Think about the last time you heard how a developer tells you that you don't need to learn the ten finger system to program well, or that he is capable of using 10-20 programming languages. How can a person think about usability of his software and a debuggable architecture, if he has to think about how to put an "i" and an "f" in the text editor? How much time is left for genius ideas when he has to look up all the time if the current language requires him to write a try-catch or a try-except block?
Typing is only a small part of programming, and touch typing isn't a huge benefit even for that part, considering all the numbers and symbols used, auto-complete for identifiers and keywords, and macros for common idioms.
And it painfully overworks the right pinky.
I disagree. Being able to think through my fingers has helped a lot. It's hard to explain so let's use a driving analogy. Think back to how good your driving was when shifting wasn't muscle memory, when you had to think about the clutch every time, or when you had to think about just how much brake to apply and how much throttle in various situations. Or even when you had to think about how much to turn the wheel.
When all those basic tasks required higher-level brain function involvement. How much did you actually focus on the road? How much could you think about choosing the most optimal lane? Etc.
Even something as simple as keeping appropriate safety distance for the speed you're driving. When it becomes intuitive, you're free to think about other stuff.
Same for typing. When I think "string template" and `foo ${bar}` flies out on its own. That helps. It means I can think about more important things.
If you don't like my driving analogy. Pick up a skateboard. Or rollerblades. Or a hoverboard. And try to hold a conversation while you learn how to ride.
Let me give you another example that maybe drives the point home better: Have you seen the videos of how Minecraft was made? A very short amount of time was spent on getting the I/O to the filesystem to work, of setting up a window and filling it with colors, of creating the basic 3D world. I believe that is a huge part why not everybody can write a successful game as Minecraft. Because I don't have trained the routines, I need to spend a considerable amount of time getting all these basic things done before I can start with an actual 3D game. Thus an experienced game developer is already done with his first demo in the time I am done with the basics. And at this point he has a demo to show for, I have nothing. So he even gains more motivation in the same time to continue, and he may even gain some first user feedback. This will make him code longer (huge benefit, I give up at this point) and he will also develop more in the direction that is fun for players (huge benefit two).
It is hard to connect directly the geometrical transformation math to making a game that is more for the players. It is in fact not directly connected. But if you don't sit down to learn the "boring math" you can't get there. That's what typing faster is for. It's not yielding benefits directly. But if you learn that, learn your text editor, learn your language, learn some design concepts, you will reach a level of competence that is not reachable without. Of course you could also do other things to get the ideas from your head into the computer faster, like voice input, or flow programming with touchpads. But then you need to get into these very well to get them out of your way as well.
Wut?
I've been touch typing for years, and none of my fingers have experienced any strain, or ever been overworked. In fact, the reason I learned how to touch type was to _reduce_ the strain on all my fingers.
Programming outside the web/enterprise bubble is far less about connecting existing black boxes.
There's a question of: If you know 20 programming languages, how well do you know any of them individually?
I don't think that's necessarily a fair statement, however it rings true when you talk about actual development. Library knowledge, beyond a certain point, is far more important than programming skill.
Many backend jobs involve routine work from people who could be doing non-routine work if the CRUD routine job was automated. Within an industry or a profession it seems like there could be a mix of routine and non-routine work.
Similarly, how many people's jobs have changed from being routine jobs to non-routine jobs through either retraining or automation allowing them to take on higher order work? Again, doesn't say.
Also, interesting to note that the actual unemployment rate for routine congnitive, routine manual etc 2009 shock aside doesn't actually look anomalous compared to much of the last two decades of the graph is to be believed.
Talking in terms of "automation of routine tasks" sounds reasonably descriptive of how the spread of technology works. But, technology is a concept that is notoriously elusive in economics. That's because it's hard to clearly define in concrete terms useable in the context of economic theories, whether they're mathematical conceptual.
For example, we've always been imagining "robots" as tin humans that do stuff people where doing. You have science fiction movies, books and such being written right now with this imagery, just like the 1950s sci fi art, Jetsons. Just like the mechanical turk and automatons of the 1700s.
I think robots are a useful mental placeholder. "Technology will be doing task X." But in reality, technology is usually more like "tools." Imagine a mechanic in the future. Maybe the cars come in with better self diagnosis before he sees them. The parts he needs are already known so he has them ready ahead of time. An AR (or whatever) info delivery thingy tells him exactly how to install or remove parts. etc.
What you have is a more useful mechanic. As long as a mechanic is still involved, I think "tool" is a better description. If people are no longer involved, "robot" seems a bit better. Ahead of time, when you are trying to imagine where technology is going it is very hard to discern tools from robots. Is a lawnmwer a robot? Is a a self guiding scalpel a tool?
That's not true. The word "technology" is quite precisely defined in economics, and the definition is generally agreed upon by economists. This definition does indeed lend itself to useful economic theories.
The challenge is that the economic term "technology" does not map 1-1 with the colloquial use of the word "technology", which leads to an abundance of confusion for people unaware of this distinction when they interpret economic analyses.
The endgame here is that I don't need a mechanic.
Once you have exact replication steps, automation is easy.
Is the distinction between routine and nonroutine manual occupations simply technical vs service?
> Nonroutine manual occupations, which include service occupations related to assisting or caring for others
> Routine manual, which include construction, transportation, production and repair occupations
For example, why is driving a truck considered more routine than being a nursing assistant or phlebotomist?
Interesting, could you please expand ?
A bookkeeper/accountant might be manually entering invoices into a system, emailing managers to approve payments and such. It takes 3 hours per day. This work is "routine" in the relevant sense (it can be automated) but our young, congenial and soon-to-be-replaced-by-robots accounts payable woman (her name's Lynne) also does and is capable of doing "non-routine" tasks. She can call up suppliers to negotiate payment terms, have lunch with the manager in the next office to clandestinely suss out some questionable expense charges, etc.
Calling Lynne a "routine worker" is kind of problematic. She does routine work because it needs doing. When that work disappears, she's not out of work by default. Generally when technology creates efficiencies, the unemployment rate does not just increase by the number of people that did that work yesterday. People who are capable of doing other useful things do those things, if it's useful to do more of those things. There's still a question of whether the economy can use up these newly available Lynne hours. Often it can.
What happens when some technology automates a lot of "routine" programming work? Programmers make more program(s).
Very very scary if tech that most of us still haven't touched is also in a sense routine.
I hope I'm misquoting him. But my takeaway is that between manually coding processes that could be solved with ML & doing infrastructure profiling, most devs are spending half their time fixing problems that are 'routine' at the big three.
Isn't that more properly regarded as exciting than scary? The long term benefits to automation have rarely failed to outweigh the temporary costs.
I would personally be very happy if my own current job- software developer- were somehow automated out of existence. Not only would it allow me to put my money where my mouth is regarding praising automation but it would mean huge gains for the human race.
This entirely depends on the model the human race is running off of. With the current state of mass-centralization in tech (see, again, the big 3), you will never get to experience such gains. In fact, you would quickly grow dependent on someone else to feed and shelter you, considering you can no longer provide a benefit to society that puts food on the table. In fact, most people wouldn't provide value anymore.
> The long term benefits to automation have rarely failed to outweigh the temporary costs.
For some people, yes. You are correct when it comes to the numbers. GDP increases. A nation has more "wealth" to work with altogether. But the other side of the coin is that wealth disparity becomes more extreme.
Big however - If we ran off a decentralized model - arguably the way the Web was originally intended, I could see how the human race would be placed in an unprecedented position for future growth, and humanity would really thrive.
Granted, regarding the current state as ""exciting"" boils down to what you value, I guess.
When (not if) I automate myself out of existence, I'm sure as hell not telling anyone I did it.
Considering that my own personal theory is that software developer (also my profession) is the last job that will ever be automated (there will have to be one last person that writes software to run "the robots" before "the robots" write all their software), I can't say that I share your excitement at this milestone.
But then again, maybe it's simply evolution and nothing to fear, since we are as temporary in the universe as the last species we evolved from.
Tech Talk with Jeff Dean at Campus Seoul
'deep learning for building intelligent computer systems'
The goal seems to be making the rich even richer.
You are right in that the goal is key, because much time and effort will be spent towards the goal. When Kennedy said we should go to the moon, we did. Our leaders today have other goals, and they too will reach their goals. Choose wisely.
Unfortunately I can't show you what life was like before the industrial revolution, because we don't have images or movies from that time, suffice to say that life then "was short, brutish and hard". Child mortality was rampant, according to Adam Smith it was not unusual that a woman who had had 10 children didn't see any of them grew up to be adults.
There is no goal, but progress is moving as far away from that condition as humanely possible, as fast as possible. This is best achieved with capitalism.
If you want full scale employment just create another world war, so that we can draft everybody and piss all our wealth away.
This immediate nitpick aside - I think it's great that routine task jobs are going away. The bulk of those are mind-numbing, dead-end jobs - do we really need to keep subjecting people to 40h/wk routine boredom?
They are so kind, and helpful, both to residents and their families, and they are just so superb at what are really difficult jobs. They deserve much more than most of them are making. They're some of the higher-paying jobs in the town, but relatively speaking, they're not high-paying.
Back when I was in middle and high school, my other grandmother was in the same home, though not in the Alzheimer's wing, and they seemed to take really good care of her, too. I wasn't as cognizant of it at the time, but talking to my parents and looking back, I can see that it's the case.
I know that I couldn't do their job.
What happens if "crappy jobs" are not available anymore and all the available jobs require 1) non trivial credentials and 2) enough mental energy that after work you are "done" and can't do anything else? And what happens to people that are only capable of dealing with a routine task job?
Until there is something like universal income routine jobs seem to be the lesser evil, because the odds of universal income coming into being in our lifetimes seem pretty low, and having something to fall back on to pay the bills while you figure out what to do with your life can be quite helpful.
Sure, it's great that we are gaining this capability, and the people working towards it should be lauded for their progress. The issue is that many people rely on the ability to exchange 40h/wk of routine boredom for the basic necessities of living.
Our society assumes that most people will contribute enough value from their "work" that they can exchange for the things they need in life. If their work loses all value, then we need to figure out what else we can do for/with these people.
At this point, it seems as if our engineering ability is advancing beyond the pace of our social structures and legal system.
Global warfare would solve this problem on all fronts. You know, if the prospect of war these days didn't stand a good chance of ending the species.
I know for a fact that work I have done has contributed to the demise of many positions. Could you imagine the industry for "Internet Cataloging" if we didn't have search engines? Email if we didn't have Gmail?
Technology is a job killer. That idea is something that's been a part of society and literature for hundreds of years, sometimes in violent fashion. Our economy needs to evolve in such a way that the destruction of jobs is a net positive for society.
What we should accept is that the time is approaching where a) it is possible for skill and lucky people to make many millions of times more money than those who are neither and that b) the cost communication has decreased so much that in many cases it no longer makes sense to employ people, instead it makes more sense to contract the work out.
This means we should do two things: stop talking about income differences and focus on making sure the poorest have tolerable lives and b) make it much, much, much easier to start your own small business. This means tax cuts but above all simplifications of the relevant law.
Imagine a world (or the US) where 75% of the people are at the poverty level and 25% are "rich". How long do you think that's going to last?
> This means tax cuts but above all simplifications of the relevant law.
How do you pay for the poorest to have tolerable lives with tax cuts? Or are you talking about cutting out regressive taxes on the working poor?
If your work is just following instructions, then it's probably routine.
As for me, I'd like to see most middle management go away, since I largely see it as a waste (basically, if people know how to manage themselves, you can get rid of most middle-managers).
Most middle managers end up achieving neither, but a layer of management is the default solution that companies most end up with.
For instance this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_currency
As for "productive societies", I don't know what that will actually mean in the near future. Automation is 100% productive. It needs no people for that. These terms have meaning for industrial society where people are treated like robots. It has little meaning for society where robots produce more of the goods. And everything else is about simply organizing society so that people feel some sense of meaning and contentment.
At the end of the day in motivated people with money, and engineering society in that direction, we actually get a lot of ills like burnout, alcoholism, workaholics, etc. Yes people can be coerced by money, but often it's not for their own good. It for the good of the owners of money so they can make more profit. But at the same time, this sort of thing ruins the experience of life for the worker.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-...
