Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/01/23/robot-proof-your-kids-by-teach.html
…
2 Likes
Not for long. The Heisenberg Compensaters will take care of this shortly.
10 Likes
Robot-proof your kids
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Isaac Asimov
13 Likes
Time will only tell whether our body politic has the collective intelligence and foresight to count the externalities of the concentration of the wealth created by roboticization in the hands of the few as “harm caused by a robot.” Given our track record with coal, I’m…not optimistic.
Wait, Cory, I know you’ve been on Twitter…
8 Likes
So basically jobs that require a high tolerance for ambiguity. Although various forms of “fuzziness” have been incorporated into computer systems for years now, to the point where no-one should feel like they’re “robot-proof”.
Considering that a lot of people voted for the Grifter-in-Chief to save their jerbs, the following about people with low tolerance for ambiguity is interesting in the context of automation:
Additionally Bochner (1965) categorized attributes given by Frenkel-Brunswik’s theory of individuals who are intolerant to ambiguity. […]
The secondary characteristics describes individuals who are intolerant to ambiguity as:
- authoritarian
- dogmatic
- rigid
- closed minded
- ethnically prejudiced
- uncreative
- anxious
- extra-punitive
- aggressive
12 Likes
HELLO [UserName], MY NAME IS DOCTOR SBAITSO.
I AM HERE TO HELP YOU.
SAY WHATEVER IS IN YOUR MIND FREELY,
OUR CONVERSATION WILL BE KEPT IN STRICT CONFIDENCE.
MEMORY CONTENTS WILL BE WIPED OFF AFTER YOU LEAVE,
SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS.
4 Likes
CEOs
I’m not sure you can teach sociopathy, although you can certainly work to promote it in your children.
7 Likes
Training to be a CEO seems like the best bet.
There’s no reason to fear failure and it’s immune from ageism too.
But let’s not forget this:
3 Likes
What about job-stealing-robot programmers?
2 Likes
"school psychologists"
Wait, there are still school psychologists? School districts have money for that? Probably not for long…
8 Likes
You can always try lesioning your child’s pre-frontal cortex!
2 Likes
It’s really disappointing the Quartz article fails to enumerate the thirty “unpredictable” jobs. Doesn’t it seem like a strange thing to leave out?
Or. Have Robots for children. They have a bright future ahead of them.
5 Likes
I’m finding that art is actually a pretty underrated skill. It’s everywhere you look, yet our culture is so inhibited that very few are good at making their own. The potential to develop a unique personal style also allows you to differentiate yourself from others with the same technical ability. The artists you see struggling are normally the ones who are aiming at pure expression. Meanwhile, there are people making solid, middle class incomes selling digital downloads of watercolor flowers and other clip art. It also pairs well with numerous other skills where art and design are part of the final product.
3 Likes
Those jobs are safe because the people at the top keep them that way. Any corporation that was serious about saving money on salaries wouldn’t be outsourcing their lowest-paid workers overseas to save a couple bucks an hour on minimum wage, they’d import the most talented MBAs in India and pay them millions instead of billions.
4 Likes
Yes, the only secure future is in programming the robots that build the robots that replace the people. Also, jobs that by law can’t be done by robots, such as lawyers, or jobs that people would probably be uncomfortable automating, where the cost of creating the robot is too high, such as surgeons.
1 Like
Design? I thought there was no money in the arts!
the logical extension then being that a robot-proof job is the work of harming other humans
4 Likes
[dons fake mustache and Panama hat]
If you think “serious” artists are still only aiming for pure expression, you have not attended an art school in quite awhile. Especially at the graduate level, they’re expected to pull double-duty as both creators of art and researchers into any number of fields related to their chosen subject matter. Self-expression is a fine undergraduate starting point, but artists in the 21st century are nothing like the stereotypes of the 20th. Except the egos. That still seems to be part of the package. If anyone asks, I wasn’t here and you didn’t hear me tell you that.
3 Likes
