3 ms·
> you end up causing more work down the line by saving a bit of time at an earlier stage in this case, the total cost would've gone up, and thus, eventually th
by chii 2y ago
> you end up causing more work down the line by saving a bit of time at an earlier stage
in this case, the total cost would've gone up, and thus, eventually the stakeholder (aka, the person who pays) is going to not want to pay when the "old" way was cheaper/faster/better.
> It would be better for everyone collectively to not automate certain things, but it's better for some individually, so it happens.
not really, as long as the precondition i mentioned above (the total cost dropping) is true.
- fhd2 2y agoThat's probably true as long as the workers generally cooperate. But there's also adversarial situations. Hiring would be one example: Companies use automated CV triaging tools that make it harder to get through to a human, and candidates auto generate CVs and cover letters and even auto apply to increase their chance to get to a human. Everybody would probably be better off if neither side attempted to automate. Yet for the individuals involved, it saves them time, so they do it.
- chii 2y agoRight, so it's like advertising when the market is already saturated (see coca cola vs pepsi advertising).
- ElevenLathe 2y agoThe market must expand.