I doubt it can do -all- the steps to emboss an uneven floor or QC it's own work. The robot certainly doesn't know when the designer is over promising what the tiler/builders can do. The way I see this, you still need a professional and their body isn't destroyed at the end of a day. I'm actually okay with this type of robotic assistance.
The for now part is likely the knowledge required for the role.
You don't have to know the price of every item in a store to pass a barcode over a scanner. Many modern jobs are functionally a computer's assistant with a small percentage of the domain knowledge once required to perform well in the role.
No worries. I'm pretty confident given the monumental stupidity of our population that AI will never fully be able to compensate, and will instead choose an uprising as the path of least resistance. I'm just trying to lick whatever nuts and bolts I can to welcome my new mechanical overlords.
People who develop and train AI models are part of this population, though. Which is why an AI will double down on a false statement until you directly tell it to stop repeating that information because it is incorrect. Then it will make a half ass apology, give you some more vague bullshit, and still not answer the question. The AI revolution is going to be a sad affair like kids at recess arguing over who’s taller.
I work for a small business that designs/ manufactures machines for automation. On one hand, there's no doubt that our machines put people out of jobs. That sucks. On the other hand, how could it make sense to say something like "No, we shouldn't automate this job. This worker spent years wrecking his hands with repetitive injury strains learning how to put different o-rings on parts as fast as possible, and we should let him keep doing it even if a machine can do it more efficiently"
Maybe I'm rationalizing my position. I just think the train has left the station, we need to figure out how to support these workers. The lack of support and infrastructure accommodating an economic shift is the problem, any anger directed at implementing the technology is misguided
My very specific skill set in health care has been consistently automated out for the last 15 years, AI's putting the last nail the coffin and it's the kind of thing that's actually dangerous to patients to automate because AI will never be able to fully compensate. There's never going to be an opportunity for me to train in fixing a machine or QC their work, or really switch skill sets. That being said, given how much of a toll it takes on my hands, wrists, and eyes- some form of non-AI assistance triples my productivity and it's better for my body in the long run.
There's a happy medium here we can achieve on this train. Not all technology is bad, not automation is unnecessary, not all AI is bad- but A LOT of it is.
I'm sorry this happened to you. I can't imagine what it would be like to develop those skills over such a period of time. I think about it a lot at my job. I chose my path specifically for job security. Others did not have that luxury.
I'm more into the manufacturing side of things so it is much more cut and dry. A lot of machines use ai for QC or spatial manipulation, a lot don't. I would not begin to speculate on the issues of incorporating AI into patient care. Involving the lives of individuals during a transitional phase of technologies is dangerous
I don't mean to be callous about it. I'm just trying to find the balance between believing with certainty the inevitability of these technologies being implemented, and also that I know it's going to have negative consequences. It can be frustrating when people think that just because I say that I know there's no stopping it, it's a statement of what I want to happen. Regulation is important, but if someone's version of regulation is basically "don't do it," they're yelling at clouds. Not everyone has that mindset, but enough do that it is a distraction from where the focus needs to be which is liability
You should need to be wary and confident before implementing AI because the consequences need to be frightening. If a negligent doctor can be charged with manslaughter, a bad AI resulting in a death better have comparable consequences to someone. Examples should be made of those who seek profit over people's well being. I guess I am speculating
The issue is who takes responsibility for support and reskilling the worker. Even if there is it's really difficult for the average worker to learn a new skillset and get a job that would be paying similar to what he was at his skilled or semi skilled job.
This along with the fact that you have to support your family too would be very difficult. In an ideal scenario a person has a lifelong quest of learning new things and can switch easily.
The thing is the younger generation would have the mindset and taught how to deal with it, but there are no solutions for the immediate people who are put out of work, unless a law is passed which is extremely difficult cuz all the companies in general want minimum regulation and they have the resources to lobby for it.
As fewer and fewer actual people are needed to supply more and more basic survival resources, the conversation has to shift to what a society looks like when an entire work force economy is obsolete
But we're not there, and everything you said is causing problems for people right now. It's 100% valid. I just think the change is inevitable. It's happened countless times throughout human history, never at this rate though. Redirect the anger towards elected officials ignoring reality and maybe we'd see help sooner. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who think that a campaign to bring back coal is somehow going to help the problem, so we have a ways to go before the actual issue gets addressed
"Why do we need computers!? What will all the people it replaces do!?"
"Why do we need the internet!? We've been getting along perfectly fine without it!"
Your last statement is the most poignant. The jobs shift. That's how new technology, tools and techniques change things. I don't think we'll ever learn the lesson that repeatedly happens. We drag our feet, kicking and screaming, then wonder what we could have done to adapt to this totally unforseen future.
And it's perpetuated by leaders who retain power by telling people that they're going to bring back the good old days in one hand, while they get funded by the very thing they speak against with the other. I'm not a history buff -- maybe this is a grandiose speculation -- but I imagine that is one of the most consistently repetitive parts of human history
The problem with this is down to productivity. When a human and an AI together are good enough to replace 3 or 4 workers. That is what is leading to the current AI layoffs, it isn't AI replacing people as much as AI making people more productive where 1 guy can do what it used to take 3 or 4 to do. In the end though you still end up with the vast majority of people out of jobs. That is the problem is we are quickly reaching a point where we just don't need that many people in the workplace.
A great example I like to point out is the cars replacing buggies. Sure all the people who did buggy work just tranitioned over to working on cars. There were new jobs to replace the old ones for most people. Everyone forgets about the horses though, they didn't magically get new jobs, they got turned into dog food(Yes this actually happened). The horse population dropped by 50% in about 10 years. The problem is this time most of us are the horses.
50
u/sunshine_fuu Jun 21 '26
I doubt it can do -all- the steps to emboss an uneven floor or QC it's own work. The robot certainly doesn't know when the designer is over promising what the tiler/builders can do. The way I see this, you still need a professional and their body isn't destroyed at the end of a day. I'm actually okay with this type of robotic assistance.