3 ms·

It's also a better company strategy to be an augment vs replacement. Like, advertise that you can get twice as much done not that you can get the same amount do

It's also a better company strategy to be an augment vs replacement. Like, advertise that you can get twice as much done not that you can get the same amount done with half the effort. If somebody spends 10M on Labor then at best you can change 10M to replace their labor costs. Lets say its 1,000 people. If you instead argue that those people are now 2x as efficient you can sell the company of the idea of paying for 2,000 seats when their company grows.

richardwhiuk 3y ago
That assume the company has the requirement to have 2x the work. If not, the argument becomes: a) Get rid of 1000 people b) Get rid of 500 people, by making 500 people 2x efficient. Option (a) is clearly better.
- pdimitar 3y ago
  Option A is not clearly better because it assumes you can actually completely get rid of the 1000 people. I don't think we've seen much evidence of this. If anything, I do believe I've seen evidence that option B is more realistic and doable. It always baffles me though, how people pick what they believe in with zero supporting evidence, just because it sounds better... with zero context.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    It's not zero context; this thread is about using AI to augment human productivity vs Ai to replace humans. The supporting evidence is just the math. (A) If I sell you a product that makes your employees twice as productive then my revenue scales with your employee count. (B) If I sell you a product that eliminates your employees then my _maximum_ revenue is your current employee count. With (A) I have a unlimited revenue cap while with (B) it's cap'd at your current employee count. I also didn't invent this approach so there's other people that think this too. It's not that (B) is bad; it's just that (A) is better. It's similar to say selling people a cable subscription without ads; it's just better (more revenue) to both sell them a subscription and give them ads.
    - richardwhiuk 3y ago
      You've flipped A and B. Current employee cost may be higher than revenue scaling with employees.

richardwhiuk 3y ago

That assume the company has the requirement to have 2x the work. If not, the argument becomes: a) Get rid of 1000 people b) Get rid of 500 people, by making 500 people 2x efficient. Option (a) is clearly better.

pdimitar 3y ago
Option A is not clearly better because it assumes you can actually completely get rid of the 1000 people. I don't think we've seen much evidence of this. If anything, I do believe I've seen evidence that option B is more realistic and doable. It always baffles me though, how people pick what they believe in with zero supporting evidence, just because it sounds better... with zero context.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  It's not zero context; this thread is about using AI to augment human productivity vs Ai to replace humans. The supporting evidence is just the math. (A) If I sell you a product that makes your employees twice as productive then my revenue scales with your employee count. (B) If I sell you a product that eliminates your employees then my _maximum_ revenue is your current employee count. With (A) I have a unlimited revenue cap while with (B) it's cap'd at your current employee count. I also didn't invent this approach so there's other people that think this too. It's not that (B) is bad; it's just that (A) is better. It's similar to say selling people a cable subscription without ads; it's just better (more revenue) to both sell them a subscription and give them ads.
  - richardwhiuk 3y ago
    You've flipped A and B. Current employee cost may be higher than revenue scaling with employees.