I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
Comments
Probably should just learn Mandarin now! It will enhance your chances to be a gardener or nanny for a wealthy Chinese family!
I have to meet a single US scientists talking about leaving, but most of the foreign born science said they are considering leaving.
Another news story that none actually read to see what it is really saying. Sigh
This sounds like an AI wrote it. Maybe it is telling us what will happen. Just looking at current AI, I do not see it replacing scientists, particularly in lab scientists. One could argue that AI will allow the scientific workforce to grow, since it will made certain things cheaper or easier. It is like saying in 1985 that the rise of computer will replace scientists, when in fact did the opposite.
Now with that being said I think could replace some the tech workforce in STEM. This by the way is one of the issues I have with STEM, which is the "T".
Science and Tech are rather different and even Tech itself is varied. I get it sounds good to say STEM but it is way to simplistic a way to say things. I agree that AI can and would reduce the T, some the E, but will I think it will increase S.
Of course of the workers the T in STEM is 10 times larger than everything else, so it could still be loss of jobs.
Maybe AI could get there some day but right now AI cannot do S on its own, It needs humans, and I do not see it really reducing the scientific workforce.
Now at LANL at least the managers really want AI to replace scientists, in particular coders. It could replace simple codes but for more complex codes it cannot replace the humans, it can help them right now but not replace them.
On the other hand AI can replace what I call the "BS"jobs and do that rather easily. Sure maybe it cannot get rid of the bureaucracy but it could reduce the number of people that do it. If anything It could replace a good portion of the LANL/LLNL management paper pushers.
I have had some crazy conversations with managers who say they used ChatGP to right a simple code to sort numbers or do budgets. That is fine but
they make the leap that means it can do complex codes that you can trust. It shows how little they know about real scientific coding or how complex such codes are. What is also odd is that they could not even write the number sort code on their own which would take less than 5 mins or even 2 mins if you really fast. The do not understand that this code complexity does not linearly scale.