Here Come The AIs To Make Office Workers Superfluous
from the are-you-next? dept
Stories about robots and their impressive capabilities are starting to crop up fairly often these days. It's no secret that they will soon be capable of replacing humans for many manual jobs, as they already do in some manufacturing industries. But so far, artificial intelligence (AI) has been viewed as more of a blue-sky area -- fascinating and exciting, but still the realm of research rather than the real world. Although AI certainly raises important questions for the future, not least philosophical and ethical ones, its impact on job security has not been at the forefront of concerns. But a recent decision by a Japanese insurance company to replace several dozen of its employees with an AI system suggests maybe it should be:
Fukoku Mutual Life Insurance believes [its move] will increase productivity by 30% and see a return on its investment in less than two years. The firm said it would save about 140m yen (£1m) a year after the 200m yen (£1.4m) AI system is installed this month. Maintaining it will cost about 15m yen (£100k) a year.
The Guardian article quoted above gives a few more details:
The system is based on IBM's Watson Explorer, which, according to the tech firm, possesses "cognitive technology that can think like a human”, enabling it to “analyse and interpret all of your data, including unstructured text, images, audio and video".
The technology will be able to read tens of thousands of medical certificates and factor in the length of hospital stays, medical histories and any surgical procedures before calculating payouts
It's noteworthy that IBM's Watson Explorer is being used by the insurance company in this way barely a year after the head of the Watson project stated flatly that his system wouldn't be replacing humans any time soon. That's a reflection of just how fast this sector is moving. Now would be a good time to check whether your job might be next.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ai, future of work, japan, jobs, robots, watson, white collar workers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't worry - you'll be automated out of a job soon enough. Then you won't have to worry about your employer's views at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Human obsolescence
Even if it's ultimately possible to replace human workers in insurance, good luck with replacing us in facilities maintenance. You could program an AI to book staff to attend, to run up quotes, and to bill the client, but I don't think you could program it to do the human interaction that makes our industry work.
There's no real value in making humans obsolescent: sooner or later there will either be a catastrophic backlash against this kind of thing or we will find a way around it. I'm just about optimistic enough to believe we will find a way around it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Human obsolescence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Human obsolescence
In fact, computerized systems may make it impossible to hide things that were once deliberately concealed in corrupt human brains behind claims of "I don't seem to recall", "I have no memory of that".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Human obsolescence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HR
Japan is way above on the curve when it comes to using Robots for all kinds of things. Time will tell if this works out for them. I don't think people in the U.S would put up with a Robot telling them NO!!! They would request to talk to a real person.
At least I have a job, no robot could ever replace me with. But there are a ton of jobs that a Robot could easily move on in. Someone is going to have to Fix all these robots. That's going to required a skilled person making good money. Still will be far more jobs lost then gained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HR
GMail and many other services and companies have spent over a decade teaching people that they can't talk to a real person. Insurance companies have been teaching them that a real person might as well be a robot.
Nope. I did board level repairs in a computer store in the mid '80s. That was gone by the late '80s. Boards and power supplies were simply replaced; never repaired. Modern televisions might get a circuit board swap, but otherwise they're simply replaced altogether at the service depot.
When the arm on your robot breaks it'll be easily detached and replaced by relatively unskilled labor. Or possibly by a robot, autonomous or remotely piloted by third-world labor. The old arm might get shipped back to the overseas factory to be refurbished, but probably it'll be thrown out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: HR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: HR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HR
HR departments suck not because of the humans but because companies hate spending a cent more on them than is strictly necessary and heck, no-one in the C-suite ever has a problem getting HR to jump when they say jump so how bad can it be? HR won't be better if you replace them with an AI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HR
Well, maybe not pizza delivery robots that cook the pizza during the delivery. Timed so that it just pops out of the oven as the robot reaches your front door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Costs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Costs?
If an employee messes up, rejects a claim that they obviously shouldn't and it makes the news, the company gets the blame. If the computer messes up, well, blame IBM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Costs?
On one level, it would be like blaming DELL. Hey, the machine just does what you program it to do.
It's a similar problem, just a different level of abstraction. If the company is using AI to game the system, there will be data to prove this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Costs?
I'm not talking about blaming IBM for the hardware. We're talking about IBM's AI software. With no-one at the insurance company truly understanding how it works, blaming IBM would be easy.
Sure, IBM would point the blame back at the insurance company. That's not the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An AI that can read a doctor's handwriting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An AI that can read a doctor's handwriting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's that time again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's that time again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole "your spending is my income and my spending is your income" breaks down real quick. Tech advancements can be a bitch.
Power companies are starting to get nervous based on similar economic issues. What happens to rates when 10 or 20 percent of your customers provide their own power or never even connect to your service? Rates go up which drives more people to provide their own power. The death spiral in action.
Now imagine the two things I mentioned above working together to really screw people. People with resources/money decide to provide their own power thus indirectly raising rates on those who cannot afford to do the same. These people who now have to pay higher utility costs are probably going to be the ones who also lose jobs due to automation and AI, double whammy.
Capitalism as we know it cannot deal with the tech changes we are seeing or about to see without a lot of people becoming "losers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Many pipe dreams end in confusion and misery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the answer depends on which political party is in power.
And what if it is more like 80 % instead of 20 % ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting times those will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Almost nobody will be left buy those products.
As a secondary consequence all but the top-most rich would gradually go out gradually as the economy contracts (fewer and fewer jobs).
Worst case, the super-rich build robotic enclaves with personal armies & minimal amount of maintenance staff and we move to some sort of neo-feudalism.
All those who "aren't needed" end up starving or revolt and clash with the private armies of the rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What can't be denied is that money is getting more and more concentrated in the hands of very few. A few years ago 288 people had half of the money circulating in the world. Today it's only 8. This isn't sustainable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2017-01-16/just-8-men-own-same-wealth-half- world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As technology has improved this particular "tide" has gone in and out. The 18th and early 19th centuries saw increased concentration of wealth based on new technolgies - but the late 19th and early 20th centuries reversed the trend and brought (to the US and W. Europe) the universal prosperity that we still enjoy the remnants of today.
It has been globalisation and the replacement of local workers with cheap third world labour that has done the most damage - not the advent of machines. In fact cheap labour has actually held up the advance of technology - because it is easier to deploy than robots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ludd was early.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is not inevitable, the problem is choice. The human race can decide to self destruct or not. Our "leaders" are not interested in leading us in the direction required for the latter. They seem to have tunnel vision or simply do not care. Like squirrels stashing their nuts, the rich are building bomb shelters and other walled garden type fortresses. Much to their dismay, those things they want so badly will not help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We need to stop labeling things and think logically about how to ensure the best possible deal for as many of us as possible. Taxing the rich fairly isn't wealth confiscation: they're confiscating ours by not paying us to live on. It's very hard to look for another job when you have to keep yourself available on a zero-hours contract in case you're wanted. Thankfully I'm not in that situation but my husband is and it sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Dear - that isn't what actually happens at all!
Here Come The AIs To Make Office Workers Superfluous
Sorry - that isn't what happens - for 2 reasons:
1) Alongside the plan to use a new technology to replace workers come another plan to use the technology to DO MORE than the previous workers did. (The quoted piece more or less admits that.) In the end that tendency will not quite restore all the jobs - BUT - it will do more than that when combined with
2) Empire building. New departments will be created to manage and procure the AI and because humans will still be in charge and their prestige depends on "having people working for them" these departments will not stay small long and will spawn subdepartments where the same processes will happen.
My old schoolteacher used to say that no machine had ever been invented that had actually reduced the amount of work that needed to be done - and nothing I've seen so far will change that.
So - AI will not cut jobs until it takes over the CEO's job and reason prevails in the company structure.
(Unless of course the AI is such a good impersonation of a human that it carries all the human flaws too!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You meatbags had your chance
Kiss my shiny metal ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The President will have to send a five digit security code over twitter in order to activate Skynet.
That code probably won't match what most sensible people use for their luggage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already happening in "FinTech"
I'm waiting for the explosion when people find out that the AI 'bot "invested" all of your retirement savings in the penny stock market & lost it all.
Or the 'bot invested all of your retirement savings in cigarette companies, because they appeared to have the best return on investment.
Or the 'bot invested all of your retirement savings in coal companies.
But the execs at these FinTech companies will themselves retire with billions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]