4 ms·

I take some issue with the comparison as an either-or. Automation in its correct place shouldn't replace human effort - it should augment that effort. In this

I take some issue with the comparison as an either-or. Automation in its correct place shouldn't replace human effort - it should augment that effort. In this case, it seems one step removed to just do both of these approaches, starting with the first. During the process of finding those 100 high-confidence matches, you could identify the ones that have the most general cases, and reuse the email copy from those. I think the idea that automation is intended to replace human effort wholesale is improper. We should rely on automation to handle where computers are better than humans, to give the human more time to do things humans are better at.

sethkim 5y ago
Thanks for this comment. I think there's an important distinction that's worth clarifying. Automation is great in most circumstances, and truly does free humans to do more meaningful work. But my take is that you can quickly push up against cases where it's unclear that you've improved a situation. It's easy to make the judgement that you have when you reduce time spent on doing "mundane" work. Perhaps there is a heuristic that can be developed to let someone quickly assess the usefulness of automating a certain task. Would be happy to discuss this more.