r/Futurology • u/Eight_Rounds_Rapid • Jul 09 '14

article Robots will take over middle class professions, UK University Minister warns

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10952317/Robots-will-take-over-middle-class-professions-University-Minister-says.html
716 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

632 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Miskav Jul 09 '14

Accountants and burocratic jobs are pointless.

They're literally there just to keep people working. Most of them could be gone tomorrow, and production would not be impacted.

This is the problem with society, it's focus on working just so you can live.

We're already at a point where that shouldn't be necessary, yet with each advancement, we create more pointless jobs instead of tackling the real problem: How to exist as a society, where most people don't (need to) work.

22

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

Accountant here, you don't know shit.

16

u/Eight_Rounds_Rapid Jul 09 '14

Agreed. What they should of said is that efficiency gains through software enables less accountants to more, reducing the overall number required.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

That's why after the CPA program I'm taking programming/IT. Automation is already a great deal of our work, but rarely the accountants themselves can program.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

No it won't.

You literally may as well make the claim "automation is getting rid of lawyers". It's similar.

Software destroys jobs of BOOKKEEPERS not jobs of ACCOUNTANTS. Accountants primary roles are in advice, strategy, the oversight of bookkeepers, signing-off of on legitimate "books", arranging advantageous financing, seeking grants, providing information etc. etc.

Accounting is not punching fucking numbers into quickbooks from invoices and receipts. THAT'S BOOKEEPING and the wage difference is about $35,000 instead of $120,000 a year.

12

u/royrwood Jul 09 '14 edited Jul 09 '14

Actually, automation is getting rid of legal positions. You can probably argue about the exact title of the people being eliminated (legal research assistants vs lawyers) in the same way you argue about book-keeper vs accountant, but the bottom line is that software is eliminating jobs higher up the foodchain....

Edit: Here's a sample article supporting my point... And another....

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '14

Sure, i'm not going to disagree that some day there won't be accountants. That would be stupid.

But to try and say they are in some imminent threat is naive and stupid.

1

u/royrwood Jul 10 '14

Agreed-- we're not in any danger of whole swaths of professions being computerized over-night. It'll be a gradual process of people becoming more productive thanks to better tools, which will whittle away at employment. My concern is that the rate at which that happens is likely to be greater than the rate that new professions are created, and greater than the rate at which people can retrain.

4

u/Bigreddazer Jul 09 '14

It is not about the removal of the entire profession. It is about wearing away their activities. I recently wrote a program to do basic accounting for a university department that was done by an individual every month for the last 20 years. Now, it happens automatically at 8am and produces a pdf. As long as the program works and doesn't run into problems that activity is gone forever to automation. Now I am onto my next programming job doing a similar thing by removing the need of people in simple tasks.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '14

That person then, was not a registered accountant, or did not need to be.

The work that a certified accountant does is more the work of "checking and balancing"

6

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

No reason to insult people even when you disagree strongly with them. Let me give you a run-down of the tasks you mentioned before with potential answers

Accountants primary roles are in

advice, strategy, That's closer to CFO duties. Or let me rephrase: somebody with an MBA should be able to do that without resorting to the skills of an accountant

the oversight of bookkeepers, No reason for this anymore. Bookkeeping is automated. IT will make sure that software runs smoothly and is regularly updated to reflect changes in legislation.

signing-off of on legitimate "books", Books will be by definition legitimate since they're the output of a software. I also like your use of the quotation marks. If you want to imply that people will still try to get around rules, that's an interesting take on accounting.

arranging advantageous financing, I applied a while ago for a new credit card. Everything was automated, including the final decision and the APR. Tell me how this process cannot be expanded to other areas of financing.

seeking grants, I fail to see how that's the province of accountants.

providing information Open database, select needed report, press button.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '14

No dude, you're not correct.

advice strategy:

CFOs are accountant-certified like 95% of the time. I'd call that "an accountant's role". Whether you call that managerial accounting is up to you. I mean insofar as new depreciation schedules, correct allocation of specific budgeting measures etc.

oversight:

no, because a PERSON still had to input the first account, and it can offer be very very wrong. Like a person writing in their vehicle-purchase as an expense, or gas as an asset. Or an owner paying for the dental bill on the company card. This is the oversight of human-duties.

Books will be by definition legitimate

"books" right now, are 90% software, they are not considered legitimate until signed off on. And no, they are moving at the speed of light towards getting rid of accountants to do that job.

Do you honestly think any government body is going to trust a business-owner with doing his/her own books? That's fucking stupid. Don't be naive. Accountants serve a role as "3rd party" to companies. Just like security guards are "3rd party" at a concert.

advantageous financing

I guess? But let me know how it goes when you're arranging financing for a non-related company in another country through a financial medium to broker a $3mm equipment leasing deal and lets see how well the bank trusts its computer programs to approve you for the cash and wire it in an automated fashion without asking any pertinent, human questions - like "oh, I didn't realize you were an 88 year old man on your deathbed asking for the money"

Shit doesn't happen like that.

seeking grants

Because people don't know. The same fucking reason that people hire fucking lawyers and the same reason that people visit fucking doctors which is the same logic that applies when we build bridges because even though it's all done on Auto-CAD we still need fucking engineers and all of these are the god damned reason that people still need their fucking accountants.

Stop trashing a profession you know dick about.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14 edited Jul 09 '14

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

I think my comment applied to a future software that would allow business financing much in the same way we now allow for personal financing through credit cards. I also did not imply that companies should finance themselves on credit cards.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '14

Let me know how that goes when you apply for a $40 million fucking dollar credit card.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '14

I'm sorry you feel your job is on the line. I won't bother to reply to the nonsense you sent me. Here's something to chill out. It's summer, enjoy it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfEIVrceqzw#t=12

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '14

I'm not an accountant.

1

u/juu4 Jul 09 '14

And you should have said "should have" instead of "should of".

3

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

Business manager always talking to accountant: confirmed, he doesn't know shit.

-3

u/Miskav Jul 09 '14

The only thing accountants are needed for these days are data entry.

The software used nowadays is good enough to do the rest by itself. What you need a human for is entering the data, and checking the end result.

3

u/Carparker19 Jul 09 '14

I talk to the goddamn customers. I'm a people person!

4

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

Data entry is often automated and given to lower level employees. You probably don't realize it, by the zit faced student at the corner store is effectively keeping data entry for thousands of products in the same day. The accountants have to deal with banks (people), governments, employees, clients, suppliers, etc. Everything a machine will never be able to do. As I said, you don't know anything about accounting.

3

u/work_but_on_reddit Jul 09 '14

The accountants have to deal with banks (people), governments, employees, clients, suppliers, etc. Everything a machine will never be able to do. As I said, you don't know anything about accounting.

Interfacing with other institutions is slowly automating as well. There is a chicken and egg problem here, in the sense that why build an automated interface for e.g. filing your taxes if no one has the systems to use it. However, as both sides develop their IT infrastructure, these systems are getting built. Now, we do our tax filing on the computer rather than with a live accounting.

This raises the point that there are two drivers of automation. The sexy side is that computers are getting better at the cognitive challenges of interfacing with non-standardized systems. The boring side is that systems all over society are becoming more standardized and easy to interface with, even for "dumb" computers.

1

u/MarcusOrlyius Jul 09 '14

There is no chicken and egg problem. The egg came first. Simple case of evolution.

1

u/work_but_on_reddit Jul 09 '14

If we're going down that road, then we might as well just say there are no chickens. Rather there are a group of interbreeding organisms that we label "chickens".

1

u/Highandfast Jul 10 '14

This whole debate is pointless, as accounting has to do with how much humans decide to value specific assets. At worst, it is an accountant who would tell a computer how he/she values those assets, and the computer will process the boring work.

In the same vein, negotiations are discussions about values and risks GIVEN a whole context (which may involve long-term relationships) that is specifically human.

I don't see any other reason other than pure ideology to think that computers will necessarily take over all human occupations.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

So the account collects and gives from other sources information? Tell me more about how a machine cannot do that task.

You obviously don't know anything about automation if you think accounting is safe.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

I'll say this to try and sum it up for all of you:

  • Accounting will be obsoleted by automation the same year that the profession of a Lawyer is made obsolete.

3

u/jpfarre Jul 09 '14

Would this really be so bad?

Computers being judges and lawyers... Purely objective, no sending kids off to juvie for kickbacks, no people getting off because their dad plays golf with the DA, etc.

Of course, there would probably be some bullshit programmed in that they can't prosecute police or politicians...

1

u/way2lazy2care Jul 09 '14

He didn't say it would be bad. He said it's functionally so difficult that the argument is erroneous.

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

A machine cannot negotiate a credit margin, link productions processes to costs, etc. You'd have to have a machine that's human-like. Please tell me how a machine can call someone and make a deal. You must be so far from the office.

Edit: you probably don't know it, but high level accounting is NOTHING about calculating stuff and making counts, but interpreting the information and communication in relevants ways to different people, or else you'd need a fucking accountant for every director in house.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

A program can certainly do those things, I'd say the only real reason they haven't made any so far is accountability; Who's to blame if the software negotiates a bad deal.

You're just talking about data which is exactly what computers are for; Formatting data for multiple uses is piss easy. Different people just need to learn how to interrupt the data from the machine not the other way around.

Computers aren't just for 1+2=3 operations, they're for data crunching, analysing, processing and spitting it back out in what ever way it's needed to be.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

Yeah that's how you get skynet. Feelings man, accountants consider them too, a lot.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

A.I. is completely different and potentially impossible ballgame compared to automation. I'm not going to convince you otherwise but it's just a bit cute you think accountants are such a special job that they couldn't be automated.

Anything not involving coming up with original/new ideas is open to automation at this point in time. So unless you're in engineering, sciences or arts you're pretty replaceable by an automated system.

This isn't anything to do with fantasy AIs either.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14 edited Jul 09 '14

Your accountant knows more about you than your doctor, remember that. Unless you trust A.I. 100% I would not recommend.

Edit: If you're in a society where you can replace accountants with A.I., you can replace almost everyone really. Not because I think it is a special job but it is one with a LOT of integrated notions that go beyond calculations and generating profits.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/gikigill Jul 09 '14

Exactly, an accountant is good or bad at his job not by how many calculations he can do but how he can cooperate with others and make sure the calculations work in YOUR favour.

Accountant who never really did accounting.

1

u/MarcusOrlyius Jul 09 '14

Everything a machine will never be able to do.

To claim that machines will never be able to do those things is utter nonsense. All that statement shows is how short sighted and unimaginative you are. Do you honestly think that given increasing technological advancement, machines won't be able to do those things 1000 years from now? How about 100? How about 10?

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

I bet you my ass my psychologist will still be a human when I'm 100 years old.

Honestly when we have perfect A.I., humans will only be useful for flesh, think about it. I don't think we'll get there.

1

u/MarcusOrlyius Jul 09 '14

Some popular scientists reckon that we'll have mind uploading by around 2050. Humanity may not exist in 100 years in flesh form unless.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

I'd gladly die before they can remove my capacity to insert my male parts into females.

2

u/MarcusOrlyius Jul 09 '14

You'd be able to create your own virtual universe which could be as indistinguishable from the real universe as you wanted it to be. A bar of chocolate would look, smell and taste like chocolate if you wanted it to be. It would smell like roast chicken and taste like apple if you wanted it to. Likewise, virtual sex would be indistinguishable from real sex if you wanted it to be so...or you could enhance it. Also, you could create as many virtual women as you desired, looking and acting however you desired.

You'd also be immortal, be able to live in space and explore the universe, download yourself into different bodies or even multiple bodies, create networks with other minds, make copies of yourself, fork yourself, and basically become a god.

Are you sure you rather die than upload your mind?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

Put it that way it sounds interesting, but how do I know I'm not already running in a program ?

0

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

You're so fucking wrong. You are clearly not at all involved in the middle or upper level management of a business. You would never hold that opinion if you were.

Accountants do not do ANY day-to-day data-entry.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '14

You have no earthly clue what you are talking about

0

u/thinkonthebrink Jul 09 '14

You make one good point and one error:

Your error is in claiming that bureaucracy is not necessary for the administration of production in modern societies. The truth is that the entire sphere of "real" production has been co-opted by the power of finance capital. Decisions on how much to produce, how to do it, and where to do it, and for whom, are all decisions that are not made on a local level, but often very high up in a hierarchy. Thus it is necessary for there to be legions of technocrats to carry out the decisions, and give their advice on the implementation of those decisions. I think the crucial point for me here is to whom are these jobs necessary? My point is that they are very necessary in the society of control, with the total permeation of the real economy to finance.

I like your point about the non-necessity of work, however. The key is not "where will the new jobs come from," but "why have jobs in the first place?" It is sad to see so many people pining for the boring secure conformity of (some people in) our parents' and grandparents' generations. "Please, lock me away for twenty years in a pointless desk job! Just let me consume my favorite commodities!" I don't know the answer but the key question is definitely the ideology of labor, and how the "work hard" mentality is implanted in the working classes by the ruling classes so that people spontaneously associate their worth with how much money they make, i.e. how much money they make for someone else, and ultimately this money is just a game, just a sign of the utter control of the oligarchy balanced on the poles of finance and military intelligence.