5 ms·

The simple answer? Because humans are actually intelligent. Find me someone in a job who has the exact same day at work every day with no exceptions and I'll s

by just2n 10y ago

The simple answer? Because humans are actually intelligent. Find me someone in a job who has the exact same day at work every day with no exceptions and I'll show you a job you can automate. Exceptions are what define things that machines can't do well, and every scenario brought up in this story has routine exceptions. More importantly, even in cases perfectly suited to automation, we can't pretend all the software we build is perfect or even remotely approaches the quality that can be produced by the brightest minds in the industry, either. Everyone wants to automate everything, and you can be sure most of it will be done poorly. Even the simplest human at least does a better job than a poorly built piece of software. I can rage 24/7 about how bad the software people write is. At least 90% of it. I rarely find myself annoyed at how incapable of doing their job the typical service worker is, and when I do it's virtually always fixed by their boss or a manager. Automation done well is a tool. It turns many jobs into a few, where people handle exceptions and have actual administrative control. I've had tons of bad experiences with automation that has little/no human backup and it's by far worse than dealing with people. And this is coming from an introvert.

jayajay 10y ago
It's not so much that humans are intelligent as it as that machines are just really dumb, which is really just because humans are still too dumb. You are entitled to be skeptical based on your personal experiences. That one smart guy has had terrible experiences with 100% automated pre-2020 systems is not a good enough reason to shy away from the idea of pure automation.
flukus 10y ago
> Find me someone in a job who has the exact same day at work every day with no exceptions and I'll show you a job you can automate. Exceptions are what define things that machines can't do well, and every scenario brought up in this story has routine exceptions. We're no where near machines replacing human operators 100%, but a 90% solution with humans handling the exceptions is still a 10x boost in productivity.
whyileft 10y ago
Bingo. Automation is cheaper, not higher quality. The only people that consider not talking to service agents or cashiers an improvement in service have social anxiety issues or something similar. A checker at a grocery store actually does all of the work for you. Objectively it is better in every way unless you consider it a negative to be involved in human interaction.
- jonknee 10y ago
  > The only people that consider not talking to service agents or cashiers an improvement in service have social anxiety issues or something similar. Or they are in a hurry. I will take the faster option every time and that usually means no human. > A checker at a grocery store actually does all of the work for you. What if there was no work to do? Amazon is exploring that concept and if it works as described (I haven't used it yet, but have walked by and it seems to) seems objectively better in every way. https://www.amazon.com/b?node=16008589011 https://www.amazon.com/b?node=16008589011
  - whyileft 10y ago
    > Or they are in a hurry. I will take the faster option every time and that usually means no human. Correct, but this is the result of the store intentionally routing you through the self checkout by under staffing cashiers to save money. >What if there was no work to do? Amazon is exploring that concept and if it works as described (I haven't used it yet, but have walked by and it seems to) seems objectively better in every way. Excellent point. I should have used "self service" instead of "automation". It was a poor choice of words on my part. Full automation to remove anyone from needing to do the work would certainly be objectively better. The article linked is more about self service than automation.
- dota_fanatic 10y ago
  How about when they scoff at your having brought re-usable bags, slightly demanding of them to do something different? Or when they pack your goods in a way that damages them? Or puts colds next to warm, or highly heat conductive items? Or when they're clearly sick, and likely spreading that illness to everyone that comes through that lane? Or when they're at the end of their shift, hate their job, and give you that lovely dead-eyed stare that just makes you feel warm and fuzzy when you try to make small talk? How about when they reek of cigarettes? Or when they make a mistake (and they do) and all the people behind you start eyeballing you and the cashier, clearly upset at the delay? How about when they ring up produce incorrectly, or double count items, overcharging you? How about when something comes up wrong, and then they argue with you, because they're stressed with a queue to process? Human cashiers being objectively better in every way than self-service automated lanes is not correct, especially as you sample more and more cashiers. SOME cashiers are better. Many aren't.
nulagrithom 10y ago
Where I'm at, we're big on getting our people to manage the exceptions rather than doing the work. If you're looking at the entire job to see if it's routine then of course you won't find much room for automation. But if you can automate even 10% of their day then that's a big win. And yes, the software is total shit. There are no unit tests and it's written in RPG (half of it dates back to '95). When it breaks we go back to managing the exceptions, much like "talking to the manager" when the service worker screws up. The company wouldn't be afloat without automation like this. We would be completely crushed by our competitors. I don't think the automation needs to be done well at all. It just needs human backup.

by just2n 10y ago

jayajay 10y ago

It's not so much that humans are intelligent as it as that machines are just really dumb, which is really just because humans are still too dumb. You are entitled to be skeptical based on your personal experiences. That one smart guy has had terrible experiences with 100% automated pre-2020 systems is not a good enough reason to shy away from the idea of pure automation.

flukus 10y ago

> Find me someone in a job who has the exact same day at work every day with no exceptions and I'll show you a job you can automate. Exceptions are what define things that machines can't do well, and every scenario brought up in this story has routine exceptions. We're no where near machines replacing human operators 100%, but a 90% solution with humans handling the exceptions is still a 10x boost in productivity.

whyileft 10y ago

Bingo. Automation is cheaper, not higher quality. The only people that consider not talking to service agents or cashiers an improvement in service have social anxiety issues or something similar. A checker at a grocery store actually does all of the work for you. Objectively it is better in every way unless you consider it a negative to be involved in human interaction.

jonknee 10y ago
> The only people that consider not talking to service agents or cashiers an improvement in service have social anxiety issues or something similar. Or they are in a hurry. I will take the faster option every time and that usually means no human. > A checker at a grocery store actually does all of the work for you. What if there was no work to do? Amazon is exploring that concept and if it works as described (I haven't used it yet, but have walked by and it seems to) seems objectively better in every way. https://www.amazon.com/b?node=16008589011 https://www.amazon.com/b?node=16008589011
- whyileft 10y ago
  > Or they are in a hurry. I will take the faster option every time and that usually means no human. Correct, but this is the result of the store intentionally routing you through the self checkout by under staffing cashiers to save money. >What if there was no work to do? Amazon is exploring that concept and if it works as described (I haven't used it yet, but have walked by and it seems to) seems objectively better in every way. Excellent point. I should have used "self service" instead of "automation". It was a poor choice of words on my part. Full automation to remove anyone from needing to do the work would certainly be objectively better. The article linked is more about self service than automation.
dota_fanatic 10y ago
How about when they scoff at your having brought re-usable bags, slightly demanding of them to do something different? Or when they pack your goods in a way that damages them? Or puts colds next to warm, or highly heat conductive items? Or when they're clearly sick, and likely spreading that illness to everyone that comes through that lane? Or when they're at the end of their shift, hate their job, and give you that lovely dead-eyed stare that just makes you feel warm and fuzzy when you try to make small talk? How about when they reek of cigarettes? Or when they make a mistake (and they do) and all the people behind you start eyeballing you and the cashier, clearly upset at the delay? How about when they ring up produce incorrectly, or double count items, overcharging you? How about when something comes up wrong, and then they argue with you, because they're stressed with a queue to process? Human cashiers being objectively better in every way than self-service automated lanes is not correct, especially as you sample more and more cashiers. SOME cashiers are better. Many aren't.

nulagrithom 10y ago

Where I'm at, we're big on getting our people to manage the exceptions rather than doing the work. If you're looking at the entire job to see if it's routine then of course you won't find much room for automation. But if you can automate even 10% of their day then that's a big win. And yes, the software is total shit. There are no unit tests and it's written in RPG (half of it dates back to '95). When it breaks we go back to managing the exceptions, much like "talking to the manager" when the service worker screws up. The company wouldn't be afloat without automation like this. We would be completely crushed by our competitors. I don't think the automation needs to be done well at all. It just needs human backup.