> "By transferring expert techniques to machines, we're able to analyze what was once implicit knowledge," said Akira Naito, head of Obayashi's dam technology unit.
That's intriguing and reminded me of the following Perlis quote -
> The only constructive theory connecting neuroscience and psychology will arise from the study of software.
Regarding the first quote: in any case, I think it's probably a good idea to encode this implicit knowledge somewhere. A bit like code is the best kind of specification.
Code can be studied and improved gradually. Since it guarantees repeatable results, you can try tweaking parameters and measuring the outcome, to achieve even better result. It's a bit like taking the highest-skilled workers, merging their knowledge, and extending their lifespan indefinitely so that they can continuously improve.
The only disadvantage I can see is that you're skewing the playing field in favor of those who have access to the most data, and by reducing the workforce size, make it difficult for someone else to obtain the same data.
At the end, a skilled worker can leave a company and make its own, or join a rival one. An algorithm can't do that, further entrenching a select few companies'positions, thus locking knowledge away from humankind. Companies probably contribute to the loss of information over time (see lost knowledge: Roman cement, massive bronze castings, etc), as free-flowing information is against their interests, in most cases.
> Companies probably contribute to the loss of information over time
I agree with what else you said, but I see much of the opposite process in corporations actually. I have worked in a couple of very large corporations and what I have seen is less of information hiding (and "not invented here") and more of cooperation through partnerships, open source software and standardisation of processes.
Of course, it isn't all bad or good, and I was just writing down my train of thought. Corporations also contribute to maintaining that information: by grouping together individuals skilled in the same domain, they can foster the exchange of ideas, and by training new employees, they perpetuate those skills. Patents are another mechanism that forces them to contribute back to society.
Once you start training algorithms instead of people, though, you attach that knowledge to the company, and it may not leave. In my experience, open source software and standards are the exception rather than the norm.
Fair point, I didn't think that deeply about trade secrets. I guess it could be even more hidden with various forms of machine learning, even the engineers themselves possibly couldn't explain how or why it worked when they left the building.
While I mostly agree with your comment, I would like to point out that a company may have a lifespan much greater than that of a skilled worksman (which may or may not have transferred his "specific" knowledge to any co-worker and/or apprentice). A company, simply because of the stream of new people that will have to be trained, need to have that knowledge passed down at some point, and having it laid down in writing or any non perishable medium is the safest way to do so.
I'd like to add a little context around the quote [0], because I do think it makes another issue very apparent:
> Building a dam requires knowledge and skill developed through years of experience. Obayashi's automated system is expected to be a game-changer in dam construction, as well as in other applications.
> "By transferring expert techniques to machines, we're able to analyze what was once implicit knowledge," said Akira Naito, head of Obayashi's dam technology unit.
> Every process for constructing the 334-meter-wide dam will involve some form of automation. That includes the initial work of establishing the foundation, and pouring concrete to form the body.
Implicit knowledge here refers to dam builders' workmanship and experience. It is an empirically constructed knowledge which is "stored" in the worksman's mind as instincts, concepts, know-how... While these may "be analyzed" and re-used for automation purposes, I have very strong doubts whether such implicit knowledge may even be truly understood and translated (be it in code or any other media) if there is such a precise goal. Specifically because the knowledge is implicit and applies situationally, one may never be able to grasp it all without some kind of very complex knowledge transfer set-up that could cover a broad range of situations, allowing all of the patterns to emerge and be identified.
Enough knowledge may be gathered that a company could successfully apply it to dam building by machines. But as automation replaces dam builders, chances are that the portion of the extracted knowledge which is not necessary to the company will join the expertise which did not transfer from the workmans' minds to the company to lay forever in the land of lost knowledge (...until it is found again through experience).
The rest will most likely be preserved "forever" through more or less obscure patents and "hard", explicit knowledge in the company's hands.
Yeah, but it also brings me to that you don't have to agree with Perlis's quote. But IMHO we know too little at this point in time to say it's an unreasonable idea.
We know far more about programs than about biology, but the gap between software and neuroscience is huge and we probably don't know as much about software as we think we do, either.
To me, Japan is the country with the most creative use of "AI". Maybe there is something to do with their perfectionism. Rather than focusing on only software, they worked on transferring precise designs to hardware.
A while ago there was an article on HN on how Sony automated most of PS4's manufacturing and made the production extremely efficient. It's almost like the continuation of Japanese craftsmanship in robot form. It's beautiful and really illustrates how the Japanese tradition is transferred to modern machinery.
There are drawbacks too, usually such solutions are very Japan centric and hard to port to other countries, leading to Galapagos syndrome.
One example is bullet trains - my most favorite form of transportation but sadly only few countries can adopt it with success similar to Japan.
Second is Osaifu-Ketai - I think this the best NFC based payment system in the world, extremely fast and almost no learning curve. But it took way too long to modernize it and put it inside smartphones. Is very inflexible. Licensing is too expensive so won't be ever globally opted, so we ended up with much inferior QR codes and slow NFC systems.
For your second point, I think you meant FeliCa. Osaifu-keitai is the name of the integration with phones, but FeliCa is the name of the far superior NFC standard that never took off outside Japan.
felica did see usage as university cards but when I say "Osaifu Ketai" I mean the entire business model surrounding it too. Only Hong Kong successfully implemented it.
Apple pay/Google pay is too slow, requires internet and has too many gotchas. And the entire thing is controlled by Apple and Google there's no competition. It's basically back to same old Visa & MasterCard duopoly.
I visited the Toyota factory in 1983 and the engine factory was almost completely automated but without computers - there were conventional mechanical and optical sensors and the like guiding the engine blocks as they trundled from machine to machine on belts. There's definitely something in the craftsman culture.
>>"The companies also hope that new technology could dispel negative stereotypes of the industry among younger generations, encouraging more people to work in construction."
Excellent - integrate high technology and make it cool - all kinds of nice second-order effects
While technologically cool, I think Japan could benefit from young immigrants from different parts of the world to solve their human capital problem. This benefits everybody.
This argument can be made about every technological advancement ever made. "Don't fix it with technology, just throw more people at it". That isn't how you make progress and it doesn't benefit everybody it just encourages stagnation.
You make a good point. I did not say that we should solve all problems via immigration. There are classes of problems that immigrants can’t solve. I’m just saying we should prioritize those problems above such problems. Examples include, researching cures for incurable illnesses such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, prosthetics to solve blindness, deafness, artificial limbs, etc. I feel automation can benefit various problem classes without generating mass unemployment.
It sure has helped the rest of the world conquer poverty. That doesn’t seem like stagnation to me.
The more we have immigrants stocking supermarket shelves and constructing infrastructure the more we can focus our high end R&D on things like biotech, medicine, space, and the like. That’s economics; comparative advantage is real.
That's not what OP is arguing. He appears to be arguing that technological solutions should not be tried in cases where immigration can solve the problem.
If Japan can automate many of these things they will end up being leagues ahead of those who solved it with immigration and will end up selling the solutions to the rest of the world.
But why should they focus on solving "problems immigration can solve" as opposed to "problems immigration cannot solve?" You could end up leagues ahead of the rest of the world in something like biotech or materials sciences. There's no intrinsic gain to be had by weighting the problem space.
More countries are on track to have declining populations than there are countries that have anywhere near enough people to export a labor class to do hard manual labor around the world. In fifty years, the countries above the replacement rate will be slim and mostly down to a few African countries.
Countries relying on immigration are going to get strangled and fall behind those that found ways to continue to develop themselves.
Japan is one of the easiest countries for skilled people to immigrate to. No quota, no requirement to try to hire locally first, fast-track visa (few weeks), as little as 1 year to get permanent residency.
Do construction trades count as "skilled people" in the immigration context in Japan? Usually when I hear "skilled" in that context I think of doctors and PhD researchers.
Not for the visa I linked but there are a lot of foreigners working construction and assembly lines on other visa types. I think it’s generally managed by some kind of labour company and the jobs are mostly low wage.
People are snarking you but this is absolutely true. I know multiple people that went over in their 20s. All but one came back within 10 years. People are very polite, but it's also clear there's a sort of invisible force field always around you that drastically limits your professional options beyond english translation/tutoring work. Forming a social network is nearly impossible.
One of my friends born there did his undergrad and masters in aerospace engineering in the US as there's a lot more programs and jobs here. When he went back due to family obligations he discovered he wouldn't be able to get a job beyond translating manuals. He's been told over and over again that if he had to leave Japan for school then clearly something must be wrong with him. So besides the undercurrent of racism, similar problems are found by native born citizens that don't conform to these expectations.
How is that innovative? Everyone is importing immigrants like there is no tomorrow. It's actually interesting how Japan is choosing a less optimal strategy that forces them to innovate or get left behind. If it pays off they will be leaders in robotics.
> I live in one of the more multicultural cities in the Western world. I have seen little evidence to suggest that even second and third generation immigrants assimilate into the host culture more than superficially. I have seen plenty of evidence to the contrary, which I will not list here due to it being tangential and often mistaken for malice.
What city do you live in, exactly?
I live in Los Angeles - one of several metropolises that I've lived in on several continents - and the vast majority of second and third generation immigrants I've met have had no trouble assimilating into their host culture. As an immigrant, in fact, I have struggled to find any zero or first generation immigrants that do not bemoan that their offspring are completely detached from their culture. They consider themselves lucky if their grandkids still speak their "native" tongue at a primary school level.
What I have seen everywhere, however, is a lot of small minded people who are only capable of differentiating each other by superficial ethnic stereotypes, dominated by skin color and religion. They've always got "plenty of evidence" that they "will not list here due to it being tangential and often mistaken for malice."
My apologies if I've got the wrong impression, but perhaps your understanding and methods of "assimilation" are fundamentally flawed.
From the perspective of someone who is not living in a large city I think you are primarily talking about the properties of large cities, not about assimilation in general. Large cities tend to form an excessive amount of enclaves because they allow hyper specialization. I always hear about people wanting to live in large cities because you can find a large group of people or go to businesses specializing in what you like no matter how niche your interest is. Cultures are not exactly niche. Millions of people can share the same culture.
However, what you seem to fail to grasp is that what you are seeing isn't actually the native culture of these people. It's actually an "americanized" (or localized) version of Bangladesh culture. If you forced them to go back to Bangladesh they would be considered too "americanized" and treated almost like outsiders there.
> From the perspective of someone who is not living in a large city I think you are primarily talking about the properties of large cities, not about assimilation in general...
No, I am talking about assimilation. I'm only concerned with the end product of the immigration. I'm not opposed to large-scale urban multiculturalism on some spiritual basis, I'm opposed to it because I don't believe it produces an actual desirable outcome. It sounds like you've just spoken to my point: That in large cities immigrant populations do not assimilate to the host culture because of the availability of said enclaves. If you're the one immigrant in a village of 100, you may need to make a bigger effort to assimilate into the host community. This is true. Your post seems to agree with me on the point that many immigrants favour large cities because there is less obligation to integrate with the host culture.
> However, what you seem to fail to grasp is that what you are seeing isn't actually the native culture of these people...
I fail to see the significance of this. I have my own doubts as to its accuracy. True or not, I still don't see the relevance. One possible way of interpreting your post would be that this is their attempt at assimilating into the host culture. If immigrant populations in large cities forming racial enclaves and ghettos that exclude the host culture is the best possible outcome, then why are we obliged to believe this multicultural experiment is a good thing?
FYI: I am an immigrant myself, having come to this country as a child.
> If immigrant populations in large cities forming racial enclaves and ghettos
This is a very... loaded way of talking about cultural precincts.
I've lived in the most multi-cultural city in Australia, and in one of the least, and I much prefer the diversity of the former. I love having a Chinatown that has legitimately maintained aspects of Chinese culture, and other Asian cultures, for example. The Chinatown in my previous city was essentially a cardboard prop in comparison.
In general, I think you may be confused. It seems that what you really care about is collective ethics and social contracts, and yet what you seem to be talking about is this vague idea of "assimilation". I find it hard to believe that you really want a perfectly homogeneous culture, but if you do, fair enough. I think most disagree with you - cities that have a bunch of legit cultural precincts are generally more interesting to me. I don't know how to say it exactly, but to me a monoculture city feels a little "boring" in comparison. This is, of course, just opinion.
If you happen to think that immigrants are statistically more associated with crime, then, in general, you're mistaken[0]. Foreign-born residents are generally underrepresented in prison populations, and studies I've read suggest that it takes around 3 generations for crime rates of immigrants to reach that of the native population.
[0] "Most studies in the U.S. have found lower crime rates among immigrants than among non-immigrants, and that higher concentrations of immigrants are associated with lower crime rates. For men between the ages of 18 and 39, the demographic with the highest propensity for crime, the incarceration rate for immigrants is one-fourth that of native-born Americans." Data with citations on more countries here --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime
> Multiculturalism is fine at the scale of a football team.
Multiculturalism worked for the Austrian Hapsburgs from ~1520 - ~1920.
There was a time in the US when JFK was considered too insufficiently assimilated to elect, because irish catholics had lived in large immigrant enclaves.
> I have seen little evidence to suggest that even second and third generation immigrants assimilate into the host culture to a more than superficial degree.
Works great here in Canada. My neighbors are Lebanese, Iranian (although he calls himself Persian), Polish and Brazilian. All very Canadian, which is not a synonym for assimilated.
I think your comment is downvoted because, to be blunt, it sounded like the author is an asshole, but for the content, it gives me a weird chuckle that racially segregated slavery/human importation is still the first suggestion to labor problems in an American forum like it’s 1920 or even 1820...
I think it is very weird that you compare less restrictive immigration policies to slavery. Slavery takes away people's freedom. Less restrictive immigration policies grant people more freedom than they already had. People can decide for themselves if they want to immigrate.
It is also weird how you call it racially segregated when it is possible for white Americans to immigrate to India and obtain an Indian citizenship and then have trouble going back to the US.
The closest thing we have to slavery is civil wars where prisoners of war are being forced on overloaded boats that are heading toward Europe. These people probably suffer from the same pain that African American slaves have suffered from but they are not slaves, they are refugees and rejecting them will just result in more suffering, not less. You can call this human importation but it was not initiated by the receiving nations which were actually tightening their borders.
Having lived in London for a decade, I have to ask: what do you mean "assimilate"? Because I'd point to where I lived as "it working demonstrably well".
We're in for an... immigrant shortage problem, however unbelievable that may sound.
China alone could absorb all that workforce and still have room for more given that their fertility rate has been below replacement for close to 30 years now.
That's intriguing and reminded me of the following Perlis quote -
> The only constructive theory connecting neuroscience and psychology will arise from the study of software.