IBM To Replace 7.800 Jobs With A.I

[TheDawn]

So you show me a video of a robot walking for a whole 50 seconds, carrying no load and using no tools in any confined space?

Right now robots are still in the research stage. If you really feel a need for a toilet-installing robot, by all means suggest that to Boston Dynamics and have them develop it.

What did that robot cost to build and develop? How many years could you pay a plumbers salary instead of developing that robot, which can't do the job we are talking about?

They won't because there are jobs where it's just not economical to do so. Robots cost money to design, build and maintain, alogrithms also.

If you get an order for 10 of something you're probably not going to spend $100m designing a robot to do it.... Unless you've got a bunch of dumb "investors" that are going to pay you a multi-million dollar salary to work on it for ten years and then fail.

Not all engineering challenges are trivial and can be solved in a few years. Just as we don't all have flying cars or portable nuclear reactors, sometimes things don't get magically 100x cheaper and easier just because someone with no experience in the field predicts they will.

Look at the nuclear powered airplane program. Or the Boeing SST. Or fusion reactors.

Only reason why it might cost more now to build robots instead of hiring human labour is because there is no economies of scale on robot-building yet so all the resources being put in to produce a robot is relatively higher. Once robots can be mass-produced I am sure the cost will come directly down and would eventually cost less than human labour. Like I said robots are still in research stage right now.

There's a reason we still build houses out of wood instead of boron-epoxy composite.

Actually it's the 3D-printed houses that you need to be "scared of".

 

[engineering]

Once robots can be mass-produced I am sure the cost will come directly down and would eventually cost less than human labour.

Well if you're sure about it why would anyone ever bother to engage their brain and think about what it really does costs?

Let's me know when cars become ridiculously cheap too! Just a few more years and I'm sure they'll finally have economies of scale allowing them to be 100x cheaper. /Sarc

The 3d printed house was a great example of how people fall for this nonsense.

Costs matter. That's why we don't all have flying cars and portable nuclear reactors.

The notion that economies of scale are going to push things down to inconsequential prices is ridiculous. We're not talking about CPUs that are essentially made of sand. We're talking copper wiring, rare earths, high strength alloys, engineering plastics. These things are in limited supply and take significant resource input to produce.

 

[TheDawn]

Well if you're sure about it why would anyone ever bother to engage their brain and think about what it really does costs?

Let's me know when cars become ridiculously cheap too! Just a few more years and I'm sure they'll finally have economies of scale allowing them to be 100x cheaper. /Sarc

The 3d printed house was a great example of how people fall for this nonsense.

Costs matter. That's why we don't all have flying cars and portable nuclear reactors.

The notion that economies of scale are going to push things down to inconsequential prices is ridiculous. We're not talking about CPUs that are essentially made of sand. We're talking copper wiring, rare earths, high strength alloys, engineering plastics. These things are in limited supply and take significant resource input to produce.

You brought up a valid point of the scarcity of certain input materials posing as a hindrance to achieving economies of scale in bringing down costs. All I can say is technologies evolve. Maybe one day we will be able to find alternative material that's cheaper to produce and we would be able to mass-produce to achieve economies of scale. My old man used to tell me that there still remain thousands of elements out there that we haven't discovered. Hopefully one of them would give us the cheap material that we need. We need another Marie Curie!!

 

[d08]

Entertainment jobs are increasing in numbers. Just decades ago to be an entertainer you typically had to be hired by a movie studio. Nowadays you have millions of independent online performers. Their earnings typically are smaller but the distribution is better. Hollywood producers have been replaced with Google execs.
As automation continues, more and more people will have free time to both produce and consume online content.

 

[M.W.]

Only very few rake it in as content creator. Very few are successful at anything since the dawn of time...difference soon is that those with little talent and effort will fall on very hard times whereas they went by so far. Consumption does not count as its an asset destructing pursuit.

Entertainment jobs are increasing in numbers. Just decades ago to be an entertainer you typically had to be hired by a movie studio. Nowadays you have millions of independent online performers. Their earnings typically are smaller but the distribution is better. Hollywood producers have been replaced with Google execs.
As automation continues, more and more people will have free time to both produce and consume online content.

 

[RedDuke]

Agree. I see seismic shift with chatgpt and alike. Not his year, but it will come faster than most can anticipate.

 

[Zwaen]

Entertainment jobs are increasing in numbers. Just decades ago to be an entertainer you typically had to be hired by a movie studio. Nowadays you have millions of independent online performers. Their earnings typically are smaller but the distribution is better. Hollywood producers have been replaced with Google execs.
As automation continues, more and more people will have free time to both produce and consume online content.

There was an article where bankers warned millionals on the skewed income distribution in this sector: //www.ft.com/content/3f34db20-fdca-4c85-8cf6-18ab692ab3b9
And you should trust them, since they give good advice

I think the implementation of chatgtp will be easy and fast. The change of all underlying structures, from organisational ones to ict infrastructure to societal structures will be a different and far slower story. There lies the challenge (and thus opportunities)

 

[Businessman]

Only very few rake it in as content creator. Very few are successful at anything since the dawn of time...difference soon is that those with little talent and effort will fall on very hard times whereas they went by so far. Consumption does not count as its an asset destructing pursuit.

So according to that ft article, Goldman reckons there are 50m content creators in the world and 4 per cent of those are making more than $100k per year.

So 2million people who are earning more than $100K a year doing something they love with no boss .

That is a much higher success rate than trying to trade for a living that is for sure.

 

[NoahA]

So according to that ft article, Goldman reckons there are 50m content creators in the world and 4 per cent of those are making more than $100k per year.

So 2million people who are earning more than $100K a year doing something they love with no boss .

That is a much higher success rate than trying to trade for a living that is for sure.

And on the flip side, the risk is just time wasted and maybe a few dollars wasted on camera and light. But with trading, the downside is pretty severe.

 

[M.W.]

And what do you reckon the 95% are gonna do? And you are comparing apples with oranges. The few successful content creators have to work very hard for their success, constantly. The few successful traders have to work smart not hard. Big difference.

So according to that ft article, Goldman reckons there are 50m content creators in the world and 4 per cent of those are making more than $100k per year.

So 2million people who are earning more than $100K a year doing something they love with no boss .

That is a much higher success rate than trying to trade for a living that is for sure.