4 ms·

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
        And 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 1y ago
        Kindly 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.
        that_guy_iain 1y ago
        > Kindly 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». I'm not what you don't understand. People need experience before doing stuff with stuff that is completely brand new?! It's completely impossible. You're taking an approach which you think results in not being wrong. That is about you trying to be 100% right. And that attitude results in your being completely disregarded and those who you think are wrong doing stuff you don't want. You've just been a naysayer. > 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. One you're talking about damage. If there is damage after 48 hours you're completely terrible are your job. It should just be a somewhat quick clean up. And there isn't. Anyone who has dealt with this sort of stuff and got the results they wanted knows sometimes you need to see the pain before you understand that something doesn't work. Most people need evidence to believe something. Your naysaying doesn't do it. You're not helping, you're just wasting time.

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
        And 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 1y ago
        Kindly 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.
        that_guy_iain 1y ago
        > Kindly 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». I'm not what you don't understand. People need experience before doing stuff with stuff that is completely brand new?! It's completely impossible. You're taking an approach which you think results in not being wrong. That is about you trying to be 100% right. And that attitude results in your being completely disregarded and those who you think are wrong doing stuff you don't want. You've just been a naysayer. > 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. One you're talking about damage. If there is damage after 48 hours you're completely terrible are your job. It should just be a somewhat quick clean up. And there isn't. Anyone who has dealt with this sort of stuff and got the results they wanted knows sometimes you need to see the pain before you understand that something doesn't work. Most people need evidence to believe something. Your naysaying doesn't do it. You're not helping, you're just wasting time.