Jobs that robots can't do

[dystopian]

Your last comment is opinion only. The reductionist or materialist view.

There is likely more going on up there in our brains. Call it a soul or Universal Spark or "anima" or what have you. Neurologists do not understand it yet. Which means that we are light years away from being able to replicate it and insert it into any type of programming language.

Are you seriously trying to make an argument based on the entirely unscientific belief that there's something like a soul in our brains? You do know where you are, right? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that this is remotely true. Nothing in neuroscience suggests it.

Also you have the phenomena of neuro-plasticity. Which most people know as only in regards to changing behavior and even improving IQ. yes..that is part of it, but it also has to do with thinking and understanding. And adaptability. Things that neurons cannot do, and they have zero plasticity. It's the fuzzy logic deal again.

What the hell are you talking about? Where do you get the idea that neurons are somehow separate from this process? They are directly affected through the development of new pathways between them, which is the very definition of neuroplasticity.

I don't understand, too, how you can say a computer's inability to pass a Turing Test has nothing to do with coding? LOL. What is it exactly then, that allows a computer to try and pass it?

Our brains are much more than that. We can adapt and alter. Machines and their code cannot.

For a self-professed software guy, you seem a bit ignorant as to what code can do. Have you not heard of self-modifying code? There's absolutely no reason why a machine can't adapt and alter itself if it was designed to do so. In fact, machines are theoretically far superior at it than we are.

Lastly..the best AI deal out there now for Windows is "Virtual Assistant Denise." If not familiar, check this out......https://guile3d.com/en/product/

You're either joking or really ignorant.

Oh,...cannot come close to passing the Turing Test! LOL

The Turing Test isn't very useful. It has, however, already been passed by a few programs.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I was going to say, Write a novel, but then there's James Patterson.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I guess the answer comes from what do you mean by a job.

I see "jobs" as a division of work into a smaller units of actions where such divisions can be made.

My work is writing. A job within writing is proofreading.
My work is auto manufacturing. A job within auto manufacturing is putting in glove boxes.
My work is providing health care. A job within providing health care is radiology technician (the person running the xray machine)

If that is what you mean by a job, then programs and robots can do a lot of jobs and as each technology expands, programs and robots will do more.

Can a machine with proper programming and design copy a Picasso? Definitely.
Can a machine with proper programming and design produce an original Picasso, or something comparable? That's the $64 question.

 

[Jayjay]

Can a machine with proper programming and design produce an original Picasso, or something comparable? That's the $64 question.

Can a (non-Picasso) human do that?

 

[TV and credit cards]

As a software developer I've read quite a bit about how software is eating the world, the impending robot invasion, and how routine jobs containing low cognitive skill are on the decline. From all of this talk I can only glean that in 100-200 years time society is going to be much closer to a post-work economy.

That said, it all raises an interesting question when we talk about a specific type of job:

Jobs that:

1) Need to be done

and

2) Can't be done by robots

I wonder what types of jobs we think will *never* be taken over by machines. I also wonder how society might go about divvying up responsibility when a much smaller proportion of society actually needs to work.

I would think hospice care will never be performed by machine as long as we can tell the difference. I did expect pharmacists to be replaced by now. Aren't all drug interaction warnings a function of software? I've seen a machine fetch my prescription. A technician grabbed it. Gave me the spiel about alcohol and I was on my way. And this was some ten years ago in the navy. I didn't see a pharmacist. Maybe in the officer line.
Regarding divvying up these few remaining jobs; many people would rather work than play. Further, what some categorize as work is play to others. I was once called by a friend who had his hot water tank crack hours before a party. I replaced it for him. Was just finishing up as the party started. I stayed my required 90 minutes with the chit-chat going on all around me but spent much of that time thinking about the hot water tank. I was very proud of my solder joints. Absolutely perfect. It was fun.

 

[Bronzeage]

I guess the answer comes from what do you mean by a job.

I see "jobs" as a division of work into a smaller units of actions where such divisions can be made.

My work is writing. A job within writing is proofreading.
My work is auto manufacturing. A job within auto manufacturing is putting in glove boxes.
My work is providing health care. A job within providing health care is radiology technician (the person running the xray machine)

If that is what you mean by a job, then programs and robots can do a lot of jobs and as each technology expands, programs and robots will do more.

Can a machine with proper programming and design copy a Picasso? Definitely.
Can a machine with proper programming and design produce an original Picasso, or something comparable? That's the $64 question.

I've probably told this story before, but it bears repeating.

Many years ago, I posted on a poetry forum. We had a lot of very good poets who posted their work and offered critique of others. One day, a poetry troll appeared. Poetry trolls are the lowest form of troll. This one's name was Jasper. Jasper posted stream of consciousness dreck and did not believe in rewriting or editing. Any suggestions which might improve the imagery or help make the meaning clear were argued against or dismissed. This did not stop him from giving line by line suggestions for other people's work, even to the point of a complete rewrite, then posting it as a better version of the original.

One of my poetchick girlfriends and I came up with a plan. We went into our spam filter and found emails which were created by random sentence generators. They said things like "Blue penguins cook delicate resinous hilltops." We cut the spam into poemy sounding lines and posted it as a new poem. I critiqued hers and she critiqued mine. We found incredible metaphors and analogies in each line. The blue penguins were nuns, the hilltops were breasts, and on and on.

Jasper loved both poems. He said "Don't change a word."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As a software developer I've read quite a bit about how software is eating the world, the impending robot invasion, and how routine jobs containing low cognitive skill are on the decline. From all of this talk I can only glean that in 100-200 years time society is going to be much closer to a post-work economy.

That said, it all raises an interesting question when we talk about a specific type of job:

Jobs that:

1) Need to be done

and

2) Can't be done by robots

I wonder what types of jobs we think will *never* be taken over by machines. I also wonder how society might go about divvying up responsibility when a much smaller proportion of society actually needs to work.

I would think hospice care will never be performed by machine as long as we can tell the difference. I did expect pharmacists to be replaced by now. Aren't all drug interaction warnings a function of software? I've seen a machine fetch my prescription. A technician grabbed it. Gave me the spiel about alcohol and I was on my way. And this was some ten years ago in the navy. I didn't see a pharmacist. Maybe in the officer line.
Regarding divvying up these few remaining jobs; many people would rather work than play. Further, what some categorize as work is play to others. I was once called by a friend who had his hot water tank crack hours before a party. I replaced it for him. Was just finishing up as the party started. I stayed my required 90 minutes with the chit-chat going on all around me but spent much of that time thinking about the hot water tank. I was very proud of my solder joints. Absolutely perfect. It was fun.

Software can catch the drug interactions that happen when every script is filled by the same pharmacy. It can't catch stuff it's not told about, it can't tell if a drug interaction is acceptable or not (many drug interactions are A changes the reaction to B. It's not that B is contra-indicated, but that you might have to adjust the dose of B. Also, there are things like the BC pill/certain antibiotic interactions--yes, they react but rarely does that mean you quit either drug. You just consider the pill ineffective that month and use backup contraception. I have read that the rate of computerized warnings these days is so high that they've become pretty much meaningless. (Think of that Ebola case where on the initial presentation the doc missed the fact that the guy had flown in from the hot zone--because the current EMR systems bury them in so much data that critical stuff gets overlooked. While the doc probably will be skewered over it it's really a system problem, not the doc's error.)

Also, computers aren't likely to catch the forged drug script that is correct but not the way the doctor does it or other things that mark an apparently legitimate script as likely fraudulent.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Software can catch the drug interactions that happen when every script is filled by the same pharmacy. It can't catch stuff it's not told about,

And this is different for living pharmacists, how?
If the pharmacist isn't told about other drugs, there's nothing for them to catch. Maybe in my grandfather's store, where he got to know patients over a cup of coffee and knew which ones were into which drug fad... But it's unlikely today.

Come to think of it, i haven't spoken with a licensed pharmacist since my dad's license expired. And other than him, i haven't spoken to one for my own drugs in years.
I phone in my refills or my doc sends them electronically and the counter clerk hands me the bag with my name on it. I habitually mark that i do not desire a consult with the pharmacist about my prescription.

And for two years before the current plan, my insurance promoted prescriptions by mail. Somewhere, there's a building with a drug warehouse, a number of medical technicians watching machines fill bottles and there's one pharmacist on the premises who is paid to bring his license to work every day. My mailman is more likely to note my drug interactions.

 

[Juma]

Can a machine with proper programming and design produce an original Picasso, or something comparable?

Of course. The problem is what "proper programming and design"" means.

 

[DBT]

I wonder what our political leaders have in mind in terms of their taxpayer base in a future where computerization and robotics are being used by an ever larger proportion of industries, while the productive worker/tax payer base becomes an ever shrinking source of revenue for both state and federal governments (not to mention the unemployed themselves).

Government can use robots too. Imagine robot politician.

I thought that the use of robotic politicians had become a standard practice decades ago.....just wind 'em up and their lips start flapping, 'I promise to....''

 

[ApostateAbe]

As a software developer I've read quite a bit about how software is eating the world, the impending robot invasion, and how routine jobs containing low cognitive skill are on the decline. From all of this talk I can only glean that in 100-200 years time society is going to be much closer to a post-work economy.

That said, it all raises an interesting question when we talk about a specific type of job:

Jobs that:

1) Need to be done

and

2) Can't be done by robots

I wonder what types of jobs we think will *never* be taken over by machines. I also wonder how society might go about divvying up responsibility when a much smaller proportion of society actually needs to work.

Eventually, ALL work can and will be done by robots and AI. But, until then, there will be a transitional period (and we are in it) where robots will start to take over the low-skilled labor. Low-skilled workers will move to other jobs, but those jobs will run out, and there will be very many unemployed and unemployable people, which will mean much more civil unrest, stratified largely along race lines. It won't stop there, as even the high-skilled jobs (doctors, lawyers, engineers) will be done by robots. Even robot mechanics and programming will be done by robots. Maybe that would be the ultimate social equalizer, as the skills of people will be useless, except, of course, some people will have more control over more and better robots than others.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I would think hospice care will never be performed by machine as long as we can tell the difference. I did expect pharmacists to be replaced by now. Aren't all drug interaction warnings a function of software? I've seen a machine fetch my prescription. A technician grabbed it. Gave me the spiel about alcohol and I was on my way. And this was some ten years ago in the navy. I didn't see a pharmacist. Maybe in the officer line.
Regarding divvying up these few remaining jobs; many people would rather work than play. Further, what some categorize as work is play to others. I was once called by a friend who had his hot water tank crack hours before a party. I replaced it for him. Was just finishing up as the party started. I stayed my required 90 minutes with the chit-chat going on all around me but spent much of that time thinking about the hot water tank. I was very proud of my solder joints. Absolutely perfect. It was fun.

Software can catch the drug interactions that happen when every script is filled by the same pharmacy. It can't catch stuff it's not told about, it can't tell if a drug interaction is acceptable or not (many drug interactions are A changes the reaction to B. It's not that B is contra-indicated, but that you might have to adjust the dose of B. Also, there are things like the BC pill/certain antibiotic interactions--yes, they react but rarely does that mean you quit either drug. You just consider the pill ineffective that month and use backup contraception. I have read that the rate of computerized warnings these days is so high that they've become pretty much meaningless. (Think of that Ebola case where on the initial presentation the doc missed the fact that the guy had flown in from the hot zone--because the current EMR systems bury them in so much data that critical stuff gets overlooked. While the doc probably will be skewered over it it's really a system problem, not the doc's error.)

Also, computers aren't likely to catch the forged drug script that is correct but not the way the doctor does it or other things that mark an apparently legitimate script as likely fraudulent.

I don't know why much of the drug interactions being coded into software would not be a function of the drug company that developed the medication. They undoubtedly have all the information. It's just a matter of sitting down with the software dudes and going through the tedious process.

Also, I think there may be a misperception about low-skilled jobs going first. Seems to me, the incentive would be to go after high paying jobs like SEDASYS making inroads into anesthesiology. I suppose "follow the money" would apply but there is a social danger with taking away low-skilled jobs that would not necessarily be present with the removal of high-skilled positions.

I think any job that requires compassion/rapport will remain in the human sphere. Even 200 years from now, a compassion emulator? I'm just not feeling it.

 

[Unbeatable]

How many people do you know who prefer to go through the regular checkout line at the store rather than use the automated check out?

None. Are you saying you do know people who prefer the former?

 

[arkirk]

Can a machine with proper programming and design produce an original Picasso, or something comparable? That's the $64 question.

Can a (non-Picasso) human do that?

If ten million monkeys on ten million typewriters can do it, why can't a non-picaso do it too? We do a lot of deifying of human beings whose actual accomplishments were simply doing something or other that people happened to like. Not only do I deny the existence of the God of the religionists, I also deny the divinity of the most distinguished among us. Usually they deny that of themselves. Many things that are difficult to do, computerized robots can do. Humanity's uniqueness is the fact that it is mostly made of water, it eats, it shits, and it gets pissed off when it doesn't get things its way.

 

[Jayjay]

Can a (non-Picasso) human do that?

If ten million monkeys on ten million typewriters can do it, why can't a non-picaso do it too? We do a lot of deifying of human beings whose actual accomplishments were simply doing something or other that people happened to like. Not only do I deny the existence of the God of the religionists, I also deny the divinity of the most distinguished among us. Usually they deny that of themselves. Many things that are difficult to do, computerized robots can do. Humanity's uniqueness is the fact that it is mostly made of water, it eats, it shits, and it gets pissed off when it doesn't get things its way.

Indeed, but it gets tricky when the bar is set at producing "a Picasso" or something that is "comparable". If we set the bar of uniqueness so low that another human can do it, so can a machine. If we set the bar high enough that machines can't do it, I doubt there is any human that could do it either... even if they resurrected Picasso himself to create another painting.

Basically it's the same problem that we're now facing with the Turing test: the ones judging the test are faulty humans.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Based on what I learned in this documentary I just saw about robots called Avengers 2, robots do a terrible job of building other robots who are able to survive having someone stab them in the face with an arrow. I'm fairly sure that that would be an ineffective attack against any human-built robot.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

LOREN....

I could care less if I am on an Atheist board, or how my opinion of a "soul" flies with your own ideas.

I am here to respectfully debate, discuss, and entertain all facets of theology and Eschatology and Ontology. Difference in opinion is what makes these boards go 'round, baby. Otherwise where's da fun?

I ran a Marathon Saturday, here in Prescott. The Whiskey Row Marathon. One of the toughest in the country. Look it up.

I had an angel run with me during the hardest part right when I thought I was gonna give up.

And I say that as a hard boiled skeptic and an educated Agnostic.

An angel as in the exact right person--Higher Power sent--to see me through, because of the Energy I was emanating. Or asking for. I a am not sure how it works.Who is? But I believe there are energy fields out there--for lack of a better word--that some refer to as a "soul" or "angels" or even negative, harmful energy that can be construed as "demonic."

IMHO, of course.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Are you seriously trying to make an argument based on the entirely unscientific belief that there's something like a soul in our brains? You do know where you are, right? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that this is remotely true. Nothing in neuroscience suggests it.

Also you have the phenomena of neuro-plasticity. Which most people know as only in regards to changing behavior and even improving IQ. yes..that is part of it, but it also has to do with thinking and understanding. And adaptability. Things that neurons cannot do, and they have zero plasticity. It's the fuzzy logic deal again.

What the hell are you talking about? Where do you get the idea that neurons are somehow separate from this process? They are directly affected through the development of new pathways between them, which is the very definition of neuroplasticity.

I don't understand, too, how you can say a computer's inability to pass a Turing Test has nothing to do with coding? LOL. What is it exactly then, that allows a computer to try and pass it?

Our brains are much more than that. We can adapt and alter. Machines and their code cannot.

For a self-professed software guy, you seem a bit ignorant as to what code can do. Have you not heard of self-modifying code? There's absolutely no reason why a machine can't adapt and alter itself if it was designed to do so. In fact, machines are theoretically far superior at it than we are.

Lastly..the best AI deal out there now for Windows is "Virtual Assistant Denise." If not familiar, check this out......https://guile3d.com/en/product/

You're either joking or really ignorant.

Oh,...cannot come close to passing the Turing Test! LOL

The Turing Test isn't very useful. It has, however, already been passed by a few programs.

Who do you think you are calling ignorant, you arrogant ass?

You need....well, I won't tell you here what you really need, but here are a couple of the lessons you could use.....

No evidence for a soul?

LOL. I can post hundreds of links. Some from Neurosurgeons. We have a doc here at the VA who has some interesting things to say about that.

Warm up with this..


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/harvard-neurosurgeon-confirms-the-afterlife-exists/




And it also sound like you are pretty much in the dark about neuro-plasticity. Have you even ever heard of it?


Here ya go...no charge..

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/harvard-neurosurgeon-confirms-the-afterlife-exists/

 

[Keith&Co.]

No evidence for a soul?

LOL. I can post hundreds of links. Some from Neurosurgeons.

Why would we accept a Neurosurgeon's opinion on souls as being any more credible than someone who sells New Age jewelry at a Renaissance Fair?
Do they cover souls in medical school?

 

[Saint_of_Me]

No evidence for a soul?

LOL. I can post hundreds of links. Some from Neurosurgeons.

Why would we accept a Neurosurgeon's opinion on souls as being any more credible than someone who sells New Age jewelry at a Renaissance Fair?
Do they cover souls in medical school?

Absurd comparison.

A neurosurgeon would logically be the LAST persons whom should believe in souls. Right?

Since, after all: they are highly-trained experts in regards to the biological and neurological mechanisms which naysayers believe are responsible for imbuing us with the characteristics that believers say come from the soul.

How can you not see this?

A neurosurgeon who believes in a soul is like the president of an Atheist society saying he has had unexplained divine epiphanies.

Or a James Randi who admits he has seen someone do telekinesis.

If you're not gonna entertain the possibility of a soul even after reading (though I doubt you read it) opinions from experts on the mind and on the human condition than I can see little point in debating the issue further. As I of course cannot prove a soul.

You know, much in the same way you cannot disprove it.

Peace.


http://www.mindpowernews.com/SpiritualBrain.htm