3 ms·
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 a
by 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 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.