Re:Machine Learning Meets Economics, Part 2
by gradi3nt on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @02:07PM
(#11536416)
So the Sell/Check/Recycle model only requires 33% of the labor compared to the Check only model. The author suggests that this means tripling production would be possible, but that depends on QA being the factories bottleneck. If QA isn't the bottleneck, than you might as well fire 2/3 of Quinn's QA workers. Hooray, the computer didn't take my job, but it took the jobs of the guy to my right and the gal to my left.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Machine Learning Meets Economics, Part 2
by xbmcuser on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @06:29PM
(#11538211)
I got to the same conclusion Ai will increase efficiency so a company will need fewer workers. Ai augmented humans might be better than ai or humans alone but results in the same thing loss of human jobs.
I have to say though most automation these days increases effiency for companies but passes the work to the end user. With true Ai that will probably change.
Re:Machine Learning Meets Economics, Part 2
by flatfilefan on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @07:51PM
(#11538627)
Hopefully these people get another job. After all they have proven they can reliably show up for work every single day and cope up with the corporate chores. It would be a waste not to employ them for some other work. That's what entrepreneurship is about.