Minimum wage as opposed to Living wage. Shouldn't they be the same?

[Dingus]

You try automating the writing of code, good luck.

 

If you manage it you'll be the next IT Billionaire.

 

 

I believe that during the war no one imagined the Brits could build a machine for cracking code either. But I suspect that if there's that much money to be made folk will be working on it.

[Cyclone]

Far less service jobs though, teaching being the primary one that I can think of, and in theory they could automate that if they wished.

 

Of course they apparently still need engineers to keep their fancy machines going.

 

And decision makers to decide things.

 

And Drs to poke the advanced machines.

[PeteMorris]

http://vanparecon.resist.ca/StarTrekEcon/

 

Sorry, I posted before I saw your link. But I was 'sort' of right, in that credits are mentioned!

[Cyclone]

I believe that during the war no one imagined the Brits could build a machine for cracking code either. But I suspect that if there's that much money to be made folk will be working on it.

 

Folk have been working on it for 30 or 40 years, you really need to crack artificial intelligence though in order to get code writing automated.

 

Think about it, someone comes along and says (for example) I want a system that allows my employees to enter working time against projects.

 

That's the entire definition.

 

In order to convert that into a working system you first have to elaborate what is actually wanted through a question and answer session, then sketch up what it will look like and get it agreed and then implement that.

Even assuming that humans did the first bit, a computer can't understand a written English description and some sketches, effectively what I do is translate between English and the very specific languages that make computers do stuff.

[L00b]

I believe that during the war no one imagined the Brits could build a machine for cracking code either. But I suspect that if there's that much money to be made folk will be working on it.

I don't think you've understood Cyclone's point.

 

Software code does not, and cannot, "write itself": you need a human mind to first organise the code, for the code to do what it's supposed/intended to do.

 

In theory, I suppose you could 'automate' the typing of it (e.g. voice-to-text, however improbable a coding technique)...but never the functional organisation/structuring of it.

 

It is what is called a "mental act" in my line of work...and machines, no mater how well AI-programmed, have no mental capacity: they only do what they are told to do (through code, devised by humans).

 

The same principle transcends everything else around you - whereby the inherent (and permanent) limit to 'full-on automation'.

[Cyclone]

Sorry, I posted before I saw your link. But I was 'sort' of right, in that credits are mentioned!

 

I wonder if that is because DS9 isn't in federation territory and actually has lots of non federation people on board.

[Cyclone]

I don't think you've understood Cyclone's point.

 

Software code does not, and cannot, "write itself": you need a human mind to first organise the code, for the code to do what it's supposed/intended to do.

 

In theory, I suppose you could 'automate' the typing of it (e.g. voice-to-text, however improbable a coding technique)...but never the functional organisation/structuring of it.

 

It is what is called a "mental act" in my line of work...and machines, no mater how well AI-programmed, have no mental capacity: they only do what they are told to do (through code, devised by humans).

 

The same principle transcends everything else around you - whereby the inherent (and permanent) limit to 'full-on automation'.

 

In theory an AI could be written that could understand natural english well enough to be just given a program definition and to spit out a program which satisfied the requirements.

Natural language parsing is one of the most difficult AI tasks we can think of though.

[PeteMorris]

I wonder if that is because DS9 isn't in federation territory and actually has lots of non federation people on board.

 

Possibly...I never liked that incarnation anyway. I used to call it Deep Sleep 9...

[L00b]

In theory an AI could be written that could understand natural english well enough to be just given a program definition and to spit out a program which satisfied the requirements.

Natural language parsing is one of the most difficult AI tasks we can think of though.

In theory, everything can be automated, of course. Star Trek being one such theoretical (anticipatory) exercise

 

The problem is inherent technological limitation, which moves forever forward at substantially the same pace as technological development, in a snake-eating-its-tail analogy. Basically, you come up with a solution to technical problem X, up pops a new technical problem Y...or ten! The problem is, therefore, practice indeed.

 

I've lost track of how many people have come to me over the years, claiming to have invented an actual holodeck. Never seen a prototype, it's always been a theoretical on-paper exercise

 

EDIT

In theory an AI could be written that could understand natural english well enough to be just given a program definition and to spit out a program which satisfied the requirements

You would still need a human to devise the requirements to be met, and to articulate them to the interface, so still somewhat short of what Dingus suggested (complete redundancy of human element in productivity): the machine would still only do what it is told, and no more

[Dingus]

I don't think you've understood Cyclone's point.

 

Software code does not, and cannot, "write itself": you need a human mind to first organise the code, for the code to do what it's supposed/intended to do.

 

In theory, I suppose you could 'automate' the typing of it (e.g. voice-to-text, however improbable a coding technique)...but never the functional organisation/structuring of it.

 

It is what is called a "mental act" in my line of work...and machines, no mater how well AI-programmed, have no mental capacity: they only do what they are told to do (through code, devised by humans).

 

The same principle transcends everything else around you - whereby the inherent (and permanent) limit to 'full-on automation'.

 

Oh I see. So someone who didn't spend half their day doing other things like posting on a forum would be able to write twice as much code and undercut someone who did on price. Or someone working in Rumania on 25% of UK wages could spend 80% of their day posting on a forum and still undercut someone in the UK who only spent half their day doing it.

 

What I'm trying to say is the job isn't dependent on having time to waste. You only have time to waste if you have insufficient work to fill the time.