> My comment was specifically about modeling.

My point is that AI impacting modelling has little to do with "skills" because AI is already threatening to replace "skilled" trades as well.

Unless you want everyone to be plumbers or waiters, I'm not exactly sure how this helps.

> No. Trade skills are not replaceable by software. > > Most jobs that need people to physically engage with their duties are safe until reliable robotics come along. But we're talking about software not hardware.

How does this jibe with reports that white collar jobs and jobs held by people with bachelor degrees will be the most impacted moving forward?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/27/high-paid-well-educated-white-collar-jobs-heavily-affected-by-ai-new-report.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/27/high-paid-well-educated-white-collar-jobs-heavily-affected-by-ai-new-report.html

Are these not "skilled"?

Unless you run your own small business, most blue collar jobs pay less, but with more strain and health impact.

> It's not about not hiring minorities, it's about not hiring anybody. > > Also, if people would have invested in real skills instead of relying on existing in front of a camera for a few seconds this wouldn't be a problem to them.

Isn't AI eventually coming for all jobs?

Who are "real skills" going to save?

Exactly how could places like New York be turned into 'walkable cities'?

EDIT: Also, how would this benefit the disabled and infirm in terms of mobility?

What's the closest example of this available so far?

Any research papers?

What's the actual number of messages within the message cap/daily limit?

Will this help to solve abiogenesis?