4 ms·
Having suffered repeatedly at differing implementations of people-based systems across a range of jurisdictions, I remain an optimist for a tech solution. If th
by contingencies 6mo ago
Having suffered repeatedly at differing implementations of people-based systems across a range of jurisdictions, I remain an optimist for a tech solution. If the system is correctly designed, it can finally reduce the people problems.
Yes, it would be easy to screw up. Yes, it's not going to fix everything because surrounding process will no doubt be human-influenced. However: no, that doesn't mean it's impossible to get value from. Especially given the shitty state of present-era systems.
- bigbadfeline 6mo ago> If the system is correctly designed, "Correctly" according to who? People with different interests have very different ideas about what "correct" is. > Yes, it's not going to fix everything because surrounding process will no doubt be human-influenced. Well, the core process will be more human-influenced, with even less doubt. Besides efficiency, it doesn't matter who will be executing the process, actually a skewed process is better to be executed by slow and fallible humans than by a tireless machine that doesn't make mistakes while acting against you. > no, that doesn't mean it's impossible to get value from. Again, some will definitely get a lot of value from it but a lot more will only provide it.
- idiotsecant 6mo agoAll systems are human systems. There isn't a single technological solution in the history of humanity that hasn't been co-opted for some grubby human purpose almost immediately after being deployed. AI is just better at hiding who's running it.