Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Careers - Employment
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Actuarial Jobs by State

New York  New Jersey  Connecticut  Massachusetts 
California  Florida  Texas  Illinois  Colorado


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old 02-14-2017, 06:04 PM
snakeroberts snakeroberts is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
College: k
Posts: 295
Default

damn I know Im talking to myself but I should add "good looking people" will have jobs too, modeling. Thats the problem with over generalizations you always forget some class.

so if your ugly, dumb, and uncoordinated and from a low class family your screwed. same as it ever was but more so.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 02-14-2017, 07:49 PM
Abelian Grape's Avatar
Abelian Grape Abelian Grape is offline
Meme-ber                         Meme-ber
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Commuter
Studying for Viticulture dissertation
College: Grape and Wine Institute
Favorite beer: Wine
Posts: 33,524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snakeroberts View Post
damn I know Im talking to myself but I should add "good looking people" will have jobs too, modeling. Thats the problem with over generalizations you always forget some class.

so if your ugly, dumb, and uncoordinated and from a low class family your screwed. same as it ever was but more so.
Your friendship with snakeroberts is already pending
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 02-14-2017, 09:06 PM
JoJo JoJo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjacjswo View Post
calm down brah. if anything, accountants will be automated first.
I'm thinking about having my taxes done by Watson this year.

Just kidding. Doing them myself.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 02-15-2017, 04:30 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 76,756
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/6...re-threatened/

Quote:
Business Impact

As Goldman Embraces Automation, Even the Masters of the Universe Are Threatened

Software that works on Wall Street is changing how business is done and who profits from it.

by Nanette Byrnes February 7, 2017

At its height back in 2000, the U.S. cash equities trading desk at Goldman Sachs’s New York headquarters employed 600 traders, buying and selling stock on the orders of the investment bank’s large clients. Today there are just two equity traders left.

Automated trading programs have taken over the rest of the work, supported by 200 computer engineers. Marty Chavez, the company’s deputy chief financial officer and former chief information officer, explained all this to attendees at a symposium on computing’s impact on economic activity held by Harvard’s Institute for Applied Computational Science last month.

The experience of its New York traders is just one early example of a transformation of Goldman Sachs, and increasingly other Wall Street firms, that began with the rise in computerized trading, but has accelerated over the past five years, moving into more fields of finance that humans once dominated. Chavez, who will become chief financial officer in April, says areas of trading like currencies and even parts of business lines like investment banking are moving in the same automated direction that equities have already traveled.

.....
Goldman Sachs has already begun to automate currency trading, and has found consistently that four traders can be replaced by one computer engineer, Chavez said at the Harvard conference. Some 9,000 people, about one-third of Goldman’s staff, are computer engineers.

Next, Chavez said, will be the automation of investment banking tasks, work that traditionally has been focused on human skills like salesmanship and building relationships. Though those “rainmakers” won’t be replaced entirely, Goldman has already mapped 146 distinct steps taken in any initial public offering of stock, and many are “begging to be automated,” he said.

Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 02-15-2017, 06:31 PM
kimjongfun kimjongfun is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Studying for C
Posts: 659
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snakeroberts View Post
Elon Musk also thinks fully automated cars will be here in 10 years, which if true would cut out the personal lines actuary. its already creeping e.g. lane assist and other techs become common and cheaper.

In 50-100 years if your not born with IQ>150 or not born to rich family, or not a star athlete, you are going to be on some form of welfare or live a Luddite life in the woods. It could be worse... you could be in a N. korea gulag.

I say that with the assumption that any new jobs created will have a higher "g" (general smarts) threshold than in the past.
Perhaps gene selection will allow everyone to have an iq above 150
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 02-15-2017, 06:53 PM
ElDucky's Avatar
ElDucky ElDucky is offline
Free Mason
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In a van, down by the river
Studying for Let me worry about blank
Favorite beer: Trappistes Rochefort 8
Posts: 36,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimjongfun View Post
Perhaps gene selection will allow everyone to have an iq above 150
Machine based neurons
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 02-16-2017, 10:53 AM
snakeroberts snakeroberts is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
College: k
Posts: 295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I wonder if they will automate the creation of "pitch books"
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 02-19-2017, 12:14 AM
thinhnham2806's Avatar
thinhnham2806 thinhnham2806 is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Dallas
Posts: 192
Default do not fear automation

In my opinion, a lot of work we are doing might not be actuarial. Automation can help us get these boring non-actuarial tasks done so actuaries can focus on actuarial work. I might be wrong on this but I am optimistic that automation will not replace actuarial work !
__________________
FM PMLC
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 02-19-2017, 02:35 PM
Hello, My Baby's Avatar
Hello, My Baby Hello, My Baby is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinhnham2806 View Post
In my opinion, a lot of work we are doing might not be actuarial. Automation can help us get these boring non-actuarial tasks done so actuaries can focus on actuarial work. I might be wrong on this but I am optimistic that automation will not replace actuarial work !
I think whether or not a job can be automated away is very situational and depends on the specific nature of the job.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 02-20-2017, 12:33 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 76,756
Blog Entries: 6
Default

this doesn't really fit here, but eh

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...ign=2017-02-14

Quote:
Why Humans Distrust Algorithms – and How That Can Change

Mathematical models have been used to augment or replace human decision-making since the invention of the calculator, bolstered by the notion that a machine won’t make mistakes. Yet many people are averse to using algorithms, preferring instead to rely on their instincts when it comes to a variety of decisions. New research from Cade Massey and Joseph Simmons, professors in Wharton’s department of operations, information and decisions, and Berkeley J. Dietvorst from the University of Chicago finds that control is at the core of the matter. If you give decision-makers a measure of control over the model, they are more like to use it. Massey and Simmons spoke to Knowledge@Wharton about the implications of their research.

An edited transcript of the conversation follows.


....
Knowledge@Wharton: If I’m a business owner or someone who is going to be charged with using one of these algorithms, how might I apply this research in real life?

Massey: The overarching lesson would be that you don’t simply impose a monolithic model or black box model and say, “This is how you use judgment. This is how you should codify your decision-making.” People will fight that. You want to let them have discretion. That’s going to look different in different places. Consider a graduate school making admissions — they rank their applicants and, at some point, they cut a line and make exceptions. They move people around. You can automate some of that process. Even if you use some of their judgment to provide inputs to the model, you can use an automatic model to say, “These are the folks that you should take.”

On one hand, you could say, “Here is the model. This is what it says; take it or leave it. We’re going to automate the process.” You’re basically going to have a revolt on your hand. But if you say, “Here is a model that is advisory. We suggest that you consider it. If you want to move things around, move them around.” We’ve worked with schools in exactly this way, and what you find is that they’re a little skeptical early on. They lean on the model some, and over time they are practically using the entire model as it is, even though they have discretion to change as much as they want.

Knowledge@Wharton: I would also think that the presentation would be important to make sure that people know they have this control.

Simmons: I think the important thing is to avoid an all-or-nothing framing — like having to stick with the algorithm 100% of the time. If people think that based on how you have described it, they are going to push back. But if you can frame it as, “Even 99% of the time, we are going to go with the algorithm, but you have the option to change the algorithm or to not go with the algorithm at a given moment,” that’s going to make people a lot more amenable to using it.

Another context in which this might matter is self-driving cars. You can imagine people not feeling comfortable being in a self-driving car if they have no control whatsoever. But if they say, “Well, there’s this sort of thing you can do. It’s a little bit difficult and unusual, but there’s this thing you can do to gain control over the car in circumstances where you might need to do it. We found that people never need to use this, but it does exist” — we would predict in that circumstance, people would be much more amenable to getting in a self-driving car because there is some control. Autopilot is usually safer than real pilots, but people want a pilot there, even though lots of plane crashes are due to pilot error. They feel better about that. I think our research speaks to that a bit.

.....
Knowledge@Wharton: What’s next for this research?

Massey: We continue to play with some factors that might contribute to the people’s reluctance to use algorithms, but we also want more real-world tests of it. If we work with professionals with real money at stake, do they fall into the same biases? Are there ways for us to help them? We have a couple of organizations that we have talked to over time, and they are interested in running experiments on their employees or customers to see if what we see in the lab takes place in the field.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.51985 seconds with 10 queries