Comment by DanielStraight | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielStraight | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I appreciate what you're doing here. As a programmer, I can also see areas that programming (or at least skilled computer usage, as some of these things can probably be done in Excel or existing tools) could add to most professions.

But even in your replies, you're often dealing with only small subsets. I don't want to live in a society which feels painters and sculptors are obsolete because we have webgl. I certainly don't want to live in a society in which the Oreo is an example of good baking. And the existence of webgl and Oreos doesn't indicate to me that painters, sculptors, and traditional bakers need to know about the programmatic options.

When not subsets, it's not clear to me why the professional ought to know programming rather than enlisting the help of a programmer. Programming tools for fire prediction would probably be quite involved. I've been programming professionally for 3 years, and I'm not sure I'd be up to the challenge. I'm not sure someone could be a skilled firefighter, learn programming well enough to write fire prediction tools, and still have a social life. And even if someone can, there's no reason every firefighter needs to. Once it's written, it's written, and others just need to learn to use it.

(As for the burger, I wouldn't eat it. I like my food traditional, minimally processed, and made of things I would recognize on a shelf [a category into which his emulsifiers do not fall].)

That's certainly your prerogative, and good for you.

In the year 2040 you need to go to the dentist. The dentist you visit has a big shop, with lots of employees. There's Linda, who works the telephone and knows you and your family. There's the hygienist. There's the nurse's aide. The dentist even makes his own amalgams for fillings. It's a very personal and homey atmosphere. People like it.

The other place has robots. There is no dentist. You click on your iPad (or whatever you have then) that you want to see a dentist, and within ten minutes you're in the office. A robot does the exam, consults with you, and completes the work.

The first dentist costs four times as much as the second one. It also takes twice the time, and you have to wait two weeks for an appointment. (If you're lucky)

Now that's not some strange imaginings -- that's going to happen, whether we like it or not. The main question becomes: do we evolve a mixed-mode shop full of artisans working (programming) computers and technology? Or do we just commoditize the lot of it, take the humanity and ingenuity completely out of the picture? If you set aside programming, make the programming shop some special place where people go to commoditize business practices, you end up with no people around. After all, you've replaced them. If, however, each person knows their job and also programming, you create something new that wasn't there before. This is the startup question, "should all the founders know how to program?" applied to the world at large.

The essay makes the case not for programmers to rule the world, but for people of all jobs to learn to manipulate complex programmable technology in the same way they might today use Microsoft Publisher to make a banner. It's actually arguing your case for you: for our own benefit, the creative and unique aspect of people must be preserved.

It is my hope that humanity finds a healthy balance between technology and tasks that humans do. Yes, it would be great if Apple didn't have to exploit Chinese workers to make their products. But no, it would not be great if my Doctor was put out of work by a robot. I honestly feel that the government will have to issue some sort of standard that limits technology to some sense.

Yes, I would save money by going to the robot dentist, but my dentist would be out of work in no time. It partially rests on humans to keep the exploits of technology at bay. We can't turn personable human tasks into machine work.

Our world can be set up to be completely self-sufficient. Yes, a few people would make a lot of money, but I personally believe the impacts would be horrendous.

What separates the Dentist from the bank teller? Clearly ATM's have drastically reduced the need for Bank tellers, yet nobody seems that concerned about it. More generally, I suspect there is always going to be gap’s when as a field gets automated. As the more complex the task the harder it is to automate and less cost effective it is to do. So, it feels like the steady erosion of low end jobs everywhere vs. a sudden loss of a single profession.

We can see this as an increased demand for education / training. But, not everyone is able to keep up and over time ever fewer people are going to be capable of the remaining niches. It's possible that the service industry's are going to continue to absorb the less capable, but that does not help the economy in the long term.

"What separates the Dentist from the bank teller?"

One of them has his or her hand in your mouth and might need to drill, remove, fill or otherwise mess around with your teeth. I think a lot of people would be more comfortable with a human element in all medical interactions, even if robots are eventually as effective.

> even if robots are eventually as effective.

What about when robots become more effective? Drastically more effective?

I would not let a modern day robot work on my teeth, they are too stupid, but I can imagine a day (fairly soon) when this will not be the case, and my gut reaction will start to be the exact opposite: I would not let a human being work on my teeth.

I wouldn't bet against that, but what I was saying was that right now there is a big difference between a human bank teller and a human dentist, and an even bigger difference between an ATM and some future dentist robot. It's just a bad analogy because they are not similar interactions at all.

We already have robotic dentists doing dental work better than a human can. Back in the dark ages of say 1995 if you wanted to get your teeth into better alignment you went to this guy who attached this complex apparatus that would forcefully move the teeth in your mouth and every so often you would go back to this same person to do adjustments and such. Sure, it often hurt, look a long time, looked bad, interfered with proper dental care, and only allowed for fairly simple work, but at least it was expensive.

Now, with automation and 3D imaging technology we can have a specialist specify what to change and let a computer design a series of discrete non-invasive attachments that allow a home users to quickly attach and remove their implant. It's far less painful, takes less time,can far more precisely preform complex work like rotating a tooth, and the only downside is it costs about the same amount as braces. Note: This is an actual company not just BS (http://www.invisalign.com/Pages/default.aspx).

PS: I still occasionally see a teller for complex interactions, but I trust an ATM to be far more accurate for my day to day needs. And there is still plenty of work for orthodontists, but a lot of the simple stuff is simply better handled by a machine.

That's fascinating, thanks. But has this technology reduced the need for orthodontists? Does it mean that orthodontists now need to learn how to program? I think this is just another example of humans using more software.

It's reduced the time an orthodontist spends per patent and allowed non orthodontists to do simple things that used to involve an orthodontist. But, it has also convinced a lot of adults to get dental work. So, in the short term it's fairly neutral, but in the long term we are going to need fewer orthodontists.

As to programming; I don't know a lot about how the software works, but advanced users in front of really complex software like Excel and Photoshop tend to blur the line between a Specialist and Programmer.

We will hit a raw-material crisis which will force us to cap the production of these machines.

If that doesn't happen, Wall-E future or massive human revolt.

Hmm,

I might indeed prefer Dentist #1. But if competition in my field of interest has significant reduced my salary or rendered me unemployed, I may have no choice but to dial-up Dentist #2.

This effect then results in Dentist #1 joining me in having his/her livelihood under pressure.

I can't see this ending well...

Automating (nearly) everything doesn't mean everyone have to starve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee There. Lots of free time, and the money to live through it. I agree however that our current economic model cannot stand widespread automation (heck, it already struggles with abundance, fighting it with artificial scarcity).

I'm not saying webgl or oreos will replace artists/baking. I'm saying they can (should?) view programming and computers in general as new tools to expand their art.

Your arguments are based on the fact that you know as a programmer how much it helps you. But you are trivializing the years of experience and knowledge it takes for someone to master a craft or profession.

Just because some chefs with decades of experience figured out how to mass produce relatively poor quality cookies does not mean that it will be a snap for those chefs to spend years learning how to program well enough that they can create Star Trek replicators.

> I don't want to live in a society which feels painters and sculptors are obsolete because we have webgl.

They're not. However, their work is greatly enhanced by using programming to, for example, generate procedural patterns, to mock up new shapes, and to test out new ideas.

Being able to program reduces the constraints that our mental abilities put on us by offloading parts of it to a computer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com