What did the tech CEO say to the worker he wanted to automate? - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/what-did-tech-ceo-say-worker-he-wanted-automate#.Uh6EtAC_2Bw.facebook <comment><USER2> The thesis of the audio clip appears to be that an unsolved problem with automation is what becomes of the automated workers.

My girlfriend works in a government job, at a regulator.

Most jobs there exist because they insist in dealing with paper forms instead of internet ones - for most employees, half the work is in correcting invalid forms (e.g. no contact address).

The other half is in applying rules that they have to know because they have never been codified in a database (instead living in large regulation documents).

Recently, they have been downsizing. One of the employees that was fired was primarily responsible for sorting emails that arrive in a centralized inbox, allocating them equally to staff. She also ordered stationary, and watered plants. When she left, she was entirely replaced by 2 Outlook rules, one to allocate the mail, the other to periodically order stationary by automated mail.

I wonder what will become of that lady. She had a fear of technology, not even mastering how to send email though it was her primary role for 5 years. She regularly cried in the office, and when asked to do anything outside that small role, approached a nervous breakdown.

There are a lot of people who are not able to cope with advanced roles, by which I mean normal jobs a normal person could perform. Either we are willing to pay for them to be comfortably unemployed (as the CEO implies we should be), or we are not. I suspect we are not. So they will be punished, and made to feel terrible, until they are diagnosed with something and can be disabled. At this point, their livelyhood relies on not being able, and this seeps into the soul.

<comment><USER3> Yes, to be provocative about it, here are some options for what to do:

1\. Support them comfortably for the rest of their lives, retrain the ones who wish to be retrained. (too crazy?)

2\. Euthanize them in a kindly fashion, ie with laughing gas. (obviously ridiculous)

3\. Euthanize them in a cruel way, ie humiliate them by making them beg their families for care and resources, starve the ones with no family. Let them die of exposure if they haven't saved a fortune and can't cope gracefully with rapid technological progress. (the way we've been doing it)

<comment><USER4> You did a very good job of making it sound as though it is someone else's fault, even intention, when someone fails.

Of course, calling failure "euthanization" is ridiculous fallacious bullshit.

<comment><USER3> 1\. The post was intentionally provocative. I said so in the post. I don't really care about the blame as much as the solution.

2\. It is a serious dilemma for me. I've worked in, and now I teach industrial automation. I have probably automated thousands of peoples' jobs away. While I don't believe it is my fault, or my client companies' faults that there are box packers and fruit sorters who are unemployed. I do feel enough responsibility that I should at least advocate for the people's sake. I also don't think it is the fault of the workers. One thing I do know is that wide- scale automation of labor is a potential social disaster if we don't figure out how to handle the transition gracefully.

3\. I'll double down and tell you my opinion that "euthanasia" is really too kind a word for what happens to the sick who are also poor in this country. Do I think it is deliberate? Maybe, judging by the priority policymakers have placed on alleviating the problem.

<comment><USER5> `euthanazia` implies that somebody is doing something to another, in this case that we actively make them suffer a cruel sort with the intention of killing them.

It's obviously not my intention, nor do I think it is the intention of most. I believe it is more correct to simply state that human life can be tough walk. If you don't manage to keep your head up, you'll suffer the wrath of some evolutionary conspiration.

We as societies can try to alleviate that minimum suffering by choosing to provide basic needs. Some societies decide to do it, some don't. I believe societies who don't are of this opinion because they are blind to the benefits, not because they are evil.

<comment><USER6> > _I believe societies who don 't [provide for basic needs] are of this > opinion because they are blind to the benefits, not because they are evil._

It's likely also a side effect of the current structure, which dictates that we must all work. Of course, this mantra is required to encourage people (especially low wage workers) to continue working.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Two remarks about taking the booth lady as an example:

1) Her job has _already_ been automated, thus validating the automation thesis. Her job has/used to have two aspects: ticket sales, and information. Tickets are now being sold by automatons, and she only has to handle the edge cases of people unable to use the machines, or the machine failings. As for information, most people will now use convenient smartphone apps to navigate BART, and she will only handle the few people who don't --tourists or people unwilling to use smartphones.

2) She was a terrible example in that you _cannot_ automate her, since she is precisely what is left after the automation of her job. The work that comes to her is what did not fall into the automated use cases.

The value of some jobs is the human contact, or human interface they provide, and she falls into this category. This is also why we won't automate, say, barmen, or waitresses.

But what CAN be automated about BART, are train drivers (absolutely unnecessary in our day and age), and train dispatchers. They don't do consumer-facing human interaction, and machines would do their jobs better. And in time, they _will_ get automated.

<comment><USER8> BART was originally designed to run without train drivers. That was rethought after the automation system launched the "Fremont Flyer" into a parking lot.

You really need drivers for safety reasons.

<comment><USER9> > You really need drivers for safety reasons.

One incident does not a point prove. There are many completely unattended trains in operation, several of which are in the United States.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains)

<comment><USER10> None of the systems listed are very complex. One or two lines, or a loop of track, with very few level-grade crossings. Most of the ones in the US are just airport shuttles. Sure, that's easy to do.

I wouldn't move the subway systems in New York City to UTO operation, though. Not a chance.

<comment><USER11> It's already done. The docklands light railway in London is more complicated than the metro systems of most cities and it's been driverless since the 1980's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway#Map](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway#Map). On the other hand, it still has a staff member, 'Passsenger Service Agent', on every train to deal with customer service. They are also trained to drive the train at very low speed (I'm guessing <10mph) when the automation fails, which it does occasionally.

<comment><USER12> "Passenger Service Agents" are on some, not all trains. And on about a third of the trains they are on, they are manually operating the train at full speed (generally for "diagnostic" (read as sanctioned joyriding) purposes, I am informed by a friend at TFL).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Yep. If your job could conceivably be done by an automaton, eventually it will be. Since we are just automatons, that means that every job could eventually be automated. Which is ok. I'd rather not have to work. But it's also basically proof that someday we'll need socialism because there will be no jobs at all.

<comment><USER14> A thousand times yes! Automating away a lot of jobs as the economic system is now be disastrous, just think of Detroit at a very large scale.

"Wouldn't that be perfect if she could actually pursue her hobby?" is a very ignorant statement if you start to consider the implications of industry automation for all of the workers who have been automated away.

I believe that if we don't fundamentally change the economy through reform this will eventually lead to the next large revolution.

<comment><USER4> When you replace someone with a machine, the cost of creating whatever object or service they worked to create goes down.

Either the customer gets a better deal (and has more money), the shareholders get more profit, or some combination of the two.

Either way, the customer buys more stuff or passes the benefits onto _their_ customers, and the shareholders buy more stuff. All of a sudden, there is more demand for labor, and over time, the displaced humans get hired again.

You are invoking the luddite fallacy.

<comment><USER15> This is a fantasy. There has to be diminishing returns at some point--there has to be a tipping a point where the Luddites are actually correct... it just wasn't 1811.

<comment><USER16> The Luddites were correct in recognizing that there was a problem to be addressed, but they weren't correct about how to deal with that problem. Halting technological progress and forgoing the economic prosperity it enables will never be the right answer for society as a whole - it's only a selfish and shortsighted response that gets triggered because our current society is unable to put that new prosperity to good use and instead leaves people out in the cold.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I agree with you -- the part I was saying the Luddites were right about is that at some point, technology obviates the need for everyone to be employed. I think that's a great thing, and I welcome it despite the enormously painful process it'll be to transition the economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In my opinion the BART kiosk employee is a bad example of a job that can be automated. The fact is her job _is_ already automated and probably why we don't have 10 of those kiosk workers per station handing out tickets and processing them by hand.

Her job is really just catching the 10-20% of people who don't know how to use tech that need hands on support at the stations, and random other odd jobs at the station that in fact can't be automated or automated to the same level of quality.

<comment><USER18> "Her job is really just catching the 10-20% of people who don't know how to use tech..." or people that need something that current tech simply doesn't provide.

The last time I traveled to another big city I actually sought assistance from the metro kiosk worker - information that wasn't limited to metro data. Could I have gotten the info I needed in other ways - yes, but it would have taken me longer than the time I had available. The kiosk worker was familiar with the area and the metro and was able to address my needs in a way that technology simply can't (at this point).

<comment><USER19> Precisely. The job is already automated; the worker is a value-add resource. That's not entirely unlike what many other 'advanced' roles do, just in a different form.

The same applies to technical support - for the most part, there's FAQs and the like to resolve common problems, but also additionally there's tech support people who can value-add by solving the more difficult, fuzzier issues.

<comment><USER20> Exactly. Customer service jobs are actually increasing in pay and sophistication because there's less overall work to be done but what's left behind after automation is more complex.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Amara's Law: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run."

Not to seem like a luddite, but let me play the devil's advocate here. 15 years, IMHO, a huge exaggeration. The standard technology of today: IVRS systems suck so bad that they make me want to slam the phone down after 2 minutes, if I cant talk to a human. Siri or GoogleNow aren't much better. When you force a human to interact with a computer, _you are handicapping them and taking away most of their expressiveness_. Guess what, humans don't like that. You reduce them to the level of the computer which can only understand a few pre-programmed options. That seems like a far cry from _human communication_ which it will try to replace. And we don't even know if that's possible even _in principle_. All we have is the hope from a bunch of people who are generally excited by technology, and the ensuing hype.

Keeping Amara's law in mind, I would imagine that such a drastic change would take a longer time (almost 1 generation's working life?). Incremental changes summed up might displace jobs over decades, but if someone can adapt to those incremental changes, I would imagine that they can manage their whole working lives. At least as applicable to people born till (say) 2000 and would presumably live till 2100 or so. Any "predition" beyond that would be a wild leap. As for humans being born circa now...

However, I believe that a few questions are still of supreme importance and we need to tackle them for the sustenance of mankind (pun unintended).

1\. If a computer/robot could exactly replicate a job (and do it on a macroscopic scale), will such a solution be energy efficient? [Assume that you already have a population of X billion whose needs you will have to meet]

2\. What is the real aim of automation? Is it to save costs from the perspective of the business owner, or to give people leisure?

3\. Let's say robots/computers replace a large segment of jobs. Presumably, a small number of people will own and operate those systems of scale (you just have to make a 3D printer which can print other 3D printers). Then what is the role of the "unemployed" humans? And most importantly, any such structure we come up with, must lead to a stable society.

<comment><USER22> I find it interesting how many smart people seem to truly believe that things will just work itself out. Kind of like the idealist libertarians or communists, only with technology as the solution to every problem.

<comment><USER23> They generally also believe in the invisible hand of the capitalist market.

<comment><USER24> That is something that can only "believed" in or "disbelieved" as much as gravity can be "believed" in or "disbelieved."

<comment><USER25> Gravity can be tested just by dropping your pencil. The invisible hand takes a lot more faith and fervent wishing, IMO.

<comment><USER26> To test the invisible hand, as described by Smith, you just need to buy something useful from someone who just sold it for money, and not out of any desire of helping people.

People just inflate the concept to ridiculous levels, which were clearly not intended by the author.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's interesting to watch the SF tech vs. blue collar debate as someone who has lived in both worlds. It was almost impossible for me to read an article during the strike without cringing.

It's easy to forget that there are people who know nothing about technology through no fault of their own. My nephews go to low income schools that still don't have computers in the classroom and their parents can't afford them.

On the flip side, many people assume that tech workers are all smug bastards who work 10 hours a week who have had everything handed to them. Even if they had many advantages there's still hard work involved, sure it's not manual labor but that doesn't negate someone putting in 50 hours a week and spending another 20 keeping up with their trade.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think this is related to another trend that's a little closer to home for us hackers: software that solves common problems tends to become free over time. Eventually an open-source option picks up steam, and proprietary vendors find their product has been commoditized. This is nearly identical to having their job automated away.

I think customization and support are the future. Just like the woman in the article was able to provide specialized help for the other person who couldn't figure out the ticket machine, there will always be room for someone to fit a generic solution more closely to some company's specific needs. It will at least be the next phase before strong AI (possibly) takes over and makes people completely obsolete.

</comment><comment><USER29> One thing I thought was funny was when he suggested that perhaps the information desk worker might instead work remotely via video chat. She laughed at the suggestion, saying that was a long way off. I saw this exact use case, and I mean _exact_ use case, in Japan a couple weeks ago. It's technically trivial at this point.

<comment> guard-of-terra It's not much cheaper but much more limiting - you no longer can help people out.

It's an example of false economy.

<comment><USER30> They used it in japan. It's probably economic. Why, because you could:

1\. Outsource the job.

2\. Use dead times more efficiently/share loads.

3\. Now it's easier to automate more stuff. For example, after hearing you're request , the lady could give you a map+text+video explanations and move to the next customer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Just because you have a distinct view on the future doesn't mean it's OK to push that view into others. Telling someone their job is going to be obsolete is akin to saying, "If you don't make the choice to get a new job in the next 15 years, it's likely you'll be out of a job." Honestly, if someone told me what I do for a living would be not needed soon, I'd probably go on a Tweet bender myself. It's a frightening proposition, even if it is interesting and exciting.

<comment><USER32> > Just because you have a distinct view on the future doesn't mean it's OK to > push that view into others.

I guess that's why he didn't. The conversation seemed to be very calmly introduced even when that lady had no idea of what was coming.

<comment><USER33> Yes, and it isn't doing anyone a favor to not talking about the reality of the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I reject the idea that there will suddenly be a shortage of jobs due to automation and technological advances. It didn't happen after all our agricultural advances, it didn't happen after the industrial revolution, and it hasn't happened in the information age. Think about the types of jobs people have today and compare it to the types of jobs people had 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. I would argue the majority of today's jobs not only didn't exist back then, but didn't even seem conceivable.

As long as something exists that someone else doesn't want to do, there will be work. Even when robots handle 90% of our labor intensive work, there will be new annoyances and problems that require a human element. Artificial intelligence is a long ways away from being better than even the most simple human mind for most creative tasks, and the more information we have to parse the more opportunity there will be for people to help curate and manage it. Or maybe, once we've run out of jobs that are aimed at making our lives comfortable we'll create jobs aimed at making our lives more exciting. More immersive video games and cinematic experiences. Missions to mars and space tourism. Extreme sports. Nature restoration. Etc, use your imagination.

We can't possibly know what the jobs of the future might be, but I'm pretty sure there will be enough for everybody.

<comment><USER35> >I reject the idea that there will suddenly be a shortage of jobs due to automation and technological advances. It didn't happen after all our agricultural advances, it didn't happen after the industrial revolution, and it hasn't happened in the information age.

Many people believe it's happening now.

>We can't possibly know what the jobs of the future might be, but I'm pretty sure there will be enough for everybody.

That's the thing, there aren't enough jobs for the unskilled and semi-skilled right now. And those that exist provide dramatically lower pay (relatively speaking) than the unskilled or semi-skilled jobs of our parent's era.

It's hard to quantify unemployment, but it's been historically bad for more than half a decade now.

Of course, you are going to have a hard time pinning that down on automation (or any other one cause) - but the point remains, there are a lot of folks who would like jobs, who would have had jobs in the '90s, who are unemployed now.

The valley is a huge exception right now.

Now, on your overall point? I... am sympathetic to your view; My view on the unemployment problem (and I recognize that this is... insulting, and that my view comes from a place of privilege.) My view is that something is wrong with the economy; Nobody has spent enough effort figuring out how to make money off of semi-skilled labor.

I also think that we have a cultural problem. We have generations who were trained to "do your job" \- e.g. the boss will tell you what to do and how to do it. You follow those steps, and you make money for the company, and the company pays you.

Most job growth that I've seen has been in jobs where the boss kinda waves in the direction she wants and you do something reasonable. Sometimes, you get to participate in deciding which direction in which to wave. There's a big difference in the way of thinking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> _Then White was the one smiling. "See?" he said. "Wouldn 't that be perfect if she could actually pursue her hobby?"_

I don't understand how this person could be the CEO of uservoice. How can she pursue her hobby if she loses her job?

<comment><USER37> He's thinking a few steps further: she loses her job due to advancing automation (along with a large segment of the population), _and_ guaranteed basic income becomes a reality.

<comment><USER36> That's a pretty big assumption given the current status of welfare in the US.

<comment><USER20> Which is why I talked about the concept of basic income. I don't know the answer but people are arguing about whether automation is good or bad which is irrelevant. These jobs will be automated whether you like it or not. If we play our cards right then perhaps more people can pursue their passions. If we don't... well I'd rather focus on making the former happen.

<comment><USER36> Well think about how your request plays out.

She stays on her job for the next 2-3 years until they figure out how to automate her job.

Then for the next 30 years she is destitute or working a more menial job until the number of marginalized citizens become a large enough to pass a basic income bill.

Then all the people in control of these automated industries ask themselves, why am I going to pay 20% more tax for these deadbeats when I can move to Ireland or Dubai?

<comment><USER20> And how does your request play out?

We halt any technological improvements which would result in lost jobs. Is there any historical precedence for such a thing?

<comment><USER36> I didn't make a request nor did I ever pretend to know the answer.

What I do know though, is wanting someone's job to be automated soon so she can pursue her hobbies on some personal hope for a basic income, which there isn't a historical precedence for either, is not something she should be excited for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I feel that often such discussions tend to the extremes: either do nothing, or replace _everyone_ with robots. The happy middle ground, for example, is left out because it's the least controversial.

There are some jobs that are best automated. The BART "train operator", for instance; it is _already_ automated! People don't realize that the BART train runs by itself; the "operator" just hits the "close door" button when needed.

Or, for example, the cleaner who is (purportedly) supposed to clean the cars. A Scooba-like robot would do just fine.

On the other hand: a customer-service job is best done by humans (for now), because when we need help, it is reassuring to speak to a person instead of Siri.

So casting this debate as one between "replace all humans" and "keep the current inefficient system" is wrong.

<comment><USER16> There's a difference between "replace everyone with robots" and "replace everyone with robots _now_ ". We can't really say what the limits are to what kind of jobs can some day be done by robots, so we all have to live with the knowledge that our jobs might be automated before we're ready to retire.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The real problem here is the working people, chasing the slackers, mocking holidays, praising people with long weeks. Nobody will want this free time if it's stained with stigmata. There will be the work alcoholic saying "I'm working more than him, I don't want to pay for his free time". Moreover we work more now than before. So the free time thesis is just a joke, it might me economically feasible, but to sell it to the society will be hard.

The idea that the maximum output of a system is very not often achieved when all of its components are at their individual maximum is already impossible to act on in a company (ie. it might be better to have some slackers), I can't see that happening with money directly involved.

</comment><comment><USER40> That Richard White guy has a blog post of his thoughts on the topic:

[http://rrwhite.com/on-the-inevitability-of-automation](http://rrwhite.com/on- the-inevitability-of-automation)

And for a shameless self-plug I made a recent blog post on the same topic of automation a couple of weeks back (although from a different angle):

[http://standardfuture.com/post/58571196148/a-fully- automated...](http://standardfuture.com/post/58571196148/a-fully-automated- society-overly-simplified-and)

Automation in society IS something we (especially as hackers) should feel responsible for discussing, planning for AND acting on.

I know we are some fairly smart people, I just hope that we are all smart enough to take this seriously. :)

</comment><comment><USER41> Stories like this always assume that the benefits of things like automation are equally shared. As if because business A saves X amount of money doing Y, they will divide that money up by the whole of society and just cut us a check. However, as we've seen, automating BART would now be done by a private company who would pocket all the profits. Pretending that this theoretical world where LaNesse does her hobbies is great seems to miss the point that she will join the ever growing ranks of Americans living in poverty. I don't even understand how statements like that are taken seriously.

<comment><USER21> Let alone distributing the benefits among mankind. For starters, you'd want the displaced ("obsoleted") workers to get a share of the benefits. You might ask why they deserve a share of the benefits when somebody else designed a system to replace their jobs... These are people who signed up for "risky" jobs, those which could be obsoleted within their working lifetimes. If we refuse to compensate them for that, we would face problems with people running away from any field which is "soon" to be automated, well before the jobs are actually automated. It's like asking them to hold the door open so someone could kick them out. To not compensate them (and hence ensure a smooth transition for _everyone_ ) would be tatamount to exploitation. It is interesting to note that a union of sorts will preserve employee interests in such a situation, by giving them bargaiing power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I recommend [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm](http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm)

A nice little dystopian story about runaway automation and the effect that might have on society.

</comment><comment><USER43> It seems like he doesn't understand the complexities of her job. Automating repetitive tasks isn't hard, but automating a person is.

<comment><USER22> Yes, and he's not the only one. Just look at how many people are convinced that pilots can easily be replaced by autopilots.

<comment><USER43> Yeah, but then again there are services like Siri that do a phenomenal job at understanding complex user input. I don't think I've ever experienced Siri not understanding my intended query and then giving me a generalized response that has nothing to do what I asked for, so maybe people in roles like this woman's _can_ be easily automated. It's probably trivial to encompass every function that she performs. Maybe a weekend project!

<comment> qu4z-2 I was worried you were serious until I got to the last sentence. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The problem with the arguments of people like White are that they ignore the fundamental negative consequences of automation. When workers (lets call them the "proletariat") are displaced by automation, _they_ don't see any of society's productivity gains - those benefits are instead captured and concentrated by a smaller and smaller set of owners/capitalists (lets call them "bourgeoisie").

Yes, everyone who's displaced is now free to pursue their "hobbies" but let's not forget that the IRS (rightly) defines hobbies as unprofitable activities. It's one thing to say that you should pursue your passion, but another thing to also not provide any method to ... you know, pay for stuff.

This should worry White (and us a lot more) because economic/technological logic is no doubt going to drive this displacement, but it's _not_ going to address the resulting social instability creating a massive and literally unsustainable underclass.

</comment><comment><USER45> One interesting nugget from Superfreakonomics book: whaling industry in the US at the 19th century was fifth largest (think all the insurance industry right now) and employed 1% of the total workforce (think twice the auto industry now). It has almost completely vanished now and yet US economy did not collapse (for the smarties out there - I know about the Great Depression, has nothing to do with it).

I deduce from this that even a huge market shift can be absorbed by a healthy economy and healthy society without too much harm. Now, for the people that get caught in it, it can suck big time, and means must be found to help those of them that can't help themselves (the toll booth lady from the article who has a hobby of buying and selling houses probably is going to be fine anyway), but economically if you say we can't do without some industry or sector, more frequently than not it's just a failure of imagination.

<comment><USER46> "... can be absorbed by a healthy economy and healthy society..." Are we playing Spot the Problem with the Argument? Because I think I have a possible winner.

<comment><USER45> If you're implying that US economy and society is hopelessly sick, it is not. If anything, we have wastly more support programs for needy than in 19th century, and vastly more opportunities for mobility and career change.

<comment><USER47> Still, you are sort of begging the question, which is whether we actually _can_ absorb this shift and something you state as fact.

<comment><USER45> We could absorb the shock of industry of size of the whole insurance industry now disappearing and amount of people roughly equivalent of twice the whole car industry now having to find new jobs. What exactly says we couldn't absorb a bunch of toll booth attendants or cashiers having to look for other job?

<comment><USER48> There's a pretty big difference in terms of employability between a toll booth attendant (whose skill set is probably largely fit for the same easily automatable jobs) and, say, an insurance adjuster (who may not have transferable general skills but is likely to be significantly more educated and more desirable as a worker).

That's the core of the problem that you're not really addressing: we'd be _absorbing_ the unemployment of more people already only marginally capable of employment as it is.

<comment><USER45> Are you saying some people are too stupid to do any job except the job they happen to be doing right now? It sounds to me a) pretty condescending and b) plain wrong just because there's a lot of jobs not requiring particularly high qualifications or a lot of training.

>>> only marginally capable of employment as it is.

This of course is a damning statement about our government-run education system (which I have no illusions about - in best-of-breed big cities it now produces people that finish the school not being able to read their own diploma) but I still think even for those there's plenty of jobs if you bother to look. I'm paying someone to cut my lawn, for example. And the federal government pays someone to deliver my mail. Both don't really need a doctorate to do.

<comment><USER48> _> Are you saying some people are too stupid to do any job except the job they happen to be doing right now?_

No. I'm saying that there are certain strata of jobs into which most people of the jobs you propose to eliminate fall and that that strata of job is being systematically reduced as automation takes more and more of that cut of the pie. They are not effectively substitutable workers.

 _> I still think even for those there's plenty of jobs if you bother to look._

Reality indicates otherwise, as demonstrated by the massive underemployment and unemployment among marginally-skilled workers (both with college degrees and without).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Robots aren't cheap. Complicated systems aren't cheap and neither is the maintenance required to ensure an up-time of near 100%.

However, will there be markets where the high investment will be justified as the return is also high as well? Yes. San Francisco is a prime example.

But, with that said, much of the argument here isn't actually technological, but political. Take wages for instance, many of our current policies such as minimum wage actually muddle the ground between an economical policy and a social policy.

If we are able to separate the two types policies, human resource cost reductions such as automation and out-sourcing would actually make much less sense given that labor rates would be more closely tied to output and required skills of a given worker. Of course, as a society, we would need to implement policy including a minimum universal health care to ensure a sustainable life style even in our large metropolitan areas.

</comment><comment><USER50> If you read some of the comments on the article they simply cite automation techniques that are focused on decreasing costs for merchants like grocery checkout. It's true, these are arguably worse than the human alternative. However, this is extremely short sighted as in time we will have automation that is superior to the human alternatives. Grocery checkout will be replaced with self-stocking kitchens (which decide on a menu based on the FitBit in your blood stream) delivered by self driving cars. Instacart is a good example of the "hack" version of this.

With that being said, I think there'll still be room for the "human touch" in leisure oriented businesses like restaurants or high-touch pricey services like high end wealth management.

You can see that this article appears to have an anti-futurist, anti- technology sentiment. Its opinion represents the vast majority of the world's view which tends to only forecasts out 3 to 5 years out. Significant change is a scary concept especially to those subject to the change. I believe that wealth disparity will continue on the trend that it has been and likely "get worse". But it is my hope that someday a high standard of living will be so affordable that the poorest will have a very high quality of life.

Currently, we technologists are building products that improve the quality of life of the wealthiest 25%. I see this as a good testing ground. Take a page from Tesla's strategy with products and services for the wealthiest to later understand how to bring those products/services to even the poorest.

A note to the technologists/futurists here: as much fun as it is to be "disruptive" especially to large enterprise and put ourselves against them, this is not the most pragmatic approach for middle class jobs. Instead, let's emphasize that automation/technology will ultimately improve everyone's lives so that the middle class lifestyle will be the new "poverty". That's the type of "poverty" I'm happy with.

EDIT: reworded/reorganized/clarified

<comment><USER51> "let's emphasize that automation/technology will ultimately improve everyone's lives so that the middle class lifestyle will be the new poverty"

except there's no reason to believe it will happen. possibly new poverty will be good, old poverty as we know it - just extended to what used to be middle classes. when mass labour is no longer needed, those who possess the wealth have no incentive to share it. last 30 years fly in the the face of the "trickle down" narrative. when those who sell their labour will face further weakening of their negotiating position, this trend will rather accelerate.

<comment><USER52> Well, there are incentives. Unfortunately history suggests that, unfortunately, wealth and the wisdom to share enough of it to avoid bloody revolutions rarely go hand-in-hand. There are more 1917s and 1789s than Bismarks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> The answer nobody's facing is that the system of working for a living is going to have to stop. We all retire, or we're all sacked, pick one. Because eventually ALL jobs, without exception, will be automated. Even in the near term, a lot of jobs you wouldn't expect, ones that look "creative" or "decision making", will be automated.

<comment> guard-of-terra Playing in a band isn't exactly a job today, but I can't see how it can be automated. It can become less popular or forgotten altogether, but not automated.

<comment><USER26> It depends on how you define "playing in a band", but I'd say that's what Hatsune Miku does.

<comment> guard-of-terra She's not playing, she's the act.

Someone "wrote" her and (s)he is the artist.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, but it's turtles all the way down, isn't it? She's just software, so in theory someone can metaprogram that as well. If you're writing a generator of virtual performers, are you really "playing in a band"?

<comment> guard-of-terra You're no longer in the music business but you don't replace musical bands. You can't. You just created a new genre of music while bands happliy bang away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I bet I could write a program to automate away the job of a start-up CEO. Think of the vast amount of money we'd save!

And the start up CEOs of the world, freed from the burden of making any money, could pursue their personal hobbies of... what is it exactly that they contribute to the world other than smugness anyway? I'm a bit unclear on that.

</comment><comment><USER55> What if AI, automation, and the goal to maximize short-term profits leads to robots only making things for other robots?

</comment><comment><USER56> I'd like to point the most excellent Automation Song (1964) by Phil Ochs as still relevant here: [http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSTnuXv_3Y&desktop_uri=%2Fwatc...](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WbSTnuXv_3Y&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DWbSTnuXv_3Y)

</comment><comment><USER57> A good example is the docklands light railway in London, already automated railline that serves the financial district - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway)

</comment><comment><USER58> Seen from China this debate becomes at the same time epic because of the proportion and in a way easily solved. Here if you have no salary you just borrow a few tools from a relative and choose a street corner where to fix passers by's bicycles.

</comment><comment><USER59> I'm waiting for fast food to be automated. [http://momentummachines.com](http://momentummachines.com) could be on to something huge.

</comment><comment><USER60> Next time, don't do something automate-able. You're a human, remember? Do things that only humans can do.

</comment><comment><USER61> automating unions? good luck with that... not before they automate you with the crowbar.

</comment><comment><USER62> The first job _I_ would automate would be the job of Tech CEO.</comment>


AT&T Fails The SXSW iPhone Test - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/att-fails-the-sxsw-iphone-test-2009-3 <comment><USER2> I ran into a couple of the guys from AT&T here. They said that they didn't anticipate how many iPhones would be at the conference.

They showed me the emails they sent back and forth with John Donovan (AT&T CTO) about the issue, and said they worked like mad to increase capacity.

(BTW, according to the sig files in his emails, looks like John Donovan is on an iPhone.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks like AT&T has responded to the twitter outcry: [http://gigaom.com/2009/03/15/tweeting-works-att-boosts- sxsw-...](http://gigaom.com/2009/03/15/tweeting-works-att-boosts-sxsw- network/)

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been to a few big events in Australia - and the big telcos deployed portable mini cell's in order to handle the load. Anyone know if AT&T is doing this at sxsw?

<comment><USER5> I don't see any on the street outside.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's still baffling to me that Apple chose to tether themselves to AT&T. They built a mobile browsing device that almost 2 years later is ahead of the competition (at least for now) then tethered it to the worst data network available. It's like they built a Ferrari with wheels that fall off at 65 mph.

<comment><USER7> I am guessing they didn't have a choice. When they approached carriers, they didn't show them the phone. It was a "trust us, this will be awesome" situation. If you remember, when the iPhone was announced, a VP at Verizon bragged about passing up the deal. It seems that AT&T was the only carrier to trust Steve, much to their credit.

Apple also had stipulated very strict and unusual terms regarding revenue. AT&T was smart to see the upside potential of a radically new device causing users to switch to their network -- again, something that Verizon ignored. You have to give AT&T credit. Even though they have a horrible network, they are very strategically savvy.

Here is the whole story: [http://thewickedwoman.com/2007/07/08/why-apple- chose-att-for...](http://thewickedwoman.com/2007/07/08/why-apple-chose-att- for-the-iphone/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have both the iPhone and a blackberry on verizon and I can confirm hands down that verizon is far superior to att (I'm writing this on the iPhone now and it's auto complete turned att to AT&T... Lame). FYI, I live in NYC but when traveling nationwide have had the same experience.

</comment><comment><USER9> Too bad AT&T doesn't have a femtocell product that can route iPhone traffic over local internet connections.

Oh, wait, they do! It's in testing with their own employees. See:

[http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Femtocells- in-2009-99...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Femtocells- in-2009-99608)

Not deploying a few to SXSW would seem a major blunder and lost opportunity -- unless the units are currently so awful they'd be even worse then the current complaints.

<comment><USER5> AFAIK a femtocell can support fewer than a half-dozen phones; you'd need a ton of them to handle the Austin Convention Center. It's not even clear that such density is possible from an RF engineering perspective.

OTOH, T-Mobile is fine and the wi-fi works well (which is impressive with ~3,000 simultaneous clients).

<comment><USER9> I know nothing of the technology itself, and I would love to hear from an expert. But to speculate:

If the femtocells are to work in an urban environment, they'll have to work with many to a city block -- or even single apartment building. That is, about the same density as wifi access points. I can see 7 SSIDs right now from my kitchen table; from the roof of my building I can see 20-something. (Of course only a fraction of these are usefully connectable.)

So why not a femtocell in the ACC everywhere there's a wifi access point? That would seem to mirror the best case for deployment once they're for sale to home users.

Or at least a half-dozen in the corners of the venue? So at least a few people can report back about islands of good coverage?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> what else is new, even around the apple campus service is laughable. with att, i've come to expect nothing so i'm surprised by everything.</comment>


Ask HN: I very much need a route software for 100+ locations - <AUTHOR>

I will be walking 100+ fashion boutiques in NYC and I have a list ready put together. However, most route software only allows input of up to 25. Does anyone know a way to do this without figuring it all out by hand? <comment><USER2> Are you asking for the shortest route that covers all the locations you want to visit? If so, it is computationally very hard to deal with 100+ locations and come up with an exact solution. This is known as the Traveling Salesman (err. Salesperson?) Problem and it is NP complete. There do exist some heuristics-based algorithms that may be faster but don't give the exact solution.

<comment><AUTHOR> Doesn't necessarily have to be shortest, I can approximate that myself. I just need a map that actually allows for 100+ inputs. I think I found something cool here, though: <http://batchgeo.com/>. Testing now.

<comment><USER2> Have you tried Google Earth? You can create a KML file with hundreds of place- markers or routes connecting points. I've had good experience with this on the desktop.

Don't have a suggestion for mobile, I'm afraid.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! - I think Google earth would have been my next best bet, but the site I mentioned earlier worked out fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't have any suggestions, but I'm not sure you want to figure it out by hand: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem>

<comment><AUTHOR> It doesn't necessarily have to be fastest, anything that can put all the points on one map is fine.</comment></comment>


Large Hadron Collider status page - <AUTHOR> http://op-webtools.web.cern.ch/op-webtools/Vistar/vistars.php?usr=LHC3

<comment><AUTHOR> Relevance of the link: I've been informed by a contact that collisions have been planned for this weekend. May have already happened. ...appears not to be happening right now, though.</comment>