To wonder what you all think of Stephen Hawking's thoughts on AI destroying the middle classes jobs?

[user1477282676]

www.businessinsider.com/stephen-hawking-ai-automation-middle-class-jobs-most-dangerous-moment-humanity-2016-12?r=UK&IR=T

Sort of scary but sort of not. I don't know why I don't feel afraid of it all....maybe because I'm working class and know that money means little at the end of the day anyway.

I just don't see it. Maybe it depends what you call a "middle class" job.
Assuming it isn't what English DH calls middle class: folk with PhDs, qualified teachers, doctors, lawyers, community leaders. I need specific examples.

Assume middle class is like my 2 workmates: PA/Admin & project manager.

My colleagues don't make automated decisions about data and logistics. They make decisions about what will work according to budgets, people's preferences and egos, instructions from the bosses & required deliverables. They chase up whether the milk order arrived, coordinated the office move, review the accounts to try to decide if there really has been an underspend (as someone else alleged). If there is a backup for the powerpoint presentation, how to keep their boss awake after a heavy lunch. If the boss's diary is double booked, they find ways to solve the overbooking.

I do not see robots doing those jobs. Robots don't have the people skills.

Is middle class the guy who laid my carpets & kitchen floor, checked our boiler wiring, climbed up the ladder to paint our fascia boards for a bargain price, loaded up & drove the lorry to deliver & unload everything at supermarket? I don't see a robot doing those.

The customer service agent who dealt with supermarket not accepting a return (against company guidance, and told us what to say next time)? The cold-caller trying to sell me new windows, the school careers guidance counsellor, the legal experts at the district council who review employment laws routinely to make sure their practices are all compliant?

Also, I suspect a manufacturing manager in Vietnam has long done the job much cheaper than a manuf. level manager in USA - or a robot could do it. That boat long ago sailed.

I'd been fretting about this because it is happening all the time but have decided to chill out. The point about domestic servants is a good one - was the job of most of the women in my DF's family until marriage. Also, humans are very good a creating requirements. Look at most things that are manufactured - people are employed and they are doing "real" jobs making stuff but much of the time that stuff comprises of "essentials" like plastic hair clips for Claire's Accessories. So many if the jobs we do are for things that aren't really necessary but the requirement for them has been created at some point along the way.

I do worry that our main purpose may move from being units of production to being consumers (again happened already) but we're an inventive species and will find something to do.

A side issue, but the number of domestic servants is actually increasing again, a symptom of the rise of the super-rich and increased inequality.

We are seeing the start of the 'mass' internet of things (IoT) - which will be a game changer as well. So currently a fridge which will keep a running inventory for you, is likely to develop into one which will connect to your shopping list and re-order milk for you when you're running low without you even knowing about it.

There is a basic concept of this being tested at the moment, via Amazon buttons. Currently you need multiple buttons and it is a manual process which requires you to make an assessment and decision, but the next step is that these processes become 'smart' and automated. Hence the IoT, because items in your home will 'talk' to the internet. Your loo roll holder will tell your supermarket app to add some Andrex to your delivery because you're on the last roll.

It has really interesting potential - like street and traffic furniture. Assuming that your car is connected to the IoT, then this has the potential for your car to prompt you to slow down on the approach to a traffic light because the traffic light has 'talked' to your car and told it that it is about to change to red. Smoother driving and no harsh breaking so better for emissions. When self-driving cars become a mass market item then this can go one step further as your car will know whether to maintain its speed or whether to slow because it will be talking to the traffic lights, roundabouts (what traffic is on there and in what lane), motorway slip roads (what's the speed on the matrix sign round the corner, how busy is the inside lane for joining on to).

There are HUGE ramifications from self-driving cars alone - not just in terms of transport, emissions and clean and and climate change - but also in respect of garages and financial services. Self-driving cars will require massive amounts of software and tech to keep going and manufacturers will have a massive liability if anything goes wrong. So it's likely that engine bays will be locked down; the days of DIY with a Haines manual will vanish for everything but classic cars. It will be a challenge for small independent garages and mechanics to keep up, because the cost (and the potential liability) of dealing with the software will be significant. In respect of financial services, we currently have a multi-billion pound insurance market in the UK, which only exists because cars crash. If cars become intelligent and start talking to each other, then you should see a massive reduction in the number of accidents simply because human error will no longer be a factor. However liability will arise in other areas - hacking and cyber malware could have catastrophic consequences.

ItsAll - well I want CPO with a feather duster!

Wow that was long. It's a hobby

Firms like Amazon, ... have a tiny staff. Most of what they do is automated.

Ah, but that's because most Amazon marketplace is small business resellers; the workforce is distributed outside the formal company structure. My friend's husband does this; he scours charity shops and other places for books that will sell for a better price on Amazon. Transport, Catalogs, lists, resells, haggles to find cheapest courier... it wouldn't be economical for a high spec robot to do that. A human being can just about make a living out of it.

Amazon may look like a small company, but it has a big army of people with short supply chains supporting it. Many of whom sell same products on Ebay & other sites, too.

yeOldeTrout Telemarketers are always high on the list of jobs likely to be automated out of existence; I'm slightly sceptical because people are more likely to want to speak to a real person. But on the other hand a lot less cold calling for advertising purposes goes on now than before the internet became widely adopted. It could shrink further as a sector as it becomes less cost effective.

Doctors - a lot of diagnosis could be carried out by computer programs, with only more complex cases, and those which needed more than prescription and follow up chats, going to specialists. The NHS is already very squeezed and cuts a lot of corners; computerised therapy programs are already widely used; can see them jumping at the chance of implementing this. Even more so with staff shortages from decreased immigration.

The jobs which require fine manual work, creativity and social skills are least likely to be automated. In other instances, percentages of the role can be automated, so that, say, one junior doctor or lawyer might be needed to cover what's now the work of three, because apps and programs are handling more basic aspects, and the person is needed for the tasks the machine can't do.

I think conveyancig will go automated (for 80% of the work) within the next 10 years. There will be a review function for the 20% of non standard stuff that needs a real person to look at it.

I work in an investment bank and we are massively looking to automate production of legal documentation (and have actually done it in certain areas). Certainly things like compulsory clearing of derivatives will decimate the need for front office and legal personnel in banks within the next 3 years.

More AI means fewer jobs and this will lead to a population decline as people can't support themselves and subsequently die off. So eventually population and AI will reach equilibrium

I doubt machines will be able to have ideas - food for me since currently I'm the person who has a flash of genius but has to get other people to make them work! Maybe I'll be able to get above junior level once all the middle management have gone

The automated hotel in the Joanne Lumley series on Japan was shite! Dont think we need worry quite yet! Humans adapt _) I'm gutted cos in the 80s I was told I would have so much leisure time but people are worming longer hours than ever.

I am old enough to remember the predictions being made in the 1970s about what the world would look like in 20, 30, 40 years' time. Changes certainly happened but not in the way (or even to the extent) predicted. And human beings proved very adaptable after the initial shock.

caroldecker makes a good point: " In 1901, we had 1.5 million domestic servants in a population of 38m, so about 5%. Nowadays we have very few, but not 3m unemployed servants wondering around complaining about lost jobs due to robots."

Maybe so. But are we really happy to wait a century for the economy to replace those jobs?

Anyway, reducing numbers of people employed as servants probably didn't result in increased unemployment for a number of reasons. First, the wartime economies plus post-war reconstruction meant there was plenty of other work for them to do. Second, it strikes me as more than possible that in the 1930s some of them probably were unemployed. Third, after WW2, governments had full employment as a policy, there was a prolonged economic boom, and there was also redistribution of wealth from the elite to the middle and working classes, which would have resulted in improved job prospects for any redundant servants.

A better comparison is the mechanisation of the 1700s and 1800s, resulting in huge reduction of work available on the land and in industry. The result? Urban slums caused by rural workers forced to move to cities for work. Emigration caused by lack of opportunity. Extreme inequality as those who owned the machines got rich. A century of wage stagnation for the rest - wages didn't even start to catch up with economic growth until the 1870s.

It's often assumed that "the economy" will replace the lost jobs. But history suggests they might not replaced at all, or at least not replaced with jobs that pay as well. In fact, we have already seen this process begin in the last twenty or so years. Increasing prices for housing, for example, can also be seen as wages not keeping up with the price of living, ie, stagnation. We are also seeing increased asset prices generally along with their concentration in fewer hands - a reversion to the nineteenth century.

The only difference is the Victorians didn't have democracy. However, the rich can buy democracy so perhaps that makes no difference either.

Great post, Toad

There are several banks right now, can't name names, which are trying to replace some of it's reporting analysts and tax accountants using robotics. Trials are underway right now and if it works than the banks in question wouldn't need to employ any analysts or accountants and the software in question could be managed by an outsourcing company. This would have huge impacts to banking.

Some manufacturing companies are also trialling robotics to replace market researchers. And of course we all know about the NHS' trial with Google which if it works and gets expanded to pharmacists and nurses might reduce the need for as many GPs.

I personally think by the time I retire a lot of previously 'safe' career jobs will be well on the way to being replaced by AI.

*there are programmes in development which may take the place of solicitors

Where do I sign? !

I would love to crowdfund this. The legal system is the only closed shop the politicians never came after - presumably as so many did and still do make plenty from it. It needs a massive overhaul.*

Statements like that reveal how little you know of the legal industry. Very little is closed shop (reserved activity) and there are huge industries of non-lawyers doing legal stuff (Peninsula, Coop, Tesco Law, paid McKenzie friends, Will shops, banks doing conveyancing etc)

There will be a lot of inroads into legal work from technology (comparable currently is with off-shoring of routine activity to cheaper staff) but it is unlikely to totally replace lawyers. The most often asked question of litigation is should I take action - and whilst the clients, opposition and judge are human it is likely to require another human to adequately advise on the best course of action (so for example sometime an illogical step is the best action for a particular client). Whilst there are systems which can (using sufficient historic date) predict the outcome of cases, there are also always new developments and precedents (like a Denning judgement). They may not deal adequately the human psychology elements of helping clients like empathy, listening, and passing tissues.

Ive also seen some interesting stuff about the downside of exclusive use of technology in the financial industry (like groupthink but where all the systems react to information in such a way as to overreact). AI will need to build in some real safeguards to ensure an avoidance of "black and white" thinking, which on a large scale could have disastrous effects.

Justice the 'not black and white' part of AI is already happening. Am helping a bank with a programme right now that can make judgemental decisions based on past decisions and vague and explicit credit policy, they have a patent for it and a well known legal firm is investing with the hopes of licensing it. What they would use it for very much depends on the success of the programme I guess, but it def is in the pipeline.

There are already programs that can successfully diagnose patients and robots that can perform surgery better than the world's best surgeon. And recent work with things like Google Deep mind have shown that it is possible for AI to be creative. This, alongside things like indoor farming and lab grown meat make me think that in the future a wide variety of jobs will become obsolete. We might have to completely rethink the way the job system works.

I think instead of doing stuff jobs would be about managing the software that does the job. Hardcore development engineering/IT is definitely going to be the industry of the future.

There will also be hundreds of other job types created by new technology that haven't been thought of yet.

Daily Mail
That sounds interesting and exactly the sort of thing that AI could do well; but the adverse potential for all the companies to make very similar decisions re credit/investment/whether to employ someone/ the likelihood of winning a case etc is that success often comes from abstract/nonconvention/progressive thinking which it is unlikely to have been programmed in.

For example at the beginning of the internet a friend asked the bank for a small loan to develop his website business but was refused because no one was making money from the web (true and logical based on past examples). He borrowed from his family and has been profitable for the last 20 odd years.

A chap called Harari is also talking about the 'rise of the useless class' www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/20/silicon-assassins-condemn-humans-life-useless-artificial-intelligence

Technology is replacing jobs and not creating new ones. I've been wondering how people are going to earn livings for a while, and about how the benefits of technology are being shared out.

PostTruth - we will get to a point where 'man made' or 'man processed' becomes a status symbol. It will prob carry the same status symbol as organic or 'uk call centres only' but you would prob need to pay for it. Also new jobs will be needed in programming, engineering, the management of machine outputs/inputs.