Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    You are totally mistaken.


    Look at how the numbers of horses dropped since the invention of the combustion engine. The major difference here is that we can't send poor people to the glue factory or stop them from having babies.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    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
    There are a number of very distinguished computer scientists, economists and philosophers who would completely disagree with what you're saying. There are people who would agree with you, for sure, but it's nowhere near as obvious a statement as you're making out. Particularly the last point about AI creating job opportunities, because there are several ways in which Artificial Intelligence is fundamentally different from previous technological advancements that people use as analogues to show that it will have a net positive effect in the end.

    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    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.
    The guy I was speaking about earlier made a very good statement: "The danger isn't artificial intelligence, the danger is humans". It's indisputable that AI has huge potential to improve human quality of living so it's really a matter of trying to regulate things well. The speaker was a very traditional American capitalist but he proposed one interesting idea, namely making taxation proportional to the number of shareholders of a company. He argued that if you give corporations a direct incentive to spread out ownership and essentially allow the general public to invest in artificial intelligence, this will prevent the benefits from simply being restricted to the technocrat even if the means of production becomes dominated by these institutions.
    (Original post by 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.
    That's not really true at all. Compare the number of workers in a modern car factory and a car factory from the early 20th century.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I want to be a trader so I'm guessing that at least half of the jobs that currently exist in my industry will be gone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)

    The guy I was speaking about earlier made a very good statement: "The danger isn't artificial intelligence, the danger is humans". It's indisputable that AI has huge potential to improve human quality of living so it's really a matter of trying to regulate things well. The speaker was a very traditional American capitalist but he proposed one interesting idea, namely making taxation proportional to the number of shareholders of a company. He argued that if you give corporations a direct incentive to spread out ownership and essentially allow the general public to invest in artificial intelligence, this will prevent the benefits from simply being restricted to the technocrat even if the means of production becomes dominated by these institutions.
    I really like that suggestion. People say Communism never works because humans are not all the same, but this is not what Communism is, people don't need to be the same. So long as everyone has some legal ownership in what will be these amazingly successful companies, people will benefit collectively from success.


    I don't want to get too caught up with words like ''Communism'' since they have a sort of baggage from the past century, but common ownership in capitalist systems could be a huge positive, a part of creating a basic income for all.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    You are totally mistaken.

    Look at how the numbers of horses dropped since the invention of the combustion engine. The major difference here is that we can't send poor people to the glue factory or stop them from having babies.
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    That's not really true at all. Compare the number of workers in a modern car factory and a car factory from the early 20th century.
    And how many jobs did having those machines create? Who builds these machines, creates the programming, maintains them. runs them, creates the parts, runs the adminstrative side of all of that?

    And why should I be looking at horse numbers?...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    And how many jobs did having those machines create? Who builds these machines, creates the programming, maintains them. runs them, creates the parts, runs the adminstrative side of all of that?

    And why should I be looking at horse numbers?...
    Before the combustion engine.


    Horses were used for transportation, used to deliver messages, used to pull plows in the fields, used for war - Horse numbers were high


    After the combustion engine


    Horse racing, middle class hobbies - Horse numbers are low


    Technology can and does make things obsolete, I'm not arguing to prevent or restrict the march of technology, but we definitely need to look into ensuring it benefits everyone and simply saying ''go back to sleep, it will create more jobs'' doesn't quite cut it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Nope. I'll either be the one telling those machines how to behave in the first place, or I'll be in the entertainment industry where creativity and abstract thinking are essential. Unless they can create AI's to emulate and surpass the human brain, my job is going to be safe. In my lifetime that's almost guaranteed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    Nope. I'll either be the one telling those machines how to behave in the first place, or I'll be in the entertainment industry where creativity and abstract thinking are essential. Unless they can create AI's to emulate and surpass the human brain, my job is going to be safe. In my lifetime that's almost guaranteed.
    We have algorithms which can write music and write journalistic pieces which make perfect sense.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    Before the combustion engine.


    Horses were used for transportation, used to deliver messages, used to pull plows in the fields, used for war - Horse numbers were high


    After the combustion engine


    Horse racing, middle class hobbies - Horse numbers are low


    Technology can and does make things obsolete, I'm not arguing to prevent or restrict the march of technology, but we definitely need to look into ensuring it benefits everyone and simply saying ''go back to sleep, it will create more jobs'' doesn't quite cut it.
    But I still don't get why a lower horse population is a problem. I'm laughing a little bit, this so random, we're talking about the plight of the horse.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    We have algorithms which can write music and write journalistic pieces which make perfect sense.
    If you can create an algorithm that can program a video game I'll be worried, until then I'm fairly relaxed about the situation :lol:
    Even then, ending up in that industry is pretty slim (by that I mean nigh impossible) so I do have more realistic plans. No matter how advanced machines get, you'll always need someone to program them in the first place and that'll be me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    But I still don't get why a lower horse population is a problem. I'm laughing a little bit, this so random, we're talking about the plight of the horse.
    It's not a problem, it's a demonstration that ''other jobs will be created'' is false
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    If you can create an algorithm that can program a video game I'll be worried, until then I'm fairly relaxed about the situation :lol:
    Even then, ending up in that industry is pretty slim (by that I mean nigh impossible) so I do have more realistic plans. No matter how advanced machines get, you'll always need someone to program them in the first place and that'll be me.
    That's actually very cool.


    I don't at all think programmers are immune to this, but by the time you are hit, we've either got basic income for all, or 70% unemployment and blood on the streets
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    It's not a problem, it's a demonstration that ''other jobs will be created'' is false
    Horses aren't quite on the level of humans. They don't know how to use a screwdriver. Are you serious? :lol: :lol:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neverdie)
    Horses aren't quite on the level of humans. They don't know how to use a screwdriver. Are you serious? :lol: :lol:
    That's hardly relevant given that machines can be programmed to use screwdrivers.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    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
    I doubt any self respecting programmer would be willing to help design something for it to then steal their job.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I'm no economist but surely if machines take everyone's job and you're left with billions of unemployed people then the world economy would collapse and it would end with something akin to the French Revolution, the owners of the robots getting the chop?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That's the point though. AI may mean those roles are done by machines.

    What happens when AI are designing/building better AI?
    go on itv and watch last monday's family guy on itv 2 they answer the question quite well
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    And how many jobs did having those machines create? Who builds these machines, creates the programming, maintains them. runs them, creates the parts, runs the adminstrative side of all of that?

    And why should I be looking at horse numbers?...
    Those jobs created, directly, a lot fewer jobs than they destroyed. If you think that artificial intelligence is going to create the same number of jobs as it destroys then I'm sorry, but that's a delusion. The whole reason why automation is a thing in the first place is because it cuts costs and reduces the number of workers required to produce things. What might instead happen is that it forces expansions of other sectors but that is not necessarily the case.
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I doubt any self respecting programmer would be willing to help design something for it to then steal their job.
    That's precisely what a lot of them are doing!
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    If you can create an algorithm that can program a video game I'll be worried, until then I'm fairly relaxed about the situation :lol:Even then, ending up in that industry is pretty slim (by that I mean nigh impossible) so I do have more realistic plans. No matter how advanced machines get, you'll always need someone to program them in the first place and that'll be me.
    Well that's the point, a lot of people would argue that this isn't true! If you've hypothetically managed to create a machine that can do a better job of tasks than humans - and programming is a very logical, mechanistic task so it's definitely something an AI could do - then that removes the need for programmers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I'm no economist but surely if machines take everyone's job and you're left with billions of unemployed people then the world economy would collapse and it would end with something akin to the French Revolution, the owners of the robots getting the chop?
    Whilst us Brits just sit back and quietly moan about it at the pub saying "there's nothing we can do about it, they've won" over a pint being served by machines.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Well that's the point, a lot of people would argue that this isn't true! If you've hypothetically managed to create a machine that can do a better job of tasks than humans - and programming is a very logical, mechanistic task so it's definitely something an AI could do - then that removes the need for programmers.
    Programming isn't 'machinistic', especially when you get to high level languages. It requires creativity and lateral thinking ability.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Articles and guides:

    Hands typing

    Degrees without fees

    Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

    A-Z of careers Advice on choosing a careerCV writing helpCovering letter helpInterview tips

    Featured recruiter profiles:

    CGI logo

    CGI is open for applications

    "Offering a range of apprentice and sponsored degree positions."

    Deutsche Bank logo

    Deutsche Bank is recruiting

    "Thrive in an international banking environment"

    ICAEW logo

    Merck

    "Merck is a global leader in specialized pharma & chemicals – join us!"

    Army logo

    The Army is recruiting now

    "With hundreds of roles available, there’s more than one way to be the best."

    Bianca Miller, runner-up on The Apprentice

    Handle your digital footprint

    What would an employer find out about you on Google? Find out how to take control.

    Quick links:

    Unanswered career sector and employment threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.