A patient in New York or London may have his MRI sent digitally to, say, Bangalore, where a highly skilled radiologist reads the scan. However, that highly skilled radiologist in Bangalore may only be paid a quarter of what a New York radiologist would earn for reading tests.
It raises the question: how long before a computer can read those images faster, better, and cheaper than that Bangalore radiologist can?
Pointer from Tyler Cowen.
That sounds like a fair point. In general, however, I think that the forecasts for game-changing innovation made by Roubini and others are too aggressive. I do not share his enthusiasm for MOOCs, as you know.
For another bullish-on-robots, bearish-on-humans take, consider William H. Davidow and Michael S. Malone:
If you doubt the march of worker-replacing technology, look at Foxconn, the world’s largest contract manufacturer. It employs more than one million workers in China. In 2011, the company installed 10,000 robots, called Foxbots. Today, the company is installing them at a rate of 30,000 per year. Each robot costs about $20,000 and is used to perform routine jobs such as spraying, welding, and assembly. On June 26, 2013, Terry Gou, Foxconn’s CEO, told his annual meeting that “We have over one million workers. In the future we will add one million robotic workers.” This means, of course, that the company will avoid hiring those next million human workers.
Read the whole thing.
Frankly, I think that the biggest game-changer over the next fifteen years will be virtual/augmented reality that makes meetings among people from remote locations effective. If it comes off, it will reduce the significance of innovations in transportation, such as self-driving cars. It will also provide a platform for higher productivity in the New Commanding Heights of health care and education.
Here, let me make some predictions of when innovations will be well established (meaning that they have changed everyday life for many people), and I hope I do not err by being too aggressive.
| Year | Innovation |
|---|---|
| 2020 | Computer diagnosis based on lab results and other data |
| 2025 | Virtual/augmented reality enables people in remote locations to have meetings that feel “live” |
| 2030 | Food manufactured using bio-engineering rather than slaughtered or harvested |
| 2040 | Cures for all major diseases except cancer |
| 2040 | Personalized, computer-based education instead of classrooms |
| 2045 | Cure for cancer |
| ? | Fossil fuels overtaken as energy source by solar and/or nuclear power |
| ? | Medicines or implants that ensure high intelligence and conscientiousness |
| ?? | Drexler’s vision for nanotechnology, driving the cost of physical goods to near zero |
As for the issue of human obsolescence, I do think that we will see a trend toward more and more leisure. This will raise all sorts of questions of who deserves to have what provided for them. Right now, we say that people aged 67 or so deserve Social Security and Medicare. And people who can command only low wages (already obsolete in some sense?) deserve Medicaid and food stamps. And kids who can get in deserve the leisure aspects of college. My guess is that we will struggle quite a bit over the next forty years to adapt the social bargain concerning leisure.
Wow, who knew you were such a closet optimist, Arnold?
Woah you are *incredibly* bullish on medical innovation… why? I agree that computers will probably soon (if they have not already) surpass humans at the task of medical diagnosis. But that is a different problem from finding new cures. The state of the art in simulating the relevant biology using powerful computers is (AFAIK) quite limited.
Computers already do well on some diagnostic tests, e.g. reading mammograms. Some studies have them performing slightly better, some slightly worse, than humans.
The FDA has approved several ‘computer-aided detection’ systems, which highlight suspicious areas of the image for further review by humans.
e.g:
– http://www.parascript.com/2013-press-releases/parascript-granted-fda-approval-for-mammography-computer-aided-detection-system/
– http://investors.hologic.com/index.php?s=43&item=233
Completely removing humans from the detection process is not far off.
Discounting potential dystopian events like world wars and epidemics? The odds would seem as likely that we will be relearning how to chip flint in 40 years.
I approach this from a more Cowen-esque perspective and reach the opposite conclusion. Interpersonal relations are hugely undervalued and as technology makes autists of us all, these skills will only rise in value. Maybe as a luxury good, but then as wealth concentration increases luxury goods will increasingly define the market.
1. The augmented reality tech depends on how fast broadband connections get upgraded. If we have gigabyte-level wifi/broadband in most major cities by then, then definitely. Imagine ultra-HD wall screens so good it looks like the people on screen are in the same room as you. And augmented reality (particularly augmented reality glasses) are going to be one of those massive changes we don’t really appreciate the impact of until they happen.
2. I think the people making vegetarian products the simulate the taste and texture of meat (see Beyond Chicken) will beat the “lab meat” folks on that.
3. I’m going to bet most cancers are “cured” before 2045, probably from figuring out how to better target cancer cells plus much better surgery. I say “cured” because “suppressed” is more accurate – you get the tumors wiped out or removed and hope they don’t come back, and then go back in for regular wipe-outs.
Personalized, computer-based education instead of classrooms
We may not see complete replacement of classrooms until 2040, but I think we’ll get pretty close by at least 2030, if not earlier. The increases in breadth and quality at Coursera, Udacity, etc. have been breathtaking in the last few years, but they’ve only just gotten started.
Contra the Roubini quote, my radiology-resident brother tells me American imaging centers cannot send images to be read in India (I have long wondered why this hasn’t been done with my own images).
He says … drumroll … images can only be sent radiologists boarded by the American College of Radiology. I am not clear if this is a legal regulation, a medical insurance reimbursement issue, or a liability insurance requirement.
Obviously this can be changed, and very likely should be changed, but I think the key is that it won’t be changed.
Sounds like some candidates for Which Will Come First?
http://www.magnitudematters.com/search/label/WWCF?
Robotic medicine raises questions for the medical component of welfare. Some people want to say that everyone deserves health insurance, with the implication hat once you are covered, you are covered, and all coverage is the same.
However, it’s not the same if one plan covers cheap computerized support, and another plan has a greater degree of professional support.
It is for this kind of reason that I tend to favor medical welfare being thought of just like food stamps: a last resort that is better than nothing, but not something that *everyone* should be relying on.