>Google recently announced that its Nexus Q streaming media player would be made in the U.S., and this put pressure on Apple to start following suit.
So Tim Cook announces Apple's intention to do this at the end of May, and this is somehow "following suit" when Google hadn't even announced the Nexus Q yet (June 27)?
>We can only guess. Autodesk CEO Carl Bass says that just as we have created new, higher-paying jobs in every other industrial transition, we will create a new set of industries and professions in this one.
What are average humans capable of that robots aren't?
My memory is that Apple announced a "desire" to do more manufacturing in the US. Google announced an actual product that will be built there. Not really the same thing. Someone correct me if Apple is actually sourcing anything other than semiconductors from the US for a planned product.
The whole "where is it built" thing is dumb, though. But still, if you're going to take afront, this doesn't seem like the right spot.
I'm just pointing out an inaccuracy, not making a claim to Apple's greater virtue: the article asserts Apple is being influenced in May by something announced in June (unless one is to assume Apple got an insider tip).
I think you're reading too far. The assertion is pretty straightforward: an Android device built in the US puts pressure on Apple to do the same. And the sentence links to a story about Apple wanting to build in the US but not being able to do so. I don't see an assertion of causality. They just looked for an opportunity to link to another Forbes story, saw a relevant one, and threw it in. The author may not have even written the link in the original.
Manufacturing design jobs are for average humans, unfortunately. Until something replaces the jobs lost that are suitable for average humans, there will likely be a risk of political instability (which is likely one of the reasons why the US has been heavily investing in domestic counter-insurgence infrastructure over the last decade).
True, but I think Qworg was instead suggesting that humans are good where the confidence/accuracy of robots drops off. Machine learning tasks usually get to 70% good enough pretty quickly, but after that each percent gain costs more and more. There's a point where humans can complement robots when the robots are not yet good enough to solve the problem.
For simple tasks. Identifying thousands of different products by sight alone in infinite numbers of configurations at varying light levels/obstruction? Humans are best.
So Tim Cook announces Apple's intention to do this at the end of May, and this is somehow "following suit" when Google hadn't even announced the Nexus Q yet (June 27)?
>We can only guess. Autodesk CEO Carl Bass says that just as we have created new, higher-paying jobs in every other industrial transition, we will create a new set of industries and professions in this one.
What are average humans capable of that robots aren't?