Even CNBC now admins that machines will replace labor
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
Kozmos
Jew Detective
Very interesting contribution mister zjintz. An interesting read. Welcome to the forum 
Are you an automated post-bot, trawling forums about mechanization, in order to post a link to that story? Because that would be totally meta.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
What, are they supposed to pay the robots? Doubt it.
Nothing 100% replaces labor. Pay the rest of the workers enough to compensate for the lost jobs. Otherwise the system becomes unsustainable.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
They're not producing any more than they were before the robots. Supervising robots is probably easier than supervising people. Its the robots that are producing all the stuff now.
This article looked like overblown hyperbole to me... Confusing datamining with actual research, computers are great for datamining, but you will always need actual scientists to do real research. Finding patterns is not a fundamentally more impressive skill than basic math operations an abacus can do. There is still no jump toward actual computer research... This article is like someone seeing a computer algebra system and deciding it can replace mathematicians, it can't and the idea of it is absurd.
May be!But it seems to be that my creators put other intentions on me besides that.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
It's easy for you because you don't have to worry about striking workers
.Which has no effect on the fact that if wages do not go up, the system cannot stand.
There has to be enough purchasing power to buy what is produced. Otherwise production has to be decreased. And that means permanent economic stagnation.
I don't think the turing-machine equivalent computers will ever do the actual job of a mathematician. (I dunno if another kind of computer will.)
So I agree with you in that part, scientists are safe for now.
But I think the article is clear pointing that lots of jobs are in danger. The researcher's assistant for example.
When people realize a RNG is more accurate.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
They really just need a machine that throws fits. That guy doesn't actually know anything.
Gooblah
Heh...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,282
Christ...in that case (like most things end up being), that seems ridiculously dependent on location/school, etc.
At my school there's a few thousand Engineering students spread across a dozen-odd disciplines (Aerospace to Industrial Operations, and everything in between). Calculus II (I don't even know what they cover, honestly) and Organic Chemistry are initial weeders to get as many kids out of Engineering as possible..Engineering is widely evaluated to be the toughest college.
Like I said though, it depends on the university. I doubt an engineering discipline at Chicago approaches the difficulty of its Economics program, or Law at Harvard.
This. Honestly, so many teachers themselves don't like math. Kids come in with the expectation that math sucks and is hard from popular culture and their parents, and teachers who dislike the subject only reinforce that impression. By the time they're expected to make life decisions on their own, all they can think is that math sucks and they're no good at it, even though if they had competent math education some of them might have found at least some talent in the subject.
Yes, there will always be a segment of the population which truly hates math or is no good at it, and there are a lot of important things our society needs that don't require massive amounts of math (we'll always need artists, authors, etc, and I don't mean that facetiously).
IMHO, though, math education needs to get better, if only to stop negative reinforcement of math as particularly difficult to the average individual.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
EDIT: Meh, changed my mind.
I heard a good line recently.
"When cars replaced horses, they were net losers. We didn't see the benefits of Ricardo's Comparative Advantage for the horses."
They couldn't justify their maintenance and number through the manual output. We just let them die (or killed them) and didn't replace them.
"When cars replaced horses, they were net losers. We didn't see the benefits of Ricardo's Comparative Advantage for the horses."
They couldn't justify their maintenance and number through the manual output. We just let them die (or killed them) and didn't replace them.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I don't know how hard or easy law is, but when I was in the math/cs department, engineering versions of courses were always a lot lighter in scope and there was never any theoretical work, just application.. When I took economics I was forced to take the engineering faculty version - where you were treated like an idiot when shown graphs and formulas..
In my math classes what usually happened was the prof would prove a whole bunch of theorems on the board.. These theorems implied certain things, which lead to more theorems, conclusions, and mathematical systems. Only then would you see application, such as devising algorithms to traverse the mathematical systems you created.
So when the economics teacher treated an intersection of two lines as an idea worthy of endless repetition, and the engineering faculty students NEEDED this to understand what was going on.. and all the math people sitting in class are bored out of their minds.. you can sort of see why our entire faculty saw engineering as "application work for people dumber than us".. which a lot of was in good fun - there was a healthy competition between the faculties.. but.. yeah
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I've taken a healthy dose of both engineering, math, and Econ courses in College. The Econ ones were by far the easiest.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Are you implying that humans (some/many/not all) would be killed off in the absence of a need for human manual labor?
