Could your job be done by a machine

In the future more jobs will be completed by a machine. Could your job be completed by a machine? What jobs are likely to be the first to be replaced by machines?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Feel Tha Bern

Accountants will be slaughtered like the pigs that they are.

Reply 2

Alexion

When you're looking to getting jobs in designing and creating the stuff that controls those machines, I think it's unlikely.

Reply 3

anosmianAcrimony

I'm studying biochemistry, and I'm not sure if I intend to be a research biochemist or a teacher. Research biochemistry already uses all sorts of machines, some of which have doubtless replaced human labour, but that only speeds up the rate at which experimentation can be done. Until proper artificial intelligence is created, we'll still need scientists to design the experiments.

In terms of teaching - it's possible that an A.I. or an automated, computerised curriculum could teach people independent of any human touch, but I think a lot of people would regard that as very, very sad and would not let it happen.

Reply 4

Alice__90

I'm a support worker and charity fundraiser. Machines can't substitute for my job.

Reply 5

Plagioclase

Original post by Alexion

When you're looking to getting jobs in designing and creating the stuff that controls those machines, I think it's unlikely.

I went to a talk by this US entrepreneur a while ago who said that (slightly counter intuitively), computer science and related professions would very much be threatened by improved artificial intelligence and it's the jobs that involve human communication (e.g. teaching, nursing, counselling etc.) that would be the safest. Having said that, there are so many contradictory opinions about the future of Artificial Intelligence that it's probably pretty pointless trying to make these predictions.

Reply 6

Feel Tha Bern

Original post by Plagioclase

This is my understanding of the situation, very repetitive roles, even if they seem hard to most people are under greatest threat precisely because machines can be programmed to perform repetitive tasks extremely quickly.

You get people who are amazing at mental arithmetic, but since the invention of cheap pocket sized calculators, that's nothing more than a cool trick now.

Reply 7

Chief Wiggum

I'm going to be a doctor. I think intelligent computers / artificial intelligence could potentially be very useful in medicine. That said,I think people may prefer human discussion in a lot of aspects of the job. I think any significant change would be a long long time away anyway.

I found this article by Harvard surgeon Atul Gawande to be quite interesting:

"The purpose of the Swedish study was to deduce whether a computer could outperform an experienced human specialist in successfully diagnosing heart attacks among patients using their EKG results. Edenbrandt fed his computer over 10,000 EKGs until the machine grew expert at reading them. Then he approached Dr. Ohlin, one of the top cardiologists in Sweden, and asked him to make diagnoses on 2,240 EKGs from the hospital files. When the results were published this past fall, they showed that machine had beaten man by 20%.

The radical implication of the Swedish study is that the individualized, intuitive approach that lies at the center of modern medicine is flawed, and it may cause more mistakes than it prevents. There's ample support for this theory in studies done outside medicine. Cognitive psychologists--like Paul Meehl, in his classic 1954 treatise, "Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction"--have shown repeatedly that a blind algorithmic approach usually trumps human judgement in making predictions and diagnoses. The superiority of computer algorithms may attributed to the fact that humans are inconsistent: we are easily influenced by recent experience, distractions, and outside suggestions; and we are also less skilled at considering multiple factors."

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1998/03/30/no-mistake

Reply 8

BlackDove

Nope. Look after 20+ horses. Even if such a machine did exist, they'd all Be terrified of it 👍🏻

Reply 9

Plagioclase

Original post by Feel Tha Bern

It's a very difficult thing to deal with because you've got a lot of experts voicing very different opinions. You've got people who think AI is a potential global catastrophic risk, and you've got people who think that AI could lead to a utopia. You've got people who think that AI is going to emerge in a gradualistic and (relatively) non-destructive fashion, displacing some jobs but improving quality of life in the long run, and you've got people who think that AI could be the ultimate capitalist ploy to shift the entirety of wealth production into the hands of the elite and engrain permanent extreme inequality into society. It also doesn't help that as far as the public is concerned, AI is this kooky sci-fi thing that can't be taken seriously that you joke "Ah well, Stephen Hawking says it could destroy the world!" and then laugh about it.

This really is the problem in my view, a lack of oversight and co-operation. There don't seem to be any regulatory procedures in place for improved Artificial Intelligence structures which means whatever does happen, we're not prepared for it.

Reply 10

Alexion

Original post by Plagioclase

Well, designing machines that can automatically improve themselves would only be a recipe for disaster... :wink:

Reply 11

Lawliettt

I'm sure civil engineering will be safe

Reply 12

username738914

Original post by Plagioclase

Until programs can write themselves with enough accuracy and precision, software engineers aren't going anywhere. Even then, you'll need CS researchers to come up with these robust self-writing programs. It's very much unlikely anyone going into the software field atm will be at risk of having a computer take over their job.

The rise in AI will create job opportunities not just diminish existing ones.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 13

Feel Tha Bern

Original post by Plagioclase

I feel a lot of people underestimate how much it will change the world, this will be more than the invention of the tractor and the plough.

I think if handled correctly it will be beautiful and amazing, quite literally a world where people can work if they so choose, but where the idea of working just to survive is regarded as cruel and absurd. Even if the 1% class had machines which could create wealth without paying the workers, I don't see why they wouldn't share some of this wealth. Let's say you could create a luxury yacht for a cost which barely exceeds the cost of the materials, once the capitalist can do that, there is no point in accumulating billions of pounds to buy yachts because he can create such things for such low cost anyway. If you have factories where the creation of goods is happening on a huge scale for barely any cost whatsoever, but there is nobody to sell those goods to because the poor are all out of work, there was little point in building that factory to begin with. If it gets to this stage, you might as well create everything you want in life directly, rather than earning money and using money to buy what the workers have created

I don't think modern economics is set up to deal with post-scarcity.

Reply 14

Feel Tha Bern

Original post by Princepieman

With all due respect, this is not a law of economics and unless you have reason to believe this to be true, I would take this with huge amounts of salt.

Reply 15

username738914

Original post by Feel Tha Bern

With all due respect, this is not a law of economics and unless you have reason to believe this to be true, I would take this with huge amounts of salt.

It's not a law no, but as with any technological advancement we need to have trained specialists that can develop, build and maintain these systems.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 16

espicton98

my part time job is working kids parties at my local sports centre. I do things like paint faces and blow up balloons, put bouncy castles away and lift heavy play equipment. I suppose parts could be taken over by a machine such as the heavy lifting, the blowing of balloons and even the facepainting but I don't think you would get quite the same experience from a robot as you would an actual human being :smile:

Reply 17

Feel Tha Bern

Original post by Princepieman

It's not a law no, but as with any technological advancement we need to have trained specialists that can develop, build and maintain these systems.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You need a small number of experts, but that's it.

Reply 18

ozzyoscy

It's a bit of a myth. A machine can take a few people's jobs, but then a few new jobs open up: to keep the machine running.

For example, a standard factory conveyor belt setup. You've got 5 guys standing there doing whatever. Then a machine comes in and does their job even faster. But now you need those 5 guys to fix its errors, maintain it, fill it up, move stock etc.

Machines will only take over jobs when they are fully fledged sentient robots, at which point which should be more worried about them killing us.

Reply 19

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Princepieman

It's not a law no, but as with any technological advancement we need to have trained specialists that can develop, build and maintain these systems.

Posted from TSR Mobile