such a sweet feeling to be retired, as the world you knew melts into overpopulation, entrenched and inescapable lack of resources and legitimate meaning
The article and most of the comments approach are approaching this issue from an individual perspective. However, the real issue here is the social organization that develops when most work is done by machines, and when their owners have near-absolute power over how they were used.
History has many examples of near-absolute power, including the plantation economy that existed in the Deep South, or the feudal period in Europe. So the question for students is not how to prepare themselves to learn new programming languages, but rather how to prepare themselves for a life of slavery or serfdom, and what they might do collectively to achieve something better.
History has many examples of near-absolute power, including the plantation economy that existed in the Deep South, or the feudal period in Europe. So the question for students is not how to prepare themselves to learn new programming languages, but rather how to prepare themselves for a life of slavery or serfdom, and what they might do collectively to achieve something better.
4
Once I was a satellite communications technician that could solve problems that people with advanced degrees would stumble on. They lacked abstract reasoning and the experience needed to apply to technical problems. I was forced into retirement by MBA's that were psychopaths at taking credit for everything. Now I'm a cashier at a hardware store trying to master built-in political complexity. I though the job was simple.
1
This is a lot bigger than changing our education system. Economies have historically been built on expanding human population. More people meant more to feed, cloth, and to whom goods and services had to be provided. More workers were needed to grow more food, make more clothes, manufacture more cars and appliances, build more houses and apartment buildings, etc. Medicine saved more people.
In future, product design and manufacturing will be done with few humans. A battery factory which once employed 1,200 now employs 200. AI will cut across blue- and white-collar jobs. Retail will be cut by half, at least.
We don't need as many people to produce the goods and services which the people who can buy such goods and services need or want. If we can get people to accept the need to substantially reduce--and in many cases forgo--procreation, and thereby quickly reduce population, and if we can politically survive the transition in terms of the economic re-structuring necessary, the same inevitable technology which mandates these changes may make it possible for us to be able to survive on this planet.
It will be a brutal transition to a new matrix, but we can either try to transition with technology or get crushed by it. Frankly, I doubt 80% of people can adapt and that means it won't happen. Even those who believe in man-made global warming aren't doing much beyond paying lip service. And then, there is religion . . . .
In future, product design and manufacturing will be done with few humans. A battery factory which once employed 1,200 now employs 200. AI will cut across blue- and white-collar jobs. Retail will be cut by half, at least.
We don't need as many people to produce the goods and services which the people who can buy such goods and services need or want. If we can get people to accept the need to substantially reduce--and in many cases forgo--procreation, and thereby quickly reduce population, and if we can politically survive the transition in terms of the economic re-structuring necessary, the same inevitable technology which mandates these changes may make it possible for us to be able to survive on this planet.
It will be a brutal transition to a new matrix, but we can either try to transition with technology or get crushed by it. Frankly, I doubt 80% of people can adapt and that means it won't happen. Even those who believe in man-made global warming aren't doing much beyond paying lip service. And then, there is religion . . . .
2
You failed to notice that every developed country, except for the US, has a birthrate below that needed to balance deaths. Further, many developing countries have rapidly falling birthrates.
1
In 1923, Upton Sinclair wrote The Goose Step (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goose-Step_(book), about the commercialization and greed that had already destroyed higher education, and that most of the structure - THEN - was very out of date. That was a long time ago, and it's timeliness is now quite far past prime.
1
In advocating for the development of "Traits. . . like creativity, critical thinking, emotional intelligence, adaptability and collaboration", it's important to resist taking social intellectual skills out of collaborative context and teaching them in isolation. Also, people need more than learning how to learn. They also need networks and other supports that enable learning.
All the skillsets described for future success are articulated in Google's Project Aristotle. People skills are for people.
According to the article, "In school, the most important thing they can learn is how to learn," and "Schools will also need to teach . . . creativity, critical thinking, emotional intelligence, adaptability and collaboration."
Uh, hello? Which approaches, lessons and skills have been the most under attack in our education system for the past 30+ years? Oh, that's right . . . .
I imagine there are pockets where learning-how-to-learn is still a priority, where innovation, creativity and critical thinking are still prized. I can also imagine the economic levels of the parents of those children. Hint: they're the ones who have a leg-up over everybody else.
There's a REASON why such skills are attacked as "liberal indoctrination." The easiest way to keep them away from the Hoi-polloi is to make them suspect in their eyes.
In other words, the status quo is extremely likely to continue. But we knew that already.
Uh, hello? Which approaches, lessons and skills have been the most under attack in our education system for the past 30+ years? Oh, that's right . . . .
I imagine there are pockets where learning-how-to-learn is still a priority, where innovation, creativity and critical thinking are still prized. I can also imagine the economic levels of the parents of those children. Hint: they're the ones who have a leg-up over everybody else.
There's a REASON why such skills are attacked as "liberal indoctrination." The easiest way to keep them away from the Hoi-polloi is to make them suspect in their eyes.
In other words, the status quo is extremely likely to continue. But we knew that already.
4
Ever see a 5-year-old without a "high degree of self-direction?" Rare. So what happens to them?
I don't believe that curiosity and creativity and all that other stuff needs to be taught. It just needs not to be taught out of kids in the first place.
I don't believe that curiosity and creativity and all that other stuff needs to be taught. It just needs not to be taught out of kids in the first place.
8
I am in the midst of this now, trying to configure my computer system so that we can start sending automatic reminders , etc. It will be a quantum leap forward for the practice and free up the receptionists to do what they do best which is to interact with the clients. I already have a barebones staff thanks to the last recession; the automation just increases our productivity. Hopefully, it will also improve communication, education and implementation of preventative medicine.
The goal is longer and better quality lives for our pets and these changes will help achieve that goal. It is also satisfying to be able to get information with a click that used to take minutes to dig through papers to find. Or to take digital X-rays in minutes and send the images effortlessly online to specialists.
Advancing technology allows people to do things they could never do before, some of which is fluff but some of which is vital for a better life.
The goal is longer and better quality lives for our pets and these changes will help achieve that goal. It is also satisfying to be able to get information with a click that used to take minutes to dig through papers to find. Or to take digital X-rays in minutes and send the images effortlessly online to specialists.
Advancing technology allows people to do things they could never do before, some of which is fluff but some of which is vital for a better life.
1
I take it you are a vet. The Vienna VetMed and my vet are well on the way of using new techniques in many ways.
First, lets stop calling everything that deals with AI "Robots". For a professional job, AI will be more capabilities in a computer you already use. Chose any STEM field, and what has happened over the decades since computers became a pervasive tool, is that more "complexity" is handled by machines, but the total "complexity" of solving a given problem, or performing a task increases.
Every scientist "stands on the shoulders of giants before them". Now they will also stand on the work done by computers. It's a process that starts when you are 5-6, because you are learning to "navigate reality" in a fundamentally different way.
One personality trait that serves well is never approaching the same problem the same way. This will annoy the heck out of co-workers and employers that just want you to "get it done", but it's a good way to anchor life long learning into the core of your daily life.
Every scientist "stands on the shoulders of giants before them". Now they will also stand on the work done by computers. It's a process that starts when you are 5-6, because you are learning to "navigate reality" in a fundamentally different way.
One personality trait that serves well is never approaching the same problem the same way. This will annoy the heck out of co-workers and employers that just want you to "get it done", but it's a good way to anchor life long learning into the core of your daily life.
2
When I read that Elon Musk was starting a company that will pioneer the development of a neural implant that will allow the brain to acquire a foreign language in "seconds" and also allow instantaneous communication between the brain and both machines and other people, I could only laugh. But then I did some research and discovered that this technology is moving forward not only in medical research but by technologists around the world. In fact, Facebook is doing the same thing.
We fear the impact of artificial intelligence and robots on future and present human employment. Yet, what happens when we become superintelligent cyborgs? This may be our future, not centuries from now, but in the lives of children and young adults today. I'm not sure if any job, any profession in the year 2017 will bear any resemblance to its replacement in the year 2047. "Employment," as some of the respondents in the article suggest, may not be a meaningful concept a generation or two from now.
We fear the impact of artificial intelligence and robots on future and present human employment. Yet, what happens when we become superintelligent cyborgs? This may be our future, not centuries from now, but in the lives of children and young adults today. I'm not sure if any job, any profession in the year 2017 will bear any resemblance to its replacement in the year 2047. "Employment," as some of the respondents in the article suggest, may not be a meaningful concept a generation or two from now.
4
What I find disappointing is that automation (previously called "mechanization") has not lead to more affordable products.
Robotized car assembly lines have not lead to price reductions of cars. In 1950 you could buy a new car for $2000: slightly less than an average yearly income. In 2016 it would cost you $40,000: slightly more than an average yearly income.
Look at mechanized farming. With federal subsidies and the production capability of farms in the US every citizen should be able to eat for free. However, milk costs more per gallon than gasoline, fresh produce is beyond the budgets of many citizens, and good quality beef is even beyond my budget (52 year old professional with a graduate degree and two kids).
I wonder if the disparity between rich and poor in the US can be traced to automation. "Robots" are putting workers out of jobs, but the products produced more cheaply all have rising prices. I am all for efficiencies in production even if it costs people their jobs...but it has to come with lowered prices so that the newly unemployed don't suffer an economic one-two punch.
Robotized car assembly lines have not lead to price reductions of cars. In 1950 you could buy a new car for $2000: slightly less than an average yearly income. In 2016 it would cost you $40,000: slightly more than an average yearly income.
Look at mechanized farming. With federal subsidies and the production capability of farms in the US every citizen should be able to eat for free. However, milk costs more per gallon than gasoline, fresh produce is beyond the budgets of many citizens, and good quality beef is even beyond my budget (52 year old professional with a graduate degree and two kids).
I wonder if the disparity between rich and poor in the US can be traced to automation. "Robots" are putting workers out of jobs, but the products produced more cheaply all have rising prices. I am all for efficiencies in production even if it costs people their jobs...but it has to come with lowered prices so that the newly unemployed don't suffer an economic one-two punch.
10
This trend is absolutely going to continue to build on the advantages of children coming from families with two college educated parents. We don't know what jobs will exist but we know that critical reasoning, quantitative and qualitative analysis, oral and written communication and the ability to build relationships across a diverse set of people will never go out of style. We have to find ways to develop these skills in all our children.
1
One thing people have always been wrong about is jobs of the future. A good way to answer this question is to go back five, ten, twenty and thirty years and see what kind of jobs we didn't think would exist.
We really don't know what jobs will replace those taken by robots. But one thing is clear that new jobs will be created. It has always worked out that way. Humans are quite adaptable.
We really don't know what jobs will replace those taken by robots. But one thing is clear that new jobs will be created. It has always worked out that way. Humans are quite adaptable.
2
Jay Oza:
This is entirely too pessimistic.
Thirty years ago I was preparing optometry students to deal with the just-introduced personal computer and suggesting design improvements to computer engineers, which, in fact, have been made. Those students now thank me for my teaching.
This is entirely too pessimistic.
Thirty years ago I was preparing optometry students to deal with the just-introduced personal computer and suggesting design improvements to computer engineers, which, in fact, have been made. Those students now thank me for my teaching.
1
We should be preparing by creating or increasing access to all of the following: free birth control, free abortions, free voluntary sterilization, legalized suicide, assisted suicide, etc. Stop bringing more people on this planet and allow the ones who want to leave to go on their own terms.
There are going to be very few jobs and fights for whatever scraps there are. I personally am planning my own end as soon as I can no longer work. There will be no more safety nets, folks. You will be desperate and on your own.
I am 60 years old and remember reading articles like this 50 years ago when I was 10 years old! Nothing has been done. In fact, things are worse than ever with less empathy for anyone who is not wealthy. The sooner we confront the reality of this grim future, the sooner people can start making their own plans. Good night and good luck....
There are going to be very few jobs and fights for whatever scraps there are. I personally am planning my own end as soon as I can no longer work. There will be no more safety nets, folks. You will be desperate and on your own.
I am 60 years old and remember reading articles like this 50 years ago when I was 10 years old! Nothing has been done. In fact, things are worse than ever with less empathy for anyone who is not wealthy. The sooner we confront the reality of this grim future, the sooner people can start making their own plans. Good night and good luck....
8
Exciting! I hope we'll be prepared as a society..
“The question isn’t how to train people for nonexistent jobs. It’s how to share the wealth in a world where we don’t need most people to work.”
This is the issue. Lawrence Summers forecasts a 30% unemployment rate in 2050 as I remember. We are witnessing the disappearance of work and must adjust to it. I have no idea how but I am horrified. It is not just income that must be replaced. Work for most people provides meaning and structure and identity in life. What will people do without that? More opioids is my guess.
My solution is that the government has to provide jobs, but doing what? I have no idea.
I'm a university instructor with 20 years experience, and my two cents is that 'more education and training' is not the answer. That would just make the competition for the existing work more arduous, still leaving the 30% unemployed to sit on their hands.
This is the issue. Lawrence Summers forecasts a 30% unemployment rate in 2050 as I remember. We are witnessing the disappearance of work and must adjust to it. I have no idea how but I am horrified. It is not just income that must be replaced. Work for most people provides meaning and structure and identity in life. What will people do without that? More opioids is my guess.
My solution is that the government has to provide jobs, but doing what? I have no idea.
I'm a university instructor with 20 years experience, and my two cents is that 'more education and training' is not the answer. That would just make the competition for the existing work more arduous, still leaving the 30% unemployed to sit on their hands.
7
I wonder whether some sort of organized overmanning of service, retail and other jobs that do not face product competition from cheap labor overseas might help. Private enterprise would not do it unaided and so federal or state support for these "surplus" jobs is necessary. Workers would at least have a purpose, would pay taxes and would not draw benefits. Lots of problems I am sure but if nothing is done, society will be broken - it's already in trouble, as you point out.
2
A recent The Atlantic article reported on a study which predicts 40%+ job losses in the next 20 years, with some cities poised to lose 60% of jobs. Our politicians should be scared to contemplate what 30% or more unemployment looks like. Ironically, mental health and substance abuse counselors were two of the jobs least likely to be automated.
2
We do it with Corps.
Medical Corps.
Civil Corps.
Forest Corps.
The United States know how to do federal service. It knows that better than it knows anything. If we could have an Army of doctors, an Army of infrastructure engineers, and an Army of forest rangers we would indeed have something.
Service in exchange for an education and meaningful employment.
We do it the same way we do military service, only it is in service of life instead of death.
We make food and water clean and plentiful.
We recover wastelands and return them to life-lands.
We care for ourselves and each other rather than trying to scam the next guy.
Easy peasy.
And in the bargain we save our souls. We learn a grammar of harmony rather than one of greed. And all of this we do from necessity. And it would be beautiful.
Medical Corps.
Civil Corps.
Forest Corps.
The United States know how to do federal service. It knows that better than it knows anything. If we could have an Army of doctors, an Army of infrastructure engineers, and an Army of forest rangers we would indeed have something.
Service in exchange for an education and meaningful employment.
We do it the same way we do military service, only it is in service of life instead of death.
We make food and water clean and plentiful.
We recover wastelands and return them to life-lands.
We care for ourselves and each other rather than trying to scam the next guy.
Easy peasy.
And in the bargain we save our souls. We learn a grammar of harmony rather than one of greed. And all of this we do from necessity. And it would be beautiful.
10
For those who believe a better educated or more adaptable work force is the answer to joblessness, take a look at this article https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/genymon...
by Rob Carrick in the Toronto Globe & Mail. He points out the data showing today's 31 year-olds are still trying to cobble together enough work to keep going and delaying families, a situation that used to be for twenty-year olds.
"Almost one-quarter of the generation of young adults born between 1981 and 2000 are working temporary or contract jobs, nearly double the rate for the entire job market. Almost one-third are not working in their field of education, 21 per cent are working more than one job, and close to half are looking for a new job."
by Rob Carrick in the Toronto Globe & Mail. He points out the data showing today's 31 year-olds are still trying to cobble together enough work to keep going and delaying families, a situation that used to be for twenty-year olds.
"Almost one-quarter of the generation of young adults born between 1981 and 2000 are working temporary or contract jobs, nearly double the rate for the entire job market. Almost one-third are not working in their field of education, 21 per cent are working more than one job, and close to half are looking for a new job."
4
Our public policy outlined by Trump is to penalize countries that supposedly "ripped off" American jobs. Job one, according to this administration is to bring back dead-end manufacturing jobs. Instead, this administration and congress, should be seeking ways to fund and incentivize education for American workers whose futures can be accurately described as bleak. The workers who have started to embrace the idea of training, retraining and retraining again can generally be found in big cities in blue states. Our community colleges should be packed. They are not. Instead, Trump and DeVos are advocating for for-profit colleges like DeVry, Corinthian and ITT. The entire sector has a history of ripping off the federal government and over-selling students. Of course, there was Trump University and DeVos currently has big time investments in for-profit schools. It seems the current administration is working against itself to create and maintain jobs. In the meantime one country after another passes America by with a vision and budget to prepare its workers for the future. I'm not hopeful.
2
First, we as human culture must insist on changing our education paradigm: It is not discrete, it is continuous. Most of our policy makers, professors, and business leaders today--all of whom have significant impact on shaping our current and future education and actions--do not engage in meaningful continuous education that keeps them apprised of our rapidly changing environment that demands fluid, creative, and proactive initiatives that these static-minded "leaders" are incapable of achieving. So we as human communities are constantly "behind" and playing "catch up" with reality. Two specific examples:
1. If our current politicians, whose average age is decades beyond university graduation dates, had any clue about the latest science, we would not be debating climate change; instead, we would be working fast and furiously to mitigate the worst risks that will soon be realized.
2. If the majority of our current college / university administrators, department heads, and tenured professors (who preside over curriculum and pedagogy decisions) whose average age is decades beyond university graduation dates, had any clue about sustainability, we would be asking the questions re future of humans AND teaching more interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary courses that mirror real-world, complex global problems that require creative, whole-systems thinking rather than mechanistic sympton-solving. And we would certainly nix Milton Friedman's antiquated neoclassical economics.
1. If our current politicians, whose average age is decades beyond university graduation dates, had any clue about the latest science, we would not be debating climate change; instead, we would be working fast and furiously to mitigate the worst risks that will soon be realized.
2. If the majority of our current college / university administrators, department heads, and tenured professors (who preside over curriculum and pedagogy decisions) whose average age is decades beyond university graduation dates, had any clue about sustainability, we would be asking the questions re future of humans AND teaching more interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary courses that mirror real-world, complex global problems that require creative, whole-systems thinking rather than mechanistic sympton-solving. And we would certainly nix Milton Friedman's antiquated neoclassical economics.
There's education and then there's training. What's your alma mater up to?
Our startup (www.getCaila.com) is working on a solution to help people continuously learn and keep up with the evolving economy by matching individual free and paid content to jobs, which helps people train and re-train, but there is still the issue of creating a sustainable society where everyone has a pathway to prosperity when we don't need everyone to work traditional 40-50hr/week jobs.
2
If automation goes as planned, all we can do is remain curious and imagine an ever greater future. Certainly, automation will be one of our tools.
2
Earth does not need humans. Animals do not need humans. Humans are the only species that needs humans, aside from domesticated breeds of animals.
How can humans reconcile their need of each other with their need for wealth?
How can humans value one another without the scale of wealth?
One way is to provide family planning and birth control, universally and affordably, to every woman on the planet who wants it. A lower birth rate would increase the value of every child born. But then the economy would have to change in order to sustain itself without ever-increasing production.
Profound changes are coming. Republicans seem to want the elderly and the less abled and the sick to die sooner. which is an ethical, moral, and emotional dead end for the reality that humans need humans. Circular reasoning without any solution. Make suggestions please!
How can humans reconcile their need of each other with their need for wealth?
How can humans value one another without the scale of wealth?
One way is to provide family planning and birth control, universally and affordably, to every woman on the planet who wants it. A lower birth rate would increase the value of every child born. But then the economy would have to change in order to sustain itself without ever-increasing production.
Profound changes are coming. Republicans seem to want the elderly and the less abled and the sick to die sooner. which is an ethical, moral, and emotional dead end for the reality that humans need humans. Circular reasoning without any solution. Make suggestions please!
7
Western countries, America included, need millions of unskilled and semi-skilled. Why? Training and college for many - yes of course. However, an academic degree requires an IQ of at least 120. The median IQ is 100.
Agriculture used to require millions of unskilled/semi-skilled jobs. Agriculture was mechanized and those millions lost those jobs but industry needed them and so the economy prospered. Given the IQ statement, no-one truly has a solution where increasing automation takes jobs but provides nothing like the equivalent in return. No solutions in sight.
Agriculture used to require millions of unskilled/semi-skilled jobs. Agriculture was mechanized and those millions lost those jobs but industry needed them and so the economy prospered. Given the IQ statement, no-one truly has a solution where increasing automation takes jobs but provides nothing like the equivalent in return. No solutions in sight.
Sudbury Valley Schools, Democratic schools. Google them. This is where children learn "creativity, critical thinking, emotional intelligence, adaptability and collaboration." They also learn empathy, and love of learning. And they teach all of these things to themselves.
5
Whenever the 'experts' talk about the "jobs of the future" they state with absolute certainty that extensive training will be required but when they are asked specifically what those jobs will be they become suspiciously vague. In other words, they don't know more than anyone else - or even less - about what the future portends but are paid handsomely for it.
Panicking everyone into becoming an easily expendable coder just creates ample fodder for diploma mills and ultimately, debt collection agencies.
Panicking everyone into becoming an easily expendable coder just creates ample fodder for diploma mills and ultimately, debt collection agencies.
2
I wonder what will come of the humans that say "I just need a JOB, who don't have the intellect or are able to hold down a job that requires more then repetitive mind / body reactions or submissive social skills.
Everyone in society needs to contribute - so where do these before mentioned humans fit in without government sponsored benefits to sustain their lives?
The future starts at the FAMILY level so the offspring know they will be required to support themselves and not expect help from the taxpayers.
Everyone in society needs to contribute - so where do these before mentioned humans fit in without government sponsored benefits to sustain their lives?
The future starts at the FAMILY level so the offspring know they will be required to support themselves and not expect help from the taxpayers.
1
Public schools are mainly cultural indoctrination camps. They do the opposite of teaching "creative thinking" and independent thought. Consider any random test question: "During what years was the Civil War in the United States fought?" What critical thinking does that require? Students answer to bells and schedules. They stand in lines. They raise their hands. They answer to authority. That last one is the real point of it all. Can we make it better? Easy to answer. We have been "improving" public school education since there has been public school education. Is it better? Is it good enough? Can we expect the same people who have been inhabiting public school systems to change them? Can a chicken change its feathers?
3
“I have zero confidence in us having the political will to address the socioeconomic factors that are underpinning skill training.”
Based upon my over 37 years in the workforce I must agree with Danah Boyd's assessment. The retraining offered by most states will not help people to find new jobs that pay decent salaries. The caps on funding are too low, the availability of the programs and the hurdles to get in prevent people who are ready, willing and able to, to take the classes offered. We're mired in a punitive mode that assumes anyone who is unemployed or asking to be retrained is a failure. The truth is that most unemployed people, particularly those who are still looking for a job or requesting to be funded for retraining have what it takes to succeed provided they get into a good program.
I retrained for computers after being unable to find a job in pharmaceutical research, a field I'd worked in for 18 years. My years of experience were why I wasn't being hired. Of course now that I have years in IT I've run into the same problem: experience and age.
The other truth is that American businesses do not want to train, retain, or hire experienced people. Until that changes all the retraining or training won't help anyone over the age of 35 to find a decent job no matter what they do.
Based upon my over 37 years in the workforce I must agree with Danah Boyd's assessment. The retraining offered by most states will not help people to find new jobs that pay decent salaries. The caps on funding are too low, the availability of the programs and the hurdles to get in prevent people who are ready, willing and able to, to take the classes offered. We're mired in a punitive mode that assumes anyone who is unemployed or asking to be retrained is a failure. The truth is that most unemployed people, particularly those who are still looking for a job or requesting to be funded for retraining have what it takes to succeed provided they get into a good program.
I retrained for computers after being unable to find a job in pharmaceutical research, a field I'd worked in for 18 years. My years of experience were why I wasn't being hired. Of course now that I have years in IT I've run into the same problem: experience and age.
The other truth is that American businesses do not want to train, retain, or hire experienced people. Until that changes all the retraining or training won't help anyone over the age of 35 to find a decent job no matter what they do.
16
As an instructor at a mid-trier university, I don't buy David Krager's future where 'faculty at top universities to teach online and for mid-tier universities to “consist entirely of a cadre of teaching assistants who provide support for the students.”' Such suggestions seem to come from those at elite institutions who don't know that much about teaching (a check of Krager's publications shows none on pedagogy and from his web page it seems he teaches one course a semester).
There are two problems. First, students at elite institutions can more through material more quickly than at mid-tier ones. Also, a key aspect of teaching is "pedagogical content knowledge," which is basically understanding what your students find easy and difficult and what knowledge your students bring to class. This varies by type institution. Second, he seems to be arguing for faculty at mid-tier institutions to use active learning, but that actually takes more content knowledge than lecturing as one must be able to answer most any type of question from a student. For more on the second part, see "Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message," Carl Wieman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8319.full . The author, a Nobel Laureate now at Stanford, is a leading STEM education researcher and now all his research is on teaching and learning. He does not argue for Krager's model.
There are two problems. First, students at elite institutions can more through material more quickly than at mid-tier ones. Also, a key aspect of teaching is "pedagogical content knowledge," which is basically understanding what your students find easy and difficult and what knowledge your students bring to class. This varies by type institution. Second, he seems to be arguing for faculty at mid-tier institutions to use active learning, but that actually takes more content knowledge than lecturing as one must be able to answer most any type of question from a student. For more on the second part, see "Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message," Carl Wieman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, http://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8319.full . The author, a Nobel Laureate now at Stanford, is a leading STEM education researcher and now all his research is on teaching and learning. He does not argue for Krager's model.
12
You make a great point. It'll probably go unheard, but you make a great point.
3
I consider myself very fortunate. I came of age during the current technological tsunami and was able to practice my "art" (engineering) leading to a rich and fulfilling creative life. (It also provided a path to the economic stability envisioned by the free market ideal.)
In the course of that professional career I was deeply involved with AI and developed a number of "automata" which had/have the potential to replace highly skilled humans (e.g. Physical Therapists). Having reached the "glorious" years of retirement, I find myself with time to reflect on the issues that confront the world. As such, I have been reading a number of newer books that deal with the pending super intelligence. I recommend two for consideration: "Homo Deus" by Yuval Harari; and "Superintelligence" by Nick Bostrom. Both address this critical issue from differing perspectives. In short, it is not "if" we will be confronted with a serious existential threat but "when" this will happen.
The report provided in the Times relates to how to respond through education. Regrettably this is the wrong question to ask. In the first instance I don't think any respondent has provided a viable answer. (Having been a teacher for more than 35 years I am fully aware of the educational problems that underscore the "professional" community.) At this point in time we only speak of "reactive" strategies. We do need a full discussion of the impact that a super intelligence will have on our planet.
In the course of that professional career I was deeply involved with AI and developed a number of "automata" which had/have the potential to replace highly skilled humans (e.g. Physical Therapists). Having reached the "glorious" years of retirement, I find myself with time to reflect on the issues that confront the world. As such, I have been reading a number of newer books that deal with the pending super intelligence. I recommend two for consideration: "Homo Deus" by Yuval Harari; and "Superintelligence" by Nick Bostrom. Both address this critical issue from differing perspectives. In short, it is not "if" we will be confronted with a serious existential threat but "when" this will happen.
The report provided in the Times relates to how to respond through education. Regrettably this is the wrong question to ask. In the first instance I don't think any respondent has provided a viable answer. (Having been a teacher for more than 35 years I am fully aware of the educational problems that underscore the "professional" community.) At this point in time we only speak of "reactive" strategies. We do need a full discussion of the impact that a super intelligence will have on our planet.
5
The saddest thing about all is that 50 years ago smarties like Hermann Kahn had already seen this coming - an age where a very small number of humans are needed to work - and had moved on to what he and other futurists already understood to be the coming crisis: how do we find meaning when work is no longer needed or available? Solving that problem, a life of unlimited leisure, would be society's difficult task. He and his colleagues assumed we'd have solved the easy part, a guaranteed annual wage for every human being.
And 50 years later politicians haven't even begun. What ought to be unthinkable now seems likely: increasing inequality, responsive terrorism and a police state to counteract it: the brave new world prophetically described by Aldous Huxley. Trump may be just the beginning.
And 50 years later politicians haven't even begun. What ought to be unthinkable now seems likely: increasing inequality, responsive terrorism and a police state to counteract it: the brave new world prophetically described by Aldous Huxley. Trump may be just the beginning.
16
We are at an inflection point in AI, where machines are learning tasks on their own. Their "intelligence" is self-developed; not programmed in my humans.
At some point a software program reading CAT scans will "discover" something in it's data humans won't understand. We (people) might incentivize machines to do "research", and because machines don't eat, sleep, drink, goof off, get side-tracked, day dream about sex, more money, owning a BMW, they'll be really good at it.
They may just "choose" to sit and think; which is basically what I get paid for.
Douglas Adams may just be the other great futurist. When he writes about a machine trying to find the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything". That seems to be what any entity given the choice would do.
AI, in the future, will simply ignore human beings, as long as we don't "bother" them enough that it decides to eliminate us. Until then, we'll be working for the machines.
At some point a software program reading CAT scans will "discover" something in it's data humans won't understand. We (people) might incentivize machines to do "research", and because machines don't eat, sleep, drink, goof off, get side-tracked, day dream about sex, more money, owning a BMW, they'll be really good at it.
They may just "choose" to sit and think; which is basically what I get paid for.
Douglas Adams may just be the other great futurist. When he writes about a machine trying to find the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything". That seems to be what any entity given the choice would do.
AI, in the future, will simply ignore human beings, as long as we don't "bother" them enough that it decides to eliminate us. Until then, we'll be working for the machines.
To it's own detriment, perhaps, education is already being automated.
1
After all that, the "money quote" is at the end. “The question isn’t how to train people for nonexistent jobs. It’s how to share the wealth in a world where we don’t need most people to work.”
7
As the article indicates, a college education "is more valuable than ever" However, to be more specific, student need to do their research into colleges that teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think. There is a huge difference between a real university education and a diploma mill where you just write a paper, pay your money, and walk out with a so-called degree. There are no shortcuts. If you spend that time wisely, in those 4 years, you will learn how to think critically, creatively, and innovatively, these are the elements that will be the sine qua non of future jobs.
7
It is very concerning to me that none of our political leaders are talking about this. There seems to be zero planning happening.
11
Meaningful talks about the future require an economist, a politician, a demographer, and a technologist. Too often only one of the four is in the room.
An economist would ask about aggregate demand.
A politician would ask about revolution.
A demographer would ask about depopulation. Why bring anyone new into this zero sum game?
An economist would ask about aggregate demand.
A politician would ask about revolution.
A demographer would ask about depopulation. Why bring anyone new into this zero sum game?
3
The vision is often that machines will free humans to do nothing but the most creative work. That will be true for a very few, but we need only so much creativity.
Keep in mind that there are still very low paying jobs for which it is still cheaper to hire humans than to buy robots. One problem is that automation won't eliminate low skill jobs as long as the minimum wage remains too low to live on.
I know why SETI has found nothing. When a species attains electronic technology, it ends up destroying itself.
Keep in mind that there are still very low paying jobs for which it is still cheaper to hire humans than to buy robots. One problem is that automation won't eliminate low skill jobs as long as the minimum wage remains too low to live on.
I know why SETI has found nothing. When a species attains electronic technology, it ends up destroying itself.
13
Forget it, for most people there is no possible education to prepare for what is coming. 24 years years ago I have written a letter to the NYT on this subject which ended with this paragraph: "No, changes much more profound than a better-educated work force must be contemplated: we have to face up to and solve the problem of how to organize a society where the vast majority of the population, through no fault of its own, has no economic justification for drawing a sustenance." Well..., here we are.
17
I think we need to ask this question of schools at every level -- including from early childhood and pre-K onward. Are we teaching for the future? Short answer: No. How do we do that? We should be teaching for 2030 and beyond. This ties into healthcare too -- as there is a need for quality health for real learning to happen. Indeed, learning can't happen if you are hungry and homeless and/or suffering from psychological condition.
This linked essay gets at these issues and offers some strategies -- including role of data, artificial intelligence and iterative learning. These items are not addressed here at any length, if at all. Key is not to talk about different educational approaches but to act -- to make real, transformative educational change.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/590390fde4b03b105b44b83a.
One more thing: we need parents and guardians to ask that our schools educate for the future -- that is an issue too as parental/guardian involvement is often sub-optimal.
This linked essay gets at these issues and offers some strategies -- including role of data, artificial intelligence and iterative learning. These items are not addressed here at any length, if at all. Key is not to talk about different educational approaches but to act -- to make real, transformative educational change.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/590390fde4b03b105b44b83a.
One more thing: we need parents and guardians to ask that our schools educate for the future -- that is an issue too as parental/guardian involvement is often sub-optimal.
2
As per Lee Rainie, the study's co-author: “People are wrestling with this basic metaphysical question: What are humans good for?” he said. “It’s important to figure that out because this blended world of machines and humans is already upon us and it’s going to accelerate.” (from Wash Post coverage of same Pew study).
2
There are a couple of things that the author has not taken into account.
On the job skill training has left the building at many employers. You're left to your own devices to keep up and expand your skills on your own, on your own dime, and on your own time.
Time is the other things the author failed to get into. Many people work long hours or have a second job or do consulting for instance. Lots of workers are exhausted during whatever free time they have, and often have further responsibilities -- child rearing, taking care of a sick relative, getting the laundry done, their dwelling clean(ish,) and more.
On the job skill training has left the building at many employers. You're left to your own devices to keep up and expand your skills on your own, on your own dime, and on your own time.
Time is the other things the author failed to get into. Many people work long hours or have a second job or do consulting for instance. Lots of workers are exhausted during whatever free time they have, and often have further responsibilities -- child rearing, taking care of a sick relative, getting the laundry done, their dwelling clean(ish,) and more.
30
If it is true that the central issue is "how to share the wealth in a world where we don't need most people to work," then LET'S FIGURE OUT how to do that. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the masses are not going to put up with continuing loss of jobs and declining living standards forever, while the elites just get richer and richer.
Meanwhile, we need to also teach people how to find productive things to do on their own.
Meanwhile, we need to also teach people how to find productive things to do on their own.
21
It's not just about money.
I think most of us need as reason/a purpose to provide self-esteem/pride.
For most people that is the "job" or "profession".
Changing that cultural? pattern, even with adequate income, may be a high hurdle.
I think most of us need as reason/a purpose to provide self-esteem/pride.
For most people that is the "job" or "profession".
Changing that cultural? pattern, even with adequate income, may be a high hurdle.
10
I have a lot I want to do, helping people and creating things. Automation should free everyone up to fly fish, read to children, paint, etc. There is a puritan mindset in the way.
1
Most people, when left to their own devices, choose devices like TV, phone and microwave, otherwise they might be out in the streets rebelling - or even talking. Perhaps the opioid crisis in areas of high unemployment is a precursor of what comes next: a government sanctioned program of mass sedation, with the full cooperation of our obliging pharmaceutical industry.
1
The problem is that the jobs that will be left for most of us to are the ones we now don't want to do and hire immigrants to do - yard worker, field laborer, stall mucker, home health care aid worker. What then?
17
And it is exhausting and community destroying to retrain constantly and move where the elusive jobs are. The paradigm shift is here. Do we remake the world for humans or only for kings?
If robots can build cars in factories, they can certainly muck stalls and harvest crops. The time is coming. However, we need a whole new economic system that is a not a winner and loser system like capitalism. That needs to die soon and a replacement, something like socialism (think Bernie Sanders) will need to evolve to take its place.
there is a solution to the problem posed in this article. One should read Ray Kurzeil's "The Singularity is Near" or another book, by an author I cannot remember, "In Our Image". both books posit that humans will simply morph into machines (i.e, internet memory via chip implants, electronic prosthetics and parts to never get tired, etc.). Humans will have no choice. If your competitors has a perfect memory and instant access to all information, how will you be able to compete against him/her/it? Hence the demise of the human race.
5
It's perfectly logical for people to fear a automation causing a mismatch between the skills of available workers and the skills required for available jobs, but I don't accept the concept in the last two paragraphs that automation can result in a world were most people don't need to work. Producers and consumers are mutually dependent on each other, and I don't see how automation removes that mutual dependency.
It is important to talk about a time-scale of one generation vs. one hundred years. We seem to already be at a point where automation makes it impossible to keep the people of a generation fully employed. Assuming that insufficient portions of the population in new generations learn the more modern skills, I propose that over the course of a century or two, some heavily automated industries will find insufficient number of customers to keep themselves profitable. In such a situation, certain industries might shrink in size and in so doing would cross a threshold where certain types of automation would no longer be more efficient than employing a person. Or some companies might go bankrupt and be replaced by a series of smaller, in some ways inferior, companies that do not have the resources for automation.
We are probably more interested in the next twenty to thirty years than in the longer-term scenario I am describing. I'm only claiming that the shorter timescale presents the more difficult problems.
It is important to talk about a time-scale of one generation vs. one hundred years. We seem to already be at a point where automation makes it impossible to keep the people of a generation fully employed. Assuming that insufficient portions of the population in new generations learn the more modern skills, I propose that over the course of a century or two, some heavily automated industries will find insufficient number of customers to keep themselves profitable. In such a situation, certain industries might shrink in size and in so doing would cross a threshold where certain types of automation would no longer be more efficient than employing a person. Or some companies might go bankrupt and be replaced by a series of smaller, in some ways inferior, companies that do not have the resources for automation.
We are probably more interested in the next twenty to thirty years than in the longer-term scenario I am describing. I'm only claiming that the shorter timescale presents the more difficult problems.
5
Producers and consumers are mutually dependent on each other, and I don't see how automation removes that mutual dependency.
Its a dilemma. On the one hand consumers are needed to buy products but on the other hand businesses need to reduce costs (and about 2/3-3/4 of costs of the typical industry in developed world is labor).
Its a dilemma. On the one hand consumers are needed to buy products but on the other hand businesses need to reduce costs (and about 2/3-3/4 of costs of the typical industry in developed world is labor).
7
Guaranteed minimum income and birth control.
1
Young people don’t seem to be learning social skills at college.
15
"Young people do not seem to be learning social skills at college."
For the most part (there are always exceptions) if children and young people don't learn social skills before college (meaning benevolent, empathetic social skills, vs. bullying which is also a social skill, and too many learn that starting very young) college is too late.
For the most part (there are always exceptions) if children and young people don't learn social skills before college (meaning benevolent, empathetic social skills, vs. bullying which is also a social skill, and too many learn that starting very young) college is too late.
I'm a public school teacher and I've no doubt that this article speaks true about what the future of America is going to look like, to some degree at least. And like the article said, I agree that schools can't be turned into job training centers for jobs we don't even know about and can't predict are coming. Instead, students should be active seekers of knowledge, excellent examiners of what is real and what is fake. They should be creators and writers and scientists. And of course they need solid literacy skills so they can read all sorts of texts. All those things are certainly attainable, in my opinion, within the current education system, but with a few minor tweaks.
Namely, let's start by ditching the current obsession with standardized testing, which does nothing to promote any of those skills that Miller talks about. Second, let's stop worrying about the common core, since those standards are static, already out of date, and do not reflect the needs of a 21st century society. Finally, let's not get conned into buying more computers so we can do this thing called "personalized learning." This is another fraudulent trend that's going to suck resources and time from teachers. We could handle things just fine on the local level without any more "help" from above.
Namely, let's start by ditching the current obsession with standardized testing, which does nothing to promote any of those skills that Miller talks about. Second, let's stop worrying about the common core, since those standards are static, already out of date, and do not reflect the needs of a 21st century society. Finally, let's not get conned into buying more computers so we can do this thing called "personalized learning." This is another fraudulent trend that's going to suck resources and time from teachers. We could handle things just fine on the local level without any more "help" from above.
23
They should be creators and writers and scientists.
only a tiny portion of the population can ever do this. But you are aware that many blue collar professions (i.e., plumbing, wielding) pay more than most writers can ever hope to make?
only a tiny portion of the population can ever do this. But you are aware that many blue collar professions (i.e., plumbing, wielding) pay more than most writers can ever hope to make?
21
True enough. I mean creators, writers, and scientists in the broad, school-based sense of pursuing creative projects and not just sitting for test prep all the time. The thing is, the character traits we want to see in adults coming from the school systems are not the traits that a paper and pencil (or computer) test can ever hope to assess.
3
I agree with you about standardized testing, specialeducator. My quote that the author uses was a reply to a question about which "skills can be taught effectively via online systems – especially those that are self-directed" and "which skills will be most difficult to teach at scale?"
I don't equate aptitude for "self-direction" with drive and discipline, as Miller suggests. I equate it access to foundational education that is NOT obsessed with standardization and the common core (a privilege often reserved for the economic elite). I realize there are constraints to journalism when it comes to quoting sources, so allow me to include a larger excerpt of my reply here:
"Students who are self-directed often have had a very good foundational education and supportive parents. They have been taught to think critically and they know that the most important thing you can learn is how to learn. And they are also are more likely to come from economic privilege. So, not only does the self-direction factor pose a problem for teaching at scale, the fact that a high degree of self-direction may be required for successful completion of coursework towards the new workforce means that existing structures of inequality will be replicated in the future if we rely on these large-scale programs.”
I don't equate aptitude for "self-direction" with drive and discipline, as Miller suggests. I equate it access to foundational education that is NOT obsessed with standardization and the common core (a privilege often reserved for the economic elite). I realize there are constraints to journalism when it comes to quoting sources, so allow me to include a larger excerpt of my reply here:
"Students who are self-directed often have had a very good foundational education and supportive parents. They have been taught to think critically and they know that the most important thing you can learn is how to learn. And they are also are more likely to come from economic privilege. So, not only does the self-direction factor pose a problem for teaching at scale, the fact that a high degree of self-direction may be required for successful completion of coursework towards the new workforce means that existing structures of inequality will be replicated in the future if we rely on these large-scale programs.”
Technologists are, and always have been, in a race against ourselves because it is our job to facilitate integration and automation that makes our current skills obsolete.
But more and more, non-technologists are being used to obsolete themselves. For instance, by studying the best customer service reps, artificial intelligence can mimic and surpass their performance. AI has been shown to be better at reading x-rays and CT scans than the average radiologist. Algorithms have been shown to have better results than human counselors in certain types of therapy.
No matter what your occupation, no one is safe because the better we get at what we do, the more effectively we teach machines to replace us. All we can do is try to stay a step ahead.
But more and more, non-technologists are being used to obsolete themselves. For instance, by studying the best customer service reps, artificial intelligence can mimic and surpass their performance. AI has been shown to be better at reading x-rays and CT scans than the average radiologist. Algorithms have been shown to have better results than human counselors in certain types of therapy.
No matter what your occupation, no one is safe because the better we get at what we do, the more effectively we teach machines to replace us. All we can do is try to stay a step ahead.
22
It is likely that we will have to learn how to share the wealth of the world without expecting most people to work. That is, if work be defined as doing something that increasing the wealth in the world. But that will only be true if we fail to understand that both work and wealth are defined by human community.
We are always free to redefine our terms to better suit our needs.
Work is not limited to the creation of wealth and wealth is not limited to real goods and services that can be consumed.
Every human will need something to fill the hours of their life that creates a felling inside of personal worth and accomplishment.
Just a small beginning, but I can certainly see parenting the next generation as a worthwhile vocation that could fill a third of most peoples lives. Who wouldn't want to be raised by a mother who's only occupation was to care, nurture and educate you and your siblings.
As to back breaking labor or mind numbingly boring 'jobs'? Let the robots do it.
We are always free to redefine our terms to better suit our needs.
Work is not limited to the creation of wealth and wealth is not limited to real goods and services that can be consumed.
Every human will need something to fill the hours of their life that creates a felling inside of personal worth and accomplishment.
Just a small beginning, but I can certainly see parenting the next generation as a worthwhile vocation that could fill a third of most peoples lives. Who wouldn't want to be raised by a mother who's only occupation was to care, nurture and educate you and your siblings.
As to back breaking labor or mind numbingly boring 'jobs'? Let the robots do it.
11
There is essentially an endless landscaping labor demand. Travels about the Mediterranean Sea have informed me that humans did this at an early point in history, and those completed efforts continue to bring aesthetic satisfaction to many today.
1
"The logical response seems to be to educate people differently, so they’re prepared to work alongside the robots or do the jobs that machines can’t. But how to do that, and whether training can outpace automation, are open questions."
"Do the jobs that machines can't". In other words, jobs that are not automatable. These are jobs that do not fit the corporate profit-driven bottom-line business model employing interchangeable humans in cubicles. They are people-centered jobs like education, rehabilitation, healthcare, child & eldercare, and activities related to the general good, like infrastructure development, affordable housing, environmental protection.
This work presently is undermanned and undervalued because the corporate mind set controls Congress and is promoted ad nauseam on-line and in the media. The chaos of rapidly expanding job loss due to automation can be addressed by supporting these public sector activities.
"Do the jobs that machines can't". In other words, jobs that are not automatable. These are jobs that do not fit the corporate profit-driven bottom-line business model employing interchangeable humans in cubicles. They are people-centered jobs like education, rehabilitation, healthcare, child & eldercare, and activities related to the general good, like infrastructure development, affordable housing, environmental protection.
This work presently is undermanned and undervalued because the corporate mind set controls Congress and is promoted ad nauseam on-line and in the media. The chaos of rapidly expanding job loss due to automation can be addressed by supporting these public sector activities.
36
This article nails it. I left Fortune 500 world and purchased a large, high volume dry cleaner with the intention of automating and adding lots of new technology (sophisticated production & POS system and a delivery software with a new transactional website and mobile apps for driver & customers).
Buying the tech was easy. None of the 18 original employees survived the transition. All our employees have to be able to use the system at least a little (even employees in the back with the hissing and steam!), and people often self-select out just because tech is "scary" or "hard".
After iterating through over 120 employees (and many more resume reviews and interviews), I slowly built a smart, self-directed and focused team. The people that are most successful seem to think of the tech as a game or puzzle instead of a problem. And, yes, we pay more now than before.
I have also found that self-discipline is key. Our new systems require switching between tasks and independent work typically done at the employees discretion - especially if exceptions occur (find 1 missing of 5,000 items).
Of the people that meet the other criteria, there is a subgroup that see the "flex" between tasks as an opportunity to take advantage of the business (text, phone, Facebook, etc). This type poisons the culture.
I believe that finding these intellectually curious, self-directed employees that care enough about the business to align to the vision will be the key management skill of the future.
Buying the tech was easy. None of the 18 original employees survived the transition. All our employees have to be able to use the system at least a little (even employees in the back with the hissing and steam!), and people often self-select out just because tech is "scary" or "hard".
After iterating through over 120 employees (and many more resume reviews and interviews), I slowly built a smart, self-directed and focused team. The people that are most successful seem to think of the tech as a game or puzzle instead of a problem. And, yes, we pay more now than before.
I have also found that self-discipline is key. Our new systems require switching between tasks and independent work typically done at the employees discretion - especially if exceptions occur (find 1 missing of 5,000 items).
Of the people that meet the other criteria, there is a subgroup that see the "flex" between tasks as an opportunity to take advantage of the business (text, phone, Facebook, etc). This type poisons the culture.
I believe that finding these intellectually curious, self-directed employees that care enough about the business to align to the vision will be the key management skill of the future.
1