4 ms·
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
by 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 agoOption 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 agoIt'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 agoYou've flipped A and B. Current employee cost may be higher than revenue scaling with employees.