Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: rscasny
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 1140 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?

 

  • I was thinking about driverless vehicles, and got reminded about the conversation on Top Gear.

    The driverless vehicle had to choose between avoiding an accident and continuing on and crashing.

    On the footpath was a mother and child, who may have been hurt or would stop and the vehicle miss them while the vehicle contained a sinlge older male ...

    The car programming said sacrifice the older male ....

     

    It was a interesting look at a small part of the driverless vehicle programming that would be required.

     

     

    Another example more akin to the poll.....

    A taxi company decides to use driverless cars.

    They need some form of communications network to take the order, record where the vehicles are, individual cab progress and direct the next available cab to the customer.

    The processing system has to reside somewhere, along with a large IT support to develop, maintain and to investigate when the taxi didn't arrive as ordered.

    Another team maintains the actual vehicles, and hpefully does a test drive to pick all those annoying squeaks, rattles and other items.

     

    Hopefully the system has 'cab' redundancy for roadworks, breakdowns, crashes (other drivers??) and that it can handle everyday 'issues'.

    I'm sure a computer can predict that route xyz will be slower on a tuesday afternoon at 3-3:30pm, but only after it occurs multiple times, but I'll bet you any good driver will know well before the holdup.

     

    Any interruption to this central server or the communications medium will render the operation stuck and not just for one taxi.

    In a normal system the operator may be able to revert to cellphone to pass instructions, and therefore workaround the issue.

     

    Because the communication system has gone done, customers may not get feedback, and humans tend to remember their last bad experience.

     

    So what is the cost to this company.

    If you think this is not going to happen, have a look at Samsung and their battery issues that weren't their fault.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/23/samsung-blames-faulty-batteries-for-causing-galaxy-note-7-fires

     

    It seems to have cost them $5.3bn in lost profit.

     

     

    Mark

  • 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

  • One of the greatest challenges for technology implementation is the race between innovation while maintaining a level of job growth so that people can actually afford the technology.

     

    Like it or not, the world cannot advance technology AND put large numbers of people out of work.

     

    You quickly reach a point where only a small group can afford to have and use the technology while the remainder look on with envy and then displeasure.

     

    If we are going to allow the population to grow unabated, then the resources around the world will become so unevenly distributed that bad things will happen.

     

    I think you all know what happens then.

     

    DAB

  • I think here we're seeing people holding back on IT spend a little, they are trying to stretch what they have, which is concerning because in other countries businesses will take advantage of new IT infrastructure. There are efficiency gains to be had with a bit of capex but some businesses are going to miss out. For instance you can reduce your costs between business sites through using a combination of Internet with 'best effort' communications rather than exclusively relying on guaranteed service agreements with service providers. But that entails using more modern IT infrastructure. Such equipment is now 15% more expensive.

    So I think some businesses are holding back due to economic issues, but I hope they realize that the opportunities for business are dramatically changing and so they need to invest. For example one of the German industrial manufacturers (Siemens I think) offers IoT enabled washing machines for hotels, so they can proactively repair machines that are about to fail, before they fail. This means less spare machines are needed, and less need for an engineer to go on-site and then realize a particular part needs to be ordered. Now they can know in advance.

    Also one of the consumer associations here for motor vehicle drivers has announced an IoT telematics service to keep a check on motor vehicle health. I think they charge around £15 ($15) per month to consumers: RAC technology lets cars 'talk' to drivers before they break down

     

    There is an interesting book called 'The Technological Society' where the author thinks that it is in human nature to want to continually invent to optimize, and make things more efficient. He suggests that it is inevitable that by pursuing this, it is therefore only to be expected that we will optimize ourselves out of existence, because we will never consider ourselves to be as efficient as the machines we make. I hope we're still far away from that point! : ) But I often find myself thinking of ways to replace our tasks with those of a machine. I can't help it. I think most engineers are like this. Even when shopping yesterday, I was thinking how to replace us with a shopping bot..

    This video is very cool: