A Computer is Going to Replace You
Content
As the world becomes technologically advanced, computers are replacing more and more jobs. Describe some job positions that may be lost because of computers, and discuss one problem that may result.
My Answer: As well as the Industrial Revolution in the 16th century, nowadays, the Information Technology Revolution is threatening some jobs and will make their positions lost in the future. For example, the gardening, in which the efficient support of modern machine is saving labor more and more, is considered to be the job which is will be cut down violently in the next time. Computers and official equipments by which every businessman is best equipped are capable secretaries, silent and work hard. They can be put great faith by businessmen and can replace normal secretaries. Automatic cash registers, software... which filter the bill of customer will take the place of pretty girls who are completely wrapped up in sitting on desk with classical electronic calculators. In addition, travelers rely on Internet more and more to prepare for themselves before every trip instead of leaving everything to travel agencies... Although computers make people's jobs easier they cause many problems. They increase the unemployment rate in developing countries where agriculture is major. Computers cannot represent director to trade with his partners or cannot negotiate with them, which a secretary can do well. Moreover, automatic bank machine cannot answer queries of customers or solve problems relating to credit card, cheques and cash. And recent signs show that having the going down of some traditional trades because of the change of technology and modern production process. According to me, computers cannot replace people who invented them that are only capable assistant of people. But people need to raise their standard to own technology.
As computers are being used more and more in education, there will be soon no role for teachers in the classroom. There have been immense advances in technology in most aspects of people?s lives, especially in the field of education. Nowadays, an increasing number of students rely on computers for research and to produce a perfect paper for school purposes. Others have decided to leave the original way of learning and to get knowledge through online schools. These changes in the learning process have brought a special concern regarding the possible decrease of importance of teachers in the classroom. Some people believe the role of teachers started to fade because computers have been helping some students to progress in their studies quicker than when compared with an original classroom. For example, in the same classroom, students have different intellectual capacities, thus some would be tied to a slow advance in their studies because of others? incapacity of understanding. In this way, pupils could progress in their acquisition of knowledge at their own pace using computers instead of learning from teachers.
However, the presence of a teacher is essential for students because the human contact influences them in positive ways. Firstly, students realize that they are not dealing with a machine but with a human being who deserves attention and respect. They also learn the importance of studying in group and respect other students, which helps them to improve their social skills. Moreover, teachers are required in the learning process because they acknowledge some student?s deficiencies and help them to solve their problems by repeating the same explanation, giving extra exercises or even suggesting a private tutor. Hence, students can have a bigger chance not to fail in a subject. In conclusion, the role for teachers in the learning process is still very important and it will continue to be in the future because no machine can replace the human interaction and its consequences. As computers are being used more and more in education, there will be soon no role for teachers in the classroom. There is no doubt that education and the learning process has changed since the introduction of computers: The search for information has become easier and amusing, and connectivity has expedited the data availability. Though experts systems have made computers more intelligent, they have not yet become a substitute of the human interaction in the learning process. In my opinion; what can be expected, is a change of the teachers? role but not their disappearance from the classroom. Nobody can argue that the acquisition of knowledge is more fun and easier with computers. The mere activity of touching and exploring this device constitutes an enjoyable task for a kid. This, accompanied with the relaxing attitude and software interactivity, usually conduce to a better grasping of new knowledge. At a higher educational level; the availability of digital books, simulator and other academic materials, provide the student with an ever accessible source of information, that otherwise would not be at hand. But, besides the increasing complexity and behavior of intelligent software, which is usually embedded in the academic digital material, the need of human interaction in the learning process will always be present, at least in the foreseeable future. There is the necessity for a human being to be able to determine what the specifics needs of each individual are. The expertise of a teacher in how to explain and adapt complex concepts to different individuals can hardly be mimicked by a computer, no matter how sophisticated its software is. As computers are becoming a common tool for teaching, teachers should be more aware of their role as guides in the acquisition of knowledge rather than transmitters of facts. They have to be open minded to the changes that are taking places, keep updated and serve as a problem solvers in the learning process, thus allowing students to discover the fact for themselves. To summarize, in my personal view, teachers play and will() play an important role in the classroom, especially at the primary level. No matter how complex computers become,
there will be no replacement for the human interaction, but in the way haw this interaction takes place. We are becoming increasingly dependent on computers. They are used in business, crime detection and even to fly planes. What things will they be used for in future? Is this dependence on computers a good thing or should we be more suspicious of their benefits? Today computers are used almost everywhere, it is impossible to imagine our life without PCs, Internet, hand phones and other computer devices. It is reasonable that people look to the future of computers. In what field will be computers used for and what role will human has in this world in future? Besides, computers make our life easier, we can easily get information about any product we plan to buy or place we plan to visit over a second using personal computer and Internet. Scientists predict that in the nearest future it will be possible to smell a new perfume using Internet and watch 3D scenes at home like we do in the theater. According to forecasts of HR agencies machines will replace job of cashiers, civil and military pilots. Some corporations in Japan already selling housewife-robots, which help old people to keep their home clean. Despite the fact that computers help us, they make us dependent. Apparently, people spend more time behind monitors that ever before. And some of them feel a need for more time to be spent with people in live contact. In addition, fall out of one of the important modules of specific computer can entail serious consequences. Suffice to mention computer problem, occurred in the end of 1990s, problem concerned with coming year 2000 (Y2K) and catastrophes that were predicted. Fortunately imminent disasters did not happen. However, it is difficult to imagine what could be if all the predictions had occurred. We live in technological era, computers penetrated everywhere with all benefits they provide and all dangers they hide. However we are satisfied with them and sometimes we even thank them because they help us in communicating, studying, doing business, entertaining and saving lives in critical situations.
Will computers replace teachers?
With the present wide use of computers, in the course of teaching, more and more teachers are in favour of using computers as an aid in teaching their students or in appropriating the latest information from the Internet. However, I am not a believer in the argument that computers may in the future take the place of teachers in teaching students. Customers may also be interested in:
Firstly, the creators of any education program and software need to be teachers or workers in the education system, or programmers who had previously worked in education. Therefore, although students may learn knowledge by computer, the skills and ideas ultimately emanate from the teaching staff.
Secondly, while the computer may offer a correct answer or explanation to students, the comprehension capability of every student varies from student to student, making it is impossible for the computer to offer an explanation catered to a student’s particular level of understanding. However, the teacher is able to undertake this task, as he or she possesses expertise in teaching. For example, when a teacher discovers that many students cannot understand professional knowledge, he or she may offer explanatory examples. The computer, however, may only analyze a question in terms of a simple right or wrong response. Customers may also be interested in: Finally, the teachers are invariably responsible for carrying a dual role. Most teachers act as not only an educator, but also a kind of father or mother-figure in taking care of students in school. The teacher is able to assist parents in solving a child????????s mental problems other than imparting daily knowledge. The computer, which is purely an algorithmic electronic device, cannot hope to assist in this regard. In summary, the computer may not play a major role in education in comparison to the benefits of a teacher bestows. However, it is critical that teachers improve their old teaching modes by using computers at some level of educational teaching.
A computer is going to replace you.
I traveled to New York a few weeks ago and upon standing in line to check-in my luggage I was directed by the ticket agent to use a computer kiosk. That seemed strange that America West and possibly other struggling airlines needed to hire people to tell me to use the computer that I would have used regardless.
It got me thinking about their jobs and my past job at Intel. I realized that SO many people and positions can be replaced. Think about how many of the activities or routines you handle in your position are mundane or repetitive. I know my old group dealt with tons of basic Microsoft Excel maintenance that a computer can replace. Think about ATMs and the time that saved, self-checks the grocery store, those new DVD self-check out systems and other things coming out daily. It is not so much of outsourcing that people should worry about (well they should) but having your position be so bland that you can be easily replaced. I think it comes from complacency and people not improving their positions. You need to worry when you are doing things that anyone with a high school diploma could learn if they had the right time and a good teacher. I think as my friend Ian would say it is about finding a passion and the right position where no computer can replace your service.
Web design, programming, call centers, internet kiosks, optimizing #s and so many things can be sent to India or be handled by a computer. I think students and young professionals need to recognize that immediately and start to stand out in ways where positions can’t be cut. Or people can take this threat as a chance to start something themselves and not be at the mercy of a higher ups position to replace you.
What is this? The 1950s? Are we all scared that the big metal meanance is gonna come in and shut down the factory that ma and pa worked at for the last 97 years? Raise your hand, how many people hear have jobs *BECAUSE* of computers and/or robots? Will some jobs get replaced by robots and computers? Of course! How many people have secretaries anymore? Just the big wigs. Most of us answer our own phones - or let the machine get it - type our own letters, memos, faxes, emails, reports, etc. - and a ton of other things that secretaries used to do. Why? Because computers made it easier to do those things. No use in paying you and your secretary when a $500 computer, $1000 laptop, or $750 PDA can make you your own secretary. That's a once a year expense at best. So, yes, some people will lose their jobs. But other people gain theirs. I wouldn't have a job - at least not the one I have now - without computers and robots. I dare say many digg readers are in the same boat. I know every digg employee is. It's just the continuation of the industrial revolution. As long as computers and machinery cost less than skilled labor, businesses will try to replace humans with machines. As the population of the world continues to grow, we are all pretty much doomed. We will end up like George Jetson, who is unneeded, but for some reason is required to sit at a desk and push a single button repeatedly all day long. Will computers replace people as workers? They already have. So many tasks that once required paid workers can now be accomplished with a few keystrokes and mouse-clicks. The author needs to remember a few things about robots. First off, computers are not robots, the are computers. If it cannot manipulate the physical environment, it is not a robot. If you put wheels or a ray-gun on a PC, and an interface so events inside the PC can trigger the wheels to spin or the gun to shoot, then it has become a robot. Also, a robot must be reprogrammable. A bicycle is not a robot because its functioning cannot be changed. A computer that relays financial data is not a robot. A machine that walks to the brokerage office and asks for the data might be though. Does hooking a printer up to a PC make it a robot? I don't know, that is a grey area. And yes, robots will replace humans as workers in almost any field you can imagine, as long as we don't destroy ourselves before they get the chance. Or unless we stop building them for some reason before they can start building themselves without us.
Creativity can never be accomplished with machines. computers and robots doing all jobs = more sleep-in time and more chances to goof off for me. Nobody is going to be replaced by computers... until all the kinks are worked out. (Homer) Our society has been very adaptive when a robot has been introduced into it. If a robot replaces a job a human used to do then it is for an economical benefit for society as a whole. Those replaced by a robot will find other jobs and will some how benefit from the robot that
replaced them. Robots are here to stay and so are humans but remember that the human came first and made the robot to make humans lives better. "Dont humans need these jobs?" When world production becomes completely operated by robots, no, humans will no longer need these jobs or work. Financial freedom for creativity and leisure I say. The problem here becomes that governments will see citizens as a liability, not an essential working of the economy; considering that they consume productivity but they no longer create it. It's gonna require a revamp in the thinking of the economy and government.
As smart as the Google Robot is, most robots have trouble doing the most simple things. There is still a large gap of knowledge robots need to accumulate before we should even begin to feel threatened. Not only that, but the Google News Robot can only find news written by humans. All it does is make the data more accessible - it's not a reporter. Not to sound all uppity, but the movie is based on an Issac Asimov short story which takes less time to read than the movie does to watch, and is a lot better. It has much more detail, and it is not ruined by Robin Williams hamming it up and acting like a tard for two hours.
Machine vision guided... pretty straightforward, although this technology I don't think would displace any workers. It would just complement the existing team. Moravec wrote "Robot: From Mere Machine to Transcendental Mind" He is often mentioned with Kurweil, Vinge... You're correct in the sense that the traditional understanding of technological unemployment doesn't really exist, since the increased welfare meant new jobs had to be opened. Seamstresses might be a thing of the past, but the women that used to be seamstresses might have become designers because more clothes could be produced as the industry became more efficient. It used to be, and for the better educated still is, that the automation meant humanity as a whole just got better and more interesting jobs. The problem is that we are starting to see the roof of human capabilities. Many people are working themselves to death to survive the rat race, and some people are perpetually unemployed because there is simply no need for their skills anymore and they can't afford a skill-upgrading in the form of extra education. There isn't really a way to deal with this though. Soviet Russia and later on countries such as Germany, France and Italy have shown that protectionism of outdated industries does not work, and since a global initiative is doomed to fail (Japan and Russia desperately need a Robot workforce to replace the ageing population) the only way to deal with this is accepting that ***** Sapiens Sapiens is becoming an outdated model. Maybe someday we'll be able to buy single purpose or even general purpose robots and send them off to work on our behalf, collecting a paycheck for us. So if you want to retire you'd work until you save up $100K or whatever the robots cost, and then you'd send it off to earn a salary for you. It could happen... maybe companies don't want to spend all the capital to build
and maintain their own robots. I mean, corporations sell stock now, this wouldn't be a whole lot different. Whats more interesting will be who repairs the robots? The answer could be other robots but at some point a human will have to be involved, at least until robots are capable of the same cognitive processes that humans have. But the issue there is what happens when robots realize they don't need humans? Will they attempt to exterminate us a la Skynet, or will they consider us as pets to be taken care of? I firmly believe creativity can be accomplished with machines. I've mentioned it before, but I saw a demonstration on "Cortical Thought Theory" several years ago that, besides showing incredible speech and facial recognition, also demonstrated creative abilities. One can see how the idea can expand to encompass an entire machine personality. If this theory is refined and implemented to its fullest extent, then machines will one day have the ability to think and perceive in a way that, for all intents and purposes, is indistinguishable from the human being. However, because of how intricate "personality" ends up being, I also think that even if researches were given unlimited funding, it would still take another 15 to 20 years before this approach bore such fruit. Did anyone watch this [1] movie yet? It shows the fictional development of a robot into an emotional, feeling thing... It's interesting to see how easily this could happen if you think about it. Somehow this is a bit scary, but I wouldn't mind a robot that cleans my room...
Actually.. there are electric litter boxes, I have one and its great. After a cat has been in it, about 10 minutes later it sweeps across the litter, lifting up any clumps while at the same time opening a little flap concealing a tray and drops it in there. Every few days you empty that tray or throw it out if its gross. Its a lot more pleasant than having to come in and look at clumps of poop just sitting in there and then digging through the litter box with a little shovel, as it always looks neat and tidy and like you just changed the litter. i suppose if they make the robots able to run themselves, i could see some of them becoming lazy or bored with their job. Robots (computers) can not do creative and innovative (abstract) thinking. They can not think "out side of the box" or do the wrong thing for the right reason.
Of course there are things a robot can't do. I've yet to see a robot pee while standing up, for example. As for "humans need those jobs", it's true. People need something to do, and if robots end up seeing widespread use as replacements for humans, there's going to be trouble. Companies don't care if people are displaced and out of work, but I bet they will eventually care if it gets to the point where noone is around who can buy what they sell. Things will eventually equalize. If you're human, I would suggest checking out some robot repair manuals from the library soon, and getting familiar with a robot's inner workings. Then you can become a robot doctor, and your life may be spared when our towering metal overlords take control of the world. Yes robots will replace more and more of our tasks we would rather not do. My Roomba cleans my room once a week while I am out. Just the other day it changed the
locks and deadbolts, luckily it forgot to block up the sliding glass door. Seriously though, robots will continue to do more of the tedious, boring, repetitive jobs. Especially as technology improves on 07/25/2008 Probably not, because robots do what they are told to do. they don't (yet) take initiative. Man ain't meant to work C'mon build a machine! So we can sleep and make love deeper Later we can dance and we can drink! Man ain't meant to work C'mon build a machine! So we can live for our own pleasure Please yourself! Please your queens! Early morning the sun is yawning I am not kind yet I am certain I have no doubt Life is for playing Days like these I hardly disagree So what! That's my conclusion I think I'm gonna dig myself now -Jane's Addiction, "So What!" It still works if done right, but this entire conversation has been about it. It's kind of hard to add a humorous twist to it in this case because it basically is exactly as you described. Unlike, say, Google acquiring more companies again and then saying, "I, for one, welcome our Google overlords." That works because it is rooted in a silly idea of Google taking over the world, while, in this case, people are actually saying how robots could take over the world. The only reason people are still being used for work is cause they are often cheaper than the computer equivalent. The reason is not that computers are incapable of replicating workers, but that it is, in some cases, more expensive. As cost efficiency of machines improves, you'll keep seeing less and less human operated businesses. Indeed, it is only a question of time. My view is that we never really survived the first industrial revolution, where textile workers were smashing, what they believed took away their jobs. What the first industrial revolution generated was a different set of values. It put emphasis onto education. Though machines could now replace the need for muscle, it could not yet think for itself and needed an operator. People had to know more in order to remain competitive. Education standards changed. At present, we are approaching the second revolution, that is much like the first one, only this time it's the human mind that's losing its value. What else do we have that is useful except for muscles and the brain? There is nothing. Human touch? Artistic input? Little imperfections in each produced object? Well, almost everything we buy today is already mass produced, and nobody complains. There is art - one area where machines have not yet perfected themselves. They only do what they are programmed to do. While it is easy to instruct one to analyze and replicate identically, it's next to impossible to teach a machine how to understand and invent something original and interesting to human.
Still, art is not what drives the economies. While computers cannot yet substitute us fully, they can do it well in areas that are of most profit. If people don't work and don't make money, they can't spend money either. I find it challenging to envision the economy which would be able to be stable and yet provide for the current population numbers, with machines doing all the work. I think, machines will continue to replace us and we will keep losing jobs gradually. Class separation will increase. The rich will grow richer, the poor will grow poorer. Families that can't afford to have kids, most of the time don't have kids. While no one is going to be hunting people down and killing them off, naturally, population numbers will recede. Even though machines are capable of providing enough for everyone, who's going to be able to afford any of the goods if the only ones that can keep making money are machine owners and maintenance workers?
Page 1
Paper 04 Will Computers Replace Humans in Jobs in the Near Future?
1. Introduction The Industrial Revolution changed the way people lived in the past. Instead of people doing work, they were replaced by machines that were more efficient and could get the job done quicker and produce more goods. There are many jobs that humans occupy that can not be done by machinery that previously took over their jobs and left them unemployed. However, people might face a new problem in the future. Computers could possibly replace them and do their work considerably less and much quicker. Will computers replace humans in jobs in the near future? I think this is a very important question that would affect many people. Knowing the answer to this question would be important for anyone who has a job or is looking to pursue a career that could be affected by this. Someone in college who is thinking about pursuing a career that could possibly be affected by a computer replacing them would want to know the answer before they decide to put all the time, effort, and money into an education. Computers are machines that are developing at astounding rates, and could possibly do things in the near Page 2 future that humans could never have imagined. Will computers be able to replace humans in certain jobs? I do not think that anybody in the world would be able to tell you the true answer to that question, but computers are developing quicker and quicker each day. The answer could be no, and it could be yes. Time will be the only variable that will tell us whether computers will be taking over human positions in the workplace. 2. Computer and Human Abilities Computers are machines that can hold millions of pieces of information, and when connected to the internet,
the amount of information becomes unfathomable. The first personal computer came out in the early 1980’s, and it was from then on that our world has changed. About 10 years later in 1991, the World Wide Web was created. This creation has changed our world forever. Humans now have the ability to access billions of pages of information right at their fingertips. Computers are now in the stages of development where they can somewhat understand a human language, and are being used as automatic answering services.. Computers can hold a much Page 3 greater amount of information, which would be a reason why companies would replace humans with them. They are much more efficient that humans as well, and computers can sort through information at much greater speeds. Not only would computers be an advantage when it comes to information, but they would be very useful when it comes to language. Not many people know more than two languages, let alone even one. This is where a computer would be more useful than a human. Computers have the ability to be programmed with as many languages as possible, and with this ability of containing dozens of different languages, it then makes a computer more valuable that human being because it can be used in different countries and serve a greater number of people. Computers have such a greater capacity of information that does the human brain, and the rate of retrieval of this information is greater as well. Some people who know another language are not totally fluent with a language, but if a computer is programmed with a certain language, it will be fluent. A human translator or operator possibly could be replaced by a computer, and the computer would be more efficient and cost the company a much less amount. When it comes to language, a computer is a much greater tool because it can never fail you and is always correct if programmed correctly. Page 4 The word computation is seen in the name “Computer”. Like the word says, a computer is something that computes different things. When it comes to the difference between human and computer computation, a computer is the leader by far. Humans can compute things fairly well, but a computer can compute millions of things in just seconds. The speed in which a computer computes things is overwhelming to think about. The amount of time it would take a human to compute the same amount of things a computer would compute would be very long. Computers have a great advantage over humans, which is why if the answer to the question proposed in the beginning of this paper is true, humans who are
working in jobs that could possibly be replaced by humans are in great trouble. 3. Conclusion Computers and humans are both capable of completing certain tasks through use of information, language, and computation. I have discussed the similarities and differences between both humans and computers related to each category to give you a better idea on the question at hand. If computers are able to eventually replace humans in jobs, there are going to be many people unemployed, and there is going to have to be jobs available that they can Page 5 take up. Computers might change the way our world runs even more than they already have. Companies will be sure to replace humans with computers if possible to cut down on costs and time spent doing things. With the information above, and the already rapidly changing technology of computers today, I believe it is only a matter of time before computers are replacing humans in certain jobs. The positives outweigh the negatives, and it will make companies save money and time doing things. As for the people who are thinking about pursuing a career where a computer could possibly do in the near future, I would reconsider and do something that you know will have you a job in the years to follow.
Will smarter computers replace humans?
Ever since the dawn of the Age of Machines people have been worried that smart machines would displace humans from a lot of jobs. We’ve been reassured that this has never come to pass, i.e., that automation has created more jobs than it has destroyed. In A Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark points out that “there was a type of employee at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution whose job and livelihood largely vanished in the early twentieth century. This was the horse. The population of working horses actually peaked in England long after the Industrial Revolution, in 1901, when 3.25 million were at work. … the arrival of the internal combustion engine … rapidly displaced these workers, so that by 1924 there were fewer than two million. There was always a wage at which all these horses could have remained employed. But that wage was so low that it did not pay for their feed.” Unskilled labor has done remarkably well since the Industrial Revolution, partly because the fastest growing economies experienced sharply curtailed birthrates and limited immigration. If an economy were to slow or population growth were to accelerate or higher minimum wage laws were to be put into effect, Clark suggests that millions of the least skilled workers might find themselves out of a job.
Computers do the work of millions of people. But instead of replacing the people with computers we expand the amount of work. A large company could not file all of its annual reports without computers, even if they hired all the clerks in the world. 35 years ago, many companies did not have a computer, few had more than one, and a typical office worker worked 40 hours a week. Now a typical office worker works 40 hours a week. (Or I should say that’s the standard; I know plenty who are paid for 40 but work 50 or more.)
rhinesj
I was considering the other day that the cashiers at retail establishments are really nothing more than an HCI for the POS system. They are not empowered to provide any more than the most rudimentary assistance, generally less informative than a glossy brochure, and will only provide a low level of customer service, and only when the right incantations are spoken, and then only up to the level of their authorization. Anything more requires a call from the customer to their customer support office, which also results in a frustrating level of non-service. Personally, I would prefer an automated retail system. At least that way you know there really is nothing more that it could do, instead of arguing with someone pretending to be human, but is solely there to repeat a scripted argument.
Resolved Question
Show me another »
What will happen when Robots start replacing people's Jobs?
Let's say within the next 50 years(which is the likely/projected number) when robots/computers are replacing most jobs like Cashiers, Mechanics, Factory workers etc. What will happen to the economy? The output will be similar, if not better, but wouldn't it most likely put more people out of work than jobs it would create? It seems like eventually we would get to where robots did most of the work and all people would have to do is sit back and reap the benefits, but the transition between the two could get sticky, no? To a large degree they already have. Over the last 50 years much of manufacturing in the US has been automated and check scanners has reduced the need for retail workers. The result has been the the service sector of our economy has grown (80%) to provide more jobs, and many things people use to do for them selves they now hire done. The result has
not been fewer people employed but more, and larger fraction of adults hold jobs than in 1950. We used to dream automation would result in a 20 or 30 hour work week, but people still work 40 hours a week and most families now have two workers instead of one. I agree with ecogal. and another thing will be that people will still have jobs but not the conventional one. new type of job for human will emerge. those who can not cope up with this changes are those who will be in not a good position. Ok, sure we reap the benefits, but you have a loaded question here. How can humans benefit if they are without jobs and incomes. Automation is the process of substituting man with machines and it has been going on for quite some time. People will need to develop skills that are in demand and perhaps this will mean job loss in some fashion. But as you mention, the productivity gains will be very beneficial to our society and contribute to economic growth.
Can computer replace human being?
we are now stepping into the computer age.computer are widely used in all walks of life .for example,computer can be bringed to offers,which freesthe stuff menbers from the tedious paperwork. computer are seen to enter ordinary families.just sitting at home, one can obtain all kinds of information he needs with the help of its "electrotic brain".computer can also take over much of the boring housework,which can make family members have more time to enjoy themselves. but could computer replace human beings?what is your opinion?
computers can never replace humans. god created us humans as unique individuals. no one except god can create something that could replace human beings. you see, when we were created, it was said that humans are the ones whom god had entrusted all the other things he has created. in other words, He left this world for us to control, improve and manipulate. Computers are just made by us humans, humans can never program a computer to be perfectly like a human. thus, computers can never replace human beings.
but i am afraid.now some computer have some basic sence of themselves by some sensor. and in many stories, computers can do anything which people can do.are you sure the computer can be under the grasp of people forever?i do not think so. 2. shikos (16) but with the scense developing.i think computer can obtain their own sense(of cause with the help of people) a computers i am afraid is that the computers are in few days latter.what are fast replacing the human being but there are other tasks that cannot people who replaced by the computer. the grasp of somebe completlyhate the warld.they maybe say cooking, farming etc. however computers are hard to deal when creat computer soiders(of cause very indispensiblewith)toit comes to making life easier. revenge to the warld or some people.i think that things can not avoid,the problem is it comes quickly or slowly. 2 years ago
I would say no, however. Although I believe wholeheartedly that computers will one day
Send this page to a friend Subscribegrowinggo BobThe jobs "If e-Updates Lucky: to you in Lawrence Bernstein back 20 years, the one big number share two To to Al More... (right)Learn life that's thing in myskills thatof Partly as Aho (left): general a result "Rightis is thecannot different clearin Internet. It advances we require computers that job It now, "Educating and my growth isProfessorlicensing more examsthe Future has replicate—expert new computerization, really changed Thompson concentrated Workforce," higher-skilled is to drive aare created it life. thinking and complex tasks fromhell Harvard And the than each in bus Richard Murnanethe of we do University Gazette / to become a software year. occupations. I didn't predict (©thatcommunication. 2004 Andrew Brilliant engineer." that."Pictures, Inc.) Brilliant
Michael Hawley (right) to Eric Haseltine (left): "Software lets us record all the interactions that take place in a society— all the pictures, all the sounds, all the music, all the debates—the full human record."
Al Aho (center) to Lawrence Bernstein (right): "There are certain problems that computers can't solve. Problem-solving ability is sort of the algorithmic currency of the information age."
My Answer: As well as the Industrial Revolution in the 16th century, nowadays, the Information Technology Revolution is threatening some jobs and will make their positions lost in the future. For example, the gardening, in which the efficient support of modern machine is saving labor more and more, is considered to be the job which is will be cut down violently in the next time. Computers and official equipments by which every businessman is best equipped are capable secretaries, silent and work hard. They can be put great faith by businessmen and can replace normal secretaries. Automatic cash registers, software... which filter the bill of customer will take the place of pretty girls who are completely wrapped up in sitting on desk with classical electronic calculators. In addition, travelers rely on Internet more and more to prepare for themselves before every trip instead of leaving everything to travel agencies... Although computers make people's jobs easier they cause many problems. They increase the unemployment rate in developing countries where agriculture is major. Computers cannot represent director to trade with his partners or cannot negotiate with them, which a secretary can do well. Moreover, automatic bank machine cannot answer queries of customers or solve problems relating to credit card, cheques and cash. And recent signs show that having the going down of some traditional trades because of the change of technology and modern production process. According to me, computers cannot replace people who invented them that are only capable assistant of people. But people need to raise their standard to own technology.
As computers are being used more and more in education, there will be soon no role for teachers in the classroom. There have been immense advances in technology in most aspects of people?s lives, especially in the field of education. Nowadays, an increasing number of students rely on computers for research and to produce a perfect paper for school purposes. Others have decided to leave the original way of learning and to get knowledge through online schools. These changes in the learning process have brought a special concern regarding the possible decrease of importance of teachers in the classroom. Some people believe the role of teachers started to fade because computers have been helping some students to progress in their studies quicker than when compared with an original classroom. For example, in the same classroom, students have different intellectual capacities, thus some would be tied to a slow advance in their studies because of others? incapacity of understanding. In this way, pupils could progress in their acquisition of knowledge at their own pace using computers instead of learning from teachers.
However, the presence of a teacher is essential for students because the human contact influences them in positive ways. Firstly, students realize that they are not dealing with a machine but with a human being who deserves attention and respect. They also learn the importance of studying in group and respect other students, which helps them to improve their social skills. Moreover, teachers are required in the learning process because they acknowledge some student?s deficiencies and help them to solve their problems by repeating the same explanation, giving extra exercises or even suggesting a private tutor. Hence, students can have a bigger chance not to fail in a subject. In conclusion, the role for teachers in the learning process is still very important and it will continue to be in the future because no machine can replace the human interaction and its consequences. As computers are being used more and more in education, there will be soon no role for teachers in the classroom. There is no doubt that education and the learning process has changed since the introduction of computers: The search for information has become easier and amusing, and connectivity has expedited the data availability. Though experts systems have made computers more intelligent, they have not yet become a substitute of the human interaction in the learning process. In my opinion; what can be expected, is a change of the teachers? role but not their disappearance from the classroom. Nobody can argue that the acquisition of knowledge is more fun and easier with computers. The mere activity of touching and exploring this device constitutes an enjoyable task for a kid. This, accompanied with the relaxing attitude and software interactivity, usually conduce to a better grasping of new knowledge. At a higher educational level; the availability of digital books, simulator and other academic materials, provide the student with an ever accessible source of information, that otherwise would not be at hand. But, besides the increasing complexity and behavior of intelligent software, which is usually embedded in the academic digital material, the need of human interaction in the learning process will always be present, at least in the foreseeable future. There is the necessity for a human being to be able to determine what the specifics needs of each individual are. The expertise of a teacher in how to explain and adapt complex concepts to different individuals can hardly be mimicked by a computer, no matter how sophisticated its software is. As computers are becoming a common tool for teaching, teachers should be more aware of their role as guides in the acquisition of knowledge rather than transmitters of facts. They have to be open minded to the changes that are taking places, keep updated and serve as a problem solvers in the learning process, thus allowing students to discover the fact for themselves. To summarize, in my personal view, teachers play and will() play an important role in the classroom, especially at the primary level. No matter how complex computers become,
there will be no replacement for the human interaction, but in the way haw this interaction takes place. We are becoming increasingly dependent on computers. They are used in business, crime detection and even to fly planes. What things will they be used for in future? Is this dependence on computers a good thing or should we be more suspicious of their benefits? Today computers are used almost everywhere, it is impossible to imagine our life without PCs, Internet, hand phones and other computer devices. It is reasonable that people look to the future of computers. In what field will be computers used for and what role will human has in this world in future? Besides, computers make our life easier, we can easily get information about any product we plan to buy or place we plan to visit over a second using personal computer and Internet. Scientists predict that in the nearest future it will be possible to smell a new perfume using Internet and watch 3D scenes at home like we do in the theater. According to forecasts of HR agencies machines will replace job of cashiers, civil and military pilots. Some corporations in Japan already selling housewife-robots, which help old people to keep their home clean. Despite the fact that computers help us, they make us dependent. Apparently, people spend more time behind monitors that ever before. And some of them feel a need for more time to be spent with people in live contact. In addition, fall out of one of the important modules of specific computer can entail serious consequences. Suffice to mention computer problem, occurred in the end of 1990s, problem concerned with coming year 2000 (Y2K) and catastrophes that were predicted. Fortunately imminent disasters did not happen. However, it is difficult to imagine what could be if all the predictions had occurred. We live in technological era, computers penetrated everywhere with all benefits they provide and all dangers they hide. However we are satisfied with them and sometimes we even thank them because they help us in communicating, studying, doing business, entertaining and saving lives in critical situations.
Will computers replace teachers?
With the present wide use of computers, in the course of teaching, more and more teachers are in favour of using computers as an aid in teaching their students or in appropriating the latest information from the Internet. However, I am not a believer in the argument that computers may in the future take the place of teachers in teaching students. Customers may also be interested in:
Firstly, the creators of any education program and software need to be teachers or workers in the education system, or programmers who had previously worked in education. Therefore, although students may learn knowledge by computer, the skills and ideas ultimately emanate from the teaching staff.
Secondly, while the computer may offer a correct answer or explanation to students, the comprehension capability of every student varies from student to student, making it is impossible for the computer to offer an explanation catered to a student’s particular level of understanding. However, the teacher is able to undertake this task, as he or she possesses expertise in teaching. For example, when a teacher discovers that many students cannot understand professional knowledge, he or she may offer explanatory examples. The computer, however, may only analyze a question in terms of a simple right or wrong response. Customers may also be interested in: Finally, the teachers are invariably responsible for carrying a dual role. Most teachers act as not only an educator, but also a kind of father or mother-figure in taking care of students in school. The teacher is able to assist parents in solving a child????????s mental problems other than imparting daily knowledge. The computer, which is purely an algorithmic electronic device, cannot hope to assist in this regard. In summary, the computer may not play a major role in education in comparison to the benefits of a teacher bestows. However, it is critical that teachers improve their old teaching modes by using computers at some level of educational teaching.
A computer is going to replace you.
I traveled to New York a few weeks ago and upon standing in line to check-in my luggage I was directed by the ticket agent to use a computer kiosk. That seemed strange that America West and possibly other struggling airlines needed to hire people to tell me to use the computer that I would have used regardless.
It got me thinking about their jobs and my past job at Intel. I realized that SO many people and positions can be replaced. Think about how many of the activities or routines you handle in your position are mundane or repetitive. I know my old group dealt with tons of basic Microsoft Excel maintenance that a computer can replace. Think about ATMs and the time that saved, self-checks the grocery store, those new DVD self-check out systems and other things coming out daily. It is not so much of outsourcing that people should worry about (well they should) but having your position be so bland that you can be easily replaced. I think it comes from complacency and people not improving their positions. You need to worry when you are doing things that anyone with a high school diploma could learn if they had the right time and a good teacher. I think as my friend Ian would say it is about finding a passion and the right position where no computer can replace your service.
Web design, programming, call centers, internet kiosks, optimizing #s and so many things can be sent to India or be handled by a computer. I think students and young professionals need to recognize that immediately and start to stand out in ways where positions can’t be cut. Or people can take this threat as a chance to start something themselves and not be at the mercy of a higher ups position to replace you.
What is this? The 1950s? Are we all scared that the big metal meanance is gonna come in and shut down the factory that ma and pa worked at for the last 97 years? Raise your hand, how many people hear have jobs *BECAUSE* of computers and/or robots? Will some jobs get replaced by robots and computers? Of course! How many people have secretaries anymore? Just the big wigs. Most of us answer our own phones - or let the machine get it - type our own letters, memos, faxes, emails, reports, etc. - and a ton of other things that secretaries used to do. Why? Because computers made it easier to do those things. No use in paying you and your secretary when a $500 computer, $1000 laptop, or $750 PDA can make you your own secretary. That's a once a year expense at best. So, yes, some people will lose their jobs. But other people gain theirs. I wouldn't have a job - at least not the one I have now - without computers and robots. I dare say many digg readers are in the same boat. I know every digg employee is. It's just the continuation of the industrial revolution. As long as computers and machinery cost less than skilled labor, businesses will try to replace humans with machines. As the population of the world continues to grow, we are all pretty much doomed. We will end up like George Jetson, who is unneeded, but for some reason is required to sit at a desk and push a single button repeatedly all day long. Will computers replace people as workers? They already have. So many tasks that once required paid workers can now be accomplished with a few keystrokes and mouse-clicks. The author needs to remember a few things about robots. First off, computers are not robots, the are computers. If it cannot manipulate the physical environment, it is not a robot. If you put wheels or a ray-gun on a PC, and an interface so events inside the PC can trigger the wheels to spin or the gun to shoot, then it has become a robot. Also, a robot must be reprogrammable. A bicycle is not a robot because its functioning cannot be changed. A computer that relays financial data is not a robot. A machine that walks to the brokerage office and asks for the data might be though. Does hooking a printer up to a PC make it a robot? I don't know, that is a grey area. And yes, robots will replace humans as workers in almost any field you can imagine, as long as we don't destroy ourselves before they get the chance. Or unless we stop building them for some reason before they can start building themselves without us.
Creativity can never be accomplished with machines. computers and robots doing all jobs = more sleep-in time and more chances to goof off for me. Nobody is going to be replaced by computers... until all the kinks are worked out. (Homer) Our society has been very adaptive when a robot has been introduced into it. If a robot replaces a job a human used to do then it is for an economical benefit for society as a whole. Those replaced by a robot will find other jobs and will some how benefit from the robot that
replaced them. Robots are here to stay and so are humans but remember that the human came first and made the robot to make humans lives better. "Dont humans need these jobs?" When world production becomes completely operated by robots, no, humans will no longer need these jobs or work. Financial freedom for creativity and leisure I say. The problem here becomes that governments will see citizens as a liability, not an essential working of the economy; considering that they consume productivity but they no longer create it. It's gonna require a revamp in the thinking of the economy and government.
As smart as the Google Robot is, most robots have trouble doing the most simple things. There is still a large gap of knowledge robots need to accumulate before we should even begin to feel threatened. Not only that, but the Google News Robot can only find news written by humans. All it does is make the data more accessible - it's not a reporter. Not to sound all uppity, but the movie is based on an Issac Asimov short story which takes less time to read than the movie does to watch, and is a lot better. It has much more detail, and it is not ruined by Robin Williams hamming it up and acting like a tard for two hours.
Machine vision guided... pretty straightforward, although this technology I don't think would displace any workers. It would just complement the existing team. Moravec wrote "Robot: From Mere Machine to Transcendental Mind" He is often mentioned with Kurweil, Vinge... You're correct in the sense that the traditional understanding of technological unemployment doesn't really exist, since the increased welfare meant new jobs had to be opened. Seamstresses might be a thing of the past, but the women that used to be seamstresses might have become designers because more clothes could be produced as the industry became more efficient. It used to be, and for the better educated still is, that the automation meant humanity as a whole just got better and more interesting jobs. The problem is that we are starting to see the roof of human capabilities. Many people are working themselves to death to survive the rat race, and some people are perpetually unemployed because there is simply no need for their skills anymore and they can't afford a skill-upgrading in the form of extra education. There isn't really a way to deal with this though. Soviet Russia and later on countries such as Germany, France and Italy have shown that protectionism of outdated industries does not work, and since a global initiative is doomed to fail (Japan and Russia desperately need a Robot workforce to replace the ageing population) the only way to deal with this is accepting that ***** Sapiens Sapiens is becoming an outdated model. Maybe someday we'll be able to buy single purpose or even general purpose robots and send them off to work on our behalf, collecting a paycheck for us. So if you want to retire you'd work until you save up $100K or whatever the robots cost, and then you'd send it off to earn a salary for you. It could happen... maybe companies don't want to spend all the capital to build
and maintain their own robots. I mean, corporations sell stock now, this wouldn't be a whole lot different. Whats more interesting will be who repairs the robots? The answer could be other robots but at some point a human will have to be involved, at least until robots are capable of the same cognitive processes that humans have. But the issue there is what happens when robots realize they don't need humans? Will they attempt to exterminate us a la Skynet, or will they consider us as pets to be taken care of? I firmly believe creativity can be accomplished with machines. I've mentioned it before, but I saw a demonstration on "Cortical Thought Theory" several years ago that, besides showing incredible speech and facial recognition, also demonstrated creative abilities. One can see how the idea can expand to encompass an entire machine personality. If this theory is refined and implemented to its fullest extent, then machines will one day have the ability to think and perceive in a way that, for all intents and purposes, is indistinguishable from the human being. However, because of how intricate "personality" ends up being, I also think that even if researches were given unlimited funding, it would still take another 15 to 20 years before this approach bore such fruit. Did anyone watch this [1] movie yet? It shows the fictional development of a robot into an emotional, feeling thing... It's interesting to see how easily this could happen if you think about it. Somehow this is a bit scary, but I wouldn't mind a robot that cleans my room...
Actually.. there are electric litter boxes, I have one and its great. After a cat has been in it, about 10 minutes later it sweeps across the litter, lifting up any clumps while at the same time opening a little flap concealing a tray and drops it in there. Every few days you empty that tray or throw it out if its gross. Its a lot more pleasant than having to come in and look at clumps of poop just sitting in there and then digging through the litter box with a little shovel, as it always looks neat and tidy and like you just changed the litter. i suppose if they make the robots able to run themselves, i could see some of them becoming lazy or bored with their job. Robots (computers) can not do creative and innovative (abstract) thinking. They can not think "out side of the box" or do the wrong thing for the right reason.
Of course there are things a robot can't do. I've yet to see a robot pee while standing up, for example. As for "humans need those jobs", it's true. People need something to do, and if robots end up seeing widespread use as replacements for humans, there's going to be trouble. Companies don't care if people are displaced and out of work, but I bet they will eventually care if it gets to the point where noone is around who can buy what they sell. Things will eventually equalize. If you're human, I would suggest checking out some robot repair manuals from the library soon, and getting familiar with a robot's inner workings. Then you can become a robot doctor, and your life may be spared when our towering metal overlords take control of the world. Yes robots will replace more and more of our tasks we would rather not do. My Roomba cleans my room once a week while I am out. Just the other day it changed the
locks and deadbolts, luckily it forgot to block up the sliding glass door. Seriously though, robots will continue to do more of the tedious, boring, repetitive jobs. Especially as technology improves on 07/25/2008 Probably not, because robots do what they are told to do. they don't (yet) take initiative. Man ain't meant to work C'mon build a machine! So we can sleep and make love deeper Later we can dance and we can drink! Man ain't meant to work C'mon build a machine! So we can live for our own pleasure Please yourself! Please your queens! Early morning the sun is yawning I am not kind yet I am certain I have no doubt Life is for playing Days like these I hardly disagree So what! That's my conclusion I think I'm gonna dig myself now -Jane's Addiction, "So What!" It still works if done right, but this entire conversation has been about it. It's kind of hard to add a humorous twist to it in this case because it basically is exactly as you described. Unlike, say, Google acquiring more companies again and then saying, "I, for one, welcome our Google overlords." That works because it is rooted in a silly idea of Google taking over the world, while, in this case, people are actually saying how robots could take over the world. The only reason people are still being used for work is cause they are often cheaper than the computer equivalent. The reason is not that computers are incapable of replicating workers, but that it is, in some cases, more expensive. As cost efficiency of machines improves, you'll keep seeing less and less human operated businesses. Indeed, it is only a question of time. My view is that we never really survived the first industrial revolution, where textile workers were smashing, what they believed took away their jobs. What the first industrial revolution generated was a different set of values. It put emphasis onto education. Though machines could now replace the need for muscle, it could not yet think for itself and needed an operator. People had to know more in order to remain competitive. Education standards changed. At present, we are approaching the second revolution, that is much like the first one, only this time it's the human mind that's losing its value. What else do we have that is useful except for muscles and the brain? There is nothing. Human touch? Artistic input? Little imperfections in each produced object? Well, almost everything we buy today is already mass produced, and nobody complains. There is art - one area where machines have not yet perfected themselves. They only do what they are programmed to do. While it is easy to instruct one to analyze and replicate identically, it's next to impossible to teach a machine how to understand and invent something original and interesting to human.
Still, art is not what drives the economies. While computers cannot yet substitute us fully, they can do it well in areas that are of most profit. If people don't work and don't make money, they can't spend money either. I find it challenging to envision the economy which would be able to be stable and yet provide for the current population numbers, with machines doing all the work. I think, machines will continue to replace us and we will keep losing jobs gradually. Class separation will increase. The rich will grow richer, the poor will grow poorer. Families that can't afford to have kids, most of the time don't have kids. While no one is going to be hunting people down and killing them off, naturally, population numbers will recede. Even though machines are capable of providing enough for everyone, who's going to be able to afford any of the goods if the only ones that can keep making money are machine owners and maintenance workers?
Page 1
Paper 04 Will Computers Replace Humans in Jobs in the Near Future?
1. Introduction The Industrial Revolution changed the way people lived in the past. Instead of people doing work, they were replaced by machines that were more efficient and could get the job done quicker and produce more goods. There are many jobs that humans occupy that can not be done by machinery that previously took over their jobs and left them unemployed. However, people might face a new problem in the future. Computers could possibly replace them and do their work considerably less and much quicker. Will computers replace humans in jobs in the near future? I think this is a very important question that would affect many people. Knowing the answer to this question would be important for anyone who has a job or is looking to pursue a career that could be affected by this. Someone in college who is thinking about pursuing a career that could possibly be affected by a computer replacing them would want to know the answer before they decide to put all the time, effort, and money into an education. Computers are machines that are developing at astounding rates, and could possibly do things in the near Page 2 future that humans could never have imagined. Will computers be able to replace humans in certain jobs? I do not think that anybody in the world would be able to tell you the true answer to that question, but computers are developing quicker and quicker each day. The answer could be no, and it could be yes. Time will be the only variable that will tell us whether computers will be taking over human positions in the workplace. 2. Computer and Human Abilities Computers are machines that can hold millions of pieces of information, and when connected to the internet,
the amount of information becomes unfathomable. The first personal computer came out in the early 1980’s, and it was from then on that our world has changed. About 10 years later in 1991, the World Wide Web was created. This creation has changed our world forever. Humans now have the ability to access billions of pages of information right at their fingertips. Computers are now in the stages of development where they can somewhat understand a human language, and are being used as automatic answering services.. Computers can hold a much Page 3 greater amount of information, which would be a reason why companies would replace humans with them. They are much more efficient that humans as well, and computers can sort through information at much greater speeds. Not only would computers be an advantage when it comes to information, but they would be very useful when it comes to language. Not many people know more than two languages, let alone even one. This is where a computer would be more useful than a human. Computers have the ability to be programmed with as many languages as possible, and with this ability of containing dozens of different languages, it then makes a computer more valuable that human being because it can be used in different countries and serve a greater number of people. Computers have such a greater capacity of information that does the human brain, and the rate of retrieval of this information is greater as well. Some people who know another language are not totally fluent with a language, but if a computer is programmed with a certain language, it will be fluent. A human translator or operator possibly could be replaced by a computer, and the computer would be more efficient and cost the company a much less amount. When it comes to language, a computer is a much greater tool because it can never fail you and is always correct if programmed correctly. Page 4 The word computation is seen in the name “Computer”. Like the word says, a computer is something that computes different things. When it comes to the difference between human and computer computation, a computer is the leader by far. Humans can compute things fairly well, but a computer can compute millions of things in just seconds. The speed in which a computer computes things is overwhelming to think about. The amount of time it would take a human to compute the same amount of things a computer would compute would be very long. Computers have a great advantage over humans, which is why if the answer to the question proposed in the beginning of this paper is true, humans who are
working in jobs that could possibly be replaced by humans are in great trouble. 3. Conclusion Computers and humans are both capable of completing certain tasks through use of information, language, and computation. I have discussed the similarities and differences between both humans and computers related to each category to give you a better idea on the question at hand. If computers are able to eventually replace humans in jobs, there are going to be many people unemployed, and there is going to have to be jobs available that they can Page 5 take up. Computers might change the way our world runs even more than they already have. Companies will be sure to replace humans with computers if possible to cut down on costs and time spent doing things. With the information above, and the already rapidly changing technology of computers today, I believe it is only a matter of time before computers are replacing humans in certain jobs. The positives outweigh the negatives, and it will make companies save money and time doing things. As for the people who are thinking about pursuing a career where a computer could possibly do in the near future, I would reconsider and do something that you know will have you a job in the years to follow.
Will smarter computers replace humans?
Ever since the dawn of the Age of Machines people have been worried that smart machines would displace humans from a lot of jobs. We’ve been reassured that this has never come to pass, i.e., that automation has created more jobs than it has destroyed. In A Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark points out that “there was a type of employee at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution whose job and livelihood largely vanished in the early twentieth century. This was the horse. The population of working horses actually peaked in England long after the Industrial Revolution, in 1901, when 3.25 million were at work. … the arrival of the internal combustion engine … rapidly displaced these workers, so that by 1924 there were fewer than two million. There was always a wage at which all these horses could have remained employed. But that wage was so low that it did not pay for their feed.” Unskilled labor has done remarkably well since the Industrial Revolution, partly because the fastest growing economies experienced sharply curtailed birthrates and limited immigration. If an economy were to slow or population growth were to accelerate or higher minimum wage laws were to be put into effect, Clark suggests that millions of the least skilled workers might find themselves out of a job.
Computers do the work of millions of people. But instead of replacing the people with computers we expand the amount of work. A large company could not file all of its annual reports without computers, even if they hired all the clerks in the world. 35 years ago, many companies did not have a computer, few had more than one, and a typical office worker worked 40 hours a week. Now a typical office worker works 40 hours a week. (Or I should say that’s the standard; I know plenty who are paid for 40 but work 50 or more.)
rhinesj
I was considering the other day that the cashiers at retail establishments are really nothing more than an HCI for the POS system. They are not empowered to provide any more than the most rudimentary assistance, generally less informative than a glossy brochure, and will only provide a low level of customer service, and only when the right incantations are spoken, and then only up to the level of their authorization. Anything more requires a call from the customer to their customer support office, which also results in a frustrating level of non-service. Personally, I would prefer an automated retail system. At least that way you know there really is nothing more that it could do, instead of arguing with someone pretending to be human, but is solely there to repeat a scripted argument.
Resolved Question
Show me another »
What will happen when Robots start replacing people's Jobs?
Let's say within the next 50 years(which is the likely/projected number) when robots/computers are replacing most jobs like Cashiers, Mechanics, Factory workers etc. What will happen to the economy? The output will be similar, if not better, but wouldn't it most likely put more people out of work than jobs it would create? It seems like eventually we would get to where robots did most of the work and all people would have to do is sit back and reap the benefits, but the transition between the two could get sticky, no? To a large degree they already have. Over the last 50 years much of manufacturing in the US has been automated and check scanners has reduced the need for retail workers. The result has been the the service sector of our economy has grown (80%) to provide more jobs, and many things people use to do for them selves they now hire done. The result has
not been fewer people employed but more, and larger fraction of adults hold jobs than in 1950. We used to dream automation would result in a 20 or 30 hour work week, but people still work 40 hours a week and most families now have two workers instead of one. I agree with ecogal. and another thing will be that people will still have jobs but not the conventional one. new type of job for human will emerge. those who can not cope up with this changes are those who will be in not a good position. Ok, sure we reap the benefits, but you have a loaded question here. How can humans benefit if they are without jobs and incomes. Automation is the process of substituting man with machines and it has been going on for quite some time. People will need to develop skills that are in demand and perhaps this will mean job loss in some fashion. But as you mention, the productivity gains will be very beneficial to our society and contribute to economic growth.
Can computer replace human being?
we are now stepping into the computer age.computer are widely used in all walks of life .for example,computer can be bringed to offers,which freesthe stuff menbers from the tedious paperwork. computer are seen to enter ordinary families.just sitting at home, one can obtain all kinds of information he needs with the help of its "electrotic brain".computer can also take over much of the boring housework,which can make family members have more time to enjoy themselves. but could computer replace human beings?what is your opinion?
computers can never replace humans. god created us humans as unique individuals. no one except god can create something that could replace human beings. you see, when we were created, it was said that humans are the ones whom god had entrusted all the other things he has created. in other words, He left this world for us to control, improve and manipulate. Computers are just made by us humans, humans can never program a computer to be perfectly like a human. thus, computers can never replace human beings.
but i am afraid.now some computer have some basic sence of themselves by some sensor. and in many stories, computers can do anything which people can do.are you sure the computer can be under the grasp of people forever?i do not think so. 2. shikos (16) but with the scense developing.i think computer can obtain their own sense(of cause with the help of people) a computers i am afraid is that the computers are in few days latter.what are fast replacing the human being but there are other tasks that cannot people who replaced by the computer. the grasp of somebe completlyhate the warld.they maybe say cooking, farming etc. however computers are hard to deal when creat computer soiders(of cause very indispensiblewith)toit comes to making life easier. revenge to the warld or some people.i think that things can not avoid,the problem is it comes quickly or slowly. 2 years ago
I would say no, however. Although I believe wholeheartedly that computers will one day
Send this page to a friend Subscribegrowinggo BobThe jobs "If e-Updates Lucky: to you in Lawrence Bernstein back 20 years, the one big number share two To to Al More... (right)Learn life that's thing in myskills thatof Partly as Aho (left): general a result "Rightis is thecannot different clearin Internet. It advances we require computers that job It now, "Educating and my growth isProfessorlicensing more examsthe Future has replicate—expert new computerization, really changed Thompson concentrated Workforce," higher-skilled is to drive aare created it life. thinking and complex tasks fromhell Harvard And the than each in bus Richard Murnanethe of we do University Gazette / to become a software year. occupations. I didn't predict (©thatcommunication. 2004 Andrew Brilliant engineer." that."Pictures, Inc.) Brilliant
Michael Hawley (right) to Eric Haseltine (left): "Software lets us record all the interactions that take place in a society— all the pictures, all the sounds, all the music, all the debates—the full human record."
Al Aho (center) to Lawrence Bernstein (right): "There are certain problems that computers can't solve. Problem-solving ability is sort of the algorithmic currency of the information age."
