Which jobs will be last to be automated/outsourced?

A comedian will never be automated so I suppose it’s not a good answer to your question.

I think a television continuity announcer could be automated soon though, even though that’s thought of as a very human job and at first glance might not seem that different from a comedian’s job (i.e. a human talking to other humans). On some small channels the announcer does little more than “at 9pm it’s programme x, now it’s time for programme y”. Lots of these are pre-recorded and used repeatedly already. It is cheap to get an announcer to record that once and just repeat that audio when you need it but what if there’s a last minute schedule change? Most small channels don’t have an announcer on hand so instead they go with something really generic. A computer could easily generate a realistic sounding voice that says the new message you really need it to say. Scheduled TV channels are diminishing to some extent but they’ll still be around for another decade or two and you can be sure that budgets will be tightened. Announcers are a bit of a luxury for small channels but small channels are numerous and ran by big companies with the technology to make it happen at scale.

I have to agree with this. Just look at apps available on your smartphone, many of them have easily replaced human mental processes. Physical processes are much more expensive and difficult to replace unless it’s a repetitive task in a highly controlled environment, aka moving standardized product in a factory.

Sam, it seems like you’re saying that unemployment as high as 50% would be no big deal. Did I misunderstand?

Regarding trucking, self-driving trucks are already here. Just one cite:

On the subject of AI, I agree that AIs don’t currently have general intelligence, but I disagree that they never will. That’s a discussion for a different thread, though.

Automation has been decried all along, not just now that it may replace some lawyers and other professional positions. Where do you get the idea otherwise? The Luddites are the obvious example, but it has always caused pain and disruption – read Player Piano by Vonnegut.

So what, though? That’s not what this thread is about. It’s about which jobs are safest from automation.

I disagree about prostitutes being all that safe from automation. Sure, there will always be some high end ones, but I have to imagine that RealDoll version X (that is, some really well-made version in the future) will take the place of some large segment of the working ladies and men. There are already brothels that use dolls, I believe, and I imagine these versions are basically beta compared to what’s coming in the next few decades.

Lol yes.

Since automation creates jobs, the jobs that haven’t yet been created are probably the safest.

Thanks. Very helpful. :rolleyes:

Since this thread is about jobs that currently exist, do you have anything to add? Or, did you mean to post this in the “Ban Automation” thread?

We can only respond to the thread you started, not the one you imagined you started. If you wanted a different thread than what you actually wrote, then English more better next time. It’s 100% responsive to the title and OP. The last jobs to be automated will be ones that automation hasn’t created yet.

Professional Athletes should last awhile.

Should I ask a mod to change the title to “Which current jobs…”? Everyone else seems to have figured out what I meant. Maybe your post is responsive, but it’s useless and uninteresting.

Agreed, and I agree with the comedian comment earlier. Artists as well, I think.

I could see a diminished role for actors if CGI continues apace. Even voice actors – there’s this Google service that makes reservations for you and it sounds pretty lifelike, inserting ums and pauses to make it seem more human. Give that a couple more decades.

It’s also entirely correct - unless you did actually want a mindless list of difficult to automate jobs more fitting to IMHO?

When asking what jobs will be last to be automated, we’re looking into a future where 99.9% of current jobs are automated (or are some impossible to automate?) This future involves new jobs being created (i.e. maintenance roles in case the automation goes wrong), but those jobs themselves might be replaced eventually too.

If we follow automation to its logical conclusion, then yes, all aspects of drudge work will eventually be covered, including roles created to ensure such drudge work is functioning correctly. In this future there are no jobs, only hobbies (politics/art/athletics/etc).

Will people even bother with prositutes if VR gives you the same experience (and potentially superior?)

See, I would have thought radiologist would have been a difficult job to replace with an AI, and yet Google is getting results as good or better than humans when using an AI to read some kinds of x-rays. I think that’s interesting, you don’t. That’s fine, no one is forcing you to post here. Ruken’s post was uninteresting to me because there’s nothing to discuss – of course there will be different jobs in the future. Big deal. As I mentioned, other people contributed with their own thoughts on which current jobs will likely stick around. One mentioned prostitutes and gigolos, and you and I are both skeptical that will be the case – see? A debate can happen.

If a college student came to me and asked what medical field do I think she should pursue, I’d probably say, well, not radiology. Oral surgeon, maybe? Gynecologist? Will there need to be as many general practitioners in 20 years with the coming combination of expert systems and greater use of physician assistants and nurse practitioners?

The US National Weather Service already has some kind of automated, synthesized speech thing that reads the weather forecasts on NOAA weather radio.

It’s also clearly been around a while; it sounds like a Speak and Spell.

I’d think that if they can already automate the reading of a forecast, they could very easily have a computer interpret the programming schedule (especially if there is some kind of standardized metadata) and spit out little speech blurbs that could be inserted between them.

Personally, I think what we’re going to see isn’t going to be wholesale automation and elimination of human jobs, but rather we’ll see the jobs transform into some sort of collaboration between people and the machines.

For example, I don’t think that deep learning AI/expert systems and surgical robots are going to replace doctors or nurses. Rather what you’ll have is a collaboration between the two. Same thing for truck drivers- maybe the truck driver can just sleep or whatever on the long distance part, but take over when there’s a situation that the AI can’t quite cope with. Or a sports coach; an AI having watched thousands (millions?) of games will have a very good opinion of what the best play/lineup should be for a given situation, but a good coach isn’t always going to do that either. He’d be stupid to entirely disregard the AI, but just as stupid to rely totally on it as well.

I also think that where we’ll see the biggest AI/automation gains is in problems that are currently too dangerous/time consuming/onerous for people to do for a reasonable wage, but that need doing. For example, apparently sorting stuff for recycling is a monumental PITA. But it would seem to me that it could be something ripe for exactly the sort of deep learning/neural net/AI type approach- you’d have to train your garbage picking robot, but once it (and hopefully thousands of networked others) was trained, you could set it loose, and with the appropriate feedback mechanisms, it would learn and get better as it went, AND share that information with all the other garbage picking robots in other cities who would also be sharing that info. So they would all get really good at identifying garbage bags from tissue paper faster than any one would.

I agree about the recycling jobs – advances in computer vision have really blown my mind over the last few years. Point your phone at a plant or animal and it knows what it is. Google Photos can identify people at different ages, facing in different directions, with different expressions, etc. Truly amazing!

I also agree that automation likely won’t eliminate all humans doing a particular job, but can certainly imagine much higher productivity, with one human working with many AIs/robots/whatever, where it took multiple people before. So, I could see one surgeon supervising the work of multiple surgery robots, stepping in when necessary. And, that surgeon may be able to work remotely, from a much lower-wage country. The price of routine surgeries could really plummet!

I also think that child and eldercare will be among the last things automated, and they can’t really be outsourced. Scratch that, they will be among the last things successfully automated - I think someone(s) will try it at least a few times before realizing that the Harlow monkey experiments apply to vulnerable humans too, and wire caretakers just won’t do. I’d like to think that children warehoused in orphanages without much human contact developing RAD would be all the proof needed, but you know it won’t be and we’ll have some little damaged humans or a lot of dead elders before they give up on the idea of having robots wipe butts and fill mouths.

Fruit picking and some other agricultural jobs. Those skills where there’s some gross motor skills, some fine motor skills, and some skills in detecting what to pick, like colour recognition. Yeah, you could probably make some robot that did all that, though it’s still a distant dream. If you could, it would still be cheaper to employ hordes of people to harvest crops.

Looking at a tree, seeing it’s a tree, seeing it’s an orange tree, seeing that the oranges are ripe enough, and then reaching out to various heights, while moving among those trees on slightly uneven ground, and plucking the orange off without squeezing it hard, and putting it down without bruising it. No current technology could pluck an orange off a tree without damaging it. And there are hordes of people out there willing to do it for less than the money you’d spend for robots to do it instead.

Without the Brave New World concept you’re envisaging, I agree.

Three reasons:

The human options have many and long-term examples of why they’re better. We’ve had online learning for a long time.

Most people will want their children and elders cared for by people.

It’s cheap. It’s always been a low-pay job.

I’m surprised at all the people who have put “surgeon” above “plumber” on the easy to automate scale. I’m not sure you’re wrong, but it definitely conflicts with my intuition.

I disagree with a lot of Sam’s analysis, although I think it’s well supported historically and I agree that there’s a lot of hysteria over things right now. I don’t think we’re headed for a near-term jobless apocalypse.

But there are two claims that I think are fundamentally wrong.

  1. Because a job is hard to 100% define, it’s safe from automation until all 100% can be automated

For example, the fact that truck drivers do lots of little things that don’t slot nicely into the sorts of things that a driving AI can do (maybe. Jury’s still out a bit on whether a driving AI can do the driving part well enough) won’t help keep most truck drivers on the job.

A truck’s load doesn’t need to be secured by the guy piloting it. In the rare cases where police direction needs to be followed, a remote worker can take over, etc.

The problem is that if 95% of a trucker’s duties can be automated, the industry can end up needing only 5% of the workers it used to have as the easy stuff is automated.

Travel agents are a good example of this. They still exist! They industry has not vanished. But, also, it’s way smaller than it used to be. Because the easy parts got automated away. Remaining workers handle the corner cases that were hard to automate, but there are a lot fewer of them. Corner cases and complexity will not save your job unless you are particularly good at the corner cases.

  1. Because humans are adaptable, there will always be work for them.

The problem with this is that each individual human has to be trained, and the more complicated the problem, the more training it takes. Algorithms and robots, on the other hand, just keep getting better.

Believing that humans’ mental plasticity will always beat that of software seems as misguided as believing that horses’ physical prowess would always beat machinery. The latter was true for a long long time, until it wasn’t.

There seems to be a clear natural limit to human intelligence. It’s not clear to me that there is a limit to machine intelligence.

I agree that auto mechanics are unlikely to be automated or outsourced for the reasons you describe, however if electric vehicles become the predominant type of car then there may be less work for auto mechanics in the future. Sure, EVs will occasionally break and need to be fixed, but they don’t need routine maintenance like oil changes and tune ups. And they have way fewer moving parts than an internal combustion engine car; no transmission, for example.

Psychologists/therapists. No one will want to go talk to the robot who replaced their counselor about their distress at being replaced by a robot.

There is a lot of activity in this area and progress is being made. You’re right the economics won’t make sense right away but I think they will start to really be used within the next 10 years.