Comment by gnfargbl
1 day ago
This article leads up to a hypothesis presented without evidence.
Yes, it's clear that if AI agents handle routine issues then only the most complex issues will be handled by humans. In no way does it follow that humans will be less prepared to handle those incidents than they are now; by definition, this class of problems have no rote solutions. Each issue of this type already requires deep system knowledge to remediate, and still will. Software is not aviation.
What we are seeing here is an instance of the more general trend where experts are still required to operate complex systems, but AI is destroying the career path that creates those experts. That's what we should be worrying about, not that people are going to be spending less time rebooting boxes. This isn't something you can fix with a "simulator."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironies_of_Automation
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/000510...
The article is based on evidence, and states it clearly in the body.
I read the article before commenting, as is my habit. A disagreement is not always a failure to process.
To be very explicit, my problem is that the article argues that simulation will be a suitable substitute in the software space, as it is in the aviation space. I see no evidence for that; it's pure hypothesis taken as fact.
The article proposes a resolution based on the challenge and evidence they (correctly) identify at the start.
The simulation solution is backed by their own applied example, and is also the logical intervention based on how the problem is set up.
Perhaps Bainbridge is doing more heavy lifting for me, by filling in blanks and gaps that others are finding.
2 replies →