Don't you remember the time that people were solving the 'Strait of Hormuz' crisis on LinkedIn with lines drawn on maps and showing their 'problem-solving' skills?
Is it arguing that we need to supervise better than building systems that enable agents to make better decisions?
I would argue that unique decisions should only be made once (I'm building it). It is a gated mechanism, where confidence is 0<x<y<1
>y - decision delegated
from x to y - rapid decision, upto 5 lines of context and simplified ask
<x - full context for elaborate decision
Everything <y is fed back for making decisions. Plus, decisions are logged with fragments/context used.
By Amdahl's law, you'd have to automate 99.9% of decision-making to reach 1000x, 100x is at 99%. That's near impossible unless y is closer to 0, i.e., near unbound delegation.
I believe we have been there before; we responded with a similar emotional-visceral response during the printing press (replication of information), the industrial revolution (human labour), and the internet (distribution of information).
Now it's AI (cognition/human judgement); technological gains solve the bottlenecks. This is yet another layer. Amdahl's law.
I believe human societies will be a bell-curve distribution of all of them. The scary fraction will wield power/wealth; the indifferent will be the largest distribution, followed by the smallest fraction of benevolent people.
Thank you! This changed how I was thinking about my product: a knowledge harness for coding agents. While I was discussing incidents & context-switching tax, the structural compounding is likely the real win.
... or was it just my feed?