When it comes to 'software replacing teachers', we really haven't made many fundamental advances since Gutenberg(who at least substantially increased the percentage of the world's books that weren't produced by students taking lecture notes in class, which presumably meant that you at least had the option of reading the textbook and skipping the class). If you just need information, technology has done quite well, and continues to make improvements; but if you aren't ready to turn information into knowledge all by yourself, there isn't much on offer.

There is a certain amount of irony; but it's those years of expensive and supply-limiting training that are precisely what make such an attractive target.

It's not an easy target; the computer system that ends up replacing your radiologist or your lawyer or whatever will likely have cost far, far, more to develop than the human it replaced did to raise and train(even if you count the human's recreational spending); but the computer's ability to do work will just keep increasing if you buy more silicon, while the human doesn't scale. If you could hire a single radiologist and make him more productive just by buying additional office chairs, you probably wouldn't bother with the robot.

Based on my (layman's) reading of CDC data from the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report; it would appear that we may have settled on a solution for the middle aged and surplus.

It's just not a terribly nice solution.

Isn't a corporation a robot that exists specifically to hold assets? Some of them are better at being rich than others; but surely a corporation that owns the expert system that runs the corporation would be a rich robot; were it successful...

Depends on the political climate: if some bleeding heart is calling the shots, sure; but if it's tough-on-crime time, then the rapidly maturing world of combat robotics will be tapped to provide low-cost 'treatment' solutions to these populations.

'Real' empathy would require a strong AI, more or less by definition(and a relatively human-like strong AI at that). Conveniently, though, there's no externally visible difference between real and fake empathy, and faking it is on the level of passing a Turing test, which is hardly trivial; but likely to actually happen in the comparatively near future.

The best diagnosticians might actually be the ones who see the chopping block sooner. Traversing decision trees, crunching patient statistics, and doing machine vision on whatever comes back from radiology and histology are all things that computers are either already good at or improving and plausibly expected to continue to do so at a reasonable clip. "Getting a patient's report of their symptoms and making them feel as though they've been duly listened to" or "calming some screaming brat long enough to innoculate it" are not things computers are terribly promising at. However, they are things that can be done, even done well, by basically the cheapest category of went-to-less-school-than-the-doctor-or-some-of-the-fancier-types-of-nurse medical workers you can legally get away with using for the task. Somebody will still have to do medical research; and it'll likely take a while for the public to accept that ResectXact(tm) software is a better candidate than some well-reputed surgeon to chop them open and do some maintenance; but attrition is likely to be brutal among the relatively expensive people whose specialized skills are amenable to expert systems and whose bedside manner and basic patient interaction are no better than a much, much, cheaper nurse or tech of some flavor.

Lawyers, in the same way, are going to require some people who are sharp enough to not fail during oral argument, who know how to work a jury, who can project a besuited air of consummate professionalism when dealing with clients who are paying well for the services of Somebody, Somebody, and That Other Guy; but it's hard to imagine that humans are going to last long against glorified search engines when it comes to "Traverse the entire law code and case law, give me the top hits, flag anything from things that the presiding judge has cited in decisions he has written in the past". Until computer generated text stops sounding so much like markov chain word salad, they'll probably still need some peons to stitch things together; but that will be a dead-end, unbearably soul crushing paralegal sweatshop of misery, not even an entry level job.

The one major complication to keep in mind is that robots/automation almost never literally 'replace' you. Rather, they allow for a different way of doing things that no longer requires you.

Robots built to replicate human capabilities are, despite continued effort, relatively pitiful. Competent bipedal locomotion, a couple of dexterous hands, fallible but very, very, adaptable image recognition, etc. are a fairly tricky package to put together on a reasonable budget. Outside of tech demos, that's why you don't bother to build the robot to resemble the worker, you restructure the task to play to the strengths of the robot(see basically all contemporary manufacturing processes). This task restructuring can also involve the user: replacing a telephone operator, say, would have been impossible until relatively recently; you need speech recognition software good enough to do the job and computers cheap enough to run it. So we didn't: Pulse code dialing allows line switching to be done with relatively simple electromechanical devices, which is why operators were on their way toward the exit more than a century ago, despite AVR 'agents' still being considered lousy and terrible to work with today.

You will almost always be misled if you try to predict odds of replacement based on 'what the job requires' rather than 'what the job produces'. Beating the people currently doing a job at the skills that the job requires is difficult, frequently impossible or uneconomic. Achieving whatever goal their job exists to fulfill(or achieving something else that eliminates that goal); is almost always how it gets done.

What I'd be interested to see is if, and how aggressively, they take action against image collections that are not of any use for their desired purposes.

They obviously can't be too capricious and unpredictable, or they'll spook users; but you can't offer 'unlimited' storage without making some provision for 'that guy who hacks together a FUSE filesystem that uses images uploaded to Google Photos as a storage medium' or the 'Cool, this will make my next time-lapse video project way easier' cases.(and, of course, if you are feeling particularly uncreative, /dev/random just needs a dash of formatting information to be as many bitmaps as you could possibly desire.)

Are they just going to go with the ISP-style 'I said unlimited; but I actually meant X photos or Y GB of traffic per month; apparently I'm allowed to get away with that, so STFU', are they going to have peons manually examine accounts whose size gets out of hand and decide what to do?

We can only hope that Uber's notoriously...risk tolerant...approach to just ignoring regulations that they don't like will result in a lot of spam that is actually 'spam' for the purposes of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 being sent out.

That particular law is more or less a dead letter, given how easy covert or extraterritorial spamming is(and, of course, it's assorted gaping loopholes); but there are theoretical penalties that could stack up fast if you actually fuck up.

In this case, if grabbing people's contact lists doesn't count as 'email address harvesting' in the context of the prohibition on sending to harvested addresses, I'm not sure what would.

Honestly, it's downright impressive. Uber has managed to get markedly sleazier since they did their "Oh, 'god view' and threatening to stalk reporters who piss us off was naughty; we promise to be good..." charm offensive bullshit.

Given that the store doing the advertising presumably stocks the banned goods, and it's a lot harder to hide physical merchandise in a hurry; I'd assume that the plan depends on the costs of being discovered being less than the value of the advertising, with the cute little trick being there to make it newsworthy, not to fool the cops(even if there were somehow zero machine vision errors or plainclothes cops in Russia; it can't be that uncommon for off-duty cops to wear street clothes; or for the families of police to talk to them).

There is probably a small but nonzero risk that, thanks to the buzz, some humorless enforcer will throw the book at them; but barring that the plan would appear to depend on the actual penalties for 'banned' goods being pretty toothless.

This article seems(somewhat bizarrely) to be written from the perspective of Google, Inc. but purporting to be talking about "android" and its prospects.

There is certainly a place for analysis of "So, did this 'android' stuff pay off for Google? Was it roughly break-even? A strategic failure?"; but that's quite different than "How is Android doing? What are its prospects?". Conflating the two, though, is confused at best and outright nonsense at worst(especially when examining the 'running Android, possibly even developing it in some way; but not running "Android+Google Play Services"' slice of the market'.

So, is Apple the one actually making money on smartphones? Hell yeah. Has Android been tepid in terms of actually making Google any money? At best; it may well be directly losing money and only appearing to pull its weight as a strategic play. Are the margins for most Android handset manufacturers pretty unexciting compared to Apple? Also hell yeah. However(much like the PC OEMs), that may not actually affect Android: None of the Android OEMs gets the option of joining Apple in making iPhones(except the ones that happen to also have divisions that manufacture components for Apple, like Samsung). Apple has zero interest in letting them do that. So, they can either ship Android handsets with Google, ship AOSP+their own or somebody else's stuff; ship Windows Phone, attempt to build their own OS entirely, or leave the market. Shipping Android handsets with Google isn't a terribly high-margin strategy; but it is so far unclear whether any of the other options are any higher margin.

It is very likely that Google isn't getting nearly as much of what they want from Android as they would like; and Android OEMs certainly aren't earning terribly exciting margins on their devices; but that's their problem. It only becomes Android's problem if Google decides to pull the plug, or if OEMs abandon it in favor of WP or one of the assorted linux-with-stuff-on-top-but-not-android options. So far, WP has gotten fairly good reviews; but struggled for marketshare, and the not-Android Linux derivatives are all writhing around near the noise floor. This isn't obviously a good thing, Android is a pile of mediocrity in quite a few respects, even if some of Google's applications and services for it are pretty good; but it is still the case: Since nobody gets to be an iOS vendor except Apple, and Nokia is MS' special buddy, with other OEMs allowed but sharing a very small pond; 'Android' is a fight over some pretty unexciting margins; but unless a company simply wishes to stop manufacturing smartphones and tablets, it's a fight they'll probably remain in for some time to come.

Sure, I'd love the second coming of WebOS to sweep away the unbelievers and deliver us; but that doesn't appear to be in the cards.

In Qatar, substantially by letting impoverished migrant laborers handle the outdoor stuff, under more and less voluntary conditions, and air conditioning.

While the people in this video are utter morons(even if you have actually verified the existence of a safety cut-off on a dangerous piece of hardware; Why would you test it on yourself?); Volvo's response seems...tactically unwise.

There may be good reasons for the 'pedestrian detection' feature to be an extra purchase(more sensors, more DSP, recouped development costs, etc.) or it may just be a single bit in the firmware waiting to be flipped in a magic screwdriver upgrade; but either way, "Yeah, we have a feature that would have prevented that accident; but it didn't because we prefer to charge more for it." seems like the sort of statement that is likely to attract the wrong sort of scrutiny.

If you admit to having the mature capability; how long before failing to include it is negligence? Will you be able to keep it as an add-on, rather than a standard feature like antilock braking? Are you absolutely sure that your sales people didn't misrepresent the capabilities of what they sold? and so on.

It seems as though they'd be much better off just issuing a flat 'don't do stupid irresponsible things' and quietly dropped the matter.

In thinking about it, and how much of a clusterfuck this is likely to be; it struck me that there might actually be a way to restructure the incentives to provide some kind of hope:

Historically, 'retail' insurance, for individuals and little stuff, was mostly statistical with a side of adversarial: Aside from a few token offers of a free fitbit or whatever, the insurer basically calculates your expected cost as best they can based on your demographics and history and charges you accordingly, and tries to weasel out of anything too unexpectedly expensive.

However, for larger endeavors, (the ones I'm most familiar with are utility and public works projects, there may well be others), sometimes a more collaborative model reigned: the insurer would agree to pay out in the event of accidents, jobsite deaths, and so on, as usual, and the client would pay them for that; but the insurer would also provide guidance to the project, best practices, risk management, specialist expertise on how to minimize the number of expensive fuckups on a given type of project, expertise that the customer might not have, or have at the same level. This was mutually beneficial, since the customer didn't want accidents, the insurer didn't want to pay for accidents, and everyone was happiest if the project went smoothly.

In a case like this; the incentives might align better if the contractor were were delivering both the security and the breach insurance: this would immediately resolve the argument over whether the policyholder was negligent or the insurer needs to pay up: if the IT contractor got the systems hacked through neligence, that's their fault; and if they secured the systems; but a hack was still pulled off, that's where the insurance policy comes in.

This scheme would run the risk of encouraging the vendor to attempt to hide breaches small enough to sweep under the rug; but it would otherwise align incentives reasonably neatly: an IT management/insurance hybrid entity would internalize the cost of the level of security it manages to provide(more secure presumably means greater expenditures on good IT people; but more secure also means lower effective cost of providing insurance, since you can expect fewer, smaller, breaches; and fewer, smaller, claims). If the equilibrium turns out to be 'slack off, pay the claims', that suggests that the fines for shoddy data protection need to be larger; but the arrangement would induce the vendor to keep investing in security until the marginal cost of extra work on IT was higher than the marginal gain from lower expected costs in claims; so the knob to turn to get better security is relatively accessible.