blackjack21 wrote:A lot of what is done in medicine doesn't really need a medical doctor either. As sensors and expert systems improve and get cheaper, the entire medical system could be one of the areas ripe for dramatic restructuring. We didn't get to electronic medical records until the last decade, but that will accelerate things quite a bit as improvements are made.
How cute. Are you trying to scare me off?
I am fully aware that even medicine will be supplanted. The procedural specialties such as interventional radiology, interventional/structural cardiology, urology, surgery, OBGYN, etc will likely survive a bit longer as well. The fact is, just about everything can be automated and the moment that we come up with an actual artificial intelligence that can compete with our own, 100% of human labor will be fair game for "automation".
From a "selfish" personal point of view, I will be safe. Doctors are not going to be replaced this decade and after that, I do have plans for my passive/investment income to outgrow my wages before then so I am not losing my sleep to this scenario, I am planning for it.
As a less selfish point, I think we should prepare for it as a society so that it does not destroy lives, people's economies, etc. We see the train coming, we should start moving away from the tracks.
Yes, but high IQ has been shown to be one of the main factors in income distribution. Ambition and dedication are also important, and explain why there are also some pretty dumb millionaires out there. However, you don't have many people who are stupid, lazy and unambitious doing well for themselves unless they have a some kind of a government job or protected job, like a postal worker or a toll taker or something. As I noted before, this is one of those things that coronavirus is exposing. Namely, you don't need toll takers on the bridges anymore. They can just snap a picture of your license plate and put it on your car registration bill.
Two points. Education can go a long while to inspire people and to shape their aspirations and ambitions. It is certainly not the answer to everything, and not all educations are created equal. Not everyone needs a college degree. But those people that straight out of high school end up in a mine or behind a booth selling something or cleaning, etc are at high risk of having job instability and/or wages insecurity without the leverage to go into a different field once they do lose their job. Ambition and dedication can be learned, you are not doomed from the moment you are born to some less than imaginative existence.
Yes, but high IQ has been shown to be one of the main factors in income distribution.
True. Smart people generally do better. Mine was just a comment about advanced degrees.
Beware of the causation relationship. Who is it to say that is not high income that leads to higher IQ?
At first, it might seem preposterous, after all, people associate intelligence with genetics but there is also an environmental aspect. Poor mom might be a smoker or an alcoholic and doom the child right from the start. Or the child might not receive enough stimulation during infancy because parents are just working all the time, or perhaps the diet is less than adequate. It is thought that the brain continues to develop until the 3rd decade of life. Certainly, those first 2 decades until college are shaping someone's intellect just as much as education and knowledge.
If you look at the graph above the picture is not pretty. While 15% has an IQ greater than 115 there is another 15% with an IQ less than 85. A very low IQ can cause poverty and it is no surprise that the poverty rate in the USA is around 12%. Assuming a population of 340 million you are looking at roughly a bit more than 51 million people. As we move forward into a high tech future there will be no jobs for this segment of the population.
See what I said about correlation and causation above. Same thing.
Have you ever taken an IQ test? Do you have an idea of what sort of questions they ask?
BTW, medicine is ripe for automation. An IBM Doctor Watson would have the entire medical literature of the world immediately available to make decisions based on sound data.
I am smelling a trend here. I have a theory that you didn't like what I said that Robots will take our jobs and that you are trying to scare me away by telling me it will also take mine. That's cute.
I already know that. I am not too worry, high education jobs will be replaced by AI/Robots eventually but low skills will be the first to fall victim to this, long before we see engineers, doctors, physicist, dentists, etc.
Let me stop you right there, you or @blackjack21 have zero chances of scaring me with this line of attack. For one, like I said prior, this is not gonna happen in the next 10years, in the next 10 years we will be lucky if we get self-driving cars which is a far simpler task than taking care of patients. In 10 years I will be financially independent and have diverse and passive income sources that will surpass my current wages. Realistically, the sort of AI that could replace doctors is probably a few decades away, I am as certain that it will come as I can be of anything.
By the time those "high education" jobs are threatened, we will have to come up with a socio-economic solution for a population that "doesn't have to work". But before that, which is probably not going to happen prior to the mid-century, we need to ensure that we dont have half our population starving because a vending machine made the cashier obsolete or a tesla truck made the truckdriver unnecessary. Furthermore, clinging to those jobs just for the sake of getting voters is not a good strategy either, that is just allowing another country (china?, japan?, european countries?) to take the driving seat and spearhead this sort of development.
An IBM Doctor Watson would have the entire medical literature of the world immediately available to make decisions based on sound data.
Well, that is the theory. But brute force can only take you so long. In fact, IBM didn't do as well as it was expected.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3 ... -soon.html
https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/26/1761 ... re-science
We have robotic surgery operated by the surgeon, but how long before software runs the robot?
Probably a few decades.
But yes, you are not saying something that I don't already know. I have been saying this for a while. Probably all of our jobs can be replaced within the next 100 years. Until now, every time that there is a technology surge there have been some jobs destroyed but others created. For instance the automobile. It destroyed a lot of jobs related to the "horse" business but it created a whole bunch of engineers, mechanics, car washing jobs. But, with AI, we could finally be approaching to a time where we could outsource thinking and design to "computers" (and at this point, I should say artificial entity/life/intelligence), after all, there is a great deal of design that is already computational-based (think Stellarator). Once this thinking is outsourced, that is probably the end of our competitive advantage.
Now, assuming that we can come up with a socio-economic model to deal with this sort of world, we will likely end up poverty all around the world, especially if we also conquer quasi-infinite energy (for instance nuclear fusion or... maybe farther into the future Dyson swarms, but this is centuries away).