4 ms·

That's so trivial to disprove I don't even know what to say. Replacing just one human with AI saves you hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum even if they'

That's so trivial to disprove I don't even know what to say. Replacing just one human with AI saves you hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum even if they're a low-qualified, low-paid one. It's not just salary (with insurance and taxes, health benefits) but also office space, amenities, liabilities. Humans have no way to compete with what's happening.

mejutoco 3y ago
> but also office space, amenities, liabilities. People (probably not the same people) are still resisting this with remote work, but get all excited when it is about AI. Humans are strange.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  What's strange about it? AI doesn't slack when you're not looking at it. While humans do. And teams need tightly knit communication so they can avoid misunderstandings and synchronize together. So. Shared working spaces optimizes the performance of humans, while AI has no physical existence, but its shared working space is feeding it 50MB file of text holding your entire project history. That's the AI office. Much cheaper.
  - mejutoco 3y ago
    > AI doesn't slack when you're not looking at it. While humans do. I have had a different experience. Some humans slack while nobody is looking; some humans slack even if you look; some humans do not slack. Alternatively, as long as you can measure the output, does it matter if someone slacks? But let's say humans may and I can live with it, because it is not a thread about remote work. The strangeness/inconsistency comes from (it would seem) not considering those factors in a business decision regarding humans, but to consider them in a business decision regarding AI. You mirror this inconsistency in your argument, mentioning the savings of amenities and office rental _only_ in the case of AI. This is not a criticism, but I find this interesting, because I always see this topic expressed in this exact same way.
terminous 3y ago
Except this is just like in outsourcing, where it seems like pure cost savings, until you need to hire more people to manage the low inconsistent quality from those cheaper workers.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  It seems your opinion of outsourcing is outdated by at least a decade or two. Reminds me of this joke in Back to the Future, where young Doc Brown thinks Japanese tech is cheap and shoddy and Marty has to explain how things have changed. Because if it's like outsourcing, then just like Japan and South Korea, over time China has transformed from "the cheap labor with low inconsistent quality" into the world's engineering hub which surpasses everything domestic in price, scale and quality... all three at the same time. The only reason companies try to diversify right now is because China is becoming ambitious and too powerful, and in case of a US-China conflict, they don't want to be left cut off from all their factories. So if outsourcing to AI is like outsourcing to China, then we know where things are headed as well. Except faster.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mejutoco 3y ago

> but also office space, amenities, liabilities. People (probably not the same people) are still resisting this with remote work, but get all excited when it is about AI. Humans are strange.

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
What's strange about it? AI doesn't slack when you're not looking at it. While humans do. And teams need tightly knit communication so they can avoid misunderstandings and synchronize together. So. Shared working spaces optimizes the performance of humans, while AI has no physical existence, but its shared working space is feeding it 50MB file of text holding your entire project history. That's the AI office. Much cheaper.
- mejutoco 3y ago
  > AI doesn't slack when you're not looking at it. While humans do. I have had a different experience. Some humans slack while nobody is looking; some humans slack even if you look; some humans do not slack. Alternatively, as long as you can measure the output, does it matter if someone slacks? But let's say humans may and I can live with it, because it is not a thread about remote work. The strangeness/inconsistency comes from (it would seem) not considering those factors in a business decision regarding humans, but to consider them in a business decision regarding AI. You mirror this inconsistency in your argument, mentioning the savings of amenities and office rental _only_ in the case of AI. This is not a criticism, but I find this interesting, because I always see this topic expressed in this exact same way.

terminous 3y ago

Except this is just like in outsourcing, where it seems like pure cost savings, until you need to hire more people to manage the low inconsistent quality from those cheaper workers.

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
It seems your opinion of outsourcing is outdated by at least a decade or two. Reminds me of this joke in Back to the Future, where young Doc Brown thinks Japanese tech is cheap and shoddy and Marty has to explain how things have changed. Because if it's like outsourcing, then just like Japan and South Korea, over time China has transformed from "the cheap labor with low inconsistent quality" into the world's engineering hub which surpasses everything domestic in price, scale and quality... all three at the same time. The only reason companies try to diversify right now is because China is becoming ambitious and too powerful, and in case of a US-China conflict, they don't want to be left cut off from all their factories. So if outsourcing to AI is like outsourcing to China, then we know where things are headed as well. Except faster.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]