Artists - new forms of art, html5, cool particle effects, webgl, 3D model scripts (for videos and such) and so on. A lot of use.
Bakers - baking is a science, machine learning to figure out just the perfect ingredients for the best bread? Pastry? Etc? I'm fairly certain there's a reason why Oreos taste just the way they do.
Brewers - same as the above. Why does Guinness taste just so? There's a lot of science behind that, science and stats.
Electricians - this one is a bit tougher, but some lighting systems in some houses are pretty damn complex - to the point I'm almost certain there are some microcontrollers involved. Or what about stage lighting? Sure it's physical, but it's still programming.
Fashion designers - a tough one, but someone has to program all those looms (although that's fabrics). They could also decide to turn it into a science, or what about those Samsung (or was it Philips?) LED fabrics that can be programmed to make lightshows. That could make it into fashion too.
Firefighters - ok you got me here, this is a very physical job that probably wouldn't benefit from programming .... oooh, how about fire prediction? Calculating how it will spread in a building? That sort of stuff?
Fishermen - have you seen the amount of high tech on a modern fishing boat (on telly for instance)? Puts the average reddit battle station to shame. Those things are complex and look very programmable.
Mechanics - don't modern cars depend a lot on their electronics? Aren't there people who almost do nothing other than tune engines? Isn't that quite a bit like programming?
Musicians - a guy at my faculty made a software that does some intricate things with music, I forget what it was, but basically machine learning on sounds and stuff like that. All very interesting and programming-heavy. Also the effects some peopel use these days are pretty damn awesome ... programmable?
Pilots - don't they already pretty much program the auto pilot? What I've seen on television (discovery channel for instance) that thing is very complex and it doesn't look too far from programming when they input their commands.
Plumbers - microcontrollers that control the amount of water flow based on time of day and season for the best water economy. That is all.
Psychiatrists - they already program people's minds. They don't need anything more than that or they'd be too scary.
Stylists - depends on the kind of stylist. Machine learning from tweets about a celebrity to figure out their best look? To figure out trends in style in advance so the celebrity client always looks like they're ahead of the curve? Hell, apply this to fashion designers as well.
Winemakers - it's a science. A lot more goes into a bottle of wine than most of us think (I've seen how advanced the field of tea tasting is). I'm sure there's a lot of chances for programming therein.
Zookeepers - when do you put a mommy bear and a daddy bear together in the pen so they don't eat each other and produce baby bears instead? ok that's statistics, but a little R programming wouldn't hurt.
Guess what I'm saying is, almost all of these professions could benefit from at least programming in R.
edit: The point is that, if all those people at least knew about programming, who knows what they'd be able to create or at least think of (and then get someone to do it)?
I appreciate what you're doing here. As a programmer, I can also see areas that programming (or at least skilled computer usage, as some of these things can probably be done in Excel or existing tools) could add to most professions.
But even in your replies, you're often dealing with only small subsets. I don't want to live in a society which feels painters and sculptors are obsolete because we have webgl. I certainly don't want to live in a society in which the Oreo is an example of good baking. And the existence of webgl and Oreos doesn't indicate to me that painters, sculptors, and traditional bakers need to know about the programmatic options.
When not subsets, it's not clear to me why the professional ought to know programming rather than enlisting the help of a programmer. Programming tools for fire prediction would probably be quite involved. I've been programming professionally for 3 years, and I'm not sure I'd be up to the challenge. I'm not sure someone could be a skilled firefighter, learn programming well enough to write fire prediction tools, and still have a social life. And even if someone can, there's no reason every firefighter needs to. Once it's written, it's written, and others just need to learn to use it.
(As for the burger, I wouldn't eat it. I like my food traditional, minimally processed, and made of things I would recognize on a shelf [a category into which his emulsifiers do not fall].)
That's certainly your prerogative, and good for you.
In the year 2040 you need to go to the dentist. The dentist you visit has a big shop, with lots of employees. There's Linda, who works the telephone and knows you and your family. There's the hygienist. There's the nurse's aide. The dentist even makes his own amalgams for fillings. It's a very personal and homey atmosphere. People like it.
The other place has robots. There is no dentist. You click on your iPad (or whatever you have then) that you want to see a dentist, and within ten minutes you're in the office. A robot does the exam, consults with you, and completes the work.
The first dentist costs four times as much as the second one. It also takes twice the time, and you have to wait two weeks for an appointment. (If you're lucky)
Now that's not some strange imaginings -- that's going to happen, whether we like it or not. The main question becomes: do we evolve a mixed-mode shop full of artisans working (programming) computers and technology? Or do we just commoditize the lot of it, take the humanity and ingenuity completely out of the picture? If you set aside programming, make the programming shop some special place where people go to commoditize business practices, you end up with no people around. After all, you've replaced them. If, however, each person knows their job and also programming, you create something new that wasn't there before. This is the startup question, "should all the founders know how to program?" applied to the world at large.
The essay makes the case not for programmers to rule the world, but for people of all jobs to learn to manipulate complex programmable technology in the same way they might today use Microsoft Publisher to make a banner. It's actually arguing your case for you: for our own benefit, the creative and unique aspect of people must be preserved.
It is my hope that humanity finds a healthy balance between technology and tasks that humans do. Yes, it would be great if Apple didn't have to exploit Chinese workers to make their products. But no, it would not be great if my Doctor was put out of work by a robot. I honestly feel that the government will have to issue some sort of standard that limits technology to some sense.
Yes, I would save money by going to the robot dentist, but my dentist would be out of work in no time. It partially rests on humans to keep the exploits of technology at bay. We can't turn personable human tasks into machine work.
Our world can be set up to be completely self-sufficient. Yes, a few people would make a lot of money, but I personally believe the impacts would be horrendous.
What separates the Dentist from the bank teller? Clearly ATM's have drastically reduced the need for Bank tellers, yet nobody seems that concerned about it. More generally, I suspect there is always going to be gap’s when as a field gets automated. As the more complex the task the harder it is to automate and less cost effective it is to do. So, it feels like the steady erosion of low end jobs everywhere vs. a sudden loss of a single profession.
We can see this as an increased demand for education / training. But, not everyone is able to keep up and over time ever fewer people are going to be capable of the remaining niches. It's possible that the service industry's are going to continue to absorb the less capable, but that does not help the economy in the long term.
"What separates the Dentist from the bank teller?"
One of them has his or her hand in your mouth and might need to drill, remove, fill or otherwise mess around with your teeth. I think a lot of people would be more comfortable with a human element in all medical interactions, even if robots are eventually as effective.
What about when robots become more effective? Drastically more effective?
I would not let a modern day robot work on my teeth, they are too stupid, but I can imagine a day (fairly soon) when this will not be the case, and my gut reaction will start to be the exact opposite: I would not let a human being work on my teeth.
I wouldn't bet against that, but what I was saying was that right now there is a big difference between a human bank teller and a human dentist, and an even bigger difference between an ATM and some future dentist robot. It's just a bad analogy because they are not similar interactions at all.
We already have robotic dentists doing dental work better than a human can. Back in the dark ages of say 1995 if you wanted to get your teeth into better alignment you went to this guy who attached this complex apparatus that would forcefully move the teeth in your mouth and every so often you would go back to this same person to do adjustments and such. Sure, it often hurt, look a long time, looked bad, interfered with proper dental care, and only allowed for fairly simple work, but at least it was expensive.
Now, with automation and 3D imaging technology we can have a specialist specify what to change and let a computer design a series of discrete non-invasive attachments that allow a home users to quickly attach and remove their implant. It's far less painful, takes less time,can far more precisely preform complex work like rotating a tooth, and the only downside is it costs about the same amount as braces. Note: This is an actual company not just BS (http://www.invisalign.com/Pages/default.aspx).
PS: I still occasionally see a teller for complex interactions, but I trust an ATM to be far more accurate for my day to day needs. And there is still plenty of work for orthodontists, but a lot of the simple stuff is simply better handled by a machine.
That's fascinating, thanks. But has this technology reduced the need for orthodontists? Does it mean that orthodontists now need to learn how to program? I think this is just another example of humans using more software.
It's reduced the time an orthodontist spends per patent and allowed non orthodontists to do simple things that used to involve an orthodontist. But, it has also convinced a lot of adults to get dental work. So, in the short term it's fairly neutral, but in the long term we are going to need fewer orthodontists.
As to programming; I don't know a lot about how the software works, but advanced users in front of really complex software like Excel and Photoshop tend to blur the line between a Specialist and Programmer.
I might indeed prefer Dentist #1. But if competition in my field of interest has significant reduced my salary or rendered me unemployed, I may have no choice but to dial-up Dentist #2.
This effect then results in Dentist #1 joining me in having his/her livelihood under pressure.
Automating (nearly) everything doesn't mean everyone have to starve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
There. Lots of free time, and the money to live through it. I agree however that our current economic model cannot stand widespread automation (heck, it already struggles with abundance, fighting it with artificial scarcity).
I'm not saying webgl or oreos will replace artists/baking. I'm saying they can (should?) view programming and computers in general as new tools to expand their art.
Your arguments are based on the fact that you know as a programmer how much it helps you. But you are trivializing the years of experience and knowledge it takes for someone to master a craft or profession.
Just because some chefs with decades of experience figured out how to mass produce relatively poor quality cookies does not mean that it will be a snap for those chefs to spend years learning how to program well enough that they can create Star Trek replicators.
> I don't want to live in a society which feels painters and sculptors are obsolete because we have webgl.
They're not. However, their work is greatly enhanced by using programming to, for example, generate procedural patterns, to mock up new shapes, and to test out new ideas.
Being able to program reduces the constraints that our mental abilities put on us by offloading parts of it to a computer.
Most of your examples are how computers and software are used in these professions. They don't justify most of these people needing to know how to program computers.
A pilot is only "programming" an autopilot in the most rudimentary sense, by supplying parameters. He's not implementing the operating system for one.
The plumber will need to know little else about your flow microcontroller than how to install it and possibly some settings to input. He needs about as much programming ability for this as he needs for his soldering iron.
Is a plumber designing your house's plumbing not a plumber just because some plumbers are designing plumbing for whole cities?
Am I not a programmer just because I make websites instead of design and implement Apache, the linux kernel, the processor's microinstructions nor the processor's wiring?
It's not programming in a sense that justifies a plumber learning C, Java, or Ruby.
I think we're talking about something beyond the old concept of "computer literacy" here. Any future plumbers are going to have grown up using iPhones, and will have the basic skills needed for the limited interactions they'll have with computers in their jobs.
You were really stretching on some of these. Sure, there will be software to assist any of these professions but that doesn't mean all the people in the profession should become programmers. You're conflating the need of an individual professional to learn to program with the ability of software to impact the industry that individual works in.
Firefighters, for example. Modeling & predicting fire sounds great, but should that be the job of a firefighter or a programmer/statistician who works for the fire department?
That said, I think you're right to call out the parent – many of these jobs should require programming or already do. Many artists & musicians rely heavily on an ability to write software. The group of professions producing food & drink will benefit from automation, but only so much as the professionals using those automation tools understand and can control them.
Programming ability is rapidly moving into all kinds of areas, but to assume that it must end up in every area seems almost as narrow minded as ignoring the impact it's currently having.
that doesn't mean all the people in the profession should become programmers
No, they shouldn't become programmers, but knowing how to program (and I wouldn't expect them to know much more than the basics required to write real programs and learn more later if they so chose) will not only help them better understand the modern world around them, but they will be able to apply these skills if and when they make sense or at the very least they would have a better idea of how to best communicate their needs to a real programmer.
I'm not a historian because I was thought history in school, so why would everyone be a programmer if everyone learned how to program?
It wasn't my intention to deny the impact of programming. I was just trying to, as you said, point out that "[not] all the people in the profession should be programmers."
Thank you for providing both sides in one post though. It's helpful to see the balance made so clear.
Machine learning for bakers and chefs? Wow, you've managed to take everything that is fun, interesting, and compelling out of making great food. I'll pass on your future world of Oreos and Heinz Ketchup.
In fact, the food and bev industry is going in the exact opposite direction of this form of commoditization with small, craft shops popping up all over the place.
The original comment said: What do any of these educated and skilled people need with programming?
You said: ... almost all of these professions could benefit from at least programming in R.
"Need" != "Benefit From". There are innate benefits from learning anything, including programming. That does not equate to a profession having a need for programming.
I may have took "have need for" a bit liberally I guess. But if a field can be improved by applying science, I take that is there being a need for that. Even if nobody is yet doing it like that (although the fact I could think of those off the cuff like that probably means that there is somebody somewhere in the world more knowledgable of that field who is already doing it)
"Why does Guinness taste just so? There's a lot of science behind that, science and stats."
Guinness was a pioneer in this area, actually. William Sealy Gosset, the discoverer of the Student's t distribution, worked for Guinness (he published his work under the name "Student" because Guinness had a rule against employee publications).
Our entire tool-using history has been remarkably short and has vastly transformed the world, resulting in more powerful tools, especially resulting in the universal-tool known as the computer. It can be comforting to imagine there's some normal-people-land that just puts-along untouched by the advance of our tools but really there isn't. Every human activity combines relating with the world and relating to other humans - the changing tools for doing this change the activity, often radical.
Using your example of bakers, I think more value would be in being able to set up scripts and such to set up ways of monitoring things (temperatures, moisture, whatever). With a little programming and a simple DIY electronics kit (an arduino perhaps), a lot of these professions could easily rig up some hardware and software to monitor their work and notify them of specific circumstances. The more advanced people could rig up ways to automate part of their work.
At the very least, they will have some idea of what they need when some actual software people try to create something for these peoples industries (ie, they will be able to communicate their needs better because they will have some idea of what the programmers actually do).
EDIT: as much as I hate when people ask about why they are being downvoted, I would like to understand why so I can improve my future posting. Unless of course someone simply didn't like or disagreed with the post, though I would at least like to know why you disagree with me as I don't see anything obviously wrong with my post as an expansion to the parent post. I am merely pointing out how knowing some programming would be useful to a very wide variety of professions[1] beyond what parent said (which was a lot of machine learning) and that at the very least, it would help people communicate with "real" programmers, the same way that I learn about business to help me better communicate with the various different business people.
[1] A large enough variety of professions and people that I think everyone should be taught at least basic programming the same way as I think everyone should learn some basic algebra, history, geography, chemistry, biology, etc
This is actually a very good point: people in a lot of professions could get a significant competitive advantage by automating large parts of their job. A random programmer does not know enough about baking to do much here; a baker who knows even a little bit about programming would find it much easier not only to do things him/herself but also to explain his needs to programmers who are not bakers.
In fact, the biggest win would be even simpler--just understanding where automation could help and where it couldn't is enough to progress. This sort of understanding more or less requires at least a base understanding of programming.
Most of the new projects we see on HN will help other programmers. This sucks. The first advice to writers is write what you know about, and it applies to innovation - fire fighters that know a little about programming will be able to innovate in their field much better than I can. They will be able to detect and solve their hard problems faster then I could because they have actual experience in their field.
We can say that any of these professions will gradually evolve to accomodate programming of some sort. I was thinking about this and I realized that putting programming in front of someone like a winemaker will also have to deal with problems faced by programmers--debugging, refactoring code, upgrading, optimizing, putting together frameworks, and etc.
oooh, how about fire prediction? Calculating how it will spread in a building? That sort of stuff?
That's the not the job of the fireman, I think. I hope the fireman in my city doesn't spend his time doing such stuff instead of extinguishing the fire.
Artists - new forms of art, html5, cool particle effects, webgl, 3D model scripts (for videos and such) and so on. A lot of use.
Bakers - baking is a science, machine learning to figure out just the perfect ingredients for the best bread? Pastry? Etc? I'm fairly certain there's a reason why Oreos taste just the way they do.
Brewers - same as the above. Why does Guinness taste just so? There's a lot of science behind that, science and stats.
Chefs - the same argument applies. I also suggest you watch The Best Hamburger Ever -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U...
Electricians - this one is a bit tougher, but some lighting systems in some houses are pretty damn complex - to the point I'm almost certain there are some microcontrollers involved. Or what about stage lighting? Sure it's physical, but it's still programming.
Fashion designers - a tough one, but someone has to program all those looms (although that's fabrics). They could also decide to turn it into a science, or what about those Samsung (or was it Philips?) LED fabrics that can be programmed to make lightshows. That could make it into fashion too.
Firefighters - ok you got me here, this is a very physical job that probably wouldn't benefit from programming .... oooh, how about fire prediction? Calculating how it will spread in a building? That sort of stuff?
Fishermen - have you seen the amount of high tech on a modern fishing boat (on telly for instance)? Puts the average reddit battle station to shame. Those things are complex and look very programmable.
Mechanics - don't modern cars depend a lot on their electronics? Aren't there people who almost do nothing other than tune engines? Isn't that quite a bit like programming?
Musicians - a guy at my faculty made a software that does some intricate things with music, I forget what it was, but basically machine learning on sounds and stuff like that. All very interesting and programming-heavy. Also the effects some peopel use these days are pretty damn awesome ... programmable?
Pilots - don't they already pretty much program the auto pilot? What I've seen on television (discovery channel for instance) that thing is very complex and it doesn't look too far from programming when they input their commands.
Plumbers - microcontrollers that control the amount of water flow based on time of day and season for the best water economy. That is all.
Psychiatrists - they already program people's minds. They don't need anything more than that or they'd be too scary.
Stylists - depends on the kind of stylist. Machine learning from tweets about a celebrity to figure out their best look? To figure out trends in style in advance so the celebrity client always looks like they're ahead of the curve? Hell, apply this to fashion designers as well.
Winemakers - it's a science. A lot more goes into a bottle of wine than most of us think (I've seen how advanced the field of tea tasting is). I'm sure there's a lot of chances for programming therein.
Zookeepers - when do you put a mommy bear and a daddy bear together in the pen so they don't eat each other and produce baby bears instead? ok that's statistics, but a little R programming wouldn't hurt.
Guess what I'm saying is, almost all of these professions could benefit from at least programming in R.
edit: The point is that, if all those people at least knew about programming, who knows what they'd be able to create or at least think of (and then get someone to do it)?