Go to Naut's Thoughts
- Add a comment
- Go to A BC Special…Part V
Certainly, from a business perspective, going with the robots makes sense. After all, machines are not going to ask for worker rights. They will never strike.
And then companies are going to rely on foreign sweatshops and telemarketers to provide their goods and services.
Interestingly enough, I read that India was losing some jobs to China.
Throw in Artificial Intelligence and things get even more interesting.
posted by
FormerStudentIntern
on August 22, 2017 at 8:10 AM
| link to this | reply
On TV's "60 Minutes" tonight they talked about drones that make decisions on their own and plan their own strategy. Ribcage was particularly fascinated by the unmanned ships that we have now doing the job humans have always done on the oceans. He can't picture a ship without a signalman or any other kind of human doing their jobs.
posted by
TAPS.
on August 20, 2017 at 8:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Love BC's comment. Intrigueing...
The thing is - if I recall it correctly - our Mr. Deacon, in remarks to the assembly at the end of a school yer - 1952 or 1953 - said schools operate at a handicap in that they teach the world we've known, but that it is in fact changing, and only the art of knowing how to learn and adapt, which he hoped we had developed at MHS, was going to be indispensible to us. Seems this is ever so much more true now that the rate of change has multiplied.
posted by
Pat_B
on August 20, 2017 at 5:18 PM
| link to this | reply
I like to use the phrase, "work smarter, not longer" but you are correct that new technology saves both time AND money... which means it's a smarter way to do the job. There is always a cost/benefit to everything. Changing the process may cost more up front, but if it will save time and be less prone to error (and less costly in the long run), then it's a win/win. But if it will sacrifice quality, then there are bigger decisions to be made...
A new or better way of doing things always happens... we simply have to keep moving and adjust to it. as for AI... isn't it really just a function of high level programming? For instance, a computer being programmed with all of the potential outcomes so that it can beat a human in chess? Sure, it can learn chess and like Rainman, it can predict the series of moves faster than a human brain... but it cannot adapt. When someone changes the rules, and creates a new or different type game of chess, it can no longer play. Ultimately, humans will always win because life is ever changing.
posted by
-blackcat
on August 20, 2017 at 4:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Indeed. We aren't talking AI yet; merely setting the stage. And those lacking inherent abilities and skills may not make it through Act I. Very interesting and thought-provoking. 
posted by
Sea_Gypsy
on August 20, 2017 at 2:37 PM
| link to this | reply