>thanks to /g/ more jobs are destroyed by robots Are you happy?

It doesn't matter when you're the one who makes the robots :^)

File: 1460587631026.jpg (21KB, 500x440px)

21KB, 500x440px

>>59350204
>First the computers take over code monkey jobs forcing people to flip burgers
>Then they take those jobs as well

Chances of a business finance major getting their job taken over? If so, how long from now?

File: 1487596320749.jpg (53KB, 786x618px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 786x618px

Better than having some wage slaves touching my food

So glad I work in robotics maintenance.

File: shig.png (128B, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

128B, 125x125px

>>59350492
>implying there won't be maintenance robots maintaining robots

>>59350623
>implying maintenance can be done by something automated short of true AI
You're not a sysadmin are you?

>>59350204

Sucks, but that's the way it is.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jobs-robots-are-most-likely-to-take-over-2015-5/#-bookkeepers-7
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/smart-machines-job-article-1.1246522

Every menial job will become obsolete within the next 20 years.

Don't worry. Once oil runs out, robots will not be able to get built and the companies will be crawling back to us.

>>59350732
t. Ludd

>>59350663
>99% chance
>97.4% chance

Where are these fags getting their math? And what time frame is that chance referring to? A 99% chance to be replaced when?

Journalism is so shit these days.

>>59350636
>MY job is the job that can't be automated
Everybody thinks this until their job gets automated. There's a lot of bias involved.

>>59350747
>Journalism is so shit these days.
Funny you should mention that. Robots write news articles now.

https://www.wired.com/2012/04/can-an-algorithm-write-a-better-news-story-than-a-human-reporter/

>>59350636
no I'm in engineering and product development

It's not a question of if but when

>>59350766
I know, I've met people whose jobs already were who were convinced it was impossible.

But you have to admit, machines are notoriously bad at spotting machine-related problems because they think inside the box.

We'll have downsizing for sure, but the maintenance jobs will have to be done by humans.

>>59350795
>machines are notoriously bad at spotting machine-related problems
Machines are bad at everything until we make them good at it.
>they think inside the box
You know nothing of machine learning.

>>59350747
Relax, robots are going to take journalism too

sooner the fucking better

>>59350795
>We'll have downsizing for sure, but the maintenance jobs will have to be done by humans.

THIS is that very thinking that seems so obviously wrong in hindsight. "How could they be so stupid to not see it coming? Its so obvious!"

good thing i am an artist

>>59351056
*autist

Good thing I'm a pornstar

>>59350204
Burger flipping is a worthless job and you deserve to be replaced, get a real job.