The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I disagree. AI will be able to spot all sorts of things on scans that humans would routinely miss. As the technology gets better there will be less need for the service of reading test results. Humans will need to be involved still, but I can see certain positions being diminished and devalued due to the fact that AI will do the job better. It can scan and compare to millions of records as opposed to maybe thousands available to the human brain to process. It can see shades of color undetectable by the human eye. The technology will only get more advanced as well.

I disagree.  You can have all the technology in the world actually scanning images and looking for stuff.  You still need the Radiologist there making the judgement call that it's really what the technology says it is and formulating the report.

 

This is no different than me putting some type of animation for packaging into my plant.  Sure, animation is doing the actual packaging, but I still need someone there running the animation and making sure it's doing what it's supposed to do.

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I disagree.  You can have all the technology in the world actually scanning images and looking for stuff.  You still need the Radiologist there making the judgement call that it's really what the technology says it is and formulating the report.

 

This is no different than me putting some type of animation for packaging into my plant.  Sure, animation is doing the actual packaging, but I still need someone there running the animation and making sure it's doing what it's supposed to do.

Yes but that is almost a different job entirely. It requires less work and you will pay less for it, the entire reason to invest in the technology to begin with. There will be less need in general. You will still have people checking the AI's results but the AI is reducing the workload and labor cost otherwise whats the point of using it? It's great on one hand because it can allow a nurse practitioner to serve an entire small community where you may be lacking real doctors and AI can come in and do some of the things the doctor would do as far as diagnosis. But it will reduce the need for a radiologists services in some way or another whether it be in decreasing wages or decreasing hours because there is less work to be done.

[BigRedBuster]

9 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Yes but that is almost a different job entirely. It requires less work and you will pay less for it, the entire reason to invest in the technology to begin with. There will be less need in general. You will still have people checking the AI's results but the AI is reducing the workload and labor cost otherwise whats the point of using it? It's great on one hand because it can allow a nurse practitioner to serve an entire small community where you may be lacking real doctors and AI can come in and do some of the things the doctor would do as far as diagnosis. But it will reduce the need for a radiologists services in some way or another whether it be in decreasing wages or decreasing hours because there is less work to be done.

No.

 

I would probably end up paying more for the position.  The reason to invest in the technology is so that one person can do more with fewer mistakes.  If I invested in packaging automation, instead of having three people involved in packaging per shift, we could either do that with one person (OR) keep the same number of employees and be able to produce more. The goal is always to sell more and produce more.  So, you know which of those my first option would be.  Another factor is safety.  I was looking at a report the other day on injuries.  Thinking back, I think we had three injuries over the last year in packaging.  If I automated that, the equipment would take the human out of doing all the processes where people got injured.

 

I get so frustrated sometimes because some people think that those evil business owners want automation to do nothing but pay cheap labor and put people out of work.  That is not the typical conversation around automation.  The fact is, it can typically, produce more, faster, with fewer mistakes and safer than just having humans do it.  You still need humans working in the plant.

[BigRedBuster]

Let's look at farming.  It used to be done by hand and by horse.  When the farmer harvested, someone would drive the team of horses and someone else would walk along with a corn knife hand cutting the cob off the stock and throwing it in the wagon.  It was then hand shoveled off the wagon into a corn crib to dry and eventually feed.

 

NOW....they have a combine that goes through the field picking much faster, more efficiently, safer and the farmer has much more control over the process with information feedback.

 

OK....question.  Are farmers the evil business owner because the automated their process?  Should combines be done away with so people can go back in the fields hand picking corn?

No.  Of course not.  But, for some reason when the same thought process is used in a factory setting, the feeling is different.

 

AND...let's not forget.  Someone has to design, build and sell the automation and that actually creates more jobs.  Sort of like someone has to design, build and sell the combines.

[Nebfanatic]

11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No.

 

I would probably end up paying more for the position.  The reason to invest in the technology is so that one person can do more with fewer mistakes.  If I invested in packaging automation, instead of having three people involved in packaging per shift, we could either do that with one person (OR) keep the same number of employees and be able to produce more. The goal is always to sell more and produce more.  So, you know which of those my first option would be.  Another factor is safety.  I was looking at a report the other day on injuries.  Thinking back, I think we had three injuries over the last year in packaging.  If I automated that, the equipment would take the human out of doing all the processes where people got injured.

 

I get so frustrated sometimes because some people think that those evil business owners want automation to do nothing but pay cheap labor and put people out of work.  That is not the typical conversation around automation.  The fact is, it can typically, produce more, faster, with fewer mistakes and safer than just having humans do it.  You still need humans working in the plant.

I don't think it is evil but you have said it yourself. You could do the job better with less people. AI will be better for the consumer as it will streamline the process and make it quicker and it will make things cheaper but ultimately it will change the nature of the work. More jobs will be created but they will be different jobs. We disagree on this but in my opinion as the technology gets better, the less need there will be for a position like a radiologist in its current capacity. The position will become devalued in some way because it can be done by AI. I think positions like nurses and general practitioners will never go away because while an AI can greatly assist these professions, they are things that can't be practically done by automation. So what I am saying is it will affect certain positions more than others and it will cause a shift in the way doctors work in general. Again I don't think its some big bad thing, it's just the reality of it to me.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I don't think it is evil but you have said it yourself. You could do the job better with less people. AI will be better for the consumer as it will streamline the process and make it quicker and it will make things cheaper but ultimately it will change the nature of the work. More jobs will be created but they will be different jobs. We disagree on this but in my opinion as the technology gets better, the less need there will be for a position like a radiologist in its current capacity. The position will become devalued in some way because it can be done by AI. I think positions like nurses and general practitioners will never go away because while an AI can greatly assist these professions, they are things that can't be practically done by automation. So what I am saying is it will affect certain positions more than others and it will cause a shift in the way doctors work in general. Again I don't think its some big bad thing, it's just tge reality of it to me.

I also said that the main goal is to actually produce more with the same number of people.   Remember, we are at full employment, especially in central Nebraska.  I don't have dozens of people lining up at my door looking for a job.  And, the idiot and chief doesn't obviously want more workers in the country.

 

It's possible one Radiologist will be able to process more scans.  So, if the work load of scans needed doesn't change, then yes, we would need fewer radiologists.  BUT....with technology advancing, I would assume the number of types of scans we will experience will only go up.  This creates more work.  Meaning, the number of radiologists might not decrease.

 

And....no.....chances are, they won't be paid less.

[RedDenver]

Here's a study looking at the effect of industrial robots from 1990-2007: https://www.nber.org/digest/may17/w23285.shtml

Quote

On average, the arrival of one new industrial robot in a local labor market coincides with an employment drop of 5.6 workers.

Quote

 

The researchers find large and robust negative effects of robots on employment and wages. ... The effects are most pronounced on industries most exposed to robots, on workers with less than a college degree, and on routine manual, blue-collar, assembly, and other related occupations. 

Robots appear to have a more negative impact on the employment of men than of women.

 

Note that they exclude single-purpose and AI from the studies, so this is just the effects from reprogrammable, multi-purpose robots.

[Nebfanatic]

21 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I also said that the main goal is to actually produce more with the same number of people.   Remember, we are at full employment, especially in central Nebraska.  I don't have dozens of people lining up at my door looking for a job.  And, the idiot and chief doesn't obviously want more workers in the country.

 

It's possible one Radiologist will be able to process more scans.  So, if the work load of scans needed doesn't change, then yes, we would need fewer radiologists.  BUT....with technology advancing, I would assume the number of types of scans we will experience will only go up.  This creates more work.  Meaning, the number of radiologists might not decrease.

 

And....no.....chances are, they won't be paid less.

We disagree but I believe the coming AI revolution will cause tumult. It happened during the industrial revolution, any time there is a technological revolution it will cause unrest.

 

It will settle out and be prosperous in the long run(hopefully) but in the short term there will be consequences and no industry is safe. We will evolve and everyone will have jobs still I think but things are going to change. 

[BigRedBuster]

13 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

We disagree but I believe the coming AI revolution will cause tumult. It happened during the industrial revolution, any time there is a technological revolution it will cause unrest.

 

It will settle out and be prosperous in the long run(hopefully) but in the short term there will be consequences and no industry is safe. We will evolve and everyone will have jobs still I think but things are going to change. 

 

In that, we agree.  This has been happening ever since the industrial revolution began.  Every step along the way changes an industry.  Jobs change.  Companies change.  Some companies go out of business while others are created.  We started with the Pony Express, the telegraph put them out of business but it created more jobs.  The telephone put telegraph offices out of business but it created more jobs.  The cell phone diminished the need for a land line, but it created more jobs.  The smart phone diminished the need for so many desk top computers in people's homes, but it created more jobs.

 

Now, every step along the way has caused someone or an industry to change.  But, I don't think anyone thinks we should all go back to the Pony Express.

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

In that, we agree.  This has been happening ever since the industrial revolution began.  Every step along the way changes an industry.  Jobs change.  Companies change.  Some companies go out of business while others are created.  We started with the Pony Express, the telegraph put them out of business but it created more jobs.  The telephone put telegraph offices out of business but it created more jobs.  The cell phone diminished the need for a land line, but it created more jobs.  The smart phone diminished the need for so many desk top computers in people's homes, but it created more jobs.

 

Now, every step along the way has caused someone or an industry to change.  But, I don't think anyone thinks we should all go back to the Pony Express.

 

 

If we ever got to a point where most things were automated, there would be no need for most people to have jobs. So at that point which governments are going to step up and realize that although people aren’t working (because there’s no need), they still need to eat?

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

If we ever got to a point where most things were automated, there would be no need for most people to have jobs. So at that point which governments are going to step up and realize that although people aren’t working (because there’s no need), they still need to eat?

I have been hearing this mantra since the 70s when I was cognizant enough to listen.  Still, we are at full employment and our country population is growing the slowest it has since the great depression.  We have a huge baby boom bubble of people who just retired.  We expect our economy to grow 3-5% per year and I've read articles where we NEED immigration to accomplish that.

 

Pardon me if I'm not too concerned that all of a sudden everyone is going to lose their jobs because robots are doing everything.

[Nebfanatic]

27 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

In that, we agree.  This has been happening ever since the industrial revolution began.  Every step along the way changes an industry.  Jobs change.  Companies change.  Some companies go out of business while others are created.  We started with the Pony Express, the telegraph put them out of business but it created more jobs.  The telephone put telegraph offices out of business but it created more jobs.  The cell phone diminished the need for a land line, but it created more jobs.  The smart phone diminished the need for so many desk top computers in people's homes, but it created more jobs.

 

Now, every step along the way has caused someone or an industry to change.  But, I don't think anyone thinks we should all go back to the Pony Express.

Exactly but the guy riding the horse was out of a career and had to adapt. That's what I'm saying is going to happen in the medical industry

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

Exactly but the guy riding the horse was out of a career and had to adapt. That's what I'm saying is going to happen in the medical industry

And, what I've said is there still will be a Radiologist who needs to be involved.  So, let's say right now they get paid $1,000 to read a scan and they can do 10 per day.  So, he get's paid $10,000 per day.  Don't be alarmed, that's what his office would get paid, he has expenses that come out of that.

 

BUT....now with automation, he/she can read 30 scans per day and he gets paid $400 per scan.  The patient just saved $600.  The Radiologist isn't making less money.  In fact, they could actually be making more money.

[Moiraine]

29 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I have been hearing this mantra since the 70s when I was cognizant enough to listen.  Still, we are at full employment and our country population is growing the slowest it has since the great depression.  We have a huge baby boom bubble of people who just retired.  We expect our economy to grow 3-5% per year and I've read articles where we NEED immigration to accomplish that.

 

Pardon me if I'm not too concerned that all of a sudden everyone is going to lose their jobs because robots are doing everything.

 

 

You missed the key part of my post. 

[Nebfanatic]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

And, what I've said is there still will be a Radiologist who needs to be involved.  So, let's say right now they get paid $1,000 to read a scan and they can do 10 per day.  So, he get's paid $10,000 per day.  Don't be alarmed, that's what his office would get paid, he has expenses that come out of that.

 

BUT....now with automation, he/she can read 30 scans per day and he gets paid $400 per scan.  The patient just saved $600.  The Radiologist isn't making less money.  In fact, they could actually be making more money.

That may happen. It also may be that a doctor doesn't refer their patients scan to a radiologist at all and just reads it themselves with the help of AI.