Marc Andreessen, a programmer who made a fortune off one of the first web browsers and then a bigger one by investing the spoils, predicted some years ago that the world would soon be divided into those people who told computers what to do, and those who are told what to do by computers. It is a pithy demonstration of the half truths that drive Silicon Valley. The task for humanists must be to ensure that the other half of the truth is valued and acted on. Computers are of course turning the world upside down, and transforming many of the jobs that they don’t abolish. The process seems absolutely certain to continue: a recent OECD study suggesting that only one in six jobs in industrial countries will disappear as a result of automation has been hailed as a wonderfully optimistic counterblast to earlier predictions that nearly half the jobs in advanced economies would disappear.
One job in six would – will – still involve a major social transformation. Unless regulatory action is taken, this will not be a transformation for the better. For one of the characteristics of this wave of automation is that many of the new jobs which appear are worse and less interesting than the ones they replace, in part because the humans doing them are fitted into the decision-making hierarchy below the people who write the algorithms that control them and the computers that interpret the programmers’ intentions. To that extent Mr Andreessen was right. But the new work has other disadvantages. It is much less secure and less well paid. Those factors are not determined by technology, but are the consequence of deliberate political decisions that technology serves to obfuscate. This is already obvious to young people, and drives a lot of the support both for Jeremy Corbyn and, separately, for populist nationalist politicians in Europe, who represent the threat to security as coming from immigrants more than automation.
Continue reading...from US news | The Guardian https://ift.tt/2uBGnXu
No comments:
Post a Comment