Jack Dorsey Tells Andrew Yang: 'AI is Coming For Programming Jobs'

Nytegard said:
That's probably more realistic. Right now, design work is time consuming. Not difficult mind you, time consuming. And there already are AIs that can convert UIs from one platform to another. I think a lot of people would be surprised at how many professional developers can't even create something harder than the simplest GUI, let alone something that has lists, tables, charts, draggable windows, etc.

And to be honest, some of it's not exactly intuitive, which leads to a lot more mistakes. And this is stuff where an AI can shine, though it will push out quite a few developers.
Click to expand...
I would believe it I spent a great deal of time in Design courses specifically related to UI, and for my final project I was tasked with creating a program mockup for an inventory management system for the local lumber mill and after that it was programming for property management systems and the UI's out there are god awful and to this day many still use the same ones they had back when they were hosted on NT4.
 
idiomatic said:
Remember when water mill powered looms were going to make us all unemployed?
Click to expand...


The water-powered looms required humans to make copes of punch cards to run the programs. You also needed human s to make sue the looms stay d in operating order (or they would destroy themselves).

Today, we've replaced the humans with microprocessors: the microprocessors can run the same weaving program infinite times. We've also replaced the quality control humans with sensors powered by another microprocessor. All the microprocessors driving this system cost under a dollar in mas-quantities! At this point, humans only program the system using standard libraries, and replace broken parts.

You should expect similar upheaval with powerful AI - eventually it's going to start writing most of that weaving program for us! And even later, you'll get self-repairing AI! It's going to be quite boring to work in an almost empty factory,


It's going to take a lot longer for AI to replace complex programming jobs, but it will happen eventually. We're at least 50 years from this happening.
 
Last edited:
CraigHB said:
I agree, but still I have to wonder what the economic landscape is going to be like when most jobs are done by AI. If you make the working man something obsolete, what do you do with the working man. Are we to eliminate money and make society purely communistic? Are we to eliminate the human condition altogether? This is actually a cliche story line for science fiction, but it's uncanny how some of these science fiction authors can actually become prophets.
Click to expand...

I wonder too.

At some point if AI becomes capable enough, there will be a whole lot of people completely unable to provide for themselves, and you know what they say:

"Any society is only three square meals away from revolution."

So, once this happens and AI results in mass unemployment, the system will have to change, or people will make the system change.

I'm not sure this is an immediate concern though. More likely than not, it will just wind up making people more productive, the market will readjust and people will work doing different things.

The advent of the personal computer may have put an end to secretaries, but look at the industry it spawned in computer development, IT departments, consultancies, you name it.

It's always difficult to see how it will play out positively in advance though. The Luddites who in the early 1800's smashed industrial textile equipment because they feared it would put everyone out of work, had no idea that they were on the precipice of the greatest economic period of growth in history with high employment and wage growth. (Sure, there were some bumps along the way requiring new labor laws, but still!)

I have faith that the economy will readjust and employment will continue to be strong (but different) despite AI, but if it doesn't, society will indeed change, one way or another.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
I wonder too.

At some point if AI becomes capable enough, there will be a whole lot of people completely unable to provide for themselves, and you know what they say:

"Any society is only three square meals away from revolution."

So, once this happens and AI results in mass unemployment, the system will have to change, or people will make the system change.

I'm not sure this is an immediate concern though. More likely than not, it will just wind up making people more productive, the market will readjust and people will work doing different things.

The advent of the personal computer may have put an end to secretaries, but look at the industry it spawned in computer development, IT departments, consultancies, you name it.

It's always difficult to see how it will play out positively in advance though. The Luddites who in the early 1800's smashed industrial textile equipment because they feared it would put everyone out of work, had no idea that they were on the precipice of the greatest economic period of growth in history with high employment and wage growth. (Sure, there were some.bumps along the way requiring new labor laws, but still!)

I have faith that the economy will readjust and employment will continue to be strong (but different) despite AI, but if it doesn't, society will indeed change, one way or another.
Click to expand...
Well look what the Supreme Intelligence did for the Kree, I'm sure we will work out for the best....
 
erek said:
Opinion?

"In November, the Brookings Institute released a report showing that artificial intelligence will increasingly jeopardize “white collar” jobs.
Click to expand...

even AI doesn't want to be a janitor
 
Kind of why I liked Yang, the idea of treating AI/Automation as a resource and levering additional taxes on said entities to try and fund UBI for families. I'm not sure if it is the best solution, but there needs to be something to help people who lost their job transition.
 
Good, but they should include deep learning to build in inherent scope creep, so that it codes in additional functionality that the product owner didnt realize the tool had to have until after initial coding.
That or AI Product Owners who fully understand their business process and can actually provide clear requirements
 
Hakaba said:
Kind of why I liked Yang, the idea of treating AI/Automation as a resource and levering additional taxes on said entities to try and fund UBI for families. I'm not sure if it is the best solution, but there needs to be something to help people who lost their job transition.
Click to expand...
Doing UBI now is just buying votes and subsidizing Amazon. Wait for calamity to actually get here first. The Industrial Revolution should have created mass unemployment and to a degree, it did. But we're better off in the long run. If I have health insurance the rest of my life, a UBI on top of that might be enough for me to take an early retirement (like 12 years early). Do you really want people who contribute to the national kitty to become a drain? I know the commies do, they want to crater the system and come in with their command economy to save the day :rolleyes: .
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I wonder too.

At some point if AI becomes capable enough, there will be a whole lot of people completely unable to provide for themselves, and you know what they say:

"Any society is only three square meals away from revolution."

So, once this happens and AI results in mass unemployment, the system will have to change, or people will make the system change.

I'm not sure this is an immediate concern though. More likely than not, it will just wind up making people more productive, the market will readjust and people will work doing different things.

The advent of the personal computer may have put an end to secretaries, but look at the industry it spawned in computer development, IT departments, consultancies, you name it.

It's always difficult to see how it will play out positively in advance though. The Luddites who in the early 1800's smashed industrial textile equipment because they feared it would put everyone out of work, had no idea that they were on the precipice of the greatest economic period of growth in history with high employment and wage growth. (Sure, there were some bumps along the way requiring new labor laws, but still!)

I have faith that the economy will readjust and employment will continue to be strong (but different) despite AI, but if it doesn't, society will indeed change, one way or another.
Click to expand...


I think humans will find more important pursuits at that point. But lets be clear are you talking about AI or an AI that is sentient? Unless it gains sentience it will never be as creative as a human being. We make illogical jumps that end up taking us in new and novel directions. I see AI as taking over the "menial" jobs of rote items like programming (and I was one so its fair for me to insult it ;)), all manufacturing, etc. Humans can then move on to higher order jobs like R&D.

I think AI WILL force society to evolve. I can guarantee you some people will be without jobs. Just as some water mill workers ended up unable to support themselves. They likely refused to retrain and renter the workforce in a new better capacity. We must not allow people who are stubborn and refuse to learn to hold us back. This is part of why I disagree with UBI. You didn't earn that money so why do you deserve it? Someone worked very hard for that money and you took it from them. Taxes - the only legal way to steal.
 
More centralization via technology, another example of tech advancements generally not accruing to the benefit of the broader population but rather a select few, more consolidation

Ultimately this ends up with a super-conglomerate producing everything, running everything, dictating everything with a single un-elected board at the top "managing" everything.... and more importantly, EVERYONE
 
pillagenburn said:
More centralization via technology, another example of tech advancements generally not accruing to the benefit of the broader population but rather a select few, more consolidation

Ultimately this ends up with a super-conglomerate producing everything, running everything, dictating everything with a single un-elected board at the top "managing" everything.... and more importantly, EVERYONE
Click to expand...

That's not true. It's like saying only Steve Jobs benefited from the iPhone. Everyone who bought one directly benefited and then alternatives came out like Android and the entire world benefited. Even people the shittiest places on earth have smart phones and benefited. There is no super-conglomerate producing everything and running everything. People are willingly choosing to give their money and both buyers and sellers are benefiting.
 
sharknice said:
That's not true. It's like saying only Steve Jobs benefited from the iPhone. Everyone who bought one directly benefited and then alternatives came out like Android and the entire world benefited. Even people the shittiest places on earth have smart phones and benefited. There is no super-conglomerate producing everything and running everything. People are willingly choosing to give their money and both buyers and sellers are benefiting.
Click to expand...

True but we do have a problem with super conglomerates or mega corps in general. You say there isn't one, I say that's true but there are surprisingly more than you'd think and its a non zero number. Just 10 companies own almost every food and beverage company. Just ONE company owns almost all the eye glass producers, sun glasses, eye insurance, and eye doctor chains.

There are only eight manufacturers of laptops and Dell, HP, etc are NOT in that list.

My point? Mega corps/super conglomerates whatever you want to call them they are out there and they control a sizable part of the market. Its something to be aware of for sure. Its nowhere near the "one board tot rule them all" but it certainly does pose some concern when you want to decide between two brands by voting with your wallet...two brands that are both owned by the same company and os your choice is effectively nullified.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I have to admit, I'm not terribly concerned about all this automation job loss stuff. At least not in the short to medium term, or even the longer term. In the very long term, yes, but we are not there yet.

Let me give an example of an industry I used to work making equipment for, Analytical Chemistry.

Back in the 80's and 90's it was labor intensive to do HPLC lab analysis of chemical samples. Manual injections, reading charts and graphs. Some even quantified results by cutting out printed chart graphs and weighing them to get the area under the curve. Others packed their own gravity fed columns. Since then automated equipment has taken over. It hasn't eliminated the Analytical Chemist at all. In fact there are many more of them working today than there were back then.

Eliminating a lot of the simpler work and replacing it with automated machines has allowed an analytical chemist to set up a machine with an autosampler and configure it to run overnight, and run several pieces of equipment at once, literally multiplying the work output of a simple analytical chemist hundreds of times. Chemists can now focus more on the more intellectual work of method development, and other things, and less on the busy work than they used to, making their jobs more interesting as well.

This has dropped the cost and feasibility of doing mass chemical analysis, causing it to be used in many more places than it previously was, literally enabling the creation of the modern biotech and pharmaceutical industry, and increasing the demand for chemists, not decreasing it.

There may come a day when AI can completely replace all aspects of a human software developer, but that is still a long ways off. No doubt these developments will change the work of software developers a lot, making a single software developer able to output way more work than one could before, but more likely than not, this will mean software will become cheaper, and used in many more places than it is today, driving up demand.

While I don't foresee mass software developer unemployment any time soon, some software developers may still not like this change. It will likely mean much less time spent actually code, and much more time spent in actual real software design, defining user needs, coming up with and documenting the architecture, figuring out what each module should do and how it will interact with other modules, validating and testing, etc. (which, honestly, if you are doing software development right, should be a much, much larger portion of the job than just the writing of the code, even today). A lot of programmers like to bypass all of this work and get straight down to writing the code. These programmers will likely be disappointed in this AI future, but you can't win 'em all.

So I believe this will change the way software development works, and change the work of code monkeys into being actual software engineers, who design the software, not just code it. And I believe that as a result, demand will go way up, not down.
Click to expand...

The loss of jobs is a misnomer, we will always find a way to create make work for credentialed people to engage in, we already have a glut of bullshit jobs. But when some jobs are displaced, they don't increase the of labor, they decrease it, and because peoples bills don't stop, they have to take whatever is left over. Often these are lower productivity and lower paying jobs. So yes, people will still have jobs, shittier low paying jobs.

What you described was a case of software developers getting bulldozers instead of shovels, increasing what each software dev is capable of doing. But at some point, in some industries, that shovel becomes a tool sophisticated enough to replace. Cashierless stores are not going to be additive in terms of labor.

UBI now please.
 
Anyone that has written very simple classifiers from scratch, RNN, or CNN for example know how far off this is from reality. Even using things like tensorflow to simplify the difficulty, AI is a long long way off from replacing coders. If anything its just another framework skill set as I have found to solve a limited set of problems in production software.
 
tybert7 said:
The loss of jobs is a misnomer, we will always find a way to create make work for credentialed people to engage in, we already have a glut of bullshit jobs. But when some jobs are displaced, they don't increase the of labor, they decrease it, and because peoples bills don't stop, they have to take whatever is left over. Often these are lower productivity and lower paying jobs. So yes, people will still have jobs, shittier low paying jobs.

What you described was a case of software developers getting bulldozers instead of shovels, increasing what each software dev is capable of doing. But at some point, in some industries, that shovel becomes a tool sophisticated enough to replace. Cashierless stores are not going to be additive in terms of labor.

UBI now please.
Click to expand...

History completely contradicts your assertion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this
DirtyTeeth said:
might be talking about something different here, but learning javascipt frameworks might be the worst roi you could do with your time. stay away from that shit, get experience or spend time learning literally anything else. just my opinion from watching other struggle.
Click to expand...
Yeah, God forbid you learned programme by that is used by like 95% of web sites and is the basis of Facebook and many other large scale web sites. Seriously? I learned assembly, C, C++, C#, Basic, Java, JavaScript, python and dabbled in some others. I'm not sure why JavaScript would not be on someone's list as often as you need to do web UI's that are at least somewhat responsive if not a full SPA (single page app). I'm not sure why learning something highly utilized would be a waste of time or bad roi... Front end developers are in need and javascript is very high up on the list for front end development. Heck, I'm pretty sure this site uses JavaScript. I use the right language/tool for the job. Until web assembly becomes more useful and supported, JavaScript is my go to for front end work. C#, C/C++ for most other days things. I haven't had to write much assembly lately, but can still manage if I need a really tight inner loop or perfectly timed routines for a microcontroller.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this
Ready4Dis said:
Yeah, God forbid you learned programme by that is used by like 95% of web sites and is the basis of Facebook and many other large scale web sites. Seriously? I learned assembly, C, C++, C#, Basic, Java, JavaScript, python and dabbled in some others. I'm not sure why JavaScript would not be on someone's list as often as you need to do web UI's that are at least somewhat responsive if not a full SPA (single page app). I'm not sure why learning something highly utilized would be a waste of time or bad roi... Front end developers are in need and javascript is very high up on the list for front end development. Heck, I'm pretty sure this site uses JavaScript. I use the right language/tool for the job. Until web assembly becomes more useful and supported, JavaScript is my go to for front end work. C#, C/C++ for most other days things. I haven't had to write much assembly lately, but can still manage if I need a really tight inner loop or perfectly timed routines for a microcontroller.
Click to expand...

Exactly - if your career is as a programmer you should be learning as many languages as possible. Expand your intellect and your marketability. Saying dont learn X is telling a mechanic "just buy the set without the 10mm socket. You'll never use it." Until you find out you need it...
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with the above

First misunderstanding, He did say frameworks and not pure JavaScript, I agree. Web development is a mess because of all these shitty frameworks

Too many guys I've seen "dabbling" couldn't write 10 lines without googling 9 times. If I have to choose between a guy who knows 1-2 languages well vs a guy who dabbles, I'm probably going with the 1-2 languages guy if it's what I need

When you become proficient in a language you will naturally move to another and another, but only after you've developed an expertise. moving from one lang to the next just to be able to list them on your CV, not the best approach
 
blackmomba said:
I don't agree with the above

First misunderstanding, He did say frameworks and not pure JavaScript, I agree. Web development is a mess because of all these shitty frameworks

Too many guys I've seen "dabbling" couldn't write 10 lines without googling 9 times. If I have to choose between a guy who knows 1-2 languages well vs a guy who dabbles, I'm probably going with the 1-2 languages guy if it's what I need

When you become proficient in a language you will naturally move to another and another, but only after you've developed an expertise. moving from one lang to the next just to be able to list them on your CV, not the best approach
Click to expand...

Let me clarify: To me learning a language implies proficiency in it. Not passing familiarity or dabbling.
 
Ready4Dis said:
Yeah, God forbid you learned programme by that is used by like 95% of web sites and is the basis of Facebook and many other large scale web sites. Seriously? I learned assembly, C, C++, C#, Basic, Java, JavaScript, python and dabbled in some others. I'm not sure why JavaScript would not be on someone's list as often as you need to do web UI's that are at least somewhat responsive if not a full SPA (single page app). I'm not sure why learning something highly utilized would be a waste of time or bad roi... Front end developers are in need and javascript is very high up on the list for front end development. Heck, I'm pretty sure this site uses JavaScript. I use the right language/tool for the job. Until web assembly becomes more useful and supported, JavaScript is my go to for front end work. C#, C/C++ for most other days things. I haven't had to write much assembly lately, but can still manage if I need a really tight inner loop or perfectly timed routines for a microcontroller.
Click to expand...

i agree with the always learning sentiment, totally. but if you are referring to pure javascript for frontend development- no one has done that for over 10 years. Facebook is on react, like i said a javascript framework. Angular is also a nightmare. it doesnt matter if you are a javascript wiz walking into someone elses angular project is a nightmare. i stand by my statement, getting into frontend development on those is not worth your time for the $$$. stay away. always move toward programmer and away from devmonkey when possible. react is not programming. angular is not programming. just my experience and from watching others chasing the wrong jobs.

for my background i am probably not as experienced as you, i work almost exclusively in GO and Python.
 
kju1 said:
Let me clarify: To me learning a language implies proficiency in it. Not passing familiarity or dabbling.
Click to expand...

Yep, but that's not so easy to find. I seen guys 20 years writing Java and I can assure you that AI could write much better code
 
I don't know why we work so hard to automate the construction of products and server side solutions, shouldn't we be automating the client side? After all it's the customers, viewers, users that are idiots. All they do is mindlessly surf sites, get data, make minor changes we let them make and get out. Why don't we get bots to do THAT and we can just serve ads to the bots and make our lives easier. Bots probably complain to customer support less too.


/s
 
kju1 said:
Exactly - if your career is as a programmer you should be learning as many languages as possible. Expand your intellect and your marketability. Saying dont learn X is telling a mechanic "just buy the set without the 10mm socket. You'll never use it." Until you find out you need it...
Click to expand...
Not sure that's the best use of time... as a programmer, rather, one should be adept to learn the best language(s) for a given project when needed. Otherwise the projects aren't big enough.
 
DirtyTeeth said:
i agree with the always learning sentiment, totally. but if you are referring to pure javascript for frontend development- no one has done that for over 10 years. Facebook is on react, like i said a javascript framework. Angular is also a nightmare. it doesnt matter if you are a javascript wiz walking into someone elses angular project is a nightmare. i stand by my statement, getting into frontend development on those is not worth your time for the $$$. stay away. always move toward programmer and away from devmonkey when possible. react is not programming. angular is not programming. just my experience and from watching others chasing the wrong jobs.

for my background i am probably not as experienced as you, i work almost exclusively in GO and Python.
Click to expand...
I write JavaScript pretty often at work, so not sure I agree. Also while react is what Facebook came up with, it's implemented in JavaScript and when you write react components it's all in JavaScript. If you're using html chances are you will need JavaScript to handle something. I use it in my MVC (ASP.NET) apps, I use it when I do react, vue, and even my custom c++ web server uses JavaScript on the frontend. Just because your using a library doesn't mean your not using the language. It's like saying when I'm writing a 3d game engine in C that I'm using opengl so C is useless.... No, I still need to write the code to use the library and implement the rest of the logic, data handling, i/o, etc. It doesn't negate I'm using C because I'm using a library with it, why would it do so for JavaScript because.your using react.js? Heck, check out all the node.js packages that are all written in JavaScript. Someone writes them and hundreds of thousands of people use them every day. I find it silly to think people don't use JavaScript it's used in almost everything even if it's hidden from some.
 
sharknice said:
History completely contradicts your assertion.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You are not paying attention to what is said. I'm not talking about the elimination of jobs writ large, we have ways of creating all types of make work for people to engage in, plenty of that could be wiped away with close to zero effect on a companies productive capacity.

Incomes are more concentrated around elite labor and capital today. That is a fact. If a factory switches to increased automation, middle skill people can lose jobs, and because they still have to work to survive, they will often take up lower paid lower productivity labor. Saying that long term, the economy will find productive uses of labor is meaningless if the changes happen too fast, that leaves too many people left in the cold in the short term.

For anyone that is not some bootlicking libertarian sociopath, that ought to be a problem.
 
tybert7 said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Nah. UBI is an absolutely awful idea. It will just have inflationary pressures and not be very effective. Besides, the moral hazard of giving people something for nothing is pretty negative.

An alternative solution, something like guaranteed work, could be more palatable. The rise of AI may not make human laborers cost effective, but that doesn't mean Government couldn't do something with them, instead of just giving them money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this
tybert7 said:
No it doesn't. You are not paying attention to what is said. I'm not talking about the elimination of jobs writ large, we have ways of creating all types of make work for people to engage in, plenty of that could be wiped away with close to zero effect on a companies productive capacity.

Incomes are more concentrated around elite labor and capital today. That is a fact. If a factory switches to increased automation, middle skill people can lose jobs, and because they still have to work to survive, they will often take up lower paid lower productivity labor. Saying that long term, the economy will find productive uses of labor is meaningless if the changes happen too fast, that leaves too many people left in the cold in the short term.

For anyone that is not some bootlicking libertarian sociopath, that ought to be a problem.
Click to expand...

Then show proof that that is happening at a problematic scale.
 
Ready4Dis said:
I write JavaScript pretty often at work, so not sure I agree. Also while react is what Facebook came up with, it's implemented in JavaScript and when you write react components it's all in JavaScript. If you're using html chances are you will need JavaScript to handle something. I use it in my MVC (ASP.NET) apps, I use it when I do react, vue, and even my custom c++ web server uses JavaScript on the frontend. Just because your using a library doesn't mean your not using the language. It's like saying when I'm writing a 3d game engine in C that I'm using opengl so C is useless.... No, I still need to write the code to use the library and implement the rest of the logic, data handling, i/o, etc. It doesn't negate I'm using C because I'm using a library with it, why would it do so for JavaScript because.your using react.js? Heck, check out all the node.js packages that are all written in JavaScript. Someone writes them and hundreds of thousands of people use them every day. I find it silly to think people don't use JavaScript it's used in almost everything even if it's hidden from some.
Click to expand...

i didnt say learning javascript or a library is a bad roi, i said the javascipt(or typescript, whatever) frameworks. And they are. frontend devs are likely paid considerably less and possibly work as freelance than if you specialize in any other part of the stack. maybe i dont know what i am talking about, just my experience. i feel bad for your c++ web server, it probably could have been 30 lines in flask. good day.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Nah. UBI is an absolutely awful idea. It will just have inflationary pressures and not be very effective. Besides, the moral hazard of giving people something for nothing is pretty negative.

An alternative solution, something like guaranteed work, could be more palatable. The rise of AI may not make human laborers cost effective, but that doesn't mean Government couldn't do something with them, instead of just giving them money.
Click to expand...


It's a great idea. When Alaska distributes it's yearly cash payment to families, if the shallow assumption of more cash = automatic runaway inflation is true, we would expect an increase in prices.

Prices FALL when the cash drops, because there still exists competition between firms for those dollars and more companies put things on sale to capture more revenue and profits. This does not mean we can drop an infinite amount of cash on people, it just means that outside monopolistic constraints, the primary driver of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods.

Pay attention to that last part. We are nowhere near tapped out on the productive capacity of the US or the world, to the extent most productivity is constrained, it's not because we lack the capacity to produce more, it's because there is not enough demand to require more production. In other words, we have slack in the system where we could easily expand cash to people without hitting some sort of inflationary mountain. How much? Don't know, but these are not constant variables.


As for the moral hazard, there is none. We are not giving people something for nothing. UBI gives people cash to do ANYTHING, of which a subset of anything, is nothing. The implication though, revealing your twisted nihilism, is that we need the STICK/cattle prod of total economic destitution lest the masses turn into lazy sloths.

The problem, is that study after study after UBI study does not show what you ASSERT and assume to be the case. Work levels are relatively stable with modest basic income. In developing countries, and in developed countries.

And I abhor the idea of guaranteed jobs. If we decide to employ people in society via government, I want that work to be based on actual need, anything more and it's the definition of make work bullshit jobs. And what if someone is completely incompetent at a job, but shows up? Still got to guarantee the job? Why? Why is it so god damn important to have such a person perform this dog and pony show for YOU to prove their worth as a human being? If they are not a good fit, there should not be some magical guarantee of employment. I'd rather just ensure people have a higher economic floor, and so people are more free to engage in the kinds of labor that want to do, not just what they have to do for survival.

The consequence of being a lazy sloth who contributes nothing to the larger society, is you get LESS. People who do contribute more, get more. The difference in the world I want to build, is because we raise the floor for EVERYONE, we are better able to get to people who slip through the cracks while jumping through the hoops you demand to prove their worthiness of aid.
 
sharknice said:
Then show proof that that is happening at a problematic scale.
Click to expand...


Yang talks about some of that here.



This is part of what happened in smaller midwestern towns as manufacturing dried up, or automation was ramped up. According to the numbers, I think about half of former factory workers went on disability, opiate addiction rose, suicides rose. This is a direct fallout of the hollowing out of entire regions of the country with these winner take all dynamics. It's worse in smaller localities, because smaller towns lack the one type of diversity even conservatives have to bend the knee to in respect. Diversity of industry. It's a bigger hit of a single company is the dominant employer in a city, vs larger metropolises where there are far more players.

Have you seen that chart that showcased votes by county and gdp?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/resi...ashpost/public/X7EALKZDEY6XNKXI7WTR653MWU.jpg

Look at what happened between 2000 and 2016, fewer counties are producing more and more of the wealth in the nation. Now, if you are a high paid professional, as many people in this forum seem to be, it's easy to be oblivious to all of this. MY life is great! MY city is thriving, MY peers are doing well! All the people I know have professional degrees and are making good money. As if that scales. I swear, sometimes I wish I had the power of Q so I could snap my fingers to some of these indifferent people could experience how different their successes in life would be if I say, took away 30 IQ points. How's that coding job now? Oh, what? Can't hack it?

Home Depot is hiring. People need to look outside their pampered little professional little bubble worlds.
 
kju1 said:
Let me clarify: To me learning a language implies proficiency in it. Not passing familiarity or dabbling.
Click to expand...
Same here. This is why I specifically said I dabbled in others, because I don't count that as really knowing them and/or they are specialized and useless in most cases. Still not to worried about AI taking my job... I've written neural network code from scratch before, so I feel if AI starts taking my job I could switch to a job in AI ;). I doubt it'll affect me, have you seen AI try to write in a natural language like book or sentence? It's horrible, lol. If it can't do that I have very low hope of it doing anything meaningful any time soon. Possibly a really stripped down language with very few rules and lots of pre-made routines.
 
UltraTaco said:
Well, if AI would be implemented into legal system, we might see a lot of people behind bars that shouldn't be there and vice versa..
Click to expand...
Or maybe we'd see the right # of people behind bars instead of what we have now with our biased justice system? Try telling me humans aren't inheritly biased and don't us emotions for decisions instead of just the facts. Heck, if we train the AI, it will just learn the biased patterns and produce the same results as that's how we taught it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top