Jobs in 200 years

[Ara Pacis]

It is a false equivalency in the real world. But if we were able to work magic and end up with AI's like C3P0 like abilities or better, then I would be placing them in the people category. It would still be false equivalency, but more logical.

Where it holds true is not in the form of the robot itself, but the robot's designer. The designer would define the operational parameters of a profession so well that the designers would be more representative of said profession that the people doing that profession today.

I have actually encountered this principal several times in the workplace in the form of "train the trainer programs". I don't know how many designers, engineers and software people I trained to answer phones. The end result was better software and products. Going the other direction was equally good for business, however I only know of a handful of cases where a phone agent became an engineer*. That is a lot harder to do.

*Many of the phone agents were college students; it was only a matter of time where an engineering student phone agent graduated and got a job with the company in that capacity.

I don't draw a distinction between who codes the software. Once it's written they can jump out a window and no more person. The AI can continue to pass the code along. Perhaps it might even add to it. Doesn't make the coded AI a person though. Do you think "Eliza" is a person?

[Solfe]

"What makes you think do you think "Eliza" is a person?"

Eliza is a great example. That software's designer anticipated inputs to create response that seemed human. The software would fool no one today, its "stupid" as far as AI's go.

Either the human designer exists to adapt the software to be better, or the software itself exists to make the software better. In either case you are dealing with a fairly sophisticated "intelligence". You still have a designer or you have designing code, both are ultimately a function of the profession "designer".

Without the professional making choices, your output product will stagnate and not be as effective as it once was.

[Ara Pacis]

"What makes you think do you think "Eliza" is a person?"

Eliza is a great example. That software's designer anticipated inputs to create response that seemed human. The software would fool no one today, its "stupid" as far as AI's go.

Either the human designer exists to adapt the software to be better, or the software itself exists to make the software better. In either case you are dealing with a fairly sophisticated "intelligence". You still have a designer or you have designing code, both are ultimately a function of the profession "designer".

Without the professional making choices, your output product will stagnate and not be as effective as it once was.

But you're equating professional or designer with person and I don't make that distinction. An AI making choices is an AI making fulfilling programming imperatives, nothing more.

[Noclevername]

If AIs do all the designing/coding/debugging/etc., then humans are no longer needed in the process. (In practice, some meat-people will no doubt still be part of the loop just to provide guidance and creativity, but they'll be a small number.) If automation reaches the point where machines can design, build and repair other machines and perform other similarly complex actions without human intervention, then hypothetically man will no longer need to work by the sweat of his brow.

[Solfe]

But you're equating professional or designer with person and I don't make that distinction. An AI making choices is an AI making fulfilling programming imperatives, nothing more.

Ah, then there is the issue. I do make that distinction. If the program is modifying itself, it is capable of coping, anticipation, and projecting. It isn't that far off from wanting to retire to the golf course with a beer.

[danscope]

There is much to be said for the golf course and a beer .

[Ara Pacis]

Ah, then there is the issue. I do make that distinction. If the program is modifying itself, it is capable of coping, anticipation, and projecting. It isn't that far off from wanting to retire to the golf course with a beer.

Trees and other plants design structures and processes. Are they persons? The earth designs structure and processes. Is it a person?

[Noclevername]

Trees and other plants design structures and processes. Are they persons? The earth designs structure and processes. Is it a person?

You must be using a different definition of "design" than I do.

[Ara Pacis]

You must be using a different definition of "design" than I do.

Chemical and mechanical reactions generating processes that result in non-random distributions due to systemic laws.

[Solfe]

Trees and other plants design structures and processes. Are they persons? The earth designs structure and processes. Is it a person?

Tree's and plants don't design, their DNA in conjuncture with the environment design. Is the DNA an "intelligence" or person? I don't think so myself, but I don't see why you couldn't design the universe's slowest computer code to make things. The chemistry involved is somewhat understood and chemistry is the basis for life... but I just don't see how you could administer an IQ test to DNA.

A machine/computer/code that builds a robot that is also intelligent enough to reproduce is operating closely with our "life speed", you could test it for intelligence.

Although I used C3PO as an example I am starting to feel like I am very close to saying to my dog: "two barks for sentience, Fido". Maybe I am all out of contrariness.

PS - I am going camping tomorrow. I won't be able to respond for a while, have a good couple of days.

[Ara Pacis]

Tree's and plants don't design, their DNA in conjuncture with the environment design. Is the DNA an "intelligence" or person? I don't think so myself, but I don't see why you couldn't design the universe's slowest computer code to make things. The chemistry involved is somewhat understood and chemistry is the basis for life... but I just don't see how you could administer an IQ test to DNA.

A machine/computer/code that builds a robot that is also intelligent enough to reproduce is operating closely with our "life speed", you could test it for intelligence.

Although I used C3PO as an example I am starting to feel like I am very close to saying to my dog: "two barks for sentience, Fido". Maybe I am all out of contrariness.

PS - I am going camping tomorrow. I won't be able to respond for a while, have a good couple of days.

I guess my point that if you definition definition of design includes computers, it may as well include any system. If it includes humans because humans have some special agency, then it cannot include computers, even AI. And it doesn't include synthetic intelligence because I specifically excluded it by fiat earlier, because it's either included with humans or it's not possible.

[bader158]

In 200 years, with the population growth currently and the way we spend our resources, I think there will be chaos by that time. A lot of unemployment. That's just my perspective tho.

I think the economy will be in to worst shape by that time.

[Solfe]

In 200 years, with the population growth currently and the way we spend our resources, I think there will be chaos by that time. A lot of unemployment. That's just my perspective tho.

I think the economy will be in to worst shape by that time.

Which economy? We have a lot of them. I would like to assume that we would adapt to changes like we always have.

To assume otherwise would require lots of man power to maintain ourselves, even at much reduced levels of technology. I think that successful adaptation to new economic conditions will cause unemployment. We are reaching the point where automation is more desirable than employment.

If you like short stories, David Brin investigates these issues in his book "Earth".

[eburacum45]

Our society will almost certainly be very complex in 200 years time; there will be lots to do. Rather than delegating all decision-making off to autonomous AI, there will still be lots of human people involved in running things. There'll probably be innumerable robots and semisentient programs of all kinds beavering away at all the tasks we humans do nowadays, but we'll still need to keep an eye on them. Humans will be necessary to act as shepherds and overseers over hordes of robots and semi-autonomous programs that can't make reliable decisions by themselves. There'll be plenty to do in such a complex civilisation, just coping with the massive number of choices that will need to be made.

This situation will last until we start making fully competent and sentient AI systems that are completely reliable and friendly to humans, and can oversee those hordes of semisentient programs and devices without our input; or until we make fully competent and sentient AI systems which are competely unfriendly to humans, whichever comes first. I don't see either happening in the next 200 years, although it might not take long after that.

Oh, and by the way, antimatter is not a source of energy, so can't be used in a power generator like fission or fusion. Antimatter has to be created by a process which requires a massive input of energy; it can then, in theory, be stored until a later date, at which time a small fraction of that energy can be released. Antimatter is not a source of power, but it is (in theory) a very good, but incredibly expensive, energy storage medium, that could produce lots of power from something very small compared to other types of battery. As such I can't see it being very useful on Earth.

[Maur]

As a famous German philosopher once said, we will "hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

So, you're postulating collapse of civilization and going back to hunting-gathering lifestyle with a bit of pastoralism?

[potoole]

I have read opinions from both sides, regarding robots in the work force, and whether or not it will do away with jobs, or create a different type of job. The jury is still out, methinks.

Quite frankly, I would have preferred a robot to the fellow behind the counter a McD's the other day. The guy I was with, (since you fill your own drinks) says, as it's listed on the sign, "I'd like two beverages, please."

Seems simple, right? WRONG! Our intrepid and underqualified employee stares blankly, and asks, "Uh, you want a McDouble?"

My friend speaks slowly and clearly this time, "Two Large Beverages. Please."

Employee: "What do you mean?"

I rescue them both by saying, "He wants two drinks. They are called beverages on the sign."

Employee: "Oh!"

I'm not even sure how you get a job in a food serving capacity without understanding what a beverage is.

TJ

Some of you have stated that new careers will be created that will require well educated people to perform engineering, planning, designing, highly technical thought provoking work, and many people will fill these positions.

On the other hand, most people won't.

[potoole]

Sombody will have to oil the machines. But then, robots will take over that job. However, someone will still need to oil the oilers.

[Noclevername]

Sombody will have to oil the machines. But then, robots will take over that job. However, someone will still need to oil the oilers.

That's why we'll need robot bartenders.

[Drunk Vegan]

That's why we'll need robot bartenders.

And I believe in 2212 the term "computer analyst" will be likely to refer to a psychologist who specializes in artificial intelligence.

[Ara Pacis]

So, you're postulating collapse of civilization and going back to hunting-gathering lifestyle with a bit of pastoralism?

Actually, I'm starting to think that's more likely. Instead of being getting smarter as a response to increasing complexity, they are getting more obstinate and ignorant. I don't think it's an issue of humans not being capable, but of certain elements of certain societies not being capable. in the past they have been dragged into the future kicking and screaming, but with resource depletion and global warming, the kicking and screaming will become more than figurative. On the plus side, there's a decent chance that the surviving humans may be more adaptable to the necessary changes.

[Noclevername]

Actually, I'm starting to think that's more likely. Instead of being getting smarter as a response to increasing complexity, they are getting more obstinate and ignorant. I don't think it's an issue of humans not being capable, but of certain elements of certain societies not being capable. in the past they have been dragged into the future kicking and screaming, but with resource depletion and global warming, the kicking and screaming will become more than figurative. On the plus side, there's a decent chance that the surviving humans may be more adaptable to the necessary changes.

I think those who are obstinate and ignorant are an ever-shrinking minority. They're just getting louder, because they see their narrow worldviews as under attack. There's just too many educated people in the world today for us to ever revert all the way to hunter-gatherers, barring a near-total population wipeout. There may be temporary setbacks, some of them quite devastating in terms of human suffering, but we've reached a point where we can repair the damage and continue to progress.

[Ara Pacis]

I think those who are obstinate and ignorant are an ever-shrinking minority. They're just getting louder, because they see their narrow worldviews as under attack. There's just too many educated people in the world today for us to ever revert all the way to hunter-gatherers, barring a near-total population wipeout. There may be temporary setbacks, some of them quite devastating in terms of human suffering, but we've reached a point where we can repair the damage and continue to progress.

If it were just sociological, I agree with you, but there are real physical hazards threatening our reality, which as a civilization is merely a veneer of politeness covering barbarism, and those threats may force us into untenable circumstances. Maybe I'll expand this into a separate thread.