3 ms·
I can see reading it that way. I was under the impression that the comment I was replying to was using a specific case to argue a broader claim, particularly wi
by blotter_paper 7y ago
I can see reading it that way. I was under the impression that the comment I was replying to was using a specific case to argue a broader claim, particularly with this sentence:
> I think the flaw with the scenario you described is that your programs are “replacing” these peoples’ “jobs”, when, in reality, we’re building tools that empower them to perform their jobs more effectively.
I took this as an attempted refutation of that comments parent based on the anecdotal account given.
- gen220 7y agoMy bad, I did word it in a universalist way there, whereas I was trying to give an anecdote to counterbalance the claim I interpreted as “automation is bad for ops people”. I think that the secret sauce that makes our automation “good”, is that we’re growing as a company, which effectively dictates that both the supply of new ops tasks and the magnitude of existing ops tasks are growing along with us. If we weren’t growing, we’d be taking away work with our automation (instead of clearing the way for more, different work).
- blotter_paper 7y agoThanks for the clarification!