4 ms·

Suggest a 48-hour trial, give everyone 2 days off and let AI try and replace everyone. I think this is one of these scenarios where feeling the pain is the onl

Suggest a 48-hour trial, give everyone 2 days off and let AI try and replace everyone. I think this is one of these scenarios where feeling the pain is the only way they'll ever truly understand.

cj 1y ago
This is the only answer. Try it, and assess the results. Heck, you can even A/B test it by randomly splitting your leads between humans and AI, then pick whichever has the higher ROI. A better example (rather than replacing sales reps with AI, which is obviously difficult and nuanced) would be something like StitchFix deciding whether to fire their human stylists and moving everything to AI-recommendations only. Again, A/B test and see what users respond well to. (Separately, I've always assumed StitchFix "stylists" weren't actual people, until I met someone with that job title... I was honestly quite surprised they still had a job)
- mdp2021 1y ago
  > Try it, and assess the results And who cleans the following mess?
  - nessbot 1y ago
    The humans, but now with a boss that values them a little more.
    - mdp2021 1y ago
      I am afraid the assumptions leading to that outcome are not really realistic.
  - that_guy_iain 1y ago
    The mess is the point. It's to show that it can't be done. The mess is what stops it becoming a full-time thing. The mess shows that humans are needed.
    - mdp2021 1y ago
      The point is clear. Normally we try to avoid damage - which frequently cannot be fully repaired. And cleaning up mess is not an efficient use of resources. Incentive is there to find non-damaging solutions first (Carlo Cipolla warns us about the amount of damage introduced in the system - the balance can be tricky). Cost-Risk-Benefit are due diligence. ...If a NN comes up with better solutions, it has won (the battle)...
      - that_guy_iain 1y ago
        Yes, this is avoiding damage. The mess that is left behind is not damage. It's evidence. It's what would keep people in jobs. People losing their jobs is damage. People having work to do is not.
        mdp2021 1y ago
        > People having work to do is People having work to do which could have been avoided, resources wasted in repairs that were not needed - that's really what we do not want.
        that_guy_iain 1y ago
        They were needed to keep jobs. People need to see that AI won’t replace humans before they’ll believe it. A 48 hour trial is short enough that it’ll create a mess but not long enough that it does actual damage.
        mdp2021 1y ago
        > People need to see that AI won’t replace humans before they’ll believe it They should not be working then. (I know they do work anyway even if they should not. What I am saying is, "the problems are at the source".)
        that_guy_iain 1y ago
shishy 1y ago
You think it's a two way door, but the one behind you will close shut and you'll realize it was a one way door once someone says: "but 48 hours wasn't enough to evaluate it" ;)
- that_guy_iain 1y ago
  No, I think it's a trap and that 48 hours of AI only would create a weeks worth of work to clean up.

Suggest a 48-hour trial, give everyone 2 days off and let AI try and replace everyone. I think this is one of these scenarios where feeling the pain is the only way they'll ever truly understand.

cj 1y ago

This is the only answer. Try it, and assess the results. Heck, you can even A/B test it by randomly splitting your leads between humans and AI, then pick whichever has the higher ROI. A better example (rather than replacing sales reps with AI, which is obviously difficult and nuanced) would be something like StitchFix deciding whether to fire their human stylists and moving everything to AI-recommendations only. Again, A/B test and see what users respond well to. (Separately, I've always assumed StitchFix "stylists" weren't actual people, until I met someone with that job title... I was honestly quite surprised they still had a job)

mdp2021 1y ago
> Try it, and assess the results And who cleans the following mess?
- nessbot 1y ago
  The humans, but now with a boss that values them a little more.
  - mdp2021 1y ago
    I am afraid the assumptions leading to that outcome are not really realistic.
- that_guy_iain 1y ago
  The mess is the point. It's to show that it can't be done. The mess is what stops it becoming a full-time thing. The mess shows that humans are needed.
  - mdp2021 1y ago
    The point is clear. Normally we try to avoid damage - which frequently cannot be fully repaired. And cleaning up mess is not an efficient use of resources. Incentive is there to find non-damaging solutions first (Carlo Cipolla warns us about the amount of damage introduced in the system - the balance can be tricky). Cost-Risk-Benefit are due diligence. ...If a NN comes up with better solutions, it has won (the battle)...
    - that_guy_iain 1y ago
      Yes, this is avoiding damage. The mess that is left behind is not damage. It's evidence. It's what would keep people in jobs. People losing their jobs is damage. People having work to do is not.
      - mdp2021 1y ago
        > People having work to do is People having work to do which could have been avoided, resources wasted in repairs that were not needed - that's really what we do not want.
        that_guy_iain 1y ago
        They were needed to keep jobs. People need to see that AI won’t replace humans before they’ll believe it. A 48 hour trial is short enough that it’ll create a mess but not long enough that it does actual damage.
        mdp2021 1y ago
        > People need to see that AI won’t replace humans before they’ll believe it They should not be working then. (I know they do work anyway even if they should not. What I am saying is, "the problems are at the source".)
        that_guy_iain 1y ago

shishy 1y ago

You think it's a two way door, but the one behind you will close shut and you'll realize it was a one way door once someone says: "but 48 hours wasn't enough to evaluate it" ;)

that_guy_iain 1y ago
No, I think it's a trap and that 48 hours of AI only would create a weeks worth of work to clean up.