3 ms·
Someone giving a pretty basic idea a catchy name like the doorman fallacy doesn't mean that any replacement of humans with automation is a net loss for the comp
by senordevnyc 4mo ago
Someone giving a pretty basic idea a catchy name like the doorman fallacy doesn't mean that any replacement of humans with automation is a net loss for the company. Lots of automation can be very profitable, even if some positive things are lost in the bargain.
Incidentally, the vast, vast majority of residential buildings don't have doormen, and wouldn't be more profitable by the addition of one.
- venzaspa 4mo agoIsn't it named after the hypothetical scenario about a doorman? The doorman fallacy isn't even specifically aimed at what is more profitable, its just saying that there are softer roles that aren't well defined that aren't replicated when the role is automated away.
- senordevnyc 4mo agoThat fact doesn’t make it a fallacy. The fallacy part is the idea that the people choosing to automate that job are just stupid and ignorant, and don’t understand what the job really is. Which I’m sure is true for some automation, but doormen are a terrible example.
- DanHulton 4mo agoIt’s not an absolute. The fallacy doesn’t imply that every building would be better with a doorman. But it does suggest that buildings that DO have them aren’t necessarily making a wise choice by getting rid of them. At this point, though, I mean if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.