Humans Need Not Apply

The notion that modern computers are intelligent and flexible enough to take over many existing human-employed jobs was touched upon in our first class meeting as an example of what topics may be applicable to “Computers and Society”. A couple of weeks ago, YouTube user CGP Grey uploaded an enlightening video with extended commentary on this particular topic titled “Humans Need Not Apply” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU). The video explains the roles that robots and computers presently inhabit in our society, ranging from the mundane to the complex and the enormous to the delicate. As technology continues to become more sophisticated, the variety of roles that it fills will only expand. Naturally, this also means that the number of roles that need to be filled by a human will become smaller and smaller.

                There are many people who believe that technology will never be able to accurately emulate human creativity, as it often involves complex emotion and individual expression. Thus, roles that require a level of such creativity could never be properly filled by technology, right? Actually, as CGP points out, it’s true that there are modern computers that can already produce creative content to some degree. These computers use algorithms that mimic a human’s decision-making when it comes to writing or creating art: making comparisons between various prose, colors, objects, etc and, based on some original rules established in its system, can choose which fits the best in varying context. IBM’s Watson, for instance, is capable of swallowing massive amounts of data and, using advanced algorithms, can use it to perform complex tasks like antidote synthesis as well as more creative tasks like making up recipes for quite delicious food. In fact, IBM has its own food truck where Watson’s culinary creations are served to the public - http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/cognitivecooking/truck.html. Of course, systems like Watson will always try to figure out the “best” way to combine things creatively or usefully (as defined in the data and rules it relies on), while one may argue that a considerable aspect of human creativity is the imperfection of it that will vary between individuals. A romantic would say that these imperfections or ‘quirks’ could not truly be simulated, as they are linked to an individual’s personality, or something called a ‘soul’. However, I’m not convinced that any human behavior is inexplicable; as extremely complex as human thoughts and feelings can be, it makes sense that they are caused by the plethora of minuscule chemical reactions that happen in our brains. Because of this, I will not be surprised when a computer can one day have a personality too, by simulating a human brain with semi-random proportions of ‘chemicals’. It’s definitely eerie to imagine a society that employs such technology and what then might follow.

                Despite the possibilities, I personally am not certain if modern and future technology will affect my career in a way that I should be very concerned. I’m looking forward to a career in web programming and have had enjoyable experiences with website design and development in previous internships. On many occasions I’d have a lot of back-and-forth with a client in order to come up with creative designs or solutions to their concerns; I don’t believe that sort of interpersonal communication could be readily provided by a computer in “near” future, but of course I may be mistaken. It is difficult to predict exactly to what extremes of work that technology may be able to handle one day, and as CGP says it is even more difficult to know how to prepare for a world in which almost all roles are filled by technology.