@intparent, your post about your D1 reminded me of this article I read just a few days ago regarding new MMAI programs. They are specifically geared towards giving non-techies the understanding they need when dealing with tech teams.
I don’t buy it at all. The real benefit of AI is to automate the jobs that are done by “fuzzies” and replacing the “fuzzies” with computers. At the highest echelon of a company, the “C” level, there will always be fuzzies but there’s only so many CEOs at a company.
I don’t agree that AIs will be able to do the same things many fuzzies do. (And AIs will replace plenty of tech jobs, too).
^Anything that requires high levels of creativity, like making a Super Bowl commercial or writing a fiction novel will never be automated. However, most non-technical jobs from HR to project management to purchasing and finance to customer support to UI design could be almost entirely automated, when we have real AI.
A person may choose what they like best but still be good at the other end of the spectrum. Being able to think outside the box (however one defines it) is another essential asset. Being well versed in higher math is also an asset for tech types. That “learning to code” is such a limited skill, there is so much thinking beyond just programming. Multifaceted is a good way of viewing people- we see one side but others are present regardless of labels.
I’ll bet the successful “fuzzies” have a lot more mathematical reasoning ability than their paper trail shows, as do successful “techies” more of other skills. I am reminded of the old left/right brain arguments- so much more complex than that.
PS- mathematics IS a liberal art. That is not confined to social sciences and humanities. So I guess adding abstract math knowledge would fit into the liberal arts rule category.
Tax returns are a good example of the future. AI disruption will both replace and highlight why we’ll always need fuzzies. The tax return itself can be easily automated. The financial planning and counseling that goes into the return will require advisors. The value is in the advising even today as turbotax can eliminate the need for a tax preparer if all they do is fill in the forms.
That’s assuming political pressure to get rid of tax loopholes will not be successful (although I am not holding my breath). If that were to happen, almost all taxes could be prepared sufficiently by the current automation tools we have today. I see your point, however.
– Ryan Howard, The Office
“The real benefit of AI is to automate the jobs that are done by “fuzzies” and replacing the “fuzzies” with computers.”
I believe you’re talking about worker bees. Not all fuzzies are 9-5 clock punchers. Threads about the superiority of tech so often seem to assume this.
I for one welcome our new Fuzzie overlords. ^:)^ ^:)^ ^:)^
I’d like to remind them that as a trusted STEM/Engineer, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground Tech factories. :-bd
It depends on how you define worker bees. Take college admissions as an example. You will need one fuzzy Dean of Admissions to tell the programmers how to program the AI’s goals. You wouldn’t need adcoms with AI. All the app reading and admissions decisions could be done by an advanced AI.
A problem with looking for (past) patterns like this is their applicability to the future-in the rapidly changing business world of a rapidly changing world, that’s not entirely clear-in fact, I’d not put much stock in it.
Jobs of the future will require a range of skills. Some of the specialty skills may also become obsolete. Even the ones that are considered highly skilled and desirable today may not survive in the near future. For example, a good trader at a hedge fund or a bank makes a lot of money today. But what does it take to be a good trader? Experience, risk tolerance, ability to analyze lots of data quickly and make a near-instantaneous decision. Computers possess all these qualities in spades. Another good example is in healthcare. What makes a good physician? Experience and good judgement. Computers can aggregate more “experiences” from all the experts than any single doctor ever could, and diagnose more accurately. The best way to survive in this not-too-distant world is to have a broad range of skills (even if one is a specialist in some area), to have the ability to adapt and to constantly reinvent oneself.
Roethlisburger, college admissions is a dubious example of fuzzy vs tech or how fuzzy will come to influence the digital world. Holistic decisions aren’t automated, not based on stats alone. (I know that drives some people nuts, but hope this won’t become a debate on that.)
Yes, today’s specialties may become obsolete. But even traders are relying on predictive programs now. That automated a lot of the work of people who primarily sought and crunched numbers for the big guys to analyze (these computers led to some of the market crashes.) We’ve got robotics in certain surgeries, machines and monitors that do some of the work of nurses. There are machines that can teach other machines.
Holistic decisions aren’t automated now, but they could be in future, and it has absolutely nothing to do with stats vs not(although you like to make that point in every discussion even when it’s totally irrelevant to the topic). There’s no reason a future AI couldn’t eliminate human error and variability in grading ECs, LORs, and essays.
Yeah, but if we got rid of the fuzzies passing fuzzy laws, tax returns would be simple. 
^ or any other industry, not just tax planning. You need a good estate planning attorney for the planning, not the documents. People will always need counseling, whether it be financial matters or designing the best sound system for their home or planning the right special event or…anything.
While I agree with others that all sorts of jobs can be automated including techy ones, the point of the article/book i think is that fuzzies have a major role to play in the automating - the training if you will - of those AI systems.
I think the debate is not an either/or but rather both. In the current market, people with tech skills but not interpersonal/managerial skills are very well paid at the beginning but plateau. I suspect that in the tech world, people without the skills either are the entrepreneurs or in marketing/sales. Even there, I recently co-founded a tech startup and our new head of growth, with a BA in social science and a Wharton MBA, has to do a fair bit of quantitative analysis and will have to supervise analysts over time. I think it may be harder for folks with no technical background at all to rise in a way that they did before in tech-focused companies.
The harder question is what happens over time as AI will replace lots of fuzzy and non-fuzzy jobs (as it has been doing). The people who will have a good economic role will be those figuring out the opportunities. Many new tech businesses enhance productivity by automating current activities, but that productivity-enhancement enables the elimination of certain kinds of jobs. It will be better to be skilled (whether from the tech or creative side, but hopefully both) to be the one creating the productivity-enhancing tech than the one replaced by it.
@rickle1, a lot of what we think requires human judgment may not. For example, not long ago, we might have thought that everyone with some assets needed a financial advisor. Today, robo wealth advisors are probably better than most investor’s current decisions and probably over time better than most money managers (net of costs). Over time, robo-advisors will probably be able to handle more complex situations that one might have thought required a professional advisor.
Has anyone used a robo-advisor like Wealthfront?
I do.