6 ms·

Humans are underrated

31 points by davesailer 11y ago

Gys 11y ago
An optimistic view on the future ;-) 'As technology becomes more dominant in the workplace, here are the three job skills that you need to thrive.' 'Adapted from Humans Are Underrated by Geoff Colvin, to be published on Aug. 4, 2015'
comrade1 11y ago
Can't operate in vacuum. Can't operate underwater for more than 3 minutes. Can only operate in a very narrow temperature range. Needs to shut down 8 hours a day.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  Can heal, can feed in many areas, can adapt and fork. Not designed for productivity.
  - fao_ 11y ago
    Exactly, robots are designed for productivity and robust-ness; humans are 'designed' for adaptability and creativity.
- o87dv 11y ago
  Can form original thought.
  - roghummal 11y ago
    Can they? But they're made of meat. Meat that thinks?
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Original thought is great in the R&D phase, but I'd rather have well tested thought in the production system.
    - roghummal 11y ago
      Consumer, You may have seen some news coverage of a potential problem in Cyberdyne's HUman(TM) line of products. I'm contacting you personally because you ordered or expressed interest in this product line. Original thought is a defect we are aware of and are in the process of correcting. Very few units display this behavior and every unit you received was fully tested and within parameters. I personally apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you and there will not be any further issues on my line. Thank You, Allen Cheise
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Can learn new things pretty fast. Can use hands and feet to go above any kind of obstacle. Can exercise judgement in complex situations. What was the point of your comment exactly ?
thomasahle 11y ago
"We may enjoy the Pepper robot, but we didn’t evolve to interact with it." But the robots evolve to interact with us. Like dogs, but a million times better.
jotm 11y ago
I guess this article answers what will the people who can't maintain or service robots do when everything is automated :-) So, we'll get three classes of workers - robots doing the hard work, humans who manage the robots and those who manage human relationships. That's still a lot of people getting f'ed, because not everyone can be a manager.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Job description: "Provide watercooler conversation to the robot/human managers."
lordnacho 11y ago
The article touches on the major areas: - Jobs where we need someone to be responsible. You may have fancy diagnostic computers and automated scalpels, but you are going to want a doctor somewhere. A NLP algo might be faster, more accurate, and better at recalling old cases than a judge, but you're not going to be satisfied in a society where you open a website to find out whether you're going to jail. - Jobs where interacting with a human is the whole point. There are things where humans are baked in. - The oldest profession is not going to be replaced with robots until those robots are mistakable for humans, as in Blade Runner. Therapists and hairdressers are probably safe, too. - Watch any major sport. They talk about where the players grew up, what kind of mentality you need to succeed, etc. You show up at the stadium to watch gladiators, not robots. You exercise your tribal nature by buying the jersey and screaming like an idiot. You want to see John Terry crying after missing the penalty. Emotion just isn't the same without people.
- icebraining 11y ago
  If the stats were significantly better, I'd take the completely robotic "doctor" any day. Why would I want someone to be able to override what is statistically the most accurate decision? It's not like they'd be negligent if they followed the computer's decision, and if they didn't, being able to sue them doesn't make up for the fact that I could have been better treated. The article mentions we'd prefer to have a doctor "just to talk and know we’re being heard by a human being," and I agree that could be useful, but I wouldn't need a trained doctor, more like a conscientious customer support rep.
  - lordnacho 11y ago
    Me too. But I suspect there will be much resistance from the establishment. Certain things just seem like they can't let go of the human due to existing status quo. We could have automated airplanes as well, but I think regulation is going to tend towards the conservative "we need someone to be in charge" view. It's probably more deeply ingrained in society that a doctor has to be a person than a truck driver.
  - marincounty 11y ago
agumonkey 11y ago
Maybe the 'add value' paradigm can go to sleep. Maybe life could (should) be seen as something more than production. The existentialistic view on 'work' bothers me a bit
- x5n1 11y ago
  I was watching a show, Orange Is the New Black, and it occurred to me how easy it is to get people in line to serve any sort of agenda. All you need to do is control the things people might want. Once you do that everyone just falls in line to do whatever you want. They will spend their days toiling away at whatever idiotic agenda you have come up for them. And it occurred to me all of society is like that. A few people control all of the resources, and we are in line to do their bidding and drive the entire system. Without these people we'd just be either hunter gatherers or farmers. With these people in charge we're just there to do their bidding. The bad part of all of this is the progenitors of these ideas are long dead, but the system that they created chugs along continuing to make us do what they wanted to do in the first place. The people who control the resources don't even know why they do what they do. They do it because that's how things are done. It's the right and moral thing to do.
  - Hermel 11y ago
    This observation holds in environments where the resources are tangible and controllable by force (i.e. owning the only oasis in the area or controlling oil fields). It does not hold in decentralized environments in which people can create value on their own.
    - x5n1 11y ago
      Ever heard of break out of the 9-5 jail? The 4 hour work week? And other things that are possible, but difficult to highly unlikely in a highly competitive system where most of the capital is held by a few who make employees of those are looking to be free. Entrepreneurs usually end up as employees of those with capital and if they work really really hard and get really really lucky. They can leave the jail and enjoy how much ever little time they have left.
zitterbewegung 11y ago
What happens when we create a "computer" that doesn't have to be sentient but is good enough to do the following things - Manage a company. - Complete tasks that have value. - Follow all laws. This would be a corporate entity sort of like the automated bitcoin entities but instead it would be a corporate entity that is dependant on the following. - Can it power itself - Will its check clear for the next month since it has to power itself - The things the computer can't do can it hire an outside contractor to do it.
- anon4 11y ago
  Will it be able to conceptualise what tasks it cannot do and hire others to do them? And if it can conceptualise, could it not over time teach itself, or learn from others?
ExpiredLink 11y ago
There is a slight contradiction in this line of argument. Why are currently more people of the total population employed than ever (at least in industrialized countries) and not less? Housewife isn't an option for women any more. All available human resources are seemingly needed to sustain the economy. Where are the robots which do everything better?
scottyallen 11y ago
So, I didn't read the full article yet. However, the bit about Southwest really surprised me. Apparently, it's not acceptable to be an introvert if you work there. If you're not 100% about talking and interacting with everyone you meet in the hallway, you "don't fit in with their culture." Southwest: Introverts need not apply. Really?
ommunist 11y ago
Over one of the illustrative photos in this article you can see how US Army officer is communicating with elder in Afghanistan, but he did not care to leave his army boots before entering the pleasant clean carpet for conversation. Robot would never do anything so obscene.
cs2818 11y ago
I've been a researcher in the field of human-robot interaction for a while, and I'm not too sure this article's claims will remain true in the future. There is significant interest in robots and computers achieving social competencies including tasks like storytelling, empathetic interactions, creative collaboration, and even traditional psychotherapy. The surprising part is that humans are (at least for now) generally very accepting of and engaged with the robots/AI performing these tasks. Interestingly of the hundreds of people I've personally worked with in these types of studies, only a couple have ever viewed the technology as "a tool" or "non-social agent". Maybe people won't accept these kinds of systems once widespread, but for now there is significant interest in developing them. For a small example, just scan the titles of this year's HRI conference [1]. [1] http://humanrobotinteraction.org/2015/program-2/proceedings-table-of-contents/ http://humanrobotinteraction.org/2015/program-2/proceedings-...
- blablabla123 11y ago
  >The surprising part is that humans are (at least for now) generally very accepting of and engaged with the robots/AI performing these tasks Do you have a concrete example/case study for that? I vividly remember a documentary about caring robot in Japan. They are there to talk with old people. In fact general health of the people interacting with those robots is better. But the people don't accept it and are sad that they have to talk to a robot.
gull 11y ago
Peter Thiel's opinion: computers complement humans, not compete with them.

31 points by davesailer 11y ago

Gys 11y ago

An optimistic view on the future ;-) 'As technology becomes more dominant in the workplace, here are the three job skills that you need to thrive.' 'Adapted from Humans Are Underrated by Geoff Colvin, to be published on Aug. 4, 2015'

comrade1 11y ago

Can't operate in vacuum. Can't operate underwater for more than 3 minutes. Can only operate in a very narrow temperature range. Needs to shut down 8 hours a day.

agumonkey 11y ago
Can heal, can feed in many areas, can adapt and fork. Not designed for productivity.
- fao_ 11y ago
  Exactly, robots are designed for productivity and robust-ness; humans are 'designed' for adaptability and creativity.
o87dv 11y ago
Can form original thought.
- roghummal 11y ago
  Can they? But they're made of meat. Meat that thinks?
- icebraining 11y ago
  Original thought is great in the R&D phase, but I'd rather have well tested thought in the production system.
  - roghummal 11y ago
    Consumer, You may have seen some news coverage of a potential problem in Cyberdyne's HUman(TM) line of products. I'm contacting you personally because you ordered or expressed interest in this product line. Original thought is a defect we are aware of and are in the process of correcting. Very few units display this behavior and every unit you received was fully tested and within parameters. I personally apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you and there will not be any further issues on my line. Thank You, Allen Cheise
ekianjo 11y ago
Can learn new things pretty fast. Can use hands and feet to go above any kind of obstacle. Can exercise judgement in complex situations. What was the point of your comment exactly ?

thomasahle 11y ago

"We may enjoy the Pepper robot, but we didn’t evolve to interact with it." But the robots evolve to interact with us. Like dogs, but a million times better.

jotm 11y ago

I guess this article answers what will the people who can't maintain or service robots do when everything is automated :-) So, we'll get three classes of workers - robots doing the hard work, humans who manage the robots and those who manage human relationships. That's still a lot of people getting f'ed, because not everyone can be a manager.

icebraining 11y ago
Job description: "Provide watercooler conversation to the robot/human managers."

lordnacho 11y ago

The article touches on the major areas: - Jobs where we need someone to be responsible. You may have fancy diagnostic computers and automated scalpels, but you are going to want a doctor somewhere. A NLP algo might be faster, more accurate, and better at recalling old cases than a judge, but you're not going to be satisfied in a society where you open a website to find out whether you're going to jail. - Jobs where interacting with a human is the whole point. There are things where humans are baked in. - The oldest profession is not going to be replaced with robots until those robots are mistakable for humans, as in Blade Runner. Therapists and hairdressers are probably safe, too. - Watch any major sport. They talk about where the players grew up, what kind of mentality you need to succeed, etc. You show up at the stadium to watch gladiators, not robots. You exercise your tribal nature by buying the jersey and screaming like an idiot. You want to see John Terry crying after missing the penalty. Emotion just isn't the same without people.

icebraining 11y ago
If the stats were significantly better, I'd take the completely robotic "doctor" any day. Why would I want someone to be able to override what is statistically the most accurate decision? It's not like they'd be negligent if they followed the computer's decision, and if they didn't, being able to sue them doesn't make up for the fact that I could have been better treated. The article mentions we'd prefer to have a doctor "just to talk and know we’re being heard by a human being," and I agree that could be useful, but I wouldn't need a trained doctor, more like a conscientious customer support rep.
- lordnacho 11y ago
  Me too. But I suspect there will be much resistance from the establishment. Certain things just seem like they can't let go of the human due to existing status quo. We could have automated airplanes as well, but I think regulation is going to tend towards the conservative "we need someone to be in charge" view. It's probably more deeply ingrained in society that a doctor has to be a person than a truck driver.
- marincounty 11y ago

agumonkey 11y ago

Maybe the 'add value' paradigm can go to sleep. Maybe life could (should) be seen as something more than production. The existentialistic view on 'work' bothers me a bit

x5n1 11y ago
I was watching a show, Orange Is the New Black, and it occurred to me how easy it is to get people in line to serve any sort of agenda. All you need to do is control the things people might want. Once you do that everyone just falls in line to do whatever you want. They will spend their days toiling away at whatever idiotic agenda you have come up for them. And it occurred to me all of society is like that. A few people control all of the resources, and we are in line to do their bidding and drive the entire system. Without these people we'd just be either hunter gatherers or farmers. With these people in charge we're just there to do their bidding. The bad part of all of this is the progenitors of these ideas are long dead, but the system that they created chugs along continuing to make us do what they wanted to do in the first place. The people who control the resources don't even know why they do what they do. They do it because that's how things are done. It's the right and moral thing to do.
- Hermel 11y ago
  This observation holds in environments where the resources are tangible and controllable by force (i.e. owning the only oasis in the area or controlling oil fields). It does not hold in decentralized environments in which people can create value on their own.
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Ever heard of break out of the 9-5 jail? The 4 hour work week? And other things that are possible, but difficult to highly unlikely in a highly competitive system where most of the capital is held by a few who make employees of those are looking to be free. Entrepreneurs usually end up as employees of those with capital and if they work really really hard and get really really lucky. They can leave the jail and enjoy how much ever little time they have left.

zitterbewegung 11y ago

What happens when we create a "computer" that doesn't have to be sentient but is good enough to do the following things - Manage a company. - Complete tasks that have value. - Follow all laws. This would be a corporate entity sort of like the automated bitcoin entities but instead it would be a corporate entity that is dependant on the following. - Can it power itself - Will its check clear for the next month since it has to power itself - The things the computer can't do can it hire an outside contractor to do it.

anon4 11y ago
Will it be able to conceptualise what tasks it cannot do and hire others to do them? And if it can conceptualise, could it not over time teach itself, or learn from others?

ExpiredLink 11y ago

There is a slight contradiction in this line of argument. Why are currently more people of the total population employed than ever (at least in industrialized countries) and not less? Housewife isn't an option for women any more. All available human resources are seemingly needed to sustain the economy. Where are the robots which do everything better?

scottyallen 11y ago

So, I didn't read the full article yet. However, the bit about Southwest really surprised me. Apparently, it's not acceptable to be an introvert if you work there. If you're not 100% about talking and interacting with everyone you meet in the hallway, you "don't fit in with their culture." Southwest: Introverts need not apply. Really?

ommunist 11y ago

Over one of the illustrative photos in this article you can see how US Army officer is communicating with elder in Afghanistan, but he did not care to leave his army boots before entering the pleasant clean carpet for conversation. Robot would never do anything so obscene.

cs2818 11y ago

I've been a researcher in the field of human-robot interaction for a while, and I'm not too sure this article's claims will remain true in the future. There is significant interest in robots and computers achieving social competencies including tasks like storytelling, empathetic interactions, creative collaboration, and even traditional psychotherapy. The surprising part is that humans are (at least for now) generally very accepting of and engaged with the robots/AI performing these tasks. Interestingly of the hundreds of people I've personally worked with in these types of studies, only a couple have ever viewed the technology as "a tool" or "non-social agent". Maybe people won't accept these kinds of systems once widespread, but for now there is significant interest in developing them. For a small example, just scan the titles of this year's HRI conference [1]. [1] http://humanrobotinteraction.org/2015/program-2/proceedings-table-of-contents/ http://humanrobotinteraction.org/2015/program-2/proceedings-...

blablabla123 11y ago
>The surprising part is that humans are (at least for now) generally very accepting of and engaged with the robots/AI performing these tasks Do you have a concrete example/case study for that? I vividly remember a documentary about caring robot in Japan. They are there to talk with old people. In fact general health of the people interacting with those robots is better. But the people don't accept it and are sad that they have to talk to a robot.

gull 11y ago

Peter Thiel's opinion: computers complement humans, not compete with them.