5 ms·

> That sounds like truly valuable ERP, and largely devoid of AI. Yes. That was kinda my point. Most of the time, it is just a good piece of software, not an 'A

by LeonM 4y ago

> That sounds like truly valuable ERP, and largely devoid of AI. Yes. That was kinda my point. Most of the time, it is just a good piece of software, not an 'AI'. In fact, for most situations you do not want an AI, because you want to the software to behave predictably. My point being is: good software has been replacing need for humans to manage processes for a long time now.

deelly 4y ago
"In fact, for most situations you do not want an AI, because you want to the software to behave predictably" is very good statement that very very often is skipped from discussion. Thank you.
dekleinewolf 4y ago
A lot of algorithms that used to fall under 'AI' are now considered 'just good software'. As soon as we really understand how it works, we no longer call it AI. (And it becomes predictable). "AI" is to "Computer Science" what "Magic" is to "Science".
snowwrestler 4y ago
Apologies if I missed it, but where in your story did a human get replaced? There were still people working inventory, cash registers, and managing. I say this because it seems pretty obvious that software can improve the productivity of employees (including managers). But what the blog post at the top says is that AI will replace managers as a category of employees—a much stronger claim.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  Perhaps a human wasn't fully replaced but many responsibilities were. No human had to keep track of inventory, make schedules, or watch for theft from cashiers. > Basically the only reason why there still was a manager was for responsibility and babysitting (most employees were teens that did dumb stuff). And the occasional Karen who wanted to talk to a manager.
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    Yes, this is my point: technology increases productivity.
- jjk166 4y ago
  Machines don't do jobs, machines do tasks. It's very rare for a company to fire people because there is now a system that does exactly what they did before, no more no less. But when you take all the core tasks that a person did as part of their job and automate them away, such that the employee now is doing something completely different, they have been replaced even though they're still on the pay roll. It's functionally equivalent to firing and rehiring them for a new position. The manager may still hold the title of manager, but if they're not doing any management tasks, then they have still been replaced.
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    > when you take all the core tasks that a person did as part of their job and automate them away But that is not what happened in the story I responded to. The manager still had tasks exclusive to them (dealing with young employees and angry customers) that had not been automated away.
    - jjk166 4y ago
      Tasks exclusive to them, but not the tasks of a manager. A manager manages. As OP stated, the position with the title of "manager" now has the tasks of a babysitter.

by LeonM 4y ago

deelly 4y ago

"In fact, for most situations you do not want an AI, because you want to the software to behave predictably" is very good statement that very very often is skipped from discussion. Thank you.

dekleinewolf 4y ago

A lot of algorithms that used to fall under 'AI' are now considered 'just good software'. As soon as we really understand how it works, we no longer call it AI. (And it becomes predictable). "AI" is to "Computer Science" what "Magic" is to "Science".

snowwrestler 4y ago

Apologies if I missed it, but where in your story did a human get replaced? There were still people working inventory, cash registers, and managing. I say this because it seems pretty obvious that software can improve the productivity of employees (including managers). But what the blog post at the top says is that AI will replace managers as a category of employees—a much stronger claim.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
Perhaps a human wasn't fully replaced but many responsibilities were. No human had to keep track of inventory, make schedules, or watch for theft from cashiers. > Basically the only reason why there still was a manager was for responsibility and babysitting (most employees were teens that did dumb stuff). And the occasional Karen who wanted to talk to a manager.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  Yes, this is my point: technology increases productivity.
jjk166 4y ago
Machines don't do jobs, machines do tasks. It's very rare for a company to fire people because there is now a system that does exactly what they did before, no more no less. But when you take all the core tasks that a person did as part of their job and automate them away, such that the employee now is doing something completely different, they have been replaced even though they're still on the pay roll. It's functionally equivalent to firing and rehiring them for a new position. The manager may still hold the title of manager, but if they're not doing any management tasks, then they have still been replaced.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  > when you take all the core tasks that a person did as part of their job and automate them away But that is not what happened in the story I responded to. The manager still had tasks exclusive to them (dealing with young employees and angry customers) that had not been automated away.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Tasks exclusive to them, but not the tasks of a manager. A manager manages. As OP stated, the position with the title of "manager" now has the tasks of a babysitter.