Comment by Loughla
12 hours ago
I think we'll see an unbelievable upheaval as companies figure out that while the technical aspects of some jobs can (and should) be automated, the interpretation of those technical aspects and other higher order, but not strictly inherent processes can't. By upheaval I mean companies closing because they replace staff with AI, and lose things along the way because of it. They won't see it until it's too late, because of the pile of money they're saving.
My example comes from maintenance in machine shops. My dad's siblings were almost all employed in machining in some fashion. One uncle was maintenance for a local large company. They decided they could move maintenance from in-house specialists and contract that work to a multi-state massive company; anyone can follow a maintenance manual right? All you need are the proper certifications and everything is cool, right? The cost was less, and the number of maintenance staff on site actually went up. Great for the owners.
But what they lost was consistency and understanding in the process that eventually led to closing the company. My uncle was there every day all year long for decades and could hear and feel in his feet when something was going wrong with a machine regardless of the maintenance schedule approved by the company that manufactured the machines. The new outside company didn't pay as well, and didn't have great benefits, which meant that they cycled through staff very regularly. No one was there consistently for more than a year or two. Even though they were technically following the manufacturers recommended maintenance schedule, machines went down. Machines then stayed down for days or weeks longer than they should've, because the expertise to repair either wasn't there, or the person leading the job would quit and they would have to cycle in a new maintenance person. They lost jobs, customers took work other places. 8 years later the company closed.
There are lessons in this kind of thing, but nobody learns them.
This is a techne/metis split. You would probably like this [0] chapter about the "rightness" struggle between engineering and service at Xerox. Some paralells to A Big Little Idea called Legibility from Ribbonfarm, too.
[0] https://books.worksinprogress.co/book/maintenance-of-everyth...
Seeing Like A State is essential reading, especially for anyone working in software or operations for a corporation.
The original book that article is based on is great.
In the IT department in which I work, now the team is reduced to just me, I find myself using the phrase "Why fix a problem in 15 minutes with your own engineers, when you can take 3 weeks with a Managed-Service Provider?". Most of what I have to care for is office/internet network related.
People in other teams are slowly getting it. When I leave (or more likely "am let go"), the cold hard reality will become much more obvious during the next network problem ;)
The way this will play out will be weird, and probably not like anyone expects. Because on the one hand, you're 100% right on the value of "feel" you develop for a system when you're around it daily for a long time. But, on the other hand...
The other day I visited our old apartment and noticed the dishwasher was making loud noises. Worrying about whether it's about to fail and whether I should call in a technician, I just recorded a bit of the noise, screenshotted a spectrogram from an app, made some photos, and threw Claude at it. It proceeded to analyze the recording and match specific frequencies to components of the machine, and gave me an analysis indicating the machine is operating normally, and the noise is just the pump being louder than I'm used to due to machine being old and a bit worn out.
So we literally have that kind of capabilities in our pockets, and this will compensate for the problem of missing experience somewhat, even simply because unlike low-paid frequently-rotating staff, LLMs are not lazy and will do the detailed troubleshooting work even off a recording and "wtf?" as prompt, so if you can train your cheap, expendable staff to do just that, that's already supercharges them.
I'm also amazed at the abilities of AI when I can verify them. But, how do you know that Claude is right about your dishwasher? I mean you're not that much worse off if it's wrong (compared with a similar medical query), but isn't this a case of trusting the AI without verification, just because it looks correct and was stated confidently?
I know enough to evaluate the analysis I got; I have some general expertise and worked in fields adjacent to this, which is why I had the idea to troubleshoot a dishwasher off an audio spectrogram in the first place. And on the off chance I was wrong, this is super low risk - would cost me extra few hours of my life at a less convenient time.
My point isn't that AI can substitute for expertise in general, not just yet, but that if you're competent enough to evaluate it, AI can absolutely do hours of work in minutes even for things involving troubleshooting on factory floor (or home appliances). And, that this is a lever where personnel on the floor may have sufficient expertise to evaluate diagnostic work, but not enough motivation or space to do the diagnostic work themselves.
3 replies →
[dead]