> ATMs didn't completely eliminate the need for bank tellers, they just automated a lot of their most mundane tasks.
That looks suspiciously similar to the process of raising the skill floor that I referred to. The simpler parts of the job were relegated to a machine while the more complicated bits remained. My point is that there are inherent limits to such a process. What happened historically (including the ATM example) ceases to be relevant once such a limit is reached.
Relevant quote: "Instead of shooting where I was, you should have shot at where I was going to be." -Lrrr (to Fry)
(In the ATM example, it's specifically the bits that require vision, situational awareness, and human level conversational capabilities that were retained by the human. All things that cutting edge ML is making very visible progress on. I implore you to take a serious look at the state of cutting edge ML research with such tasks in mind.)
That's incorrect. The level of skill and automation potential aren't related. For instance healthcare is a hugely growing market with a lot of low skilled opportunities requiring human interaction.
In my country, except janitors and people working cafeteria, pretty much any job in healthcare requires some kind of degree (exception is taking care of old folks in private homes, but even those require a substancial amount of staff with some kind of schooling in it)
Theatre support worker would be one example of a healthcare role that doesn't require a degree. This is in the context of the UK NHS. I'm unsure if an equivalent role is common within the healthcare systems of other countries.
> The level of skill and automation potential aren't related.
I never claimed they were? I said that when a job is automated away, any that replace it inevitably require a higher skill level. Thus the skill floor rises over time.
> requiring human interaction
That's the key. That's a specific task that we can't (yet) automate.
Does it raise the skill floor? The actual job requirements of bank teller have not significantly changed; you always needed to be a basic functioning human being WRT "vision, situational awareness, and human level conversational capabilities"
The skill floor I'm referring to is across the entire market, not a single job. I didn't claim that the skill required in that particular example had changed at all. Rather, I pointed out that the underlying process taking place there appeared consistent with the broader trend of the skill floor rising.
My claim is that once we're able to automate away that job entirely, any that appear to replace it will almost invariably require a higher skill level.
That looks suspiciously similar to the process of raising the skill floor that I referred to. The simpler parts of the job were relegated to a machine while the more complicated bits remained. My point is that there are inherent limits to such a process. What happened historically (including the ATM example) ceases to be relevant once such a limit is reached.
Relevant quote: "Instead of shooting where I was, you should have shot at where I was going to be." -Lrrr (to Fry)
(In the ATM example, it's specifically the bits that require vision, situational awareness, and human level conversational capabilities that were retained by the human. All things that cutting edge ML is making very visible progress on. I implore you to take a serious look at the state of cutting edge ML research with such tasks in mind.)