3 ms·

"Bob" in this example is just some other random individual contributor, not some master of the universe. E.g. they would have the title "associate procurement s

"Bob" in this example is just some other random individual contributor, not some master of the universe. E.g. they would have the title "associate procurement specialist @ NHS" and join and interact on zoom calls with other people with that title in order to do that specific job.

Earw0rm 2y ago
Right, but these jobs are inefficient mostly because of checks and balances. So unless you have a bunch of AIs checking one another's work (and I'm not sure I can see that getting signed off) doesn't it just move the problem slightly along the road? There's an argument here something like.. if you can replace each role with an AI, you can replace multiple with a single AI, why not replace the structure with a single person? And the answer is typically that someone has deemed it significant and necessary that decision-making in this scenario be distributed.
- lazide 2y ago
  Yup. If we ignore all the ‘people’ issues (like fraud, embezzlement, gaming-the-system, incompetence when inputting data, weird edge cases people invent, staff in other departments who are incompetent, corruption, etc), most bureaucracies would boil down to a web form and a few scripts, and probably one database. Better hope that coder doesn’t decide to just take all the money and run to a non extradition jurisdiction though, or the credentials to that DB get leaked.
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    It's weird edge cases all the way down. Just look at names. Firstname, lastname? Jejeje, no. Treating them as constants? laughs in married woman. If you can absolutely, 100% cast iron guarantee that one identity field exactly identifies one living person (never more, never less), these problems are trivial. If not? Then its complexity might be beyond the grasp of the average DOGE agent (who, coincidentally, are males in their early 20s with names conforming to a basic Anglo schema). And that's just the NAME field.

Earw0rm 2y ago

Right, but these jobs are inefficient mostly because of checks and balances. So unless you have a bunch of AIs checking one another's work (and I'm not sure I can see that getting signed off) doesn't it just move the problem slightly along the road? There's an argument here something like.. if you can replace each role with an AI, you can replace multiple with a single AI, why not replace the structure with a single person? And the answer is typically that someone has deemed it significant and necessary that decision-making in this scenario be distributed.

lazide 2y ago
Yup. If we ignore all the ‘people’ issues (like fraud, embezzlement, gaming-the-system, incompetence when inputting data, weird edge cases people invent, staff in other departments who are incompetent, corruption, etc), most bureaucracies would boil down to a web form and a few scripts, and probably one database. Better hope that coder doesn’t decide to just take all the money and run to a non extradition jurisdiction though, or the credentials to that DB get leaked.
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  It's weird edge cases all the way down. Just look at names. Firstname, lastname? Jejeje, no. Treating them as constants? laughs in married woman. If you can absolutely, 100% cast iron guarantee that one identity field exactly identifies one living person (never more, never less), these problems are trivial. If not? Then its complexity might be beyond the grasp of the average DOGE agent (who, coincidentally, are males in their early 20s with names conforming to a basic Anglo schema). And that's just the NAME field.