Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

At Davos, IBM Chief Predicts Artificial Intelligence Won’t Be a Job Killer

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 195 posts

Re: At Davos, IBM Chief Predicts Artificial Intelligence Won’t Be a Job Killer

#141

Post by monk_e_boy »

vkou wrote: post #92
monk_e_boy wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are rolling out touch screen ordering for our local macdonalds. I don't think they fire anyone, but throughput is higher (so I guess that is one or two less jobs per customer served)

They've rolled out touch screen grocery checkout... Pretty much everywhere over the last decade. My local QFC used to employ a dozen cashiers - now, they employ 4. What jobs have been created by this automation? This certainly didn't create 8 (times the # of stores) jobs for software engineers - otherwise, this wouldn't have been profitable for QFC. Does anyone seriously think that those 8 people went on to do work t…

> What jobs have been created by this automation?

HackerNews is read by a very weird set of people. All highly motivated and smart. Now, I've worked in a lot of small companies with people who are fairly smart but have no realy desire to win at work (or get promoted) they just want to turn up, do the work and go home. Home is time for family, hobbies, pub, etc.

I've noticed that simple web apps replace people. Excel or an access database, some scripts and someones job is suddenly much easier. People move on, or get demoted to part time, or some small pay cut (or years without a pay rise) and eventually leave.

These are usually the 18 - 25 year olds, employed to help out accounts or a manager or as a secretary while the PA is busy. These are the people that I don't see around so much these days. The gossips, the ones who remember your kids names, who have time for a chat. Who organise a night down the pub where the whole team bonds. They are the glue and the social oil that makes the machine move smoothly.

But they don't seem to get hired these days. Who needs them to print out a thousand letters and put them in envelopes? gmail will do that. Who needs them to find that document filed away in the back office? Or to go to the other office on the other side of town to find that blueprint?

Automation does kill jobs. For good and for bad. Life goes on.

Re: At Davos, IBM Chief Predicts Artificial Intelligence Won’t Be a Job Killer

#142

Post by kbenson »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #67
kbenson wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horses are tools that people used. When there's no more use for the tool, it's usage may be reduces. People are not just tools, they are the reason we have an economy in the first place. A solution in some form will have to be put forth if one doesn't emerge. Another way of looking at this is that we weren't ever under threat of millions of displaced horses rising up and overthrowing the system. Since that is a possi…

>"Horses are tools that people used. When there's no more use for the tool, it's usage may be reduces. People are not just tools, they are the reason we have an economy in the first place. A solution in some form will have to be put forth if one doesn't emerge." Putting aside my dislike for considering horses as tools, you're missing an important point. Economies only have to function for those at the top in order to…

> Putting aside my dislike for considering horses as tools

Well, I labeled humans as tools as well, so I'm not treating horses any differently in that respect than I am people, so I think you inferred a slightly different connotation for tool than I meant. Interestingly, the ability to see horses as non-tools is possible largely because their usefulness as a tool was surpassed by other technology. The same with cats and dogs.

> You could say that the majority of humans are just seen as 'tools' to the people in power that are driven by profit.

Yes, that is one aspect of the current system. The main difference is that it's not the only aspect, as it was for significant periods of history for significant portions of the world.

> If you think this is far fetched, look at what's happening in places like Flint, Michigan. People were drinking poisoned water for decades, and those in charge knew about it.

This is only a counter-example if the problem comes out, everyone wants a change, and nothing happens, and then only somewhat, depending on how much people actually care. I'm not arguing that the world has magically eradicated corruption, negligence and shortsightedness, but I do believe that once exposed the public then gets to steer the response if they care enough. Special interests will still have a disproportionate amount of influence, but when the populace cares enough, that disproportionate influence is a drop in the bucket compared to the influence of an incited populace.

Re: At Davos, IBM Chief Predicts Artificial Intelligence Won’t Be a Job Killer

#143

Post by thibauts »

dualogy wrote: post #136
Houshalter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this time it is different. I like the comparison to horses. Steam engines and trains threatened to replace horses in the mid 1800s. A lot of things that were previously done by horses were replaced with trains and steam engines. Yet the horse population grew, and cities remained full of horses. There were countless transportation innovations in the 1800s, from canals to streetcars and omnibuses to bicycles. But…

> I can't imagine robots being able to program computers for awhile. This actually puzzles me (especially since writing code requires no physical robot, just "an intelligence"). Just recently, we had some AI beat the world's Go champion? Poker, chess and countless other games are long done. Programming, in many languages for many tasks, isn't that much of a stretch. In all these games you have a number of primitive o…

Writing complete non-ambiguous specs looks absolutely equivalent to writing code.

Re: At Davos, IBM Chief Predicts Artificial Intelligence Won’t Be a Job Killer

#144

Post by flukus »

cjlars wrote: post #14

There's a lot believers in technological unemployment here on HN and one thing I think that viewpoint misses is just how darn resilient humans are to changes in the economy. In the past 150 years, we've seen human manual labor replaced by mechanical labor. Think about that -- a lot of early California settlers walked here, and now you're commanding power roughly equivalent to 100 horses when you hop into your car. Ag…

One things that's different is that we've reached consumption limits. I can't eat more or much better. I don't have time to watch more TV and movies. I don't need more stuff or services. If I don't need more then there won't be jobs available to people to create more.

Re: At Davos, IBM Chief Predicts Artificial Intelligence Won’t Be a Job Killer

#145

Post by megablast »

cjlars wrote: post #14

There's a lot believers in technological unemployment here on HN and one thing I think that viewpoint misses is just how darn resilient humans are to changes in the economy. In the past 150 years, we've seen human manual labor replaced by mechanical labor. Think about that -- a lot of early California settlers walked here, and now you're commanding power roughly equivalent to 100 horses when you hop into your car. Ag…

There are two camps as I see it.

People who recognise the threat from cheap AI and robot.

And people who think there is some hand-wavy magical force that will ensure that people will always be employed.

You can see that doesn't work now, you can see low income jobs are down, and while they are rising in China and India, those people are already being replaced by robots.

Re: At Davos, IBM Chief Predicts Artificial Intelligence Won’t Be a Job Killer

#146

Post by funkymike »

VLM wrote: post #140
6d6b73 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The tech has been here for more than a decade. Why don't restaurants do this?" I'm in automation, so maybe I can answer this. Small businesses don't have necessary capital to implement automation solutions. While they know that in a long term this would be good idea, they have a hard time doing it. Large corporations are slower to implement any major change, and sometimes they are limited by contracts they have with…

The restaurant business is all about signalling and having the right people doing the right imaginative artisinal ultra-trendy hand labor. Its very much like the prostitution industry or pr0n. None of those are going to automate any time soon.

There's a big difference between McDonald's and a high end restaurant, even if you just order a hamburger. McDonald's has already been working on automation. Have you noticed that humans no longer dispense drinks there? They are also working on getting rid of the human order takers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34T3IkAtOrc&ab_channel=McDon...

For restaurants where one of the main draws is price I think automation is inevitable as a cost saving measure.

Re: At Davos, IBM Chief Predicts Artificial Intelligence Won’t Be a Job Killer

#147

Post by cjlars »

Retric wrote: post #81
cjlars wrote: post #14

There's a lot believers in technological unemployment here on HN and one thing I think that viewpoint misses is just how darn resilient humans are to changes in the economy. In the past 150 years, we've seen human manual labor replaced by mechanical labor. Think about that -- a lot of early California settlers walked here, and now you're commanding power roughly equivalent to 100 horses when you hop into your car. Ag…

The 'unemployment rate' is fictional, and it takes a lot of hand waving to get to 5% unemployment rate. Some of which justified, but it's only useful for year to year comparisons not decade to decade as the number keep changing. Right now there are 121.5 million people working full time in the US. The population is 320 million people and 250 million adults and 200 million adults under 65. So actual employment is arou…

It does not take any hand waving -- you're trying to redefine a standard variable. U-3 is the 'headline' unemployment number which is near 5% right now. There are plenty of other ways to calculate it, including at least 5 published by the BLS. All of them tell the same story: people who want jobs, historically and barring recession, have been by and large able to get them, even if the job itself is not ideal.

Your 50% number is more commonly called the 'labor force participation rate' and it's near 63% right now [1], but has trended down for the past few decades. I would argue (as Keynes did) that if work force participation falls and standards of living continues to rise (or stay flat) then society is having good results.

[1] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/94333000-not...

Re: At Davos, IBM Chief Predicts Artificial Intelligence Won’t Be a Job Killer

#148

Post by bobajeff »

Houshalter wrote: post #40
cjlars wrote: post #14

There's a lot believers in technological unemployment here on HN and one thing I think that viewpoint misses is just how darn resilient humans are to changes in the economy. In the past 150 years, we've seen human manual labor replaced by mechanical labor. Think about that -- a lot of early California settlers walked here, and now you're commanding power roughly equivalent to 100 horses when you hop into your car. Ag…

Yes, this time it is different. I like the comparison to horses. Steam engines and trains threatened to replace horses in the mid 1800s. A lot of things that were previously done by horses were replaced with trains and steam engines. Yet the horse population grew, and cities remained full of horses. There were countless transportation innovations in the 1800s, from canals to streetcars and omnibuses to bicycles. But…

> Maybe skilled professions will be protected - I can't imagine robots being able to program computers for awhile.

In the popular "Humans Need Not Apply" video about this subject. It was suggested that there are signs that "creative" jobs are already being replaced by automation and that professionals are the ones creating tools that replace themselves.

Re: At Davos, IBM Chief Predicts Artificial Intelligence Won’t Be a Job Killer

#149

Post by knodi123 »

cryptoz wrote: post #7
josho wrote: post #3

This is all you need to read from the article: > Advances in artificial intelligence will lead to job losses, but new forms of employment will take their place...History, though, has demonstrated that technological breakthroughs lead to new employment opportunities -- IBM CEO Ginni Rometty But, I think we are approaching (if we haven't already crossed this point) the time where new jobs created by technology advancem…

I agree. It all seems so obvious to me that I feel like I must be the fool in the room, but that can't be. Technology and progress in science changes the kinds of work we do. The processes are accelerating, and we're reaching a point where work is better done by machines. I can see no viable future for humans other than Universal Basic Income, with options for additional creativity and work unbounded by time spent do…

> so that automation can make our lives easier and provide higher quality of life to all?

No one has explained to me how this is supposed to occur. I agree that if you were building a civilization from scratch and had this sort of automation available, you'd probably come up with a nice idealistic solution.

But as it is, starting from the world we live in today, these sorts of efficiency savings just seem to concentrate wealth in the hands of the robot owners.

I feel like companies would say "Oh, look at this, our production went up 10x at no increased cost. Now, should we use that increase to maximize our profits, or should we just raise wages and cut working hours in order to selflessly do our part towards creating a utopia?"

Re: At Davos, IBM Chief Predicts Artificial Intelligence Won’t Be a Job Killer

#150

Post by knodi123 »

cryptoz wrote: post #7
josho wrote: post #3

This is all you need to read from the article: > Advances in artificial intelligence will lead to job losses, but new forms of employment will take their place...History, though, has demonstrated that technological breakthroughs lead to new employment opportunities -- IBM CEO Ginni Rometty But, I think we are approaching (if we haven't already crossed this point) the time where new jobs created by technology advancem…

I agree. It all seems so obvious to me that I feel like I must be the fool in the room, but that can't be. Technology and progress in science changes the kinds of work we do. The processes are accelerating, and we're reaching a point where work is better done by machines. I can see no viable future for humans other than Universal Basic Income, with options for additional creativity and work unbounded by time spent do…

> UBI is going to be the future simply because it has to be.

I can think of an alternative. Ahem, cough cough dystopia cough cough.

Post reply on HN