D
- Status
B
bisco
Guest
no worries, i’m retired. 
generally, that’s the only reason i vote.
generally, that’s the only reason i vote.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Hm, first three minutes barely sound like a Luddite. (What Luddite concedes to the benefits of reducing physical labor?) However, I would argue that a window is being opened to people with real skill, the kind that outmatches machines. Sure, not everybody might care for having just that perfect cup of coffee. But for those who do, who’s to say they’re not willing to pay a higher price?
I mean, are we even close to the age where we can just 3D-print high-end katanas or that one special lasagna that mom used to make?
Take self-driving cars. They can reduce crashes and make transportation safer but who makes more money when it comes to driving?
Is it your unskilled average, taxicab Joe with the sailor’s mouth or the Fast and Furious types competing in Nascar? I know I sound crude, Darwinian even, but my real point is that we shouldn’t overestimate machines (as the video seems to be doing) and underestimate exceptional human skill.
Secondly, the video seems to miss out on the possibility that there are some forms of labor that humans actually like doing. Take sports. Sports are fun. I can’t imagine anyone right now who’d want to create a robot to play in their place unless they’re like a long-dead NBA player reincarnated into the body of a future Stephen Hawking. I digress this could ultimately be irrelevant in terms of making it a job but the fact is, humanity has a tendency to hold on traditions that please them regardless of what technology has passed by. Look at manual looming, crocheting, looming, and rod fishing. They may have been reduced to hobbies and not jobs but the pleasure of such activities have created their own markets. From an economic perspective, shouldn’t that be something to think about?
Finally, I’ve read one too many articles (like this one here) that talk about how data is being revolutionized to the point that they’re pitched as the magic money bullet to all creative and marketing departments. Sad to say, many heads of said departments are skeptical because there are still many other questions not being answered. Frankly, all this talk about white-collar jobs on the way to being replaced just because engineers can come up with self-learning algorithms comes off as too idealistic. I say this not because I fear a machine replacing my job but I fear that a machine will actually suck at it.
Look at food. How many times have you heard it said that production-line quality foods are subpar or unhealthy? That’s the product of automation. If I were a chef, I’d be sorely disappointed. In the same way, I’d be sorely disappointed with an engineer who can’t make an algorithm that even just helps me write better content for emails or websites.
So really, to say that bots have to be more perfect than humans is no more of a better gamble than just to trust humans to do everything. That’s why we, as a species, are unique for working with technology. Thus, I don’t really see the point of worrying about machines ‘replacing’ us. It’d be like arguing with an ottoman about why it’s not as comfortable as the back of a personal slave. (I’d rather threaten the ottoman’s maker with that unless he makes a better footstool.)
P.S.
That last bit about machines replacing creative functions was not only pathetically cynical, it made me laugh. “Developing field” he says, well that’s a leap of faith. It’d be interesting to see how much that ‘faith’ in the machine will pay off if these big shot engineers can actually sell me a computer that, again, make my creative work easy.
All in all, this video isn’t Luddite but it certainly an overly-dramatic, negative anti-thesis to the oh-so-idealistic futurist. Like the positive kind, their premise is that tools that do things a little more perfectly than humans is dreamed as the magic bullet solution to all the world’s problems.
I’ll believe that when you get me something that can help me write. Thank you and have a nice day Dexter.
I mean, are we even close to the age where we can just 3D-print high-end katanas or that one special lasagna that mom used to make?
Take self-driving cars. They can reduce crashes and make transportation safer but who makes more money when it comes to driving?
Is it your unskilled average, taxicab Joe with the sailor’s mouth or the Fast and Furious types competing in Nascar? I know I sound crude, Darwinian even, but my real point is that we shouldn’t overestimate machines (as the video seems to be doing) and underestimate exceptional human skill.
Secondly, the video seems to miss out on the possibility that there are some forms of labor that humans actually like doing. Take sports. Sports are fun. I can’t imagine anyone right now who’d want to create a robot to play in their place unless they’re like a long-dead NBA player reincarnated into the body of a future Stephen Hawking. I digress this could ultimately be irrelevant in terms of making it a job but the fact is, humanity has a tendency to hold on traditions that please them regardless of what technology has passed by. Look at manual looming, crocheting, looming, and rod fishing. They may have been reduced to hobbies and not jobs but the pleasure of such activities have created their own markets. From an economic perspective, shouldn’t that be something to think about?
Finally, I’ve read one too many articles (like this one here) that talk about how data is being revolutionized to the point that they’re pitched as the magic money bullet to all creative and marketing departments. Sad to say, many heads of said departments are skeptical because there are still many other questions not being answered. Frankly, all this talk about white-collar jobs on the way to being replaced just because engineers can come up with self-learning algorithms comes off as too idealistic. I say this not because I fear a machine replacing my job but I fear that a machine will actually suck at it.
Look at food. How many times have you heard it said that production-line quality foods are subpar or unhealthy? That’s the product of automation. If I were a chef, I’d be sorely disappointed. In the same way, I’d be sorely disappointed with an engineer who can’t make an algorithm that even just helps me write better content for emails or websites.
So really, to say that bots have to be more perfect than humans is no more of a better gamble than just to trust humans to do everything. That’s why we, as a species, are unique for working with technology. Thus, I don’t really see the point of worrying about machines ‘replacing’ us. It’d be like arguing with an ottoman about why it’s not as comfortable as the back of a personal slave. (I’d rather threaten the ottoman’s maker with that unless he makes a better footstool.
)P.S.
That last bit about machines replacing creative functions was not only pathetically cynical, it made me laugh. “Developing field” he says, well that’s a leap of faith. It’d be interesting to see how much that ‘faith’ in the machine will pay off if these big shot engineers can actually sell me a computer that, again, make my creative work easy.
All in all, this video isn’t Luddite but it certainly an overly-dramatic, negative anti-thesis to the oh-so-idealistic futurist. Like the positive kind, their premise is that tools that do things a little more perfectly than humans is dreamed as the magic bullet solution to all the world’s problems.
I’ll believe that when you get me something that can help me write. Thank you and have a nice day Dexter.
- Status