Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jobs will be more esoteric, i.e. >> keeping an "eye" on things, deciding on the direction that development >> should >> take etc. In short providing a human perspective. >> > > Assuming the robots find our perspective to be a valuable and useful one. > Yup. Seriously, even now I am inclined to let computers decide things for me. I pick the default answer. I do not second-guess machines. Because most of the time I have no strong opinion. For example, I let the GPS navigation system decide how to get there. I let Microsoft Word format headings and and the table of contents however it wants to. Seriously, who cares? In the old days, writers let their secretaries or publisher handle such details. I think of a computer as conscientious subordinate. If I were living hundreds of years from now, and I was building a new house, I would probably select a model and tell the computer to handle details such as the size of the rooms and choice of plumbing fixtures. I would glance at the computer's plan and leave most items at the default setting, without consulting with a human architect. Assuming there are any human architects. If I got sick in a future world, I would be inclined to do whatever the medical doctor computer suggests. Nowadays I generally do what the human doctor says without a second thought. Most busy, wealthy people such as captains of industry have long done what their secretaries, subordinates, cooks and valets suggest without second guessing them. Their attitude is, "that's what I pay those people to decide." In the future most people will treat robots the same way. Some may wonder who is serving who in this arrangement. Some wealthy people in the 19th century and early 20th century "Downton Abbey" settings seemed to be prisoners of convention. They wasted a lot of time doing disagreeable things such as dressing in ridiculous outfits for supper, because it was expected of them. Because that was what wealthy people did. - Jed
