Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the likelihood of job automation based on a study by Oxford University, which evaluates various jobs according to their susceptibility to automation through nine key skills. Participants share their own job automation scores and express their thoughts on the implications of automation in various fields, including programming, engineering, and physical sciences.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Debate/contested
- Technical explanation
Main Points Raised
- Some participants report their automation risk scores, with biologists and engineers noting low susceptibility (8%), while a paramedic mentions a score of 5%.
- There is a question raised about why physical scientists have a higher automation risk (20%) compared to chemists (6%), prompting a discussion about the factors influencing these scores.
- A participant expresses concern about their job as a machinery operator being highly likely to be automated in the future.
- Some participants suggest that the status of AI at any given moment could influence job automation risks.
- Multiple participants identify as programmers, asserting that their roles have low automation risk and suggesting they may be involved in automating other tasks.
- One participant humorously comments on the idea of being a robot, while another reflects on the implications of the singularity on job automation.
- There is mention of a long discussion on a related book about the relationship between robots and humans, indicating a broader interest in the topic.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally share their individual automation scores and express varying levels of concern or confidence regarding their job security in the face of automation. However, there is no consensus on the implications of these scores or the future of automation across different fields.
Contextual Notes
The discussion references a study that categorizes jobs based on nine skills, but some participants note the lack of raw data for specific jobs, which may limit the understanding of individual scores.