Comment by victorbjorklund
12 hours ago
That sounds pretty bad. Not a great argument against AI: "Our employees have created such a bad mess that AI wont work because only they know how the mess they created works".
12 hours ago
That sounds pretty bad. Not a great argument against AI: "Our employees have created such a bad mess that AI wont work because only they know how the mess they created works".
> "Our employees have created such a bad mess that AI wont work because only they know how the mess they created works".
This is an ironclad argument against fully replacing employees with AI.
Every single organization on Earth requires the people who were part of creating the current mess to be involved in keeping the organization functioning.
Yes you can improve the current mess. But it's still just a slightly better mess and you still need some of the people around who have been part of creating the new mess.
Just run a thought experiment: every employee in a corporation mysteriously disappear from the face of the Earth. If you bring in an equal number of equally talented people the next day to run it, but with no experience with the current processes of the corporation, how long will it take to get to the same capability of the previous employees?
That is the luxury of theory.
Yes, most situations are terrible compared to what would be if an expert was present to perfect it.
Except if there isn’t an expert, and there’s a normal person, how do they know the output is right ?
not sure I get your point?
I think the parent is saying what if the AI made such a terrible mess that the team of imperfect people thought it was fine, but it was just as bad as the terrible mess the team would have created because the team is not capable of evaluating whether it's a good idea or not. (possible follow on consequences -- no one can debug it or figure out if it's a good idea either)
The point is that in real companies the bad mess already exists. So it is a good argument. Or at least a practical one.