Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

f10101 t1_iyzh7v7 wrote

Reply to comment by lughnasadh in Google says they have made a significant advance in allowing humans to communicate with robots using natural language, and claim an "order of magnitude" increase in capabilities over previous approaches. by lughnasadh

I wonder if there is a significant difference between unskilled and skilled work once the threshold of versatility to do "most unskilled work" is met.

6

mgsantos t1_iyzpr7f wrote

The idea of an unskilled worker is usually a misunderstanding by white collar managers of other types of skills that are not sitting on a computer doing math or writing reports.

Think about the least skilled job you can think of. A coffee shop cashier, for example, who is only there to type in simple orders into a computer. Now consider if this is really the only job of a cashier.

My business survives because our cashier is excellent at both attracting and keeping customers. Cross selling and raising the value of purchases. Can I automate her job with an iPad? Sure. Would it generate value for my company? No way.

So I tend to be a little sceptical about these "automate unskilled jobs" from reports written by people who never held an unskilled job or worked with "unskilled people".

7

artbytwade t1_iz034gf wrote

I agree. We're already seeing things that augment systems for humans thus reducing head count. Things like 'self checkout' are a perversion of this, but robots are helpful at quick prep restaurants, as parking attendants, etc. Software has been rooted into even meal prep for 3-4 decades. It on average increases productivity over time.

1

stadchic t1_iyzkofw wrote

The difference is likely money & productivity. Many more things can already be automated than are, because maintenance costs more than minimum wage of organic labor to complete the same job.

2