tests measure basically.[2][3] It is a matter that has undergone much study since the early 20th century, and there is indeed agreement on what it is among those who study it.[4] certainly not one that could be tested with any confidence. Why so certain? It can indeed be tested and has been. Taking intelligence to mean 'ability to deal with complexity,' and taking something complex like say, life on earth, people with higher IQs on average make more money, and live longer. Not to say the amount of money one makes is wholly indicative of successful living of course, but it can be used as a rough proxy since it is something many people seek to do in the complex environment that is Earth and the Universe. Also, I think the ability to 'live sucessfully' and to find out what doing so entails is an ability spread evenly throughout the population. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intellige...
flycaliguy 12y ago
I think there is knowledge to be created but the process of it's creation is not the exclusive domain of the brilliant or even the above average.

gnaritas 12y ago

Have you met the masses? Half the population has an IQ below 100, those are not and won't ever be knowledge workers; those are the people that machines will easily replace. They currently live off of either manual labor or service jobs, both of which are being decimated by machines and that trend will only continue.