4 ms·

> I'd guess we here on HN are the people best equipped to prevent the worst. I agree that individuals should be conscious of which companies they support throu

> I'd guess we here on HN are the people best equipped to prevent the worst. I agree that individuals should be conscious of which companies they support through their labor and/or spending habits. But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done. > So the next time you help someone automate their customer support I think this strikes at a false dichotomy that occurs frequently in these conversations: There’s an idea that if we simply removed the automated solutions then companies would be forced to replace them with the idealized solutions that we want. In practice, companies know very well that automated customer support and similar solutions aren’t comparable to having a well-paid, highly-trained person pick up the phone. But they weren’t going to pay for the expensive solution anyway. And the real driving factor isn’t just the companies, it’s the customers. If given the choice between two identical products where the only difference is automated versus human customer support (and associated higher price for human customer support), the majority of customers will choose the cheaper option every time. There are a few people who will proudly pay more for the better CS, but they are a tiny minority. Overall, customers want the cheaper option even if it comes with tradeoffs, and they will vote with their wallets.

milkytron 5y ago
> I agree that individuals should be conscious of which companies they support through their labor and/or spending habits. Agreed, but this is a lot of work. After doing it myself, I find that the options are almost always choose the least evil, choose something expensive, or don't buy that thing at all. Choosing something expensive is a sacrifice I'm willing to make to support a company I believe is doing good. The hard part becomes not buying anything at all when there are no good choices. When I had a car, filling it up with gas felt like a crime against humanity's future.
- Mezzie 5y ago
  I feel similarly, and recently I've been focusing on acquiring tools that enable me to disengage from our rotting culture by making things for myself. Of course not everything can be done, but a lot can be, especially if you start letting other people use the tools. Instead of fast fashion, I'm getting a sewing machine and fabric and just letting several people use it in return for making me clothes (I have money, they have time). Likewise, I'm investing in knitting/crocheting stuff and lending it out. Instead of plastic doohickies, I'm getting a 3D printer: What I make may be cheap crap on par with what I'd get at Walmart, but at least I won't be exploiting or enslaving anyone. Also buying used and repairing is an option. Basically I like to ask myself 'will this help me need less from big corporations?' before I buy something. Not that small business is inherently more moral, but it's easier to hold to account as an individual consumer. I can actually sue/raise enough of a ruckus to put a local business out of business if they hurt me, whereas Amazon doesn't care.
- fxtentacle 5y ago
  > The hard part becomes not buying anything at all when there are no good choices That pretty much describes me and my Android phone right now. I don't want to use an iPhone, but I also want a phone that still fits into my hand and my pocket. Sadly, there's nothing comparable to the 2016 iPhone SE on the market. I could easily get a new phone for free from work, but I would hate to support a product that I actively dislike. So I wait and hope for a small Android phone to be released in the future.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  You can get a car that doesn't run on gas.
ekanes 5y ago
> the majority of customers will choose the cheaper option every time This is ultimately behind everything that goes to zero. Airlines must compete almost exclusively on price, so everything gets worse to make that happen. We buy goods mostly on price, and so are reliant on China.
Forgeties79 5y ago
I know this may come off as cheeky, but I’m being very sincere: if not us, then who? Sure I alone can’t upend Amazon, but we aren’t all alone and we aren’t all working for the juggernaut that is the Bezos machine. Maybe I sound naive but every bit matters, especially given how many of us probably work at start-ups. You never know when your decisions will have an impact on a multibillion dollar company that simply hasn’t emerged yet.
- geodel 5y ago
  I think it would be like earlier during industrial revolution when people would vandalize train tracks or factories. It can slow down a bit at particular place and time but otherwise these things are inevitable.
  - Forgeties79 5y ago
    I don’t think it’s particularity fair to compare directing a company in a productive direction to vandalizing/destroying the tech that’s threatening your livelihood.
- belval 5y ago
  The people? Like it or not developing stuff like this is not illegal, and expecting people to grow a conscience when their livelihood depends on not having one is pointless. The unfortunately cynical answer is that we need to have representatives that will put laws in place to prevent this. It's both simple and complex due to the political landscape, but that's the only real long-term solution.
pessimizer 5y ago
> But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done. There's a similar effect in journalism, where the loudest voices saying that individual journalists have the duty and ability to maintain the integrity of journalism are often other journalists. It's a survivorship thing - the journalists/engineers who stay employed as such are the ones who probably honestly believe in the same things that their employers do, or at least have an output high enough in the things that their employers won't feel the need to heavily edit or nix entirely to have nearly the same effect. It creates an illusion of control. But ultimately the author of anything is the person whose yeses and nos cannot be overridden, and that's the boss. > In practice, companies know very well that automated customer support and similar solutions aren’t comparable to having a well-paid, highly-trained person pick up the phone. And even if it's not particularly expensive in itself, the fact is that having bad customer service reduces complaints. Having anonymous/automated customer service even reduces complaints about customer service - because there's no way to identify or isolate a particular bad customer service experience, like a name. Avoiding the complaints probably creates so much savings that it would be worth automating customer service even if that cost more than having good, live customer service. We do the same thing in means testing/bureaucracy in welfare/social services. The more difficult or confusing it is to prove one's qualification, the fewer qualified people will have to be serviced. In that case, spending more on "customer service" (i.e. adding more steps) ultimately reduces costs. > There are a few people who will proudly pay more for the better CS, but they are a tiny minority. There are also very few ways to know that the customer service on a product will be terrible before you need it. People aren't actively picking bad customer service any more than people choose to watch bad movies at theaters. It's something you find out about after you've already bought in.
et-al 5y ago
> But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done. So my experience may not be the norm because I've only worked at smaller orgs, but my experience with all my product managers have been collaborative. Personally, I wouldn't be able to work at a place where I can't affect product decisions. But then again, maybe that mythical $300k total comp is really about "shut up and just follow the specs."
glitchc 5y ago
Maybe the only choice then is to regulate the profession so that every Tom, Dick and Harry with a two-week bootcamp can’t walk in the door to replace you. Engineers in other professions are required to behave ethically. Those who can’t get there need to stop calling themselves engineers, until they qualify to use the designation (see regulation above).
fxtentacle 5y ago
There are plenty of little things that you can add to make even an automated system more humane. For example, assign a unique ID to every automated decision and display it in the automated replay email. That way, affected humans can at least sue to get the basis of their decision disclosed. Or why should noreply-support@company.com actually be a no-reply? Let's forward it to the manager who is responsible so that if people are genuinely upset, their "feedback" reaches the correct person. Or attach a footer to those emails, which contains an email address for legal matters. Make sure to say "Please only contact this address for urgent legal matters" so that everyone correctly infers that it'll reach an actual human. As for those gig apps, it's probably good enough to just include the actual reason in the JSON reply that the server sends, without ever displaying it in the app. Of course, that's for internal debugging only, but nobody's going to get the production deployment flags set correctly. Or you can make the decision really obvious, by instantly loading it as an AJAX. Customer fills out a form, the spinner starts, and the result is displayed. "We're terribly sorry but your claim has been denied." But keep the inputs visible, so the customer can tweak the values and submit again. They'll surely figure out what makes the decision flip. And I wouldn't worry too much about colleagues who'd do anything for money. They will probably go to FAANG for better pay anyway. And if all non-FAANG companies have significantly better service, the overall public will notice. Bonus tip: If you ever want to reach a human yourself, there are services like hunter.io that'll procure the email address of a human for you. And then you just circumvent all the automation and directly CC the CTO to say "f* - oops - thank you for your great customer service!"
burnished 5y ago
Want to argue this point >>But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done. Either the work is difficult, and few people can do it (hence the price tag on engineering salaries) or it isn't. But if it is, then even a few refusals can effectively shut down a project. 'oh theres a line out the door' gets given as a weak excuse from people who have zero threat to their security, and I'd rather never hear it again.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
Who expects "single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization". Maybe I am missing something but I could not detect that suggestion anywhere in the parent's comment. Nor did I detect any suggestion that companies would ever adopt "idealized solutions". The comment appears to ask others to refrain from helping companies automate customer support, whereas the reasoning of the reply is something along the lines of "If you do not help the company automate customer support, then whatever customer support the company provides will not be "ideal", therefore, you should continue to help the company automate customer support." WTF. What is perplexing about these type of replies, which seem to occur anytime there is suggestion of taking personal responsibility for one's actions, is that people even bother to make them. Because if we accept the premise as true that one person's actions can have no effect on organisational change, then why would anyone else care about, let alone try to discourage, someone acting according to some ethical principles. What prompts people to respond. Perhaps there is something else going one here, especially when these replies often (a) try to point to some other focus, e.g., management, customers, price, etc., besides their own decision-making and (b) do not pressent any alternative courses of action. "It will not make a difference. Thus, keep doing what you are doing." If it does not make a difference then why would anyone care about someone doing it. Whatever the motivation, maybe someone else can explain it, something about a person on HN who suggests following ethical principles triggers a counter reply from someone who generally tries to discourage this line of thinking/behaviour, alleging something along the lines of "it will not make a difference."
908B64B197 5y ago
> But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done. In a lot of countries with socialized medicine, the way to get better treatment for those who can't afford to pay twice (taxes + the cost of private care) is to have doctor friends. Suddenly there's always availability. Sounds like in the future there will be people for whom technology will just work because they know the real engineer inside capable of taking care of their case, vs the unnetworked who will be stuck dealing with the black-box algorithm.

milkytron 5y ago

> I agree that individuals should be conscious of which companies they support through their labor and/or spending habits. Agreed, but this is a lot of work. After doing it myself, I find that the options are almost always choose the least evil, choose something expensive, or don't buy that thing at all. Choosing something expensive is a sacrifice I'm willing to make to support a company I believe is doing good. The hard part becomes not buying anything at all when there are no good choices. When I had a car, filling it up with gas felt like a crime against humanity's future.

Mezzie 5y ago
I feel similarly, and recently I've been focusing on acquiring tools that enable me to disengage from our rotting culture by making things for myself. Of course not everything can be done, but a lot can be, especially if you start letting other people use the tools. Instead of fast fashion, I'm getting a sewing machine and fabric and just letting several people use it in return for making me clothes (I have money, they have time). Likewise, I'm investing in knitting/crocheting stuff and lending it out. Instead of plastic doohickies, I'm getting a 3D printer: What I make may be cheap crap on par with what I'd get at Walmart, but at least I won't be exploiting or enslaving anyone. Also buying used and repairing is an option. Basically I like to ask myself 'will this help me need less from big corporations?' before I buy something. Not that small business is inherently more moral, but it's easier to hold to account as an individual consumer. I can actually sue/raise enough of a ruckus to put a local business out of business if they hurt me, whereas Amazon doesn't care.
fxtentacle 5y ago
> The hard part becomes not buying anything at all when there are no good choices That pretty much describes me and my Android phone right now. I don't want to use an iPhone, but I also want a phone that still fits into my hand and my pocket. Sadly, there's nothing comparable to the 2016 iPhone SE on the market. I could easily get a new phone for free from work, but I would hate to support a product that I actively dislike. So I wait and hope for a small Android phone to be released in the future.
alisonkisk 5y ago
You can get a car that doesn't run on gas.

ekanes 5y ago

> the majority of customers will choose the cheaper option every time This is ultimately behind everything that goes to zero. Airlines must compete almost exclusively on price, so everything gets worse to make that happen. We buy goods mostly on price, and so are reliant on China.

Forgeties79 5y ago

I know this may come off as cheeky, but I’m being very sincere: if not us, then who? Sure I alone can’t upend Amazon, but we aren’t all alone and we aren’t all working for the juggernaut that is the Bezos machine. Maybe I sound naive but every bit matters, especially given how many of us probably work at start-ups. You never know when your decisions will have an impact on a multibillion dollar company that simply hasn’t emerged yet.

geodel 5y ago
I think it would be like earlier during industrial revolution when people would vandalize train tracks or factories. It can slow down a bit at particular place and time but otherwise these things are inevitable.
- Forgeties79 5y ago
  I don’t think it’s particularity fair to compare directing a company in a productive direction to vandalizing/destroying the tech that’s threatening your livelihood.
belval 5y ago
The people? Like it or not developing stuff like this is not illegal, and expecting people to grow a conscience when their livelihood depends on not having one is pointless. The unfortunately cynical answer is that we need to have representatives that will put laws in place to prevent this. It's both simple and complex due to the political landscape, but that's the only real long-term solution.

pessimizer 5y ago

> But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done. There's a similar effect in journalism, where the loudest voices saying that individual journalists have the duty and ability to maintain the integrity of journalism are often other journalists. It's a survivorship thing - the journalists/engineers who stay employed as such are the ones who probably honestly believe in the same things that their employers do, or at least have an output high enough in the things that their employers won't feel the need to heavily edit or nix entirely to have nearly the same effect. It creates an illusion of control. But ultimately the author of anything is the person whose yeses and nos cannot be overridden, and that's the boss. > In practice, companies know very well that automated customer support and similar solutions aren’t comparable to having a well-paid, highly-trained person pick up the phone. And even if it's not particularly expensive in itself, the fact is that having bad customer service reduces complaints. Having anonymous/automated customer service even reduces complaints about customer service - because there's no way to identify or isolate a particular bad customer service experience, like a name. Avoiding the complaints probably creates so much savings that it would be worth automating customer service even if that cost more than having good, live customer service. We do the same thing in means testing/bureaucracy in welfare/social services. The more difficult or confusing it is to prove one's qualification, the fewer qualified people will have to be serviced. In that case, spending more on "customer service" (i.e. adding more steps) ultimately reduces costs. > There are a few people who will proudly pay more for the better CS, but they are a tiny minority. There are also very few ways to know that the customer service on a product will be terrible before you need it. People aren't actively picking bad customer service any more than people choose to watch bad movies at theaters. It's something you find out about after you've already bought in.

et-al 5y ago

glitchc 5y ago

Maybe the only choice then is to regulate the profession so that every Tom, Dick and Harry with a two-week bootcamp can’t walk in the door to replace you. Engineers in other professions are required to behave ethically. Those who can’t get there need to stop calling themselves engineers, until they qualify to use the designation (see regulation above).

fxtentacle 5y ago

There are plenty of little things that you can add to make even an automated system more humane. For example, assign a unique ID to every automated decision and display it in the automated replay email. That way, affected humans can at least sue to get the basis of their decision disclosed. Or why should noreply-support@company.com actually be a no-reply? Let's forward it to the manager who is responsible so that if people are genuinely upset, their "feedback" reaches the correct person. Or attach a footer to those emails, which contains an email address for legal matters. Make sure to say "Please only contact this address for urgent legal matters" so that everyone correctly infers that it'll reach an actual human. As for those gig apps, it's probably good enough to just include the actual reason in the JSON reply that the server sends, without ever displaying it in the app. Of course, that's for internal debugging only, but nobody's going to get the production deployment flags set correctly. Or you can make the decision really obvious, by instantly loading it as an AJAX. Customer fills out a form, the spinner starts, and the result is displayed. "We're terribly sorry but your claim has been denied." But keep the inputs visible, so the customer can tweak the values and submit again. They'll surely figure out what makes the decision flip. And I wouldn't worry too much about colleagues who'd do anything for money. They will probably go to FAANG for better pay anyway. And if all non-FAANG companies have significantly better service, the overall public will notice. Bonus tip: If you ever want to reach a human yourself, there are services like hunter.io that'll procure the email address of a human for you. And then you just circumvent all the automation and directly CC the CTO to say "f* - oops - thank you for your great customer service!"

burnished 5y ago

Want to argue this point >>But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done. Either the work is difficult, and few people can do it (hence the price tag on engineering salaries) or it isn't. But if it is, then even a few refusals can effectively shut down a project. 'oh theres a line out the door' gets given as a weak excuse from people who have zero threat to their security, and I'd rather never hear it again.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

Who expects "single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization". Maybe I am missing something but I could not detect that suggestion anywhere in the parent's comment. Nor did I detect any suggestion that companies would ever adopt "idealized solutions". The comment appears to ask others to refrain from helping companies automate customer support, whereas the reasoning of the reply is something along the lines of "If you do not help the company automate customer support, then whatever customer support the company provides will not be "ideal", therefore, you should continue to help the company automate customer support." WTF. What is perplexing about these type of replies, which seem to occur anytime there is suggestion of taking personal responsibility for one's actions, is that people even bother to make them. Because if we accept the premise as true that one person's actions can have no effect on organisational change, then why would anyone else care about, let alone try to discourage, someone acting according to some ethical principles. What prompts people to respond. Perhaps there is something else going one here, especially when these replies often (a) try to point to some other focus, e.g., management, customers, price, etc., besides their own decision-making and (b) do not pressent any alternative courses of action. "It will not make a difference. Thus, keep doing what you are doing." If it does not make a difference then why would anyone care about someone doing it. Whatever the motivation, maybe someone else can explain it, something about a person on HN who suggests following ethical principles triggers a counter reply from someone who generally tries to discourage this line of thinking/behaviour, alleging something along the lines of "it will not make a difference."

908B64B197 5y ago