• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

You Will Lose Your Job to a Robot—and Sooner Than You Think

MikeD

I'm Your Huckleberry
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
"Philanthropist"
LINK: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/you-will-lose-your-job-to-a-robot-and-sooner-than-you-think/

Long read but very interesting.

I want to tell you straight off what this story is about: Sometime in the next 40 years, robots are going to take your job.

I don’t care what your job is. If you dig ditches, a robot will dig them better. If you’re a magazine writer, a robot will write your articles better. If you’re a doctor, IBM’s Watson will no longer “assist” you in finding the right diagnosis from its database of millions of case studies and journal articles. It will just be a better doctor than you.

That’s kind of a buzzkill, isn’t it? Luckily, it’s traditional that stories about difficult or technical subjects open with an entertaining or provocative anecdote. The idea is that this allows readers to ease slowly into daunting material. So here’s one for you: Last year at Christmas, I was over at my mother’s house and mentioned that I had recently read an article about Google Translate. It turns out that a few weeks previously, without telling anyone, Google had switched over to a new machine-learning algorithm. Almost overnight, the quality of its translations skyrocketed. I had noticed some improvement myself but had chalked it up to the usual incremental progress these kinds of things go through. I hadn’t realized it was due to a quantum leap in software.

But if Google’s translation algorithm was better, did that mean its voice recognition was better too? And its ability to answer queries? Hmm. How could we test that? We decided to open presents instead of cogitating over this.

But after that was over, the subject of erasers somehow came up. Which ones are best? Clear? Black? Traditional pink? Come to think of it, why are erasers traditionally pink? “I’ll ask Google!” I told everyone. So I pulled out my phone and said, “Why are erasers pink?” Half a second later, Google told me.

426-20170929-robots_b_960.jpg

Roberto Parada
Not impressed? You should be. We all know that phones can recognize voices tolerably well these days. And we know they can find the nearest café or the trendiest recipe for coq au vin. But what about something entirely random? And not a simple who, where, or when question. This was a why question, and it wasn’t about why the singer Pink uses erasers or why erasers are jinxed. Google has to be smart enough to figure out in context that I said pink and that I’m asking about the historical reason for the color of erasers, not their health or the way they’re shaped. And it did. In less than a second. With nothing more than a cheap little microprocessor and a slow link to the internet.

(In case you’re curious, Google got the answer from Design*Sponge: “The eraser was originally produced by the Eberhard Faber Company…The erasers featured pumice, a volcanic ash from Italy that gave them their abrasive quality, along with their distinctive color and smell.”)

Still not impressed? When Watson famously won a round of Jeopardy! against the two best human players of all time, it needed a computer the size of a bedroom to answer questions like this. That was only seven years ago.

.....
 
You can see what modern automation has already done.

I spent my whole professional life working with programmed machinery. It allowed me to do the work of a dozen engineers with pencils and books. It allowed one machine to replace a dozen men or more, Building engines or digging ditches. It made human beings much more productive all around the world.
It allowed us to squander a lot of productivity. Look at how much we can afford to waste!

Now people believe that this trend of automated machinery and Robotics will result in no jobs for human hands . . . that everything will be better and faster by machine.

Instead, we will find out that machines are very good workers, but they will be very poor companions.

We will find out that even when people do not have jobs to go to they will still find work to do. Human beings will still need physical and mental work for the species to survive.

The people who won't work then are the same people who won't work now. You will probably always have those.

Robots will make very poor inventors. They will be able to take directions but be very poor at making decisions when faced with unfamiliar circumstances.

Furthermore the damn robots will all be programmed to deliver pop up verbal advertisements or holographic imagery of things that you should be buying, since now you have a lot more time to shop!
 
Oh by the way, just like people can hack computers, people will be able to hack your robots. They will be able to hack other robots to hack your robot.
 
I want a home self-defense robot.

And as far as I know there is no law that prohibits a robot from owning a firearm. Or one for each arm. Six, seven, eight arms . . . what the heck!

The robot can work the bolt so fast it really doesn't need an automatic rifle.
 
The Sam's and Walmarts in town have been installing more self checkout machines. The Walmart down the street from me just installed 10 new machines. I avoid them. Lowe's is the same. They will have one or two cash registers open, and have one or two employees at the self checkout lanes helping people get accustomed to doing the job the employees should be doing.

Then we have the online shopping giant Amazon, and every retailer has to follow suit or fall by the wayside.I shudder to think what the country will be like in 25 years.
 
I'm not worried, as a classically trained and skilled machinist, I've yet to see a machine that can replace me, even with CAD-CAM and robotic machine loaders. A robot can't visually and auditorily assess a machining process, just use "recommended" speed and feed settings, and we all know they're 'sped up' to promote the tooling company's bragging rights, and to wear out tools faster for more sales. CAD-CAM programs will attempt impossible machining processes, I've seen it happen, because they don't have the human ability to mentally visualize the process flow, and recognize the errors that can occur from tool paths, and clearance problems. When I retire in a few years, I cringe to think how many quality products that were manufactured by skilled labor, will be cranked out by robotics and 'button pushers' with no real skills. What kind of junk will we be left with?
 
I think a majority of people will be shocked at the next leap in AI.

I believe it will affect everyone in some way.
 
Guy, I think I get where you are coming from, the problem is our society is being programmed to accept the "junk" as the new normal.
 
I wrote my first CNC program in 1974. My first professional job included writing CNC programs. The best money I ever made in my life was programming CNC machinery.

When manufacturing dried up around here, around the end of the Vietnam War, I ended up running a computer network and doing Structural drawings and calculations. It was a lot more work for less money.

Anyhow, just remember folks, that economics eventually rules everything: not our desire for perfection.

And because of that, perfect is the enemy of good enough.

There's no need for most CNC Machinery to achieve submicron perfection. But don't doubt for a minute that it is possible and that it has been done.

But it's only economical to do what's necessary in manufacturing.

If surviving outside of that philosophy, you are manufacturing luxury goods for the modern aristocracy.
 
. . . A robot can't visually and auditorily assess a machining process . . . CAD-CAM programs will attempt impossible machining processes, I've seen it happen . . .

Guy I'm sorry to tell you that you are wrong on both points.

Machines can see roughness and they can sense vibration, and if they are designed to do that and programmed to compensate then they will do it.

But they can do no more and what a human being told them to do.

A program cannot attempt anything it was not written to try!

When a CNC program runs a 3-inch boring bar right into the Chuck, it's a failure of the human being that wrote the program and not the machine itself.

Our manufacturing has not quite progressed to the point where Machinery is making decisions that it was not pre-programmed to make, or coming up with answers that it was not pre-programed to derive.
 
Garbage in Garbage out.

(I'm retired (very tired) and live on a farm. I have lots of chores to do. I want my robot and I want him now. But, if it ain't any smarter than the human dummies in my area I can live without it. )
 
Back
Top