90% of jobs will be taken away by robots and computers by 2035 - what jobs are safe ?

[Maciamo]

An amazing array of new technologies are set to change human civilisation as we know it. The continuous progress in artificial intelligence will enable computers to do the jobs of telemarketers, clerks, accountants, corporate lawyers, analysts, airline pilots, and countless other jobs. In fact, about half of all jobs existing today will be gone in 10 year's time, taken over by AI (see related articles by the Financial Times and two from The Economist - first and second).

The transportation industry will be especially hard hit by autonomous vehicles, like Google's self-driving car, which are already planned to be used as taxi robots. Some metro/subways and tramways already operate without drivers. Most air planes hardly need a pilot anymore. Once autonomous vehicles become operational it won't be long before taxi drivers and truck drivers loose their job too. Amazon should soon start using drones to deliver orders directly to people's houses. Once this method of delivery becomes standardised, the whole postal/delivery industry might become robotised.

Superintelligent computers like Watson can already provide better medical diagnostics than any human doctor. Softwares like Quill, who can create reports and articles almost like humans, promise to replace technical writers, and perhaps all writers once their AI exceeds human intelligence. By that point, once the singularity has been reached (perhaps between 2035 and 2045), all scientific research will be done by robots/computers whose intelligence will far exceeds that of humans.

It won't stop there. Between 2025 and 2035, intelligent robots with human-like capabilities will be able to do practically any job: nurse, social worker, construction worker, shop attendant, waiter, dentist, teacher, translator, cleaner, fire fighter, security guard, soldier...

So what job is safe ? What jobs will still exist in 10 years or in 20 years ?

I believe that the jobs most likely to survive this 'second age of machines', as it has been dubbed, are jobs where human contact and socialisation is essential. But when we think about it, it is much harder to think about jobs that really cannot be done by human-like robots. Perhaps psychotherapists, relationship counsellors, yoga teacher, hair dressers, party planners, nannies... You will notice that these are generally jobs done by women, and that is not surprising since men are better at systematising tasks like computers, and will therefore be more easily replaced by machines.

Or jobs that require a human artistic touch, which robots couldn't really emulate as it depends on a personal sense of taste. This could include interior designer, landscape gardener, fashion designer or chef. Artists, musicians and novelists too could remain, even if eventually computers could produce arts of equal or superior level to that of humans. What matters for us is the feelings and emotions conveyed. Music in particular comes from the heart, which is why robots will have difficult to create new songs or musical genres that really touch humans.

Ideally politicians should be replaced by rational robots, but they might be the last people holding to their positions, as it is essentially as prestige and social position.

Non-essential prestige jobs like high-level athlete could also remain, although personally I don't see the point of pushing human physical performance to the limit at the age when human can choose to become cyborgs or enhance their physical abilities through gene therapy.

The world economy will change beyond recognition. If 99% of the population ends up jobless, there won't be a commercial market anymore. Either everything will be manufactured for free by robots, or governments will provide a fixed, equal income to all citizens.

In the first scenario, companies will disappear, as there is no point in trying to make money when everything is free. If robots can run the whole economy better than humans, why should humans bother to help ?

Another way of seeing the future is to let all people have (pacific, unarmed) working robots and 3D printers, and let people produce whatever they want with them. People would be allocated resources by super-AI managing all world resources.

[Sile]

maybe bricklaying, tiling, paving is the last to go

[Maciamo]

maybe bricklaying, tiling, paving is the last to go

Absolutely not. There are already robots with fine motor skills and this improves quickly year by year. Robots can already pick up and sort objects and even serve tea (and that technology is 3 years old). Robots capable of construction work will be there in 5 to 10 years max. I doubt that any house will still be built by humans in 20 years (except by amateurs who really want to do it the traditional way).

[Aberdeen]

I was reading something bizarre about people in Holland experimenting with producing houses with 3D printers. They print out modules made of heavy paper, put them in place and fill in the modules with a soft substance that hardens like concrete. The technology is in the early stages and one of the people involved said that you might not want to live in one of their creations just yet, but she thought that the only way to make it a workable technology was to start production and see what needs to be changed. They apparently expect that in a few years they'll be able to build houses that are suitable for use and that will be far cheaper than conventional houses. And I suppose it will soon be feasible to have robots digging any foundation that's necessary, assembling and filling the modules and doing the wiring and plumbing.

If someone who lives in the developed world wants to have a job in the future, they should look at jobs involving the social aspects of senior care. There should be a boom in that sort of work for the next few decades, I think.

[Sile]

Absolutely not. There are already robots with fine motor skills and this improves quickly year by year. Robots can already pick up and sort objects and even serve tea (and that technology is 3 years old). Robots capable of construction work will be there in 5 to 10 years max. I doubt that any house will still be built by humans in 20 years (except by amateurs who really want to do it the traditional way).

I cannot see robots, cutting tiles to fit corners or angles for laying, neither brickwork .

carpentry is another, tresses,etc ( all roofs are different shapes) .............at best society need to cahnge the homes to live to prefab type so robots can make them.............then we have ugly places..........the old bricks and mortar will never happen, my opinion

Of course, If you want to live in a box with a lid as a roof, then it could be done...LOL

[Sennevini]

A lot of jobs will be replaced by robots.

Professions like artist, musician etc. will never be occupied by robots; the appreciation of a work
of art (though lot of "music" of course contains synths, but is made by humans) contains the element
that it is made by humans, for humans.

But I think as with the Industrial Revolution, this robot revolution will open up new kinds of jobs, of
which we don't know yet what kind of jobs it will be.
Back then, new jobs is fabric halls were created. Only problem was that it took a long time before the incomes rose.

[Ike]

Well, someone has to produce and program all those robots? :)

[Coolboygcp]

It could happen.

But the thing is, people have been saying this for many decades. And, it just hasn't happened yet.

And if robots attain an artifiicial inlleigence, one that is superior to humans, I don't think that this would be good. Could this become like Europeans and the Native Americans/Aboriginal Canadians?

I believe that robots have a purpose. I do think that they will perform many functions, and this is good. However, I believe here should be a limit on their intelligence. If they are allowed to surpass that limit, I fear the results would be bad.

In addition, there will have to be jobs left. Corporations run most of the world (US, China, Africa, etc), and they would not like it if people didn't have any jobs, as they couldn't purchase their products. Corporations fund most politicians campaigns, and thus, politicians would not allow that to happen.

I don't see governments giving people salaries for nothing, either. I think that there will be robots, but people will have to have some kind of other jobs.

[Gracchus]

I agree with the advancement of science, but provided that the scientific advance favor everyone.


I don,t agree that happens as you say Maciamo and disappear all companies ... the companies now have much power.


Im not agree that people will gradually be replaced in their jobs by robots and artificial intelligences, but this process will be slow and gradual.
Gradually people will lose their jobs, is currently going on. Until the vast majority of people do not have work for a living ....


the situation could become dangerous ... unemployed people, protest, grow again working-class movement.
perhaps a situation such as the Chartists in the nineteenth century it occurs and another Captain Swing appears, could also start over anarchism.
Even though I have hopes that this will not happen.



even though I have hopes that this will not happen.

[Aberdeen]

For the last 100 years, manufacturers have been using new technology, including more recently robotics, to produce more with fewer people, and the result in recent years is that the number of manufacturing jobs have decreased significantly as a percentage of total employment. But more recently the effects of computerization has been wiping out a lot of jobs. For example, few people need travel agents anymore. And there aren't many "record stores" left where one can buy CDs because a lot of people prefer to download music. And one can now buy CDs and books on-line - these businesses have embraced internet sales more than many other types of retail, so there are now fewer bookstores as well. But people are buying more and more goods of different types on-line, so that many kinds of retail chains are closing stores. All sorts of jobs are also being exported to low cost parts of the world, and I doubt if that would be possible without instantaneous communications by internet. There are currently arguments about the extent to which the work of lawyers, architects, et cetera should be allowed to be out-sourced to low wage countries. It's all a result of technological change. And, as you mentioned, Gracchus, when massive change has put people out of work in the past, that's often lead to violence. If we don't want that to happen, governments need to do a better job of regulating corporations. And the only way that will happen is if new laws can be put in force to stop corporations from buying politicians. If that doesn't happen, anarchy could prevail, I think.

[LeBrok]

A lot of jobs will be replaced by robots.

Professions like artist, musician etc. will never be occupied by robots; the appreciation of a work
of art (though lot of "music" of course contains synths, but is made by humans) contains the element
that it is made by humans, for humans.

I wouldn't say never, but jobs based on creativity and fantasy might be last to go. There is also a question of need. Do we need robots to paint making billions of pieces of art. Robot art will be cheap and ubiquitous. For that reason human art will be always more unique, more expensive and more wanted.

But I think as with the Industrial Revolution, this robot revolution will open up new kinds of jobs, of
which we don't know yet what kind of jobs it will be.Back then, new jobs is fabric halls were created.

That's right, since industrial revolution we have more jobs and more variety of jobs than ever. Therefore we can assume and extrapolate this on future that thanks to robots people will be released to pursue new jobs. The only change will be that people won't need to work at all. Already about half of society doesn't work, kids don't work, retired people, infirm people, many rich people and very poor people. In future as few as 20% might desire to work. The rest of necessary work will be done by robot and machines.

[LeBrok]

Well, someone has to produce and program all those robots? :)

That's right. Someone needs to train your robot, how to cook for you, how to clean for you, what not to touch, when to be present to help, but not to be too invasive and annoying. Not to change lightbulbs during big dinner, etc. Everybody likes things done differently and robot cannot be programed to your likings in factory.
However it might only apply to first robots. Your next robot could be trained by your first one, as fast as memory transfer.

[Sennevini]

I can't say I am not worried about the future. I'm in my twenties now, so if I'm supposed to work until old age, I'll be busy till 2060.
If you say 90% is already taken in 2030, what will there be in 2060? At least I hope healthcare is better by then ;p

[ElHorsto]

That's right. Someone needs to train your robot, how to cook for you, how to clean for you, what not to touch, when to be present to help, but not to be too invasive and annoying. Not to change lightbulbs during big dinner, etc. Everybody likes things done differently and robot cannot be programed to your likings in factory.
However it might only apply to first robots. Your next robot could be trained by your first one, as fast as memory transfer.

Yet there must be an owner of the robots who receives their service, and this owner must spend a minimum of effort to ensure the right direction of robot development, regardless if robots are doing it. This effort might turn out to be surprisingly complex and I think this process is already going on for some time by computer technology progress. That's why jobs become increasingly "brainy" nowadays. I wonder wether this problem has to do with the Jevons Paradox

In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons effect) is the proposition that as technology progresses, the increase in efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.

[LeBrok]

I can't say I am not worried about the future. I'm in my twenties now, so if I'm supposed to work until old age, I'll be busy till 2060.
If you say 90% is already taken in 2030, what will there be in 2060? At least I hope healthcare is better by then ;p

I don't think 90% of jobs will be lost to robots in such short time. But even if it is true, that means 90% of today's jobs will be lost. It doesn't include new jobs that will be created thanks to robots. Likewise, 90% of 19th century jobs are lost for ever too.
We also need to take under consideration that if we have as many robots as people in a country working 24/7 the productivity will triple or quadruple, and also GDP per capita will quadruple. It means that societies will have money/products, high standard of living, without much of human work. If people don't work, the sharing and distribution of goods (produced by robots) will resemble social assistance of today for who don't work and we consider poor in our society.

Government will deposit certain amount of money on your account to enable you to by products even without working. We will see the true communism in sharing the GDP. Even the production can work as states own, socialist type. Capitalism is most efficient form of production at the moment, because owner makes sure that workers and business are very efficient. This was lacking in socialism, as bureaucrats who run state companies never care for efficiency. However when robots produce, and even manage production in later stage (efficiency is programed), the efficiency will be high anyway rendering capitalism not needed in production.

Everybody will place purchase orders through computer as needed, orders from all people go to the factories, and robots will produce as much as is currently needed, fast and efficiently.
Some products could be 3D printed in your house, or even manufactured by your robot.

However the capital investment in new products might still work better as capitalism. If new product is invented, someone will need to make a decision, risk his/bank's capital and see if his product is successful or not.

PS. Personally I know people who don't work for money, no kids at home, with schedule filled with activities for all day and every day. So even if people in the future won't have a job it doesn't mean they will be poor or bored. I'm guessing that we will go to school or some classes for the whole life just to catch up with new things being created and discovered daily, and take part in new activities we can't even imagine yet.

[LeBrok]

Yet there must be an owner of the robots who receives their service, and this owner must spend a minimum of effort to ensure the right direction of robot development, regardless if robots are doing it. This effort might turn out to be surprisingly complex and I think this process is already going on for some time by computer technology progress. That's why jobs become increasingly "brainy" nowadays. I wonder wether this problem has to do with the Jevons Paradox

Yes, definitely in first stage of "robot economy/production". I suspect robot management, planning, programing, scheduling, repairing will outstrip available people with adequate skills to do these jobs. Possibly to the degree that will slow robot revolution quite a bit. However in further future these jobs will be taken over by robots themselves and supercomputers. It means Jevons Paradox will be still true but this extra workload and services will be done by robots and not humans.
Otherwords there might be more robots working (servicing) for robots, than robots working for people. Quite paradoxical, lol.

[Sennevini]

No I also don't think it's 90%; but even 10% would place an extra pressure on the people looking for a job.
Of course, If the goal is that robots do the most work, while people can spend time on "themselves and each other"
then that's OK, as far as I'm concerned.
Only problem in that scenario is indeed: what to do with money?

[Ernesto Grandi]

with a good redistribution of the profits (by taxation) the technological restrictions on human workforce would not be a problem.

[Aberdeen]

with a good redistribution of the profits (by taxation) the technological restrictions on human workforce would not be a problem.

Have you discussed that plan with David Cameron and people of his ilk? They may not like the scheme as much as one might assume.

[Zemra]

Jobs to maintain computers? Programming? They pay well too.

[Faralysi]

How stupid can human become. If these things will ever happen, they will regret it. The makers will regret it the most.

[dnsn107]

This may sound absurd, but I get the feeling that counseling may be the safest job. I don't think the market demand for people who counsel will ever be erased.

[Coriolan]

This may sound absurd, but I get the feeling that counseling may be the safest job. I don't think the market demand for people who counsel will ever be erased.

Computers already do a great job at counseling people for all kinds of things.

[Wheal]

Even though computers will be used in most jobs to an extent, I think they will be somewhat limited. In the medical field, computers will be used (and already are some) to diagnose, but I don't think that they will be the end all of diagnosis.

Also, as Zemra said, the computer industry is booming, and in our area they will be hiring quite a few new people to assemble and program servers, telephones, computers, AT&T field, etc.

Some of that may be replaced by compubots, but you have to realize, even at Amazon, they are finding out in their fullfillment centers, the human worker can fill orders faster than the robots they were using, and have removed the robots and filled those slots with human workers.

[Jovialis]

I don't think we are going to find a solution to the issue of automations replacing 90% of workers. Companies, and entrepenures will surely utlize robots to replace all manner of human-labor when it is possible. There will no doubt be upheaval, but the rich, and powerful will surely insulate themselves from that.

"The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must".