Could you elaborate on your point of view?
Two points/ questions just to clarify.
1. What happens when computers become better at coding than humans? It's not like technological advancement just stops here. My elderly neighbour underwent surgery last year..her surgeon was a robot. Some people argue there's always a need for humans to oversee, but it's not like we consult with math professors to make sure our calculators show the correct answer. As a matter of fact, the calculator is quicker and more precise at math than the person who created it, why will that not be the case with future technology?
2.You're basically saying humans should adapt and move into other fields, which we have historically done. However, in the past, when we were outperformed by machines physically, we could just move into intelligence-based work. Now we're about to be outperformed in that area as well. If trucks become self-driven, you may need 10 programmers for 100 cars. Where should the other 90 truck drivers go? By the law of averages, they're not intelligent enough to compete in certain fields.
Maybe 10 of them can become mechanics, but surely there are already pre-existing mechanics, and surely robots will outperform us in that area as well soon. They can't go work in the factories who build trucks because those will be automated as well. I can't see many other fields where we'll do better than robots apart from emotional labour (i.e nursing, therapy etc.) and entertainment.
When you say people are fearmongering, it sounds like you're misunderstanding what they're scared of. It's not technological advancement in itself. They're scared of the fact that humans reign supreme in fewer and fewer fields. Also, they're not necessarily saying everything is doom and gloom, but they're asking what we're going to do with the hundreds of millions worldwide who might not have the skillset to transition. I don't think it's reasonable to call their concerns "sad".
1. Computers don't become better at coding than humans. There are people developing computers that become code at coding, and you will still need people evaluate that coding and test before putting it into production. So I find it hard to understand your point because it argues or makes an assumption on a belief or idea I don't support. Your neighbor had surgery, her surgeon was a human being who used a robot to assist in the operation. This is what I'm talking about though, a lot of you look at technology as magic that exist in a vacuum, computers and programs, you don't seem to understand there are people that push the development in these fields, programs don't just think about thinks and operate, they need instruction. AI doesn't just work and you have a program capable of thought like a person, it needs instruction, it needs constant refinement, these are things that people do because only people can do it. As for you example of the calculator, that should tell you how much the fearmongering being done here is worthless. Did the calculator remove the neccesaity or value of math as a high level discipline? No, it increased the complication and ability to do even higher level math and made those in that field even more valuable thanks to the processing advantage they gained with it. It improved society on a whole, even if it took the abacus, punch card, and slide rule industries and their workers out the game.
2. Yes people should develop marketable skills for the environment they live in. Humans were replaced in physical markets and in more intellectual markets where computers were able to automate the ability to neeed an engineer or before, especially with regard to some building software. We have already been outperformed in high skill area by machines, higher skilled people though generally know they have to develop their skills to stay competitive. Per your example lets concede and say only 10 have the aptitude to be programmers and do that, the other 90 filter into fields that they can compete in, there are more fields to name, some with high skills some that are low skilled, that onus is on those 90 people though, not on "society" or anything. The law of averages by the way has nothing to do with people being able to develop skills to enter certain fields, or that those people are intelligent enough (in this case truckers) to all develop marketable high skills that are in demand.. You are using that term entirely wrong.
You seem to think you have the ability to be able to plan out society, that doesn't exist, you have to recognize you are talking about people and those people will have their own interests, passions, hobbies, aptitudes, and mental makeup which will direct them and contribute to what fields they go into. So trying to act like any breakdown where you say 10 people go to _____ and 20 people to ______ and 60 to ______ and etc is a waste of time. We can only talk in generalities here, not specifics.
And again with regard to automation, factories that use machinary to build vehicles have a lot of people, I see my local hyundai plant employing people and its highly automated, same with the Mercedes Benz plant in Vance, AL. They need workers and they pay well because automated mechanization doesn't mean no people, you need people to program and run the machines. For example,
MBUSI - Mechatronics Program
You are all literally fear mongering, and you say you aren't scared of technological advancement but you then say you are scared of the effects of technological advancement. Like I said before, your arguments are identical to the arguments of the luddites. You are scared of your employment due to the rise of technology in replacing workers, again this fear has been proven time and again to be unfounded. Stop being afraid and look at the new tech for what it is, new opportunities.
Its not the job of technology advocates to worry about the number of jobs, its about the ability to generate profit and wealth. Like Murray Rothbard said to the chinese, you want jobs get rid of execuvators and trenchers, give everyone a shovel, you'll have your jobs, you won't generate wealth though, and the overall effect will be an increase in cost of living and lowering of standard of living ,but hey millions of people will have jobs right?
SMH
Jobs don't exist for people to have jobs, they exist to provide value to the owner who is in turn trying to provide value to customers. If you don't look at working or being productive as what can I do to increase my value as an employee or worker so I can generate more money, you are doing it wrong.
Plumping being unskilled is your opinion, that said it isn't automated and provides an actual career path for workers who want a stable career, funny you were talking about people needing jobs, now you are shytting on a job that is very high paying in comparison to the jobs that are being lost because of your irrelevant opinion about the skill level of the job. As for welding, robots that weld need what? Programming and maintanence, they have programs to learn how to program those robots, what is that? A new career field. Also there are sites and industries that aren't suitable for machine welding like oil field welders or welders on water stations and etc.
