4 ms·

> How machines are put in as an intermediary to shield the humans behind the curtain from accusations of inhumanity. I think it may mirror systems in general. W

by krona 4y ago

> How machines are put in as an intermediary to shield the humans behind the curtain from accusations of inhumanity. I think it may mirror systems in general. Where any large enough organization of people takes on a mind of it's own, and thereby becomes more ruthless and less human than any of the individuals making it function. You've described the essence of a bureaucracy, an organisational structure where in normal circumstances the humans themselves don't make decisions, processes do. Occasionally a human might 'update' a process retroactively like a programmer fixing a bug, but nominally the system is automated and entirely rational, mechanistic, 'efficient'. The incorporation of computers can make this easier and more scalable, but it's not a necessary condition.

delusional 4y ago
That's true, but I think the author touches on this in calling machine "ruthless". While we may imagine a total bureaucracy, where the train operator themselves close the doors, amputating your arm. That train operator had the ability to, at any point, diverge from the bureaucracy and save your limb. Machine, and by extension computers, are not similarly able. The machine is unable to diverge from its programming. The doors are going to amputate your limbs, and the computer COULD NOT do anything about it. If I apply that insight to my own experiences, I can definitely spot places where I have disagreed with stakeholders about something because they don't see computers as nearly as ruthless as I do. What I'm trying to convey is that the type of bureaucracy that emerges from people is fundamentally different than the same bureaucracy with machine. In human bureaucracy every cog has agency to resist the process. In a machine the cog can't resist its own functioning. Not just will it amputate your arm, it never had a choice in the matter.

by krona 4y ago

delusional 4y ago

That's true, but I think the author touches on this in calling machine "ruthless". While we may imagine a total bureaucracy, where the train operator themselves close the doors, amputating your arm. That train operator had the ability to, at any point, diverge from the bureaucracy and save your limb. Machine, and by extension computers, are not similarly able. The machine is unable to diverge from its programming. The doors are going to amputate your limbs, and the computer COULD NOT do anything about it. If I apply that insight to my own experiences, I can definitely spot places where I have disagreed with stakeholders about something because they don't see computers as nearly as ruthless as I do. What I'm trying to convey is that the type of bureaucracy that emerges from people is fundamentally different than the same bureaucracy with machine. In human bureaucracy every cog has agency to resist the process. In a machine the cog can't resist its own functioning. Not just will it amputate your arm, it never had a choice in the matter.