- Jul 5, 2022
- 60d 18h 20m
I don't think it's fair for you to make the comparison between automobiles and AI because one was meant to facilitate the laboriousness of human/cargo transportation while the other is a continuously evolving deep learning machine that becomes progressively knowledgeable the more data it consumes. AI, along with automation is nothing like we have ever seen before, and it threatens the job security and livelihood of millions, it is not something that can be brushed off as just another consequence of the industrial revolution because the level of job displacement we saw with the introduction of the automobile or any other preceding invention like the steam engine or the printing press pales in comparison to the level of job displacement we will see with automation/AI.Any kind of change will disproportionately and negatively affect those who are at a disadvantage to react and adapt to it. We didn't concern ourselves with how it disadvantages some portion of the population when other paradigm-shifting technologies, such as automobiles, were introduced and slowly started to become commonplace. I'm sure there were newspaper articles at the time about the number of horse-related jobs at risk of being obsolete in that industry. I don't see why we have to virtue signal now with AI and pretend we care. The world is cut-throat, sink or swim. Be ready for the winds of change, lest you be swept away by the hurricane.
While it may create new job opportunities, I do recall reading a study that found one third of the American population was either computer illiterate or had limited to no technology skills, which would make it difficult to for them to fill in jobs where they supervise other automation systems that operate on three or more axes: industrial manufacturing machines like the cylindrical(rotary joint robots that slide and move vertically and horizontally) and articulated robots (human arm like robots)
The most automatable activities are ones that operate machinery in a predictable environment, so I could see people who weld and solder on assembly lines, prepare food and package objects or other easily replicable activity being replaced while those who work in construction, forestry or help raise outdoor animals at a lower risk.It's true that in the future any job that a machine can do in place of a human a machine will eventually do in place of a human. However, this will not necessarily eliminate the human job. Governments will dictate that human input will have final say on any major decision an AI program makes in any critical field or area, such as medicine, where life and death is concerned. The surgeon, as you mentioned, will be one such job that will be immune from automation hostile takeover. The number of workers in an AI-immune job (defined as being made completely obsolete) may be reduced, but executive decision-making will always be in the hands of the human.
Business-wise, you will see more and more businesses transition to automation for jobs that previously were not thought to be automated. The reception lady, for example, will be replaced by something like an Alexa with a customizable hologram. Signatures and proof of ID/payment will be all digital, so there will be no human in need of interfacing with customers/clients and completing transactions. There will always, however, be a technician or manager present to perform diagnostics/repairs and to override any decision that is deemed erroneous, novel, or outside of the scope of the AI's programming.
Agree, but the goal of every business is to meet their quotas and opt for the most profitable option first and foremost, with social connection being an afterthought in most industries with the exception of the hospitality industry, the latter of which only makes a small sliver of the service industry and a very small contribution [percentage wise] contribution to the US GDP. When I go to the grocery store, I see most people rush over to the self-service aisles because they would rather bag and pay for their own food rather than have someone else do it for them. There would be one supervising staff member that would assist customers if the machine threw up an error and broke down, but the one job opening made for that supervisor was outnumbered by the four to six traditional checkouts that were replaced by those machines and would have otherwise been manned by a group of cashiers.This is not strictly true. Despite any technological advancements we may achieve at break-neck speeds, our biological evolution will be practically in stasis compared to it. We are still human with human needs, wants, desires, and flaws. One such need is the need for human contact. In service and entertainment industries (the jobs arguably requiring the least intellectual effort) there will remain a demand for the face-to-face human element. Robot waitresses, for example, will not be a thing in business and culture. There is some non-zero chance you may see them in countries like the US with a heavy tipping culture, however.
It's not your problem until you're the one being affected. If everyone had the same apathetic stance towards petitioning legislation officials to write laws in the interest of the public, curbing the effects of automation and AI would be close to impossible and we would be backsliding away from a representative democracy. This has already happened in countries like Mauritius where eligible voters would be absent from registration rolls because they thought the same way as you.Truthfully, I don't care about the politics and policies surrounding such things. I'm not a statesman. Dealing with the social and economic fallout of this technology is not my primary concern.
Remember that none of the above is true AI in the science fiction sense that people imagine. Everything above in this post is technologically possible in our current world, though not immediately feasible or practical due to commercial and legislative constraints.