Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: rscasny
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 1997 views
  • Likes 3 likes
  • Comments 9 comments
Related
Recommended

When Populist Politics Meets Technological Innovation: A Sign of the Beginning of the End of IoT?

rscasny

While I spend a lot of time in my workday at element14 pouring over datasheets on new tech products or attending meetings on new tech product introductions, in my personal life, I veer to reading business publications, such as The Financial Times, which offers an array of new information (and a surprising amount of tech news, information and analysis) that impacts me both personally and professionally.

 

So, yesterday, on Saturday afternoon when the errands were done and no one was bothering me, I turned off my phone, and I did my typical thing: opened up my tablet and clicked to FT. My eye immediately was attracted to this story:

 

Tech Leaders at Davos Fret Over AI Effect on Jobs

 

The gist of the story was that the tech community (i.e., Silicon Valley) fears that since "the march of the robots" (and AI) is progressing quite rapidly, they fear a backlash with this year's new political reality: regressive and populist politics, as evidenced by new political wins in the U.S., the UK's Brexit, and other populist rumblings across Europe.

 

Initially, I didn't take too much interest in the story, which was essentially a report on the Davos economic forum. But then my eye was pulled to this story:

 

Chiefs Hold Back on Smart Factories after Backlash

 

Now, the gist of this story is that industrial enterprises (who use new technology such as robots, and support the Industry 4.0 vision of advanced manufacturing) are getting a bit squeamish regarding the introduction of more technology into their operations. They also feel like they are caught between a rock and hard place because if they do not introduce new smart (IoT-driven) technology they will be less competitive and lose jobs anyway. This story concerned me given that smart factories employ IoT technology and offer immense benefits, which I won't get into here.

 

Then I was beside myself when I saw this article:

 

How Unprepared We are for the Robot Revolution

 

The gist of this story is that "machine learning is likely to be the primary driving force behind an [ ] explosion of applications in robotics and software applications." The article gives the example of a robotic car that doesn't need any human intervention, and poses this question: how many human driving jobs will be lost due robotic cars, etc.

 

At this point, I quit reading and turned off my tablet, and paused to reflect.

 

IMO: My firm belief is that no society can survive (or has ever survived) by passing by technological innovations. I can appreciate the voice of populism; we must address the concerns and issues of all our citizens no matter what point in the social strata they reside. But are we to just give up and, in effect say, "Nope, I won't buy a computer because they put too many paper pushers out of work. Nope, I won't buy a car because they put too many wrench turners out of work. Nope, I won't do any medical research to extend the lives of human beings because they will put more funeral directors out of work."

 

I see this populist trend as risky and foolish. And it could very well be the first sign of the end of IoT technology investment -- stemming job growth in this area.

 

I personally think if "no-tech/lo-tech" jobs are being replaced by "extreme-hi-tech" jobs, then the nations of the world need to prepare its citizens appropriately. All education must be free. There should be more emphasis on compelling people into educational and training programs for the jobs of the century. Your thoughts?

 

Parents

  • I recall a time not that long ago when the mouse and keyboard would be redundant and we'd all be speaking to our computers.... or so they said.

    This was at a time when most computers were less powerful than a Raspberry Pi, and in dollar terms a lot more expensive.

     

    The term 'robots' seems to invoke visions of some humanoid figure doing what the average worker does, with the same thinking skills and dexterity, however sadly this is not the actual case.

    Many industries have used some form of machinery and automation to manufacture for a long time, but the use of industrial robots has allowed the overall footprint to be smaller, while reducing the number of individual moving parts (into a large collection in one).

     

    The term IoT has been bandied about for a while now, and seems to be some latest marketing phrase to allow connectivity for xyz reasons.

    At work we have printers that are connected back to the supplier so that they can 'order' consumables. It sort of works, but generally doesn't.

     

    Having worked in the electronics game for 30+ years, I've yet to see anything predict faults.

    The Movie Makers have put this idea into the public arena, but they are the masters of fiction just as bookwriters are.

     

    I have seen some trending that suggests maintenance is required (ie fan speed increase due to the filter requiring attention).

    There is a mistake that this data is fault prediction when it is actually a more accurate record of maintenance.

    It still requires someone to actually undertake the maintenance work, so in answer to the statement poses this question: how many human driving jobs will be lost due robotic cars   I'd say we are simply transferring many of the jobs.

     

    I believe society should be careful about rushing headlong into these new technologies.

    In some cases they are unproven, have limited real world benefits, can simply transfer the problems to a single point of failure, may not be cost effective, and only solve one small part of the overall problem.

     

     

    Mark

Comment

  • I recall a time not that long ago when the mouse and keyboard would be redundant and we'd all be speaking to our computers.... or so they said.

    This was at a time when most computers were less powerful than a Raspberry Pi, and in dollar terms a lot more expensive.

     

    The term 'robots' seems to invoke visions of some humanoid figure doing what the average worker does, with the same thinking skills and dexterity, however sadly this is not the actual case.

    Many industries have used some form of machinery and automation to manufacture for a long time, but the use of industrial robots has allowed the overall footprint to be smaller, while reducing the number of individual moving parts (into a large collection in one).

     

    The term IoT has been bandied about for a while now, and seems to be some latest marketing phrase to allow connectivity for xyz reasons.

    At work we have printers that are connected back to the supplier so that they can 'order' consumables. It sort of works, but generally doesn't.

     

    Having worked in the electronics game for 30+ years, I've yet to see anything predict faults.

    The Movie Makers have put this idea into the public arena, but they are the masters of fiction just as bookwriters are.

     

    I have seen some trending that suggests maintenance is required (ie fan speed increase due to the filter requiring attention).

    There is a mistake that this data is fault prediction when it is actually a more accurate record of maintenance.

    It still requires someone to actually undertake the maintenance work, so in answer to the statement poses this question: how many human driving jobs will be lost due robotic cars   I'd say we are simply transferring many of the jobs.

     

    I believe society should be careful about rushing headlong into these new technologies.

    In some cases they are unproven, have limited real world benefits, can simply transfer the problems to a single point of failure, may not be cost effective, and only solve one small part of the overall problem.

     

     

    Mark

Children
No Data