|
You think the 3 million transportation workers in this country are all going to go back to college to become automation engineers?
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
It's only disastrous if you hold to the idea that everybody must work a job for a living wage. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that people must graduate college in order to have a chance at a healthy life - I think it's a bit crazy, actually. Not to mention my friends who are struggling with student loan debt a decade after graduation, working in a field completely unrelated to their field of study. But that's a digression. My own sense is that while in theory automation will take over, the complexity of the systems needed to design, produce and maintain automated systems are going to run up against a much more violent and chaotic world in the near to mid future which will give a reminder of the benefits of a more resilient system (lots of human labor,) but who knows. Mozi fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Are you missing the part where in the future those annoyances will be solved by automation and not humans? Also, it's worth watching the video in the OP if only to see the numbers of jobs that are going to be affected. It's not as simple as saying 'well they'll find something else to do.' We're talking about 45% of the workforce being unemployable. To say 'well they'll all make bands and people love live music' is laughable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
... compounded by the new millions of unemployable people. Seriously, it's not an either-or situation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
INH5 posted:The original statement that ATMs led to layoffs of bank tellers is still completely wrong. OK, ATMs have led to there being fewer bank tellers necessary per branch. Which boils down to pretty much the same thing from a wider perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You are the one that brought up the physical hard limit to the number of cars passing a certain point, now you are saying that limit is totally irrelevant? It's almost like the limits on roads actually have nearly nothing to do with the physical hard cap of how many cars could physically pass a certain point. However, just specifying 'car' is placing an upper limit on persons per square foot per hour. Why not self-driving busses? Obviously, it's because people like to be alone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:Who cares about being alone? Carpooling to work is alive and well, which highlights the true desire: transportation (ideally that you do not have to drive yourself) directly from your point of origin to your destination. It's just that in most cases, that incidentally involves being alone. I think being alone (or at least not with strangers) is a big part of why it's self-driving cars that are a thing. If you're really concerned about improving public transportation, more personal automobiles would be just about the worst possible thing. People like having their own cars that are their own personal space, and the fantasy is that this could be preserved while simultaneously solving our car-created traffic problems. But cars are simply too expensive on a person per square foot basis and automation aside cannot be a part of our future public transportation infrastructure.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Speaking of salt, automated cars would put themselves through a carwash as needed in winter weather, thus decreasing rust and corrosion on the bottom of the car.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
How about just 'pube ho'?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Blockade posted:Sounds good to me, how do I find a woman okay with this arrangement? Hard to tell if that comment is you getting the point or being incredibly obtuse. In any case, the ideal seems to be that a family can be fully supported by one working parent, regardless of the genders involved. Having both parents participate in the labor force is fine if that is what they want to do but seems to me to just have been a temporary mask over the lack of rise in wages over the past few decades.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Here's an article I thought was relevant. Evidence That Robots Are Winning the Race for American Jobs quote:Who is winning the race for jobs between robots and humans? Last year, two leading economists described a future in which humans come out ahead. But now they’ve declared a different winner: the robots. So, it turns out that robots do decrease jobs and wages, and the jobs that they do create aren't obtainable for the newly jobless.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Boon posted:That's not the conclusion to draw from this. "The study, a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper published Monday, used data on the number of robots from the International Federation of Robotics (there is no consistent data on the monetary value of the robots in use.) It analyzed the effect of robots on employment and wages in commuting zones, a way to measure local economies." Seems that they kept it purposefully straightfoward and simple. The authors previously believed that " it was likely that increased automation would create new, better jobs, so employment and wages would eventually return to their previous levels." However, when they looked at actual data, "they were surprised to see very little employment increase in other occupations to offset the job losses in manufacturing." People talk about jobs being created as they are made obsolete, but that is very general and abstract. Actual numbers prove that the storylines don't add up. No scientific study can be taken as gospel truth but you're purposefully trying to muddy the waters to distract from the clear results they did produce.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
What you say about scientific papers in general is true, but given that the data changed the researcher's initial hypothesis, I am more given to believe it as opposed to the kind of vague theorizing that I was aware of prior. That said, couching everything as 'this study claims X fact' would have avoided this digression. I did dig up the paper, and the details and math are very much over my head, but this section seemed relevant: "To bolster confidence in our interpretation, we show that our estimates remain negative and significant when we control for broad industry composition (including shares of manufacturing, durables, and construction), for detailed demographics, and for competing factors impacting workers in commuting zones—in particular, exposure to imports from China (as in Autor, Dorn and Hanson, 2013), exposure to imports from Mexico, the decline in routine jobs following the use of software to perform information processing tasks (as in Autor and Dorn, 2013), and offshoring of intermediate inputs (based on Feenstra and Hanson, 1999; and Wright, 2014). We also document that our measure of exposure to robots is unrelated to past trends in employment and wages from 1970 to 1990, a period that preceded the onset of rapid advances in robotics technology circa 1990. Several robustness checks further support our interpretation. First, we find no similar negative impact from other measures of IT and capital (thus partly motivating our focus on robots). Second, we show that the automobile industry, which uses the largest number of robots per worker, is not driving our results. Third, we document that the results are robust to including differential trends by various baseline characteristics, linear commuting zone trends, and potentially mean-reverting dynamics in employment and wages. We also document that the employment effects of robots are most pronounced in manufacturing, and in particular, in industries most exposed to robots; in routine manual, blue collar, assembly and related occupations; and for workers with less than college education. Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, we do not find positive and offsetting employment gains in any occupation or education groups. We further document that the effects of robots on men and women are similar, though the impact on male employment is more negative." Mozi fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
To be fair, his basic point was correct in that presenting the results of any single study as revealed truth in a vacuum is bad form. Let's just move on.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Hollywood came up with the correct solution decades ago.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
I got Hue lights and an Echo and all I do is tell the Echo to turn the lights on or off, which works less well than flipping the switch. Communicating with the Echo just drives me up the wall; anything I'd want to do is easier on a computer. My Mom loves her Echo so maybe it's a generational thing? All I've done is add complexity and cost. And the lights come on full brightness after a power outage. OK, the Echo is also handy for doing measurement conversions when your hands are full or covered with stuff. But that's not really IoT-related.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
I'd consider it more likely that a hacker could simply turn everything off or brick it somehow. That alone would be pretty annoying. In any case, any exposure to the internet means greater exposure to risk than otherwise and I just don't see the point of exposing my fridge.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
I feel as if this thread itself could be automated to a large extent.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
I look at what's already happened with IoT devices and how well security is being handled by such things as, say, nuclear installations, and I choose to not invite the internet into my oven or fridge. I mean, leave aside the hacking angle - drat things will crash! I don't see the necessity of this added complexity.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Just so you're clear, instead of calling everything an IoT device just call it a "networked computer" and suddenly it's no different than your laptop, phone or ipad... which all have a much larger attack surface and have the same security concerns that we've always had. I don't want my fridge to be a networked computer. There are vastly different expectations. Whatever - you guys go ahead and be the adopters. Enjoy the myriad benefits of turning on your oven with an app while you're driving home or having your fridge automatically order more eggs for you. Maybe years ago I would have been excited about that - but now I just see more headaches.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2Fs5GrUBwI
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
The next 9/11 is just going to be some rear end in a top hat hacking a bunch of automated planes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Also an autopilot isn't like, a robot man that would be sitting in a chair piloting the plane. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
It would be fun to be the guy who writes crazy unexpected events to happen in the tests, like a plane lands in front of you or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Moreover, it seems good enough for temp only unless you’re going for the ‘random person off the street reading the lines with no emotion’ feel. Their examples were like the very epitome of temp voice work. I'm pretty sure somebody in the video says it's just for placeholders?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
“You’re a rotten driver,” I protested. “Either you ought to be more careful, or you oughtn’t to drive at all.” “I am careful.” “No, you’re not.” “Well, other people are,” she said lightly. “What’s that got to do with it?” “They’ll keep out of my way,” she insisted. “It takes two to make an accident.” “Suppose you met somebody just as careless as yourself.” “I hope I never will,” she answered. “I hate careless people. That’s why I like you.”
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Use human bodies as heat-generating machines to run robots with, you say? Perhaps the machines could even provide the lucky humans with a compelling virtual reality experience to ease the boredom!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
If that turns out to be the case they will need to invent poor-people-robots to have something to feel superior to.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
10 PRINT "Please sir, may I have some more?" 20 PRINT "Ow! Thank you for hitting me!" 30 GOTO 10
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Tei posted:You say this ironically, but you are into something. For many people with power success is meaningless if theres not somebody lossing. They need somebody to lose to feel they are winning. They are validated by having somewhere suffering. Is horrible that people like this exist. Unfortunately I wasn't completely joking; it seems pretty clear to me that the desire to have a class of people to feel naturally over to is a fairly universal need for most humans.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
That would be a pretty stupid way to think of an 'end game', considering the 'game' is clearly not over yet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
It will probably give you useful skills to let you avoid various purges, so yeah, go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Your assertion is false and your understanding of who is concerned about this issue is purposely moronic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
You're a moron.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
"It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." This very much rings true for me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
In the situation you describe, capitalism would be alive and well - more than ever, now that Capital itself is unconstrained by any human sympathies. What I meant instead by that is that the world as a whole is heading for a massive collapse as a consequence of the demands of eternal growth, but any change from the current path would also involve the deaths of billions of people and is hard to imagine what it would look like as a whole, at least for myself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I dunno. How would you describe the President of the United States if you were no longer allowed to use the word retard? It would be a great loss for the English language. The Most Very Stablest of Geniuses - Bigly
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:You gotta be out of your mind if you think [no lines] and [more business] are related in any way, ever. If there was an Amazon version of Shaw's next to the actual Shaw's, where I consistently wait behind elderly people writing checks for 15 items in the express lane, I would go to the one with no lines.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
withak posted:Yeah there's no way this capability could come back to slap us in the rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
They should have started with those sit-down ski dealies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2018 17:51
|
|