Could Computers Replace Human Jobs Soon?

[avant-garde]

Can't a computer do their job?

I was just wondering how computers might be used to replace some jobs in the future. Take pharmacist, for instance. Clearly, an electronic expert system can be used when picking out the right drug.. the pharmacist's job is almost robotic imo.

Are there any other careers out there that could be in danger of an advanced expert system? Doctors, perhaps?

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Even if a computer system picks out the drug, someone still has to give the patient a consultation. I'm sure most patients are more comfortable talking to a real human being.

I don't think doctors are in any danger of being replaced by computers, either.

 

[junglebeast]

There are "expert systems" that mimic a doctor's diagnosis procedure, but these obviously cannot replace a doctor. Computer systems are always programmed to consider a limited number of factors, and when you take into account the factors that the computer didn't know about or ignored, the resulting decision could be considered idiotic. I think that an expert system might be a useful tool for doctors, especially during training, but it will not replace them.

Replacing humans with robots is not necessarily a good thing. Not everybody wants to be a cutting edge scientific researcher...and if you replace all menial jobs with robots, then the only jobs left would be highly theoretical jobs. People enjoy interacting with others, and robot replacements are usually not very good. Who likes talking to recorded voices instead of real telephone operators?

 

[Wax]

Computers can malfunction and there will always be someone required to monitor the system. Take airplanes for example. Would you trust technology alone to fly an airplaine without a pilot for you?

 

[avant-garde]

I'm sure computers won't get rid of all of them, but won't it replace a lot of professions?
You would have people that would "maintain" and see if things go wrong, but you wouldn't need someone to "man" each job, right?

For instance, robots do most of the manufacturing these days, not humans. However, you have a few people looking over and maintaining the whole factory. But that's way less the number of humans than before automation came along.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even if a computer system picks out the drug, someone still has to give the patient a consultation.

Why can't a computer do that?

I'm sure most patients are more comfortable talking to a real human being.

So your point is that nothing will change unless people are comfortable with that change? I see no evidence for that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm sure computers won't get rid of all of them, but won't it replace a lot of professions?
You would have people that would "maintain" and see if things go wrong, but you wouldn't need someone to "man" each job, right?

For instance, robots do most of the manufacturing these days, not humans. However, you have a few people looking over and maintaining the whole factory.

There are now lights-out plants, where the lights are turned off during normal operations because no one is there. However, places like that give people like me a job.

Coming soon: The end of fast-food jobs as we know them.

One of the stranger jobs that I've had over the last ten years was to write the controls for a burrito-making machine [Taco Bell].

 

[turbo]

Things change whether we consumers want the change or not. I have spent a great deal of time trying to get stuff straightened out between SSA and the IRS, and have wasted countless hours listening to recordings telling me how important my call is before eventually getting passed off to some low-level bureaucrat who tells me that they can't help resolve my problem or else gives me advice that directly contradicts the advice that the last low-level bureaucrat gave me. It's terribly frustrating and stressful, and the refusal of the agencies to coordinate has cost me thousands of dollars in unwarranted taxes.

 

[skeptic2]

I was just wondering how computers might be used to replace some jobs in the future. Take pharmacist, for instance. Clearly, an electronic expert system can be used when picking out the right drug.. the pharmacist's job is almost robotic imo.

Are there any other careers out there that could be in danger of an advanced expert system? Doctors, perhaps?

There already are machines that automatically dispense pills into bottles but somebody has to load the machines and put the labels on the filled bottles. There still would be paper work, requesting refills from doctors and billing insurance. Legally these activities would probably have to be done under the supervision of a pharmacist.

 

[Evo]

One of the stranger jobs that I've had over the last ten years was to write the controls for a burrito-making machine [Taco Bell].

This might prevent the employees from spitting into your food, but will the machine pick out the roaches and mice that fall into the food before it is served?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This might prevent the employees from spitting into your food, but will the machine pick out the roaches and mice that fall into the food before it is served?

I'm confused... Without the roaches and mice, what would be the source of protein?

 

[Borek]

There are "expert systems" that mimic a doctor's diagnosis procedure, but these obviously cannot replace a doctor. Computer systems are always programmed to consider a limited number of factors, and when you take into account the factors that the computer didn't know about or ignored, the resulting decision could be considered idiotic.

Obviously you have not yet meet doctor giving idiotic diagnoses.

 

[avant-garde]

This might prevent the employees from spitting into your food, but will the machine pick out the roaches and mice that fall into the food before it is served?

We'd have machines for that as well :D

 

[turbo]

I'm confused... Without the roaches and mice, what would be the source of protein?

Cut-off fingers from the soy processing plant.

One of my wife's co-workers wanted to eat at Taco Bell a few weeks ago, so she went along. My wife swears that there was no meat in the Taco - only some highly processed "stuff".

 

[SticksandStones]

I was just wondering how computers might be used to replace some jobs in the future. Take pharmacist, for instance. Clearly, an electronic expert system can be used when picking out the right drug.. the pharmacist's job is almost robotic imo.

Are there any other careers out there that could be in danger of an advanced expert system? Doctors, perhaps?

There is a lot more to pharmacy than picking out the right drug.

 

[Moonbear]

There is a lot more to pharmacy than picking out the right drug.

Indeed. For the most part, counting pills and putting them into bottles IS already a pretty automated process, and likely will become more so once prescriptions are done electronically rather than as scribbled, illegible notes on paper that require phone calls to doctors to interpret. Still, even for that, I'd like to have someone else looking at the pills dispensed to ensure the right ones wound up in the dispenser and no computer malfunction has it completely messed up.

For patient consultations, you really never can predict entirely what patients are going to want to ask. It takes a human touch to sometimes figure out what they really want to know when they don't know how to ask their question clearly.

Pharmacists are also adding more to their repertoire as they strive to be more than just pill counters. They can do things like health screenings, teach a newly diagnosed diabetic how to use their glucose monitor, discuss with a patient their choices for over-the-counter medicines that won't have adverse interactions with their prescription medications. And, sometimes they are the person who helps persuade a reluctant customer to return to the doctor for another visit.

You also need someone who can override a computer that is too rigid. Any computer system is going to have built in safeguards about things like drug interactions and tracking which medications a patient is taking. If a physician switches a prescription before the last one is completely used up, a computer might flag that as a problem, whereas the pharmacist can call the physician and find out that the patient is no longer taking the medication that can cause an interaction. Or, sometimes doctors have good reasons for prescribing things for off-label use, or in unconventional combinations, and again, a computer might prevent that combination while a real person can discuss it and allow it.

And, most importantly, humans can learn from their customers. Availability of things like prescriptions packaged in individual bubble packs or color-coded labels for customers who have difficulty with traditional pill bottles or reading the labels on them is something fairly recently offered because pharmacists were there to listen to their customers and identify problems with the existing system that needed solutions. Once the computer dispenses a prescription in a childproof bottle to Ms. Smith with arthritis in her hands, she would probably have hard time handing it back and asking for it to be packaged some other way.

 

[Borek]

I'd like to have someone else looking at the pills dispensed to ensure the right ones wound up in the dispenser and no computer malfunction has it completely messed up.

While supervising never hurts, I think chances of human error are much higher than chances of computer screwing up.

You also need someone who can override a computer that is too rigid. Any computer system is going to have built in safeguards about things like drug interactions and tracking which medications a patient is taking. If a physician switches a prescription before the last one is completely used up, a computer might flag that as a problem, whereas the pharmacist can call the physician and find out that the patient is no longer taking the medication that can cause an interaction.

At the same time chances that human will overlook possible interactions are much higher - 1000 active molecules in the drugs means 10⁶ possible interactions. Human will never remember them all, computer will check if some combination is not listed as potentially dangerous in milliseconds. That's what computers are much better at than we.

I am far from saying pharmacists and doctors are not necessary, but I feel like at least some of the arguments listed so far can be easily reversed, or are in fact counter-arguments.

 

[Evo]

While supervising never hurts, I think chances of human error are much higher than chances of computer screwing up.

My pharmacy is computerized. They have low paid technicians that pour the drugs into the vials that the computer selects and dispenses from. OOOPS. Tech places the wrong meds into a dispenser, wrong medicine gets dispensed, unless a trained pharmacist does the final check to make sure it's right.

 

[Borek]

Tech places the wrong meds into a dispenser

That's human error.

Besides, how does the pharmacist recognize the problem? Using computerized GC/MS system? Link this system directly to the computer that controls dispensing.

 

[Proton Soup]

i more or less agree with moonbear. and i think the biggest issue with computers is that they aren't so well-equipped to determine whether the patient understands the DOS and DON'TS of their prescription. perhaps one day computers will be better than people at reading people, but it doesn't appear that day will be anytime soon.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's human error.

I think that's the point. Humans have to give information to the computer for prescriptions and the like. If there is a mistake and the computer simply does as it is told then the mistakes go unnoticed.

 

[NeoDevin]

I think that's the point. Humans have to give information to the computer for prescriptions and the like. If there is a mistake and the computer simply does as it is told then the mistakes go unnoticed.

Unless the entire production line is automated.

 

[Proton Soup]

Unless the entire production line is automated.

unless there is a mistake in your code. maybe a failed sensor. corrupted data. fried circuitry.

 

[robertm]

One of my wife's co-workers wanted to eat at Taco Bell a few weeks ago, so she went along. My wife swears that there was no meat in the Taco - only some highly processed "stuff".

I worked at Taco Bell for over a year. Their beef is the lowest grade that is legal for a restaurant to serve (this falls in the USDA "Utility Beef" category). It smells absolutely rancid when you cut the re-thermalized pre-packaged frozen meat bags open and literally pour the meat into a pan.

Their steak, on the other hand, is grade A.

 

[Borek]

unless there is a mistake in your code. maybe a failed sensor. corrupted data. fried circuitry.

Sorry, but are you implying that well designed, fully automatic factory, is less reliable then similar factory manned by hundreds of people working manually? I don't think so. There is always some margin for errors, but in the case of well defined, repeteable task, human workers have no chance against computerized, autmatic system. There are reasons why more and more things are produced without humans ever touching them - reliability is one of them.

 

[Proton Soup]

Sorry, but are you implying that well designed, fully automatic factory, is less reliable then similar factory manned by hundreds of people working manually? I don't think so. There is always some margin for errors, but in the case of well defined, repeteable task, human workers have no chance against computerized, autmatic system. There are reasons why more and more things are produced without humans ever touching them - reliability is one of them.

am i ? these things are just tools. they give us considerable leverage to do tasks with greater efficiency. but these tools still require operators and maintenance. they're certainly not foolproof.

it's not all bad, of course. this is the mechanism for building wealth. it ratchets up the stuff/human ratio, and humans like their stuff.

 

[mikapple]

There already are machines that automatically dispense pills into bottles but somebody has to load the machines and put the labels on the filled bottles. There still would be paper work, requesting refills from doctors and billing insurance. Legally these activities would probably have to be done under the supervision of a pharmacist.

Actually there's machine who can now print and put on label for the vials.

I worked at a community pharmacy and let me think about what needs to be done by human and what's not...

Actually there are not much real consultations involved in community pharmacies. All the information is printed on package, unless you are too old/lazy/blind to read it. And who will trust the pharmacists who are overwhelmed with filling other people's prescriptions?!? Also, your physicians always ask you what drugs you are taking before you visit them, they should know the drug interactions if there's any, BTW, the doctors are the one who knows the your body the best, you should ask them when they are available! (e.g. you won't ask the cook what healthy food to eat when the dietitian is next to you; you won't ask the shampoo distributor what to use when you are with your hair stylist.) It's funny to see "pharmacy website" is still advocating this banal idea of consultation at community pharmacy while it's almost unseen in the reality.

Drug refills should be done by the patients themselves! We don't like patients asking us to call the busy doctor office (which always put us on hold for 10+ minutes, making us look like the "incompetent-guy") just because the patients themselves don't want to deal with their own doctor! That's not how our system is made for!

Insurance procedures are usually done by the technicians, not the pharmacists! (They don't care about the turmoil.) Honestly, I think the procedure part should soon to be replaced by computers, because basically we just type out the info from a piece of paper (prescription and insurance card) and send it to the insurance company via THE COMPUTER! I always imagine each patient carry a thumb drive, which stores the prescription and his/her insurance info, when s/her came to the pharmacy, s/he just plug in the USB, and the computer check with the insurance server to see if s/he is eligible, and if the drug is available, if so and that's it! s/he can just sit back and wait! But the negotiations (such as getting med earlier for vacation, higher dosage) is what that needs human, I wonder if that can be done by the patient on his/her own.

The pharmacy I worked at has a robot to put the most frequent used drugs in vials. It's very easy to put the drugs in, but it's crucial to put the RIGHT drugs in the machine! Our model is stupid that it miscounts a lot of time, so the pharmacists just told us to recount! (what's the point to have a robot? to save sometimes on grabbing the bottle? I seriously think the robot computer should fix that!) I strongly recommend the pharmacy to use blisters pack instead of vial to ensure accuracy.

Anyways, it's destiny for drug dispense to be automated. (Hopefully insurance procedures too!) Drug dispense robots are seen in everywhere, especially used for mailing order! But it's USA here, although food is just as important as drugs, there are a lot of legal limitations bound to the later. If there is a way to minimize the potentials for any human errors or legal problems, the company should go for it.

Pharmacists are still needed to check and sign off charts. (but not as much, it's 80K to 120K for one pharmacist per year, it's too expensive especially during recession. Also, we need hospital Pharmacists for some hard-core consultations!) That's just how legal system works, so that if anything goes wrong, you can point a gun at someone! Also, interactions such as negotiations and consultations are still needed to be done by someone in human forms. (Computers are just too naive for some grey area!)

 

[bassplayer142]

I see garbage trucks around with robotic arms on the side. The driver controls it and scoops up the garbage can kind of like a dumpster.

 

[SticksandStones]

There's a reason why pharmacists can dispense medications and doctors can't. It adds an extra layer of security. You wouldn't be surprised to know how often patients go see several different doctors, and fail to inform these doctors of the medications they are taking from other doctors. However, they often go to one pharmacist. So, when the pharmacist sees your on blood pressure medication and you have a prescription for viagra, they can say something.

 

[Moonbear]

There's a reason why pharmacists can dispense medications and doctors can't. It adds an extra layer of security. You wouldn't be surprised to know how often patients go see several different doctors, and fail to inform these doctors of the medications they are taking from other doctors. However, they often go to one pharmacist. So, when the pharmacist sees your on blood pressure medication and you have a prescription for viagra, they can say something.

Exactly! This happens quite often. Redundancy in something as important as healthcare is important. Let the robots do the mundane work while the pharmacist is there to do the final quality control check, and verify that there are no drug interactions the doctor missed.

Another issue is dealing with compounding. While it's harder and harder to find a pharmacist who can do compounding, it's still important, especially for people with allergies to commonly used binding agents in pills and such.

And, then there are still plenty of people who can't even figure out the simple kiosks for things like getting bridal registries, so how would they input all their questions to a computer to get a prescription? What about those who can't read? Or who aren't very educated about health issues and need someone to interpret a somewhat jumbled and confusing question and prompt them to figure out what they really need to know, and then gauge whether they've understood the answer?