How We Can Embrace The Replacement Of Jobs By Artificial Intelligence?!

True AI has not arrived, and automation is not AI, but robots and human-written code are a reasonable preview of what employment challenges genuine AI will bring. (Obviously, things like deep learning are quite exciting, but their most significant impacts have yet to be felt.) Computers already manage warehouses, can drive reasonably well, and are making meaningful progress into areas like basic lawyering and radiology that we long considered to be immune to change. Estimates vary widely about the number of tasks that that can be automated, with some extreme forecasts arguing that half of all existing jobs are susceptible to automation. (Frey and Osborne, Oxford researchers, estimated up to 47% of jobs were susceptible to automation.) I doubt it’s that high, but even 5-10% is an enormous number of jobs. Even a conservative 5% estimate implies 7.6 million jobs lost to automation (using BLS’s calculations of the size of the workforce). Assuming those jobs are never replaced, that would push the core unemployment rate (now 4.7%) to close to the peaks of the Great Recession (9.7% future vs. 10% in 2009). A 5% displacement won’t happen overnight, though that doesn’t mean it won’t happen ever, or that we can ignore the problem. And even if some new jobs are created, net displacements will still be significant, especially as AI improves...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/03/20/how-we-can-embrace-the-replacement-of-jobs-by-artificial-intelligence/#4d4b73372bae

Thank you prof. Jacić for sharing your always interesting view.

Overall I agree with both your observations (1) that true AI has not yet arrived and (2) that AI is not automation. As for the former, I think it will still take a few more AI winters before it does. As for the latter, automation of process-support comes very close to a proper AI application.

I also agree that in the short term societies will grapple with the imminent loss of jobs, but there appears to be an inevitability driving the progress of technology in the AI domain. For example, as life expectancy increases, costs of healthcare must go down, costs of managing such knowledge have to remain affordable. Whether such activities are automation (of knowledge management) or of an AI nature is not really relevant. The impact of computing machines is expected to soar in the healthcare domain at least.

Against a long-term backdrop it is not easy to predict outcomes. If there is an economy to be erected around AI then surely people will engage and get educated, reducing the shortage. Will the shortages exceed the immediate loss of jobs due to AI, or perhaps persist over time?  Those are two interesting questions, I think, and are key to how to approach AI. Of course fear about loss of jobs is one risk-view, the opportunity offered by technological progress a very different benefit-view. Either way I expect AI to play a part in dealing with them.  

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"The Past, Present and Future of Artificial Intelligence in Marketing

Artificial intelligence has dominated popular culture for years; it may soon dominate marketing. Scientists, researchers and marketers are looking for the next step to make data self-aware

"If a machine can think, it might think more intelligently than we do, and then where should we be? Even if we could keep the machines in a subservient position, for instance by turning off the power at strategic moments, we should, as a species, feel greatly humbled.” – Alan Turning, the father of modern computing, in a 1951 talk on BBC Radio

IBM’s artificial intelligence (AI) platform, Watson, is loquacious; it can tell jokes, answer questions and write songs. Google’s AI can now read lips better than a professional and can master video games within hours. MIT’s AI can predict action on video two seconds before it begins. Tesla’s AI powers the company’s innovative self-driving car. All seem to propel us closer to Turing’s world of machines with more intelligence than humans.

If Turing’s words now ring true, should we feel humbled or anxious? For many marketers, the anxiety and existential fear has given way to hope and excitement for a new tomorrow. 

“It’s exciting, isn’t it?” says Doug Dome, who has been studying data’s impact on marketing for 30 years. Dome, who works as a marketing consultant and adjunct professor at University of Chicago’s Graham School, grows excited as he talks about the possibility of AI: the time it could save marketers, how it can bring companies closer to consumers and its potential to catch customers in stride, saving effort on the business and consumer side. As an integrated marketing communications professional, his excitement about the potential of AI has given way to the belief that AI will completely change branding, marketing, advertising and perhaps the world. 

“Just think about all the innovations, all the promise of technology,” Dome says. “Is your life now really that much more convenient? Is it easier? I don’t know that it is. … I think in order to be able to fully benefit from a data-driven marketplace, marketers will have to take a broader perspective on problem resolution, and the tribal approaches that Pedro Domingos has articulated are the solution.”"....

Please, goto the link to see more details....

https://www.mgiesler.com/mediablog/2016/12/31/the-past-present-and-future-of-ai-in-marketing

My concern is the requirements for these new type of workers. In my opinion, the new landscape of automation will require that these new workers will have to acquire sophisticated skill sets within computing, statistics, computer science and their interaction with fields like sociology (for social network analysis, etc.). This is not easily done by today's standard when we are struggling to get people into computer science and STEM fields in general. Also, current movement to eliminate traditional humanities robs new opportunities to complement these fields with computational aspects that might bring new opportunities and changes.

@Arturo Geigel thank you for your view, but would these requirements really be so complex as you describe?

When cars were first manufactured they too enjoyed contemporary developments in technology beyond the grasp of most. But eventually it is not this kind of know-how that boosts performance - it is the ability to use the technology. When it comes to mobility, people are not concerned what is under the hood of their car, or how it operates. They are merely interested that it performs when they need it to. Something similar holds for consumerization of digital technology. Few users care which technology gets their emails from one point on the globe to the next, as long as it is done reliably.

What does count is that technology gets used in innovative ways that removes tediousness from tasks and allows users to direct their focus on more rewarding activities - things which deliver value to them. With AI/CG, however, the tediousness is no longer in the category of repetition, but directly in the domain of competition - in that of sellable skill. I do think that, initially at least, early adopters of this technology will require what you outline, but in the long run users of AI will not be interested in what runs in their machines, as long as they perceive value flowing from their use of it. I also think that it will create a huge market, comparable to food, energy or mobility where there will be significant demand for these newcollar workers. How that world will look like and operate, I am less certain. Hence my question. 

Pieter,

As AI evolves so will the range of tasks that it will do. This will clear the low hanging fruits of manual repetitive tasks to automation. What I expect is another division in the digital divide were the gap will be those who truly understand the technology from those who are users of the technology. We have already seen what the digital divide does, but I would expect the same will eventually happen with those within the technology field to experience a displacement if there is no movement towards more sophistication in usage and knowledge.

Pieter,

I meditated on my answer and even as we speak the phenomena is appearing. Take for example the incident with the Google buses ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bus_protests).

My argument is that while the number of engineers to non engineers is 1/8 in Google, this ratio will not remain still and the number of engineers either grow or remain the same and the number of non engineers will diminish.. The other phenomena that is possible is that non engineering professions will start to resemble engineering professions in terms of the skill sets required. I also feel that as we progress and diminished funding towards basic science becomes scarce, the movement towards engineering science will take place (hopefully to a lesser extent)

While this future is speculative, its beginnings are taking place and if necessary corrections can take place to avoid it if so desired.