3 ms·
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 which
by cj 2y 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 2y ago> Try it, and assess the results And who cleans the following mess?
- nessbot 2y agoThe humans, but now with a boss that values them a little more.
- mdp2021 2y agoI am afraid the assumptions leading to that outcome are not really realistic.
- that_guy_iain 2y agoThe 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 2y agoThe 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 2y agoYes, 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 2y 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 2y agoThey 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 2y 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 2y agoAnd your attitude is why people like that ruin companies. Because you're too busy trying to be 100% right instead of getting the result you want. You're part of the problem too.
- mdp2021 2y agoKindly explain why noting that "people who need experience before knowing what is rationally evident should not be empowered" would be «trying to be 100% right» and opposing «getting the result you want». If for «getting the result you want» you meant "creating damage in order to prove a point and discard some ways", I said that there must be a better way.