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

Brain work may be going the way of manual work

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: Brain work may be going the way of manual work

#31

Post by JulianMorrison »

Iterated wrote: post #22
bsenftner wrote: post #16

It's the finance and legal professions that are most at risk with the current level of AI and machine learning. Contrary to what most finance and legal professionals believe, there is low creativity in their vocations - and that is exactly what AI and machine learning does best: wrote procedural operations from a complex set of rules. This will be very interesting to see how our "captains of corruption" (the fucks th…

What part of finance do you think will go first ? Finance is highly subjective, and while I don't think it isn't at risk of being taken over by AI, I think it will be quite a while before a machine can make the proper subjective decisions a finance professional makes.

Uh, they already do, high frequency trading.

Re: Brain work may be going the way of manual work

#32

Post by ippisl »

kybernetyk wrote: post #4
3pt14159 wrote: post #2

No they will not. The amount of effort required to shrink real knowledge worker jobs is astronomical compared to simply driving a car. After the singularity, fine. But even that will require a massive, massive amount of work. The low hanging fruit for increasing knowledge work output is in Gattaca not AI.

I guess the point where an AI can replace a programmer is the point where a technological singularity begins. Because at that point the AI is capable of improving its own code which would lead to a 'runaway reaction'. And if you're in a post-singularity world you don't really have to worry about jobs anymore. So I guess being a programmer is pretty future proof ;)

It depends i think. Let's say you develop mobile games for a living and then the unemployment rate rises to 20-30%. The economy collapses, and nobody buys games. Not the best place to be while paying the mortgage.

Ironically , if you're a programer who increases productivity, i.e. causes unemployment, you save money. In sour economy the need to save money is the greatest.

Re: Brain work may be going the way of manual work

#33

Post by return0 »

3pt14159 wrote: post #2

No they will not. The amount of effort required to shrink real knowledge worker jobs is astronomical compared to simply driving a car. After the singularity, fine. But even that will require a massive, massive amount of work. The low hanging fruit for increasing knowledge work output is in Gattaca not AI.

I would rather prepare for it rather than shove my head in the sand. Is there reason to believe it will come later rather than sooner?

Re: Brain work may be going the way of manual work

#34

Post by invalidOrTaken »

nwenzel wrote: post #20

While I doubt there will be some Reverse Big Bang of creative destruction, it's tough to argue that the need for knowledge workers is being reduced. In theory, even Excel reduces the need for knowledge workers by allowing a single analyst to produce more output that an analyst with graph paper. My question to HN-ers, as people who write code that further reduces the need for knowledge workers, how should we feel abou…

Some technologies are inherently populist, while others are authoritarian. ENIAC was authoritarian, pocket calculators populist (and abacus more so, because it can be produced from more easily available materials). Tanks authoritarian (because too expensive for one person), IEDs populist. Large solar plants authoritarian, "small-solar," one-family panel setups populist. Agribusiness authoritarian, home fertilizer production for home gardens populist.

We may end up as net job destroyers, but if we create enough new entrepreneurs, or make off-the-grid more viable, then I don't feel so bad.

Re: Brain work may be going the way of manual work

#35

Post by wvenable »

3pt14159 wrote: post #2

No they will not. The amount of effort required to shrink real knowledge worker jobs is astronomical compared to simply driving a car. After the singularity, fine. But even that will require a massive, massive amount of work. The low hanging fruit for increasing knowledge work output is in Gattaca not AI.

It's already happening. The number of "knowledge worker" jobs is shrinking. The low-skilled are the first to go and software is replacing them, just as low-skilled labor jobs have been replaced by machines.

It's a slow process, as the quantity and depth of software increases, the number of knowledge workers decreases. That's literally the reason for existence for most software.

Re: Brain work may be going the way of manual work

#36

Post by mapleoin »

Aardwolf wrote: post #14
mapleoin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you misread computing power as CPU clock speed

No I didn't. Intel desktop CPUs did not gain a significant amount of computing power the last 3 years. Compare 1995 CPUs to 1998. Now compare 2010 CPUs to 2013.

think parallel

Re: Brain work may be going the way of manual work

#37

Post by theorique »

bsenftner wrote: post #16

It's the finance and legal professions that are most at risk with the current level of AI and machine learning. Contrary to what most finance and legal professionals believe, there is low creativity in their vocations - and that is exactly what AI and machine learning does best: wrote procedural operations from a complex set of rules. This will be very interesting to see how our "captains of corruption" (the fucks th…

As a finance professional (HF equities trader), I find this surprising. We are using computers more and more in this world. Of course, if a person has no familiarity or skill with computers - for analytics, monitoring, and so forth - they are likely to be left behind.

Re: Brain work may be going the way of manual work

#38

Post by guard-of-terra »

moarzLaw wrote: post #13
sliverstorm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the article, like just about damn everyone else, completely misunderstands Moore's law, which actually observes that the number of transistors we can fit on a chip doubles every two years. Transistor count does not directly correlate to performance.

Wrong again. Moore's law is actually not any kind of law at all. It's merely a business practice adopted by Intel, which they attempt to adhere to. The fact that they refer to it as a law, and that journalists around the world parrot their term, is all merely a magical marketing sales pitch. They TRY to double the transistor count on a periodic basis, and, when they do, suddenly, they've got a newer, better, more exp…

If they won't try to double the transistor count, then somebody else will come and eat their lunch. Trying to make better products is the only viable strategy for them.

Moore's law is about their success in doing so. Your car's horse power doesn't increase twofold every 1,5 years neither its gas consumption decreases, but with transistors it actually happens.

Re: Brain work may be going the way of manual work

#39

Post by conroe64 »

kybernetyk wrote: post #4
3pt14159 wrote: post #2

No they will not. The amount of effort required to shrink real knowledge worker jobs is astronomical compared to simply driving a car. After the singularity, fine. But even that will require a massive, massive amount of work. The low hanging fruit for increasing knowledge work output is in Gattaca not AI.

I guess the point where an AI can replace a programmer is the point where a technological singularity begins. Because at that point the AI is capable of improving its own code which would lead to a 'runaway reaction'. And if you're in a post-singularity world you don't really have to worry about jobs anymore. So I guess being a programmer is pretty future proof ;)

So, post singularity, people with no wealth or ability to work will be prevented from starving? There are many people that are dying from starvation today. Why would this change?

Re: Brain work may be going the way of manual work

#40

Post by Aardwolf »

mapleoin wrote: post #36
Aardwolf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I didn't. Intel desktop CPUs did not gain a significant amount of computing power the last 3 years. Compare 1995 CPUs to 1998. Now compare 2010 CPUs to 2013.

think parallel

Yes, they had 4-core CPUs in 2006, and still have 4-core CPUs in 2013 (with a few rare xeon 6-cores).
Post reply on HN