**** Work

PhilParma

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Messages
543
Location
Minnesota
Good job guys, this thread is scaring the :pileofpoop: out of me.

I need to research some careers other than programming that the robots aren't going to steal from me in 20 years. I'm below-average technologically and socially. It would really suck to have the accounting profession taken over by AI when I'm 45, and be left up ***t Creek without a paddle.
 

Mato

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
11
Where does your food, shelter, and clothing come from if you're not willing to work?
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Many jobs are futile work. Futile in the sense that it doesn't make things better, even making things worse.

Quack doctors, for example. Patient comes in with a condition. Gets treated. They leave, still with that condition, with an additional condition looming. They keep coming back, each time worse off than before. Doctors are assured of a job. Honest work? Hardly.

True doctors heal. Patients don't come back. It's real work. Not a job. No hospital will give him a job. But it's honest work.

True doctors are healthy. Don't need health insurance. Have less artificial needs imposed by society. With their skills, they have a bottomless well. Why do they need jobs? They will always be needed.

The world is in a futile cycle because most jobs feed that futile cycle.
 
OP
Dessert_All_Day
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
406
Where does your food, shelter, and clothing come from if you're not willing to work?

Generations that worked before us. Most societal wealth, both private and public, came from all the efforts of previous generations, for which none of us currently alive are responsible. Those born into wealth don't have to work a day in their lives, yet no one complains when they're lazy. People only complain about laziness when it's the poor choosing not to work. And yet the only thing that separates the non-working poor from the non-working rich person born into wealth is who their parents were, something over which they had no control.
 
Last edited:
OP
Dessert_All_Day
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
406
People tend to identify with their jobs and overvalue their own skills. This leads them to believe all work is more important than it is. The work that's important though is the work that's on the cutting edge of advancing technologies. The rest is pretty much bull****.
 

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
Many jobs are futile work. Futile in the sense that it doesn't make things better, even making things worse.

Quack doctors, for example. Patient comes in with a condition. Gets treated. They leave, still with that condition, with an additional condition looming. They keep coming back, each time worse off than before. Doctors are assured of a job. Honest work? Hardly.

True doctors heal. Patients don't come back. It's real work. Not a job. No hospital will give him a job. But it's honest work.

True doctors are healthy. Don't need health insurance. Have less artificial needs imposed by society. With their skills, they have a bottomless well. Why do they need jobs? They will always be needed.

The world is in a futile cycle because most jobs feed that futile cycle.
It really depends on the doctor and what type of doctor. A general practitioner who prescribes adderall for ADHD is obviously treating the symptom and making the condition worse. A surgeon who saves someones life is another story. It seems that doctors are really good at saving people in the face of immediate death but faith to cure chronic conditions. Partially because chronic conditions make Big Pharma money. And Big Pharma influences the doctors.


People just a few decades ago were saying the exact same thing about jobs that have since been either completely taken over by AI or will be very soon (wall street traders, accountants, medical professionals, food prep workers, truck drivers, and many others).
Well it depends on the kind of work done. You can automatize almost all of accounting because it is essentially crunching numbers. Medical professionals such as doctors and nurses won't likely be replaced within our life time because they deal with highly dynamic situations. They also require human creative thought. Which is a fantasy in AI at the moment. You can create a convincing illusion like a robot smiling and talking to somebody, but it will lack the creative thought and the ability to adapt to a situation as a human would. Sure you can make a robot that takes some of the load off of doctors such as a robot that gives someone a shot, but it will not replace the doctor.

This is only the case when a fashion model or someone that wants a really specific style to his hair is getting his hair done. It's not true for most people, and you're therefore straying from the original point: the job of cutting hair will cease to be a profession for all but the most serious hairdressers (a very small percentage of people who cut hair for a living). Nobody argued that cutting hair wasn't difficult for AI. I simply made the points (which you've failed to convince me are incorrect) that (1) self-driving cars are more complex to program than hair-cutting robots and (2) everyone except the very best hairdressers will have their wage pushed so far down by the competition from said robots as to be out of a job.

Note also that self-driving cars are far more profitable than robotic hairdressers because of their effect on multiple other major industries, as well as being much more desirable by society because of the deaths currently caused by human drivers. And so we should expect there to be far more economic incentive to bring them to market than robotic hairdressers, even if hairdressers are easier to program.
Currently getting a robot that can walk on dynamic terrain is a great feet in the robotics industry. And a ridiculously expensive one. We do not have so many resources that we can replace all these jobs in terms of man power. A simple hair dresser robot will take many years and an incredible amount of money to design. Then hair dressers would have to pay an incredible amount of money to install such devices. As for why it is more difficult to design than a self driving car depends on how advanced the robot is. Try doing a very basic form of pseudocode for each robot where you list the tasks that must be done, what information or input is needed for each task, how the task will be accomplished, etc.
 

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
Generations that worked before us. Most societal wealth came from previous generations. Those born into wealth don't have to work a day in their lives.
The problem is no one is going to give you a sufficient amount of money so you can not work. People are not going to distribute wealth without getting anything for it. Even in socialism where wealth is distributed people are made to have jobs. Though in such societies people often neglect their jobs which leads to many problems. This is made infinity worse if people are given money without jobs. Quite simply no one would work and if no one would work you don't have a society. Who will be the barista at starbucks just because? Who will manage the starbucks and make sure the food is of good quality just because? Who will grow the food just because? Who will distribute the food just because? When you just give money to people you are literally destroying the purpose of that money. In such a society people will still do things but money will be useless. You would not be able to walk up to someone and give them money for a car because everyone makes money for doing nothing and it is useless to try to make extra money via a job like selling cars because there would be an infinite positive feedback loop of inflation. In such a society one would have to trade goods for goods but this cannot work for large companies as there would be no standardization and no way to mobilize the masses of goods traded. It only works that inherently rich people can have money without a job because no one else does.

Pretty much this:
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Partially because chronic conditions make Big Pharma money. And Big Pharma influences the doctors.
Which is why it is a job. Most jobs require following wrong orders and directives like a robot. It's not about what is right at that moment. Quack doctors in hospitals understand this: First, obey orders, no matter what. Secondly, think of your future, your wife, your kids. Third, take care of your patient. In that order.

A job is thus stressful. Your morals tell you otherwise, but you do that which is harmful to others. Doing this daily isn't something that builds on your health. At the end of your career, if you're keeping count, you feel sorry for the many lives you've taken away, albeit slowly. All because of a job!
 

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
Which is why it is a job. Most jobs require following wrong orders and directives like a robot. It's not about what is right at that moment. Quack doctors in hospitals understand this: First, obey orders, no matter what. Secondly, think of your future, your wife, your kids. Third, take care of your patient. In that order.
There are a lot of jobs like this but I don't agree that most jobs involve following bad orders. But yes money rules everything in business. Morals are often tossed out the window and it has done a lot of harm in this world.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
There are a lot of jobs like this but I don't agree that most jobs involve following bad orders. But yes money rules everything in business. Morals are often tossed out the window and it has done a lot of harm in this world.
Yes, maybe not most jobs. But the jobs that matter.
 

Fractality

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
772
I don't believe it is a certainty that people wouldn't be baristas, make/serve food, sell cars, etc if they didn't have to worry about earning money to survive. I believe that if people's' basic needs are met, there would be people who would still choose to do those things. Sure, there would be some people who would just watch TV or what have you, but I believe there are enough people who would want to do something and interact with other people through service.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I don't believe it is a certainty that people wouldn't be baristas, make/serve food, sell cars, etc if they didn't have to worry about earning money to survive. I believe that if people's' basic needs are met, there would be people who would still choose to do those things. Sure, there would be some people who would just watch TV or what have you, but I believe there are enough people who would want to do something and interact with other people through service.
That is a good observation. These people want to be busy doing what they enjoy doing. When you are in contact with people, rather than staring through a screen, you find a reason to love living. Of course, you would much rather be in a job where there is less stress.

Of course, I'm not talking about firemen. Firemen find the work satisfying, even when they are in danger, because they are saving people from danger. So they find meaning in it. But if you are in the relative safety of answering calls from irate customers in a call center, you are very stressed. There is high turnover in that kind of environment of a job.
 
OP
Dessert_All_Day
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
406
Well it depends on the kind of work done. You can automatize almost all of accounting because it is essentially crunching numbers. Medical professionals such as doctors and nurses won't likely be replaced within our life time because they deal with highly dynamic situations. They also require human creative thought. Which is a fantasy in AI at the moment. You can create a convincing illusion like a robot smiling and talking to somebody, but it will lack the creative thought and the ability to adapt to a situation as a human would. Sure you can make a robot that takes some of the load off of doctors such as a robot that gives someone a shot, but it will not replace the doctor.

Whether you realize it or not, you're moving the goal posts again though. Because my original point wasn't that AI is, in the near-term, going to take over every single aspect of every single job. Rather, like in the hairdresser example, AI will take over enough tasks as to make certain professions so much more competitive such that very few people will remain employed (e.g. only a small number of doctors will be required to perform the tasks which AI can't yet quite do) and most people will be left unemployed or employed for very low wages--basically subsistence wages--at professions that are in such limited demand that no company is incentivized to invest in/automate them.


Currently getting a robot that can walk on dynamic terrain is a great feet in the robotics industry. And a ridiculously expensive one. We do not have so many resources that we can replace all these jobs in terms of man power. A simple hair dresser robot will take many years and an incredible amount of money to design. Then hair dressers would have to pay an incredible amount of money to install such devices. As for why it is more difficult to design than a self driving car depends on how advanced the robot is. Try doing a very basic form of pseudocode for each robot where you list the tasks that must be done, what information or input is needed for each task, how the task will be accomplished, etc.

I already addressed this in my previous post. Hairdressers aren't as profitable to automate. Otherwise we'd see more progress there. Automated cars, on the other hand, affect so many aspects of our economy and save so many lives as to be worth the massive investments we currently are seeing by multiple major players in that industry.

I also think you're overestimating the complexity by a lot. Neural networks have made leaps and bounds of progress in the last decade--take facial recognition for example--and cutting hair just isn't as hard as you're making it sound. Humans don't have any special abilities that an AI can't practice at and teach itself to become better at.
 

Constatine

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
1,781
I don't believe it is a certainty that people wouldn't be baristas, make/serve food, sell cars, etc if they didn't have to worry about earning money to survive. I believe that if people's' basic needs are met, there would be people who would still choose to do those things. Sure, there would be some people who would just watch TV or what have you, but I believe there are enough people who would want to do something and interact with other people through service.
But not enough to have a functioning society. It takes so much coordination of different jobs to simply get food into a grocery store. Plus the more demanding jobs like engineering will all but stop (aside from a few individuals).

Whether you realize it or not, you're moving the goal posts again though. Because my original point wasn't that AI is, in the near-term, going to take over every single aspect of every single job. Rather, like in the hairdresser example, AI will take over enough tasks as to make certain professions so much more competitive such that very few people will remain employed (e.g. only a small number of doctors will be required to perform the tasks which AI can't yet quite do) and most people will be left unemployed or employed for very low wages--basically subsistence wages--at professions that are in such limited demand that no company is incentivized to invest in/automate them.
Yeah this will probably happen (perhaps through enhanced tools though not AI). Though jobs are both created and destroyed here. Mechanics and engineers will be happy with these changes. Though unfortunately that leaves many who can no longer pay their bills.

I already addressed this in my previous post. Hairdressers aren't as profitable to automate. Otherwise we'd see more progress there. Automated cars, on the other hand, affect so many aspects of our economy and save so many lives as to be worth the massive investments we currently are seeing by multiple major players in that industry.

I also think you're overestimating the complexity by a lot. Neural networks have made leaps and bounds of progress in the last decade--take facial recognition for example--and cutting hair just isn't as hard as you're making it sound. Humans don't have any special abilities that an AI can't practice at and teach itself to become better at.
One of my points was that many fields are not profitable to automate. The fact we are talking about a hairdresser is arbitrary. Americans will not lose 50 percent of their jobs to machines because it is not profitable nor do we have the resources to design AI for every job.
I am definitely not overestimating the complexity of machine learning. Facial recognition is one of the more basic types of machine learning. Though I don't see how I can prove all this to you.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Unless your work is generative and purposeful, your life is likely made miserable by the drudgery of work.
And you have only the weekend to look forward to. Sandwiched in between TGIF and Monday blues.
 

Energizer

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
611
And you have only the weekend to look forward to. Sandwiched in between TGIF and Monday blues.

Do you have other jobs you can transfer into? I know a guy who does website editing jobs on the site Upwork, could freelancing be a way out of the typical 9-5 grind? Any freelancers here? In any case it sounds like you are unhappy with your job now, are there alternatives for you that you could do? Perhaps something that allows you to work less hours. I've been looking into that kind of stuff but I don't know if I'm even motivated enough to learn how to learn the skills for such things.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
Do you have other jobs you can transfer into? I know a guy who does website editing jobs on the site Upwork, could freelancing be a way out of the typical 9-5 grind? Any freelancers here? In any case it sounds like you are unhappy with your job now, are there alternatives for you that you could do? Perhaps something that allows you to work less hours. I've been looking into that kind of stuff but I don't know if I'm even motivated enough to learn how to learn the skills for such things.
I left my job long ago, the one with a big X. Then became an IT contractor. It doesn't pay as well, but I was better off. But I left since the writing was on the wall. I took some time to care for my parents in their twilight. They're gone now. The best thing I've learned is about Peat during this time. I think there are opportunities when you start with no dependency on health insurance and the medical system it espouses, and if you have your health and a fit mind and body, you can more easily chart your course and make sail.
 

Energizer

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
611
I left my job long ago, the one with a big X. Then became an IT contractor. It doesn't pay as well, but I was better off. But I left since the writing was on the wall. I took some time to care for my parents in their twilight. They're gone now. The best thing I've learned is about Peat during this time. I think there are opportunities when you start with no dependency on health insurance and the medical system it espouses, and if you have your health and a fit mind and body, you can more easily chart your course and make sail.

Interesting. So now you have more challenges due to health issues? I am young and in decent health but I have no direction myself. I hope you find something that suits you better.
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
There is just one issue left. It will be resolved. Just do one thing well. Not a tall order. Have a compass and you won't be wandering aimlessly.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom