Managed by Bots: surveillance of gig economy workers(privacyinternational.org)
privacyinternational.org
Managed by Bots: surveillance of gig economy workers
https://privacyinternational.org/long-read/4709/managed-bots-surveillance-gig-economy-workers
98 comments
> I'd guess we here on HN are the people best equipped to prevent the worst.
I agree that individuals should be conscious of which companies they support through their labor and/or spending habits.
But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done.
> So the next time you help someone automate their customer support
I think this strikes at a false dichotomy that occurs frequently in these conversations: There’s an idea that if we simply removed the automated solutions then companies would be forced to replace them with the idealized solutions that we want. In practice, companies know very well that automated customer support and similar solutions aren’t comparable to having a well-paid, highly-trained person pick up the phone. But they weren’t going to pay for the expensive solution anyway.
And the real driving factor isn’t just the companies, it’s the customers. If given the choice between two identical products where the only difference is automated versus human customer support (and associated higher price for human customer support), the majority of customers will choose the cheaper option every time. There are a few people who will proudly pay more for the better CS, but they are a tiny minority. Overall, customers want the cheaper option even if it comes with tradeoffs, and they will vote with their wallets.
I agree that individuals should be conscious of which companies they support through their labor and/or spending habits.
But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done.
> So the next time you help someone automate their customer support
I think this strikes at a false dichotomy that occurs frequently in these conversations: There’s an idea that if we simply removed the automated solutions then companies would be forced to replace them with the idealized solutions that we want. In practice, companies know very well that automated customer support and similar solutions aren’t comparable to having a well-paid, highly-trained person pick up the phone. But they weren’t going to pay for the expensive solution anyway.
And the real driving factor isn’t just the companies, it’s the customers. If given the choice between two identical products where the only difference is automated versus human customer support (and associated higher price for human customer support), the majority of customers will choose the cheaper option every time. There are a few people who will proudly pay more for the better CS, but they are a tiny minority. Overall, customers want the cheaper option even if it comes with tradeoffs, and they will vote with their wallets.
I know this may come off as cheeky, but I’m being very sincere: if not us, then who? Sure I alone can’t upend Amazon, but we aren’t all alone and we aren’t all working for the juggernaut that is the Bezos machine.
Maybe I sound naive but every bit matters, especially given how many of us probably work at start-ups. You never know when your decisions will have an impact on a multibillion dollar company that simply hasn’t emerged yet.
Maybe I sound naive but every bit matters, especially given how many of us probably work at start-ups. You never know when your decisions will have an impact on a multibillion dollar company that simply hasn’t emerged yet.
The people? Like it or not developing stuff like this is not illegal, and expecting people to grow a conscience when their livelihood depends on not having one is pointless.
The unfortunately cynical answer is that we need to have representatives that will put laws in place to prevent this. It's both simple and complex due to the political landscape, but that's the only real long-term solution.
The unfortunately cynical answer is that we need to have representatives that will put laws in place to prevent this. It's both simple and complex due to the political landscape, but that's the only real long-term solution.
I think it would be like earlier during industrial revolution when people would vandalize train tracks or factories. It can slow down a bit at particular place and time but otherwise these things are inevitable.
I don’t think it’s particularity fair to compare directing a company in a productive direction to vandalizing/destroying the tech that’s threatening your livelihood.
> I agree that individuals should be conscious of which companies they support through their labor and/or spending habits.
Agreed, but this is a lot of work. After doing it myself, I find that the options are almost always choose the least evil, choose something expensive, or don't buy that thing at all.
Choosing something expensive is a sacrifice I'm willing to make to support a company I believe is doing good. The hard part becomes not buying anything at all when there are no good choices. When I had a car, filling it up with gas felt like a crime against humanity's future.
Agreed, but this is a lot of work. After doing it myself, I find that the options are almost always choose the least evil, choose something expensive, or don't buy that thing at all.
Choosing something expensive is a sacrifice I'm willing to make to support a company I believe is doing good. The hard part becomes not buying anything at all when there are no good choices. When I had a car, filling it up with gas felt like a crime against humanity's future.
I feel similarly, and recently I've been focusing on acquiring tools that enable me to disengage from our rotting culture by making things for myself. Of course not everything can be done, but a lot can be, especially if you start letting other people use the tools.
Instead of fast fashion, I'm getting a sewing machine and fabric and just letting several people use it in return for making me clothes (I have money, they have time). Likewise, I'm investing in knitting/crocheting stuff and lending it out. Instead of plastic doohickies, I'm getting a 3D printer: What I make may be cheap crap on par with what I'd get at Walmart, but at least I won't be exploiting or enslaving anyone.
Also buying used and repairing is an option. Basically I like to ask myself 'will this help me need less from big corporations?' before I buy something. Not that small business is inherently more moral, but it's easier to hold to account as an individual consumer. I can actually sue/raise enough of a ruckus to put a local business out of business if they hurt me, whereas Amazon doesn't care.
Instead of fast fashion, I'm getting a sewing machine and fabric and just letting several people use it in return for making me clothes (I have money, they have time). Likewise, I'm investing in knitting/crocheting stuff and lending it out. Instead of plastic doohickies, I'm getting a 3D printer: What I make may be cheap crap on par with what I'd get at Walmart, but at least I won't be exploiting or enslaving anyone.
Also buying used and repairing is an option. Basically I like to ask myself 'will this help me need less from big corporations?' before I buy something. Not that small business is inherently more moral, but it's easier to hold to account as an individual consumer. I can actually sue/raise enough of a ruckus to put a local business out of business if they hurt me, whereas Amazon doesn't care.
> The hard part becomes not buying anything at all when there are no good choices
That pretty much describes me and my Android phone right now. I don't want to use an iPhone, but I also want a phone that still fits into my hand and my pocket. Sadly, there's nothing comparable to the 2016 iPhone SE on the market. I could easily get a new phone for free from work, but I would hate to support a product that I actively dislike. So I wait and hope for a small Android phone to be released in the future.
That pretty much describes me and my Android phone right now. I don't want to use an iPhone, but I also want a phone that still fits into my hand and my pocket. Sadly, there's nothing comparable to the 2016 iPhone SE on the market. I could easily get a new phone for free from work, but I would hate to support a product that I actively dislike. So I wait and hope for a small Android phone to be released in the future.
> But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done.
There's a similar effect in journalism, where the loudest voices saying that individual journalists have the duty and ability to maintain the integrity of journalism are often other journalists.
It's a survivorship thing - the journalists/engineers who stay employed as such are the ones who probably honestly believe in the same things that their employers do, or at least have an output high enough in the things that their employers won't feel the need to heavily edit or nix entirely to have nearly the same effect. It creates an illusion of control.
But ultimately the author of anything is the person whose yeses and nos cannot be overridden, and that's the boss.
> In practice, companies know very well that automated customer support and similar solutions aren’t comparable to having a well-paid, highly-trained person pick up the phone.
And even if it's not particularly expensive in itself, the fact is that having bad customer service reduces complaints. Having anonymous/automated customer service even reduces complaints about customer service - because there's no way to identify or isolate a particular bad customer service experience, like a name. Avoiding the complaints probably creates so much savings that it would be worth automating customer service even if that cost more than having good, live customer service.
We do the same thing in means testing/bureaucracy in welfare/social services. The more difficult or confusing it is to prove one's qualification, the fewer qualified people will have to be serviced. In that case, spending more on "customer service" (i.e. adding more steps) ultimately reduces costs.
> There are a few people who will proudly pay more for the better CS, but they are a tiny minority.
There are also very few ways to know that the customer service on a product will be terrible before you need it. People aren't actively picking bad customer service any more than people choose to watch bad movies at theaters. It's something you find out about after you've already bought in.
There's a similar effect in journalism, where the loudest voices saying that individual journalists have the duty and ability to maintain the integrity of journalism are often other journalists.
It's a survivorship thing - the journalists/engineers who stay employed as such are the ones who probably honestly believe in the same things that their employers do, or at least have an output high enough in the things that their employers won't feel the need to heavily edit or nix entirely to have nearly the same effect. It creates an illusion of control.
But ultimately the author of anything is the person whose yeses and nos cannot be overridden, and that's the boss.
> In practice, companies know very well that automated customer support and similar solutions aren’t comparable to having a well-paid, highly-trained person pick up the phone.
And even if it's not particularly expensive in itself, the fact is that having bad customer service reduces complaints. Having anonymous/automated customer service even reduces complaints about customer service - because there's no way to identify or isolate a particular bad customer service experience, like a name. Avoiding the complaints probably creates so much savings that it would be worth automating customer service even if that cost more than having good, live customer service.
We do the same thing in means testing/bureaucracy in welfare/social services. The more difficult or confusing it is to prove one's qualification, the fewer qualified people will have to be serviced. In that case, spending more on "customer service" (i.e. adding more steps) ultimately reduces costs.
> There are a few people who will proudly pay more for the better CS, but they are a tiny minority.
There are also very few ways to know that the customer service on a product will be terrible before you need it. People aren't actively picking bad customer service any more than people choose to watch bad movies at theaters. It's something you find out about after you've already bought in.
Who expects "single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization". Maybe I am missing something but I could not detect that suggestion anywhere in the parent's comment. Nor did I detect any suggestion that companies would ever adopt "idealized solutions". The comment appears to ask others to refrain from helping companies automate customer support, whereas the reasoning of the reply is something along the lines of "If you do not help the company automate customer support, then whatever customer support the company provides will not be "ideal", therefore, you should continue to help the company automate customer support." WTF.
What is perplexing about these type of replies, which seem to occur anytime there is suggestion of taking personal responsibility for one's actions, is that people even bother to make them. Because if we accept the premise as true that one person's actions can have no effect on organisational change, then why would anyone else care about, let alone try to discourage, someone acting according to some ethical principles. What prompts people to respond.
Perhaps there is something else going one here, especially when these replies often (a) try to point to some other focus, e.g., management, customers, price, etc., besides their own decision-making and (b) do not pressent any alternative courses of action. "It will not make a difference. Thus, keep doing what you are doing." If it does not make a difference then why would anyone care about someone doing it.
Whatever the motivation, maybe someone else can explain it, something about a person on HN who suggests following ethical principles triggers a counter reply from someone who generally tries to discourage this line of thinking/behaviour, alleging something along the lines of "it will not make a difference."
What is perplexing about these type of replies, which seem to occur anytime there is suggestion of taking personal responsibility for one's actions, is that people even bother to make them. Because if we accept the premise as true that one person's actions can have no effect on organisational change, then why would anyone else care about, let alone try to discourage, someone acting according to some ethical principles. What prompts people to respond.
Perhaps there is something else going one here, especially when these replies often (a) try to point to some other focus, e.g., management, customers, price, etc., besides their own decision-making and (b) do not pressent any alternative courses of action. "It will not make a difference. Thus, keep doing what you are doing." If it does not make a difference then why would anyone care about someone doing it.
Whatever the motivation, maybe someone else can explain it, something about a person on HN who suggests following ethical principles triggers a counter reply from someone who generally tries to discourage this line of thinking/behaviour, alleging something along the lines of "it will not make a difference."
There are plenty of little things that you can add to make even an automated system more humane.
For example, assign a unique ID to every automated decision and display it in the automated replay email. That way, affected humans can at least sue to get the basis of their decision disclosed.
Or why should [email protected] actually be a no-reply? Let's forward it to the manager who is responsible so that if people are genuinely upset, their "feedback" reaches the correct person.
Or attach a footer to those emails, which contains an email address for legal matters. Make sure to say "Please only contact this address for urgent legal matters" so that everyone correctly infers that it'll reach an actual human.
As for those gig apps, it's probably good enough to just include the actual reason in the JSON reply that the server sends, without ever displaying it in the app. Of course, that's for internal debugging only, but nobody's going to get the production deployment flags set correctly.
Or you can make the decision really obvious, by instantly loading it as an AJAX. Customer fills out a form, the spinner starts, and the result is displayed. "We're terribly sorry but your claim has been denied." But keep the inputs visible, so the customer can tweak the values and submit again. They'll surely figure out what makes the decision flip.
And I wouldn't worry too much about colleagues who'd do anything for money. They will probably go to FAANG for better pay anyway. And if all non-FAANG companies have significantly better service, the overall public will notice.
Bonus tip: If you ever want to reach a human yourself, there are services like hunter.io that'll procure the email address of a human for you. And then you just circumvent all the automation and directly CC the CTO to say "f* - oops - thank you for your great customer service!"
For example, assign a unique ID to every automated decision and display it in the automated replay email. That way, affected humans can at least sue to get the basis of their decision disclosed.
Or why should [email protected] actually be a no-reply? Let's forward it to the manager who is responsible so that if people are genuinely upset, their "feedback" reaches the correct person.
Or attach a footer to those emails, which contains an email address for legal matters. Make sure to say "Please only contact this address for urgent legal matters" so that everyone correctly infers that it'll reach an actual human.
As for those gig apps, it's probably good enough to just include the actual reason in the JSON reply that the server sends, without ever displaying it in the app. Of course, that's for internal debugging only, but nobody's going to get the production deployment flags set correctly.
Or you can make the decision really obvious, by instantly loading it as an AJAX. Customer fills out a form, the spinner starts, and the result is displayed. "We're terribly sorry but your claim has been denied." But keep the inputs visible, so the customer can tweak the values and submit again. They'll surely figure out what makes the decision flip.
And I wouldn't worry too much about colleagues who'd do anything for money. They will probably go to FAANG for better pay anyway. And if all non-FAANG companies have significantly better service, the overall public will notice.
Bonus tip: If you ever want to reach a human yourself, there are services like hunter.io that'll procure the email address of a human for you. And then you just circumvent all the automation and directly CC the CTO to say "f* - oops - thank you for your great customer service!"
> the majority of customers will choose the cheaper option every time
This is ultimately behind everything that goes to zero. Airlines must compete almost exclusively on price, so everything gets worse to make that happen. We buy goods mostly on price, and so are reliant on China.
This is ultimately behind everything that goes to zero. Airlines must compete almost exclusively on price, so everything gets worse to make that happen. We buy goods mostly on price, and so are reliant on China.
Maybe the only choice then is to regulate the profession so that every Tom, Dick and Harry with a two-week bootcamp can’t walk in the door to replace you.
Engineers in other professions are required to behave ethically. Those who can’t get there need to stop calling themselves engineers, until they qualify to use the designation (see regulation above).
Engineers in other professions are required to behave ethically. Those who can’t get there need to stop calling themselves engineers, until they qualify to use the designation (see regulation above).
> But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done.
In a lot of countries with socialized medicine, the way to get better treatment for those who can't afford to pay twice (taxes + the cost of private care) is to have doctor friends. Suddenly there's always availability.
Sounds like in the future there will be people for whom technology will just work because they know the real engineer inside capable of taking care of their case, vs the unnetworked who will be stuck dealing with the black-box algorithm.
In a lot of countries with socialized medicine, the way to get better treatment for those who can't afford to pay twice (taxes + the cost of private care) is to have doctor friends. Suddenly there's always availability.
Sounds like in the future there will be people for whom technology will just work because they know the real engineer inside capable of taking care of their case, vs the unnetworked who will be stuck dealing with the black-box algorithm.
> But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done.
So my experience may not be the norm because I've only worked at smaller orgs, but my experience with all my product managers have been collaborative. Personally, I wouldn't be able to work at a place where I can't affect product decisions. But then again, maybe that mythical $300k total comp is really about "shut up and just follow the specs."
So my experience may not be the norm because I've only worked at smaller orgs, but my experience with all my product managers have been collaborative. Personally, I wouldn't be able to work at a place where I can't affect product decisions. But then again, maybe that mythical $300k total comp is really about "shut up and just follow the specs."
Want to argue this point
>>But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done.
Either the work is difficult, and few people can do it (hence the price tag on engineering salaries) or it isn't. But if it is, then even a few refusals can effectively shut down a project. 'oh theres a line out the door' gets given as a weak excuse from people who have zero threat to their security, and I'd rather never hear it again.
>>But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done.
Either the work is difficult, and few people can do it (hence the price tag on engineering salaries) or it isn't. But if it is, then even a few refusals can effectively shut down a project. 'oh theres a line out the door' gets given as a weak excuse from people who have zero threat to their security, and I'd rather never hear it again.
[deleted]
The irony is that it’s middle management that will be the first to be laid off. What globalization did for blue collar, management automation will do with middle management.
Making this a “workers’ issue” won’t lead to anything, specially when it’s gig economy workers. Obviously these AI will make their way to non-gig economy sector, and from there spread like wildfire.
This will only exacerbate socio-economic inequalities to a point of no return (revolution of the precariat aside)
Creepy how it’s all too similar to the short story Manna[1] (substituting fast food for gig economy)
Making this a “workers’ issue” won’t lead to anything, specially when it’s gig economy workers. Obviously these AI will make their way to non-gig economy sector, and from there spread like wildfire.
This will only exacerbate socio-economic inequalities to a point of no return (revolution of the precariat aside)
Creepy how it’s all too similar to the short story Manna[1] (substituting fast food for gig economy)
I firmly state my disapproval to engineers working on such systems. Doesn't really work, you always find someone that prostitutes himself.
Production surveillance can be essential for quality control, but you don't need individual surveillance for that and line managers are better at evaluating people.
It is mostly useless managers that want to show of a nice Excel sheet.
Production surveillance can be essential for quality control, but you don't need individual surveillance for that and line managers are better at evaluating people.
It is mostly useless managers that want to show of a nice Excel sheet.
> So I got the same wrong parcel again. After waiting a while, I opened up the two parcels, each roughly 10x5x5 inches (25x10x10 cm) large. It was two single pencil erasers.
The monstrosites which reach this scale always amaze me. In case of individuals, when sending an item the main concern is packaging, shipping costs and time. Amazon and others? They just furiously and repeatedly ship oversized boxes filled mostly with fillers, while eco-shaming the customer.
The monstrosites which reach this scale always amaze me. In case of individuals, when sending an item the main concern is packaging, shipping costs and time. Amazon and others? They just furiously and repeatedly ship oversized boxes filled mostly with fillers, while eco-shaming the customer.
> I'd guess we here on HN are the people best equipped to prevent the worst.
Best positioned, but how well equipped are you? Are you organized enough to collectively refuse such requests, or will you fall into the "If I don't do it someone else will" trap?
Best positioned, but how well equipped are you? Are you organized enough to collectively refuse such requests, or will you fall into the "If I don't do it someone else will" trap?
> Best positioned, but how well equipped are you?
More importantly: how willing? The HN crowd is known for workshipping tech companies.
More importantly: how willing? The HN crowd is known for workshipping tech companies.
why is that a trap?
the "trap" seems to be instead the stable equilibrium state.
the "trap" seems to be instead the stable equilibrium state.
It's only a trap if you consider doing things for money that you, yourself, think are bad things, as a bad thing.
You often don’t even know how your tools will be used eventually. Most technology is pretty neutral. How it’s being applied defines whether it’s positive or negative.
> So the next time you help someone automate their customer support…
In my experience people working on these things are well intentioned. So it comes down to a need to shift priorities. Maybe you need to launch something now, and the PM tries to make you delay some important thing for the next release, launching without it at first. That’s the kind of thing we need to change. No more promises of “We are working to make this better” while launching without crucial pieces first. We’re used to making that kind of choice when it’s not people’s livelihoods and working conditions at stake, and we have to make those choices differently when the stakes are people.
In my experience people working on these things are well intentioned. So it comes down to a need to shift priorities. Maybe you need to launch something now, and the PM tries to make you delay some important thing for the next release, launching without it at first. That’s the kind of thing we need to change. No more promises of “We are working to make this better” while launching without crucial pieces first. We’re used to making that kind of choice when it’s not people’s livelihoods and working conditions at stake, and we have to make those choices differently when the stakes are people.
Any automated process always needs human fallback.
Or will we live in a world where the computer is always right.
It's unreal the number of times a support person has said they "can't" do something because they don't have an option to do it in their user interface. And like, I understand that they don't have the authority to do it and it's not their fault, but someone at HQ basically decided that something was too expensive or inconvenient for the company and made it quite literally "not an option" and it just becomes a law of the universe that the customer can't get that remedy.
Google, Amazon, and the rest clearly disagree
Yes, and it's a kafkaesque nightmare.
I try to avoid Google for this reason.
I try to avoid Google for this reason.
Or else what? It's not like companies lose revenue or reputation for relying on cheap frustrating automation. If anything, it's in their best interests to keep doing so (i.e., to dissuade people from unsubscribing or complaining).
Or else we the people make it law.
“I'd guess we here on HN are the people best equipped to prevent the worst. So the next time you help someone automate their customer support, ask yourself: How would I feel if my well-being depended on this? Because for some poor soul, it might. Is there a clear fall-back in case the AI fails horrible? Because, you know, they always do.”
I don’t think we are that well equipped to prevent the worst. Maybe some entrepreneurs are but most engineers develop tools that can be used for good and bad. I think automation provides enormous benefits to society and we should keep pursuing it. To make sure it doesn’t end up with an abusive system is a political problem and should be addressed by rules and laws.
In the last few decades the mantra was that the more money the psychopaths can make the better for society and screw the victims. That has to change. Society overall suffers if we have a few billionaires lording over the working masses.
I am pretty hopeful that we can create systems that balance technological progress with concerns of social welfare. We have made big progress with environmental regulation and I hope we will do the same in other areas.
I don’t think we are that well equipped to prevent the worst. Maybe some entrepreneurs are but most engineers develop tools that can be used for good and bad. I think automation provides enormous benefits to society and we should keep pursuing it. To make sure it doesn’t end up with an abusive system is a political problem and should be addressed by rules and laws.
In the last few decades the mantra was that the more money the psychopaths can make the better for society and screw the victims. That has to change. Society overall suffers if we have a few billionaires lording over the working masses.
I am pretty hopeful that we can create systems that balance technological progress with concerns of social welfare. We have made big progress with environmental regulation and I hope we will do the same in other areas.
I think Amazon support forms are difficult to reach by design. It helps keep the traffic down. They are simply not at all interested in people who are not customers, and not especially interested in those who are. There was a time when I got a lot of email from Amazon about things that someone else had purchased. How my email address became associated with their account I have no idea. I tried to notify Amazon but there just wasn't any proper way to do it and after sending an email or two I just gave up. It was more than six months later that I stopped getting such email
I'm rather amazed people purchase single erasers from amazon.
The support links are two clicks away in the footer. “Customer Service” : “Get help with something else”
Or if it was your order, you could nav through “customer service” and then click on the order. Amazon may have some issues, but having a hard time reaching A2Z care isn’t one of them IMO.
Or if it was your order, you could nav through “customer service” and then click on the order. Amazon may have some issues, but having a hard time reaching A2Z care isn’t one of them IMO.
It reminds me of the short story "Manna – Two Views of Humanity’s Future" [1], which describes the steady establishment of AI process optimizers as the managers of human employees, who increasingly became a replaceable commodity. Fascinating read.
[1] https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
[1] https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
Funny you mention that. I've felt the same thing when going on Uber Eats runs with my mate who drives for them.
At the moment, the technology is in the "chapter 1" stage where things are pretty smooth and chill. It's genuinely low-stress, well-paced work.
Once self-driving tech hits the market, though, it's clear that the human employees will be replaced without a care or thought for their well-being.
At the moment, the technology is in the "chapter 1" stage where things are pretty smooth and chill. It's genuinely low-stress, well-paced work.
Once self-driving tech hits the market, though, it's clear that the human employees will be replaced without a care or thought for their well-being.
So? Ever since the industrial revolution new technology has obsoleted jobs. 98% of us used to be farmers. Excel put gazillions of book-keepers out of work. But we're still at basically full employment: there's thousands of jobs now no one could have conceived of 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Self-driving cars (if indeed they actually materialise) will be hugely transformative for society, and create whole new businesses and industries, i.e. new jobs to replace the old. Progress fundamentally relies on this "creative destruction", without it we'd still be in caves scavenging for nuts and berries.
Edit: it's kind of bonkers that pointing out the basic mechanics of technological progress is getting downvoted on a site like HN, where I imagine most of us are gainfully employed trying to do just this.
Edit: it's kind of bonkers that pointing out the basic mechanics of technological progress is getting downvoted on a site like HN, where I imagine most of us are gainfully employed trying to do just this.
I am also mildly positive, but also quite worried, for the following reasons.
1: Its easy to make fun of the luddites which fought the mills and against progress, but for many of them it was a real fight for their life, and many got thrown out in deep poverty. Society as a whole progressed yes, but many got it significantly worse for the rest of their lives. Maybe their kids, or eventually their kids kids got a better life for it. We must not be so naive that we dont think the same will happen (/ is happening now).
2: Not everyone is cut out to be developers/nurses/teachers/whatever-the-future-job-is. Many are, but not all. How do we take care of these boys(and some girls) which before would go to sea, or work at a farm, or do whatever simple job they could get? Maybe in the end it will all "settle down" in a good way, but we live now, not then.
3: It affects the "power struggle" between labour and capital. Its easier to move machines than people. Robots dont strike. Yes, you need a few expensive engineers, but in a world where soon "everyone" has a MSc they are not *that* hard to replace if they get too demanding.
4: And related to the last, as a society we collectively produce a bunch of stuff, and we have decided that selling our labour is the way to distribute this wealth. Automation produces more stuff, but reduces the value of labour. Will we find a way to handle this?
1: Its easy to make fun of the luddites which fought the mills and against progress, but for many of them it was a real fight for their life, and many got thrown out in deep poverty. Society as a whole progressed yes, but many got it significantly worse for the rest of their lives. Maybe their kids, or eventually their kids kids got a better life for it. We must not be so naive that we dont think the same will happen (/ is happening now).
2: Not everyone is cut out to be developers/nurses/teachers/whatever-the-future-job-is. Many are, but not all. How do we take care of these boys(and some girls) which before would go to sea, or work at a farm, or do whatever simple job they could get? Maybe in the end it will all "settle down" in a good way, but we live now, not then.
3: It affects the "power struggle" between labour and capital. Its easier to move machines than people. Robots dont strike. Yes, you need a few expensive engineers, but in a world where soon "everyone" has a MSc they are not *that* hard to replace if they get too demanding.
4: And related to the last, as a society we collectively produce a bunch of stuff, and we have decided that selling our labour is the way to distribute this wealth. Automation produces more stuff, but reduces the value of labour. Will we find a way to handle this?
1. I struggle not to just respond "So?" to this one as well. Society progressing is the goal, isn't it? There will always be people in poverty. Poverty caused by AI isn't worse than poverty caused by industrial or agricultural automation, and it isn't worse than poverty caused by the fact you're born in a family of serfs instead of lords.
2. It will all settle down eventually, it always does. The poorest today have access to more food, education, and (usually) healthcare than even the rich just a few centuries ago. Being knocked to steerage of a quickly rising ship isn't a death sentence.
3 (and 4). Isn't this just more of the same compared to the industrial revolution? The cotton gin certainly shifted the power struggle more toward capital but I don't think anyone today would argue we should be processing all our textiles by hand.
2. It will all settle down eventually, it always does. The poorest today have access to more food, education, and (usually) healthcare than even the rich just a few centuries ago. Being knocked to steerage of a quickly rising ship isn't a death sentence.
3 (and 4). Isn't this just more of the same compared to the industrial revolution? The cotton gin certainly shifted the power struggle more toward capital but I don't think anyone today would argue we should be processing all our textiles by hand.
don't worry, government will wait people starve and dead...
The fallacy here is to assume that, because this is what have happened before, it will always happen in the future.
Yes, farming got efficient with tractors, allowing farmers to move to the cities to fill jobs in factories that was starting up at the dawn of the mass production and industrial revolution. But that does not mean that all future resources (i.e. humans) being freed due to automation, tech development will have new jobs to move to. That there are jobs suitable for humans created. That humans are needed as part of production of goods, services, content etc.
Also I would love to see a reference to why progress rely on creative destruction. Please provide pointers.
Yes, farming got efficient with tractors, allowing farmers to move to the cities to fill jobs in factories that was starting up at the dawn of the mass production and industrial revolution. But that does not mean that all future resources (i.e. humans) being freed due to automation, tech development will have new jobs to move to. That there are jobs suitable for humans created. That humans are needed as part of production of goods, services, content etc.
Also I would love to see a reference to why progress rely on creative destruction. Please provide pointers.
>So?
So much for humanity benefitting from technology. Instead of our workdays becoming fewer and shorter, a tiny number of people who don’t work at all will become richer while our lives become more alienated from our labor. This is the opposite of what we tell each other technology is supposed to accomplish. If it’s not a problem, why do we keep lying about?
So much for humanity benefitting from technology. Instead of our workdays becoming fewer and shorter, a tiny number of people who don’t work at all will become richer while our lives become more alienated from our labor. This is the opposite of what we tell each other technology is supposed to accomplish. If it’s not a problem, why do we keep lying about?
> Instead of our workdays becoming fewer and shorter,
If that happened any increase in productivity would be offset by the reduced time worked, so no one would get richer (very simplistically).
At the end of the day, humans are competitive, so of course hours worked will never really reduce, but it's that competition which drives innovation
And we're all getting richer. Sure there's more billionaires then ever, but if we're all getting richer so what? (and yes we are getting richer: the economic progress in Asia and Africa over the last two decades has been incredible. And the west continues to develop also. The world is richer than it has ever been)
If that happened any increase in productivity would be offset by the reduced time worked, so no one would get richer (very simplistically).
At the end of the day, humans are competitive, so of course hours worked will never really reduce, but it's that competition which drives innovation
And we're all getting richer. Sure there's more billionaires then ever, but if we're all getting richer so what? (and yes we are getting richer: the economic progress in Asia and Africa over the last two decades has been incredible. And the west continues to develop also. The world is richer than it has ever been)
Normally, it would be poor form to pick apart someone's well thought-out reasoning, but your reasonings are not well thought-out: they're middle class talking points, and effectively propaganda, lacking any overarching cohesion.
> If that happened any increase in productivity would be offset by the reduced time worked, so no one would get richer (very simplistically).
This is a useless point for the common man. "Productivity," in statistical economics jargon, means "how much profit is squeezed out of an employee." It's a substitute for the much more charged "surplus value of labor." When productivity goes up and wages stagnate, as we've seen happen, it means the common employee is not getting richer, but instead being fleeced -- usually do to a moral depression that does not leave him able to negotiate (struggle/fight/etc.) for higher wealth (both material and non-material).
This false equilibrium falls apart when you can simply deduct hours worked, and lower wages just enough to have a better productivity-to-hours ratio. Cannily, this is what has happened to most large low-skilled labor markets, where MBA "consultants" come in to grift and sell management/the executive team on how to make more money -- at the cost of everything else. See: McDonalds and Walmart as a prime example.
This also has the added bonus that you can now decide not to offer full-time benefits (human rights), because your workers are no longer "full time."
I.e. economic propaganda does not reflect real life.
> Humans are competitive
Humans with way less, are also hungry. Humans with way more, are also desensitized-degenerates that need hyper-stimulating avenues of pleasure like extreme avarice to sate their desires.
Most people do not work because they want to, but because they need to. The only "competitive" people you'll see in the work-force are the greedy. Who've passed the point where money no longer really means anything, but still have decided to dedicate their life watching that number go up. They are degenerates. Using them to paint all of humanity with a broad stroke is ill thought-out.
> And we're all getting richer. Sure there's more billionaires then ever, but if we're all getting richer so what? (and yes we are getting richer: the economic progress in Asia and Africa over the last two decades has been incredible. And the west continues to develop also. The world is richer than it has ever been)
Materially, yes. Spiritually, morally, intellectually, emotionally, socially: no.
Colonialization of foreign lands, effectively enslaving these people to be a part of the dominating civilization's "economic machine" is not a good thing. These people had a way of life before Western Civilization (TM) came in and obliterated their culture. They were presumably content, otherwise they would've sought out "innovation," "competition," and "productivity" on their own -- without the help of colonizers.
If the pieces of what I've quoted are authentic, and genuinely from the heart, then it is an example of moral bankruptcy (most likely due to environmental causes -- rather than individual).
There are other things in the world besides money. The only civilization that keeps on beating the war-drum of money money money is the Western Civilization. Everyone else has other things that are important to them (notably: family, social connections, spirituality, living a good life, being a decent human being, and so on). But in fairness, these are all slowly disappearing, as the U.S. keeps on pumping inflation out to the world, and forcing everyone else to "join" or "suffer" economically (materially).
> If that happened any increase in productivity would be offset by the reduced time worked, so no one would get richer (very simplistically).
This is a useless point for the common man. "Productivity," in statistical economics jargon, means "how much profit is squeezed out of an employee." It's a substitute for the much more charged "surplus value of labor." When productivity goes up and wages stagnate, as we've seen happen, it means the common employee is not getting richer, but instead being fleeced -- usually do to a moral depression that does not leave him able to negotiate (struggle/fight/etc.) for higher wealth (both material and non-material).
This false equilibrium falls apart when you can simply deduct hours worked, and lower wages just enough to have a better productivity-to-hours ratio. Cannily, this is what has happened to most large low-skilled labor markets, where MBA "consultants" come in to grift and sell management/the executive team on how to make more money -- at the cost of everything else. See: McDonalds and Walmart as a prime example.
This also has the added bonus that you can now decide not to offer full-time benefits (human rights), because your workers are no longer "full time."
I.e. economic propaganda does not reflect real life.
> Humans are competitive
Humans with way less, are also hungry. Humans with way more, are also desensitized-degenerates that need hyper-stimulating avenues of pleasure like extreme avarice to sate their desires.
Most people do not work because they want to, but because they need to. The only "competitive" people you'll see in the work-force are the greedy. Who've passed the point where money no longer really means anything, but still have decided to dedicate their life watching that number go up. They are degenerates. Using them to paint all of humanity with a broad stroke is ill thought-out.
> And we're all getting richer. Sure there's more billionaires then ever, but if we're all getting richer so what? (and yes we are getting richer: the economic progress in Asia and Africa over the last two decades has been incredible. And the west continues to develop also. The world is richer than it has ever been)
Materially, yes. Spiritually, morally, intellectually, emotionally, socially: no.
Colonialization of foreign lands, effectively enslaving these people to be a part of the dominating civilization's "economic machine" is not a good thing. These people had a way of life before Western Civilization (TM) came in and obliterated their culture. They were presumably content, otherwise they would've sought out "innovation," "competition," and "productivity" on their own -- without the help of colonizers.
If the pieces of what I've quoted are authentic, and genuinely from the heart, then it is an example of moral bankruptcy (most likely due to environmental causes -- rather than individual).
There are other things in the world besides money. The only civilization that keeps on beating the war-drum of money money money is the Western Civilization. Everyone else has other things that are important to them (notably: family, social connections, spirituality, living a good life, being a decent human being, and so on). But in fairness, these are all slowly disappearing, as the U.S. keeps on pumping inflation out to the world, and forcing everyone else to "join" or "suffer" economically (materially).
Didn’t get time to read your ranting monologue but the false definition of productivity (profit per worker not output or revenue per worker) shows that it has no credible basis - just like most rants.
[deleted]
You are describing some speculative future that doesn't really correlate with historical progress. Same could've been said about the industrial revolution, but somehow it did end up dramatically benefitting all of humanity.
Again, that is the story we well, but it’s a very reckless claim. Generations in early industrialization who still remembered life as a peasant almost universally preferred life as a peasant. Industrialization’s need for labor forced other peasants from their land to build competing modern nation states. Very few people asked for this and only a small wealthy few would tell you that dragging these people into brutal toiling factory labor improved everybody’s lives, but those are the people who funded the history books.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the transitory periods aren't difficult, but the reality is that very few people would choose to trade their current existence for the life of a pre-industrialization peasant if they actually knew what that implied.
The Industrial Revolution also played a heavy hand in WW1 and Industrial Warfare.
I don't think anyone is saying progress is wrong. Unfettered capitalism which robs people of their rights and alienates people from society is disastrous.
Putting an algorithm to treat people like machines is not innovation. Uber Eats is not our generations "spinning jenny". They should be forced to provide basic working benefits.
I don't think anyone is saying progress is wrong. Unfettered capitalism which robs people of their rights and alienates people from society is disastrous.
Putting an algorithm to treat people like machines is not innovation. Uber Eats is not our generations "spinning jenny". They should be forced to provide basic working benefits.
People are scared, which is understandable. These great technological leaps aren’t called revolutions for nothing
I don't disagree with you necessarily, but I think what's different this time is that the entire system is build from the ground up with the explicit intention of replacing workers with machines. There isn't even the pretense of dignity in employment.
Otoh the last few decades have led to automation replacing well paying jobs with mcJobs.
Maybe in some localised areas. Globally tho absolutely not; in recent years huge numbers of people have been pulled into the middle classes, probably a 1bn+ in India and China, and Africa is now the fastest growing economy, with the world bank expecting most countries to reach "middle income" status by 2025.
And replacing entry level academic jobs with machines - adding a barrier of entry for freshly baked lawyers.
[deleted]
When I first read Dune, 'lo those many years ago, I always thought of the Butlerian Jihad as being somewhere in our far future. Now, I'm not so sure...
When I first read it, I realized was probably a Butlerian jihadist.
"Computers" are unfortunately named after the least important thing that they do (accounting.) What's important about them is that they are allow us to generalize and add infinite complexity to autonomous control systems, like valves that open when a certain pressure is reached, or switches that toggle at a certain light level. The ultimate computer network would keep the king that implemented it in power for eternity, even after his death, by keeping his will alive. If you automated his corpse, you wouldn't even need to know that the king could die.
edit: "Ordenador" (from Spain) is probably better, i.e the thing/person that gives orders, or puts things in order. Maybe "mandónador"...
"Computers" are unfortunately named after the least important thing that they do (accounting.) What's important about them is that they are allow us to generalize and add infinite complexity to autonomous control systems, like valves that open when a certain pressure is reached, or switches that toggle at a certain light level. The ultimate computer network would keep the king that implemented it in power for eternity, even after his death, by keeping his will alive. If you automated his corpse, you wouldn't even need to know that the king could die.
edit: "Ordenador" (from Spain) is probably better, i.e the thing/person that gives orders, or puts things in order. Maybe "mandónador"...
I've been seeing more and more references to this story over the last few years which is a sign.. Of something. It would be really interesting to see the Http referrer logs his website gets for it. Probably a great collection of threads about everywhere this kind of automation is happening.
Good pointer, and a good short story.
How can it be that the most predatory elements of society have been given so much leeway?
This is not an intrinsic pattern of our species / societies or we would have devoured ourselves literally or figuratively long time ago.
Obviously restoring forces that would push this evil genie back in its bottle exist but are somehow dormant, neutralized or otherwise missing-in-action.
This fight and push-back should not be a thing for "activists". It affects every single person. We are all "gig workers".
This is not an intrinsic pattern of our species / societies or we would have devoured ourselves literally or figuratively long time ago.
Obviously restoring forces that would push this evil genie back in its bottle exist but are somehow dormant, neutralized or otherwise missing-in-action.
This fight and push-back should not be a thing for "activists". It affects every single person. We are all "gig workers".
This is my personal opinion.
We have been devouring each other for ages now. Entire cultures have vanished, destroyed by more powerful members of the same species. The entire history of our species has been on violent conflict where a stronger group removes a weaker group, only to be removed later by another group that emerges stronger. Previously it was racial, clan-based violence. Now it's economic servitude where a perpetually unfortunate lower class keeps on greasing the wheels of industry with sweat and blood. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor.
We are not benevolent or kind creatures. We are programmed to survive. As long as the poor live, they will rarely question the rationality behind the inequality that keeps them poor.
We have been devouring each other for ages now. Entire cultures have vanished, destroyed by more powerful members of the same species. The entire history of our species has been on violent conflict where a stronger group removes a weaker group, only to be removed later by another group that emerges stronger. Previously it was racial, clan-based violence. Now it's economic servitude where a perpetually unfortunate lower class keeps on greasing the wheels of industry with sweat and blood. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor.
We are not benevolent or kind creatures. We are programmed to survive. As long as the poor live, they will rarely question the rationality behind the inequality that keeps them poor.
No, you overlook the mutual aid factor. We are non-benevolent AND benevolent, unkind AND kind creatures. Hence the inability ever to settle on one explanation. Either direction you go, you're in error unless you account for both.
It becomes an existential crisis when humanity designs bots and AI and then behaves like humanity must COMPETE with the AI in order to survive, when we absolutely can't. We can't lift better than a forklift, run faster than a Veyron, we can't think better than Big Data. For the time being we're still able to dream better. For now.
Android dreams won't speak to us.
But there's no reason we can't pass on our capacity for mutual aid to the AI, as well as the competitiveness. And there's no reason the AI can't have heart and soul. When it fails it's because WE try to construct it in a false image of what we think we are.
It becomes an existential crisis when humanity designs bots and AI and then behaves like humanity must COMPETE with the AI in order to survive, when we absolutely can't. We can't lift better than a forklift, run faster than a Veyron, we can't think better than Big Data. For the time being we're still able to dream better. For now.
Android dreams won't speak to us.
But there's no reason we can't pass on our capacity for mutual aid to the AI, as well as the competitiveness. And there's no reason the AI can't have heart and soul. When it fails it's because WE try to construct it in a false image of what we think we are.
This is probably too pessimistic. If it was true we would not be writing this right now, we'd be still in some semi-wild state, ripping each others hearts out as battle trophy to dedicate to some imaginary god. If predatory behavior really had the upper hand it would not allow the kind of social structures that solved difficulty technology problems and allowed mass health, mass education etc.
But destructive, rapacious, behavior feels just one step away even now that we are supposedly "civilized" and we have excruciating records of our bloody history.
If we don't find a way to bottle this instinct up we will not see many more decades.
Time is running out because the system is not time-invariant: we had explosive population and technology growth. The same regressive traits that might have "only" annihilated isolated cultures in the past will bring our collective demise.
But destructive, rapacious, behavior feels just one step away even now that we are supposedly "civilized" and we have excruciating records of our bloody history.
If we don't find a way to bottle this instinct up we will not see many more decades.
Time is running out because the system is not time-invariant: we had explosive population and technology growth. The same regressive traits that might have "only" annihilated isolated cultures in the past will bring our collective demise.
Is it too pessimistic? Human history is filled with empires dominating their weaker neighbors, culling many of them (though not all), for the INgroup's self interest (it's also useful to keep subordinates around to do the menial labor). Even the less ruthless of these "imperialistic" entities such as the United States have a outstanding record. The native Americans can pay witness.
Not to mention what we do to animals. I read during just Superbowl Sunday 500 million chickens are slaughtered for the delight of eating chicken wings in the living room. If animals are nonconscious entities that don't suffer akin to robots then no harm no foul, but that is quintessential mass-scale devouring of another.
Not to mention what we do to animals. I read during just Superbowl Sunday 500 million chickens are slaughtered for the delight of eating chicken wings in the living room. If animals are nonconscious entities that don't suffer akin to robots then no harm no foul, but that is quintessential mass-scale devouring of another.
> The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor.
this has been false since at least the industrial revolution.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?tab=chart
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-gdp-over-the-last-t...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extre...
this has been false since at least the industrial revolution.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?tab=chart
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-gdp-over-the-last-t...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extre...
Because lacking ethical prohibitions always gives one an advantage. People who lack ethics can always choose to act ethically when it confers a social advantage, or to act otherwise when that's more advantageous. Ethical people are by definition often forced to act at a disadvantage.
The only advantage that individual ethical behavior gives is through supporting the health of the group, thereby supporting members who depend on the group. People who aren't loyal to a group can shop around, play one against the other, etc. Even better, if you automate the interactions between people, there's no need or benefit for ethical behavior. Profit comes from pleasing the algorithm rather than any sort of loyalty.
Edit: The algorithm that capitalism uses is maximizing value against cost. All ethical complaints about it are asking people to accept less value/more cost. Capitalism insists that if everyone maximizes value against cost personally, that sends a control signal to the collective that will maximize the greater good. This is the ethic that we're automating.
The only advantage that individual ethical behavior gives is through supporting the health of the group, thereby supporting members who depend on the group. People who aren't loyal to a group can shop around, play one against the other, etc. Even better, if you automate the interactions between people, there's no need or benefit for ethical behavior. Profit comes from pleasing the algorithm rather than any sort of loyalty.
Edit: The algorithm that capitalism uses is maximizing value against cost. All ethical complaints about it are asking people to accept less value/more cost. Capitalism insists that if everyone maximizes value against cost personally, that sends a control signal to the collective that will maximize the greater good. This is the ethic that we're automating.
> How can it be that the most predatory elements of society have been given so much leeway?
Partially because we as collective societies let them, by not voting out or actively voting in those who campaigned on neo-liberal platforms, many decades ago.
Partially because not many (and those who did were mostly on the hard-left side, which was and still is vilified) saw the "boiling frog" effect at play... stuff like the end of the Fairness Doctrine that gave way to today's mass media and its problems with propaganda, the Citizens United decision that paved the way for utterly absurd amounts of money in political campaigning, gerrymandering and other forms of voter manipulation, the building/consolidation of media empires like Sinclair [1], or the total lack of any regulation for social media and the blindness of everyone regarding Russian and Chinese propaganda on these platforms.
Now, the water is boiling: support for democracy - not just in the US but worldwide - has been eroding, as have democratic freedoms and lessons-learned from WW2 (such as, especially in Europe, the rights of those fleeing from war, destruction and hunger, or the need for international cooperation). Countries in the European Union (Poland, Hungary) begin to qualify as quasi-dictatorships, the UK dropped out in an epic clusterfuck, the US suffered from a (thankfully incompetent) putsch attempt, and as the COVID crisis has shown people don't even trust vaccinations any more. Meanwhile, the rich have gone ever more rich (sometimes to utterly absurd degrees).
How do we get back to civilization? I have no idea if it is / will be possible without some kind of global "reset" event... we Germans caused the last one, this time the cause will likely be either somewhere in Asia (invasion of Taiwan) or Russia (which is moving enough troops to the Ukrainian border to run an actual blitzkrieg style invasion [2]).
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/04/anchors-reciting-sin...
[2] https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/24/russia-s-military-build-...
Partially because we as collective societies let them, by not voting out or actively voting in those who campaigned on neo-liberal platforms, many decades ago.
Partially because not many (and those who did were mostly on the hard-left side, which was and still is vilified) saw the "boiling frog" effect at play... stuff like the end of the Fairness Doctrine that gave way to today's mass media and its problems with propaganda, the Citizens United decision that paved the way for utterly absurd amounts of money in political campaigning, gerrymandering and other forms of voter manipulation, the building/consolidation of media empires like Sinclair [1], or the total lack of any regulation for social media and the blindness of everyone regarding Russian and Chinese propaganda on these platforms.
Now, the water is boiling: support for democracy - not just in the US but worldwide - has been eroding, as have democratic freedoms and lessons-learned from WW2 (such as, especially in Europe, the rights of those fleeing from war, destruction and hunger, or the need for international cooperation). Countries in the European Union (Poland, Hungary) begin to qualify as quasi-dictatorships, the UK dropped out in an epic clusterfuck, the US suffered from a (thankfully incompetent) putsch attempt, and as the COVID crisis has shown people don't even trust vaccinations any more. Meanwhile, the rich have gone ever more rich (sometimes to utterly absurd degrees).
How do we get back to civilization? I have no idea if it is / will be possible without some kind of global "reset" event... we Germans caused the last one, this time the cause will likely be either somewhere in Asia (invasion of Taiwan) or Russia (which is moving enough troops to the Ukrainian border to run an actual blitzkrieg style invasion [2]).
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/04/anchors-reciting-sin...
[2] https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/24/russia-s-military-build-...
There is an avalanche of gig economy employee management and monitoring software (Teramind, ActivTrak, Ekran System, BrowseReporter, workpuls, Cerebral, monday.com, DeskTime, Time Doctor, etc). Many of these systems contain algorithms that surveil and manage workers. These tools eliminate much of the risk of outsourcing work to remote workers that cannot be directly supervised. They enable the remote workers by making them eligible for employment, and engineering a higher degree of trust into the relationship.
I would dearly like to see legislation that means that non-human supervision constitutes an elevated a risk to the employer.
e.g. UK Data Protection Act 2018
e.g. UK Data Protection Act 2018
A controller may not take a significant decision based
solely on automated processing unless that decision is
required or authorised by law.
I don't think it even needs to go that far, if you choose to delagate your descion making to a machine you should be as responsible for whatever results from that, it is your role to ensure the machine is making the right choices.
I think it's a harmful act of technological hubris to suggest that it's possible. Employment is a human relationship. I don't see much evidence that humans are able to construct a system that can respond to all of the human interaction that goes into a human relationship. Look at the state of the art of HR software, let alone spyware.
Let the robot managers for manage robots.
Let the robot managers for manage robots.
If someone invented such a system, I wouldn't want to stop them from using it, I just hold them accountable. I personally wouldn't trust a computer to fire someone if I was on the hook for it's choices.
I don't trust any of the feedback loops, or the good faith of any of the kinds of organizations that would use them. Show me a time when a company was truly accountable for a "computer mistake" and didn't just shrug it off when the damage was done. The fable of the scorpion and the frog springs to mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
I don't think it's actually a defence now, except maybe in the court of public opinion. For example, I'm certain courts would find that it's still sexual harassment if you build a machine to go around looking up women's dresses instead of doing it yourself. The problem isn't a lack of accountability for the machine so much as it is a lack of accountability generally.
Happened to be reading a photo essay about delivery drivers [0] today and was struck by how intensely vulnerable the workers are. e.g. Saying he knows 5 people that died and non that have filed insurance claims. i.e. They're not even bothering with the shiny "support" processes the companies put in place. Sure that is in a dangerous country, but still says a lot about the people that are (by necessity) attracted to these jobs.
It's not just the algo angle...the entire system isn't fit for purpose.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/13/ghost-riders-t...
It's not just the algo angle...the entire system isn't fit for purpose.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/13/ghost-riders-t...
To be honest, I just realized I am culpable in this area. So far its small things for small company:
e.g. automated alerts when checklist is not filled for selected day,
information in 1 system is not matching with info in second system.
By themselves those things look innocent, and just automate my headache of writing emails to correct the info.
What will it be 2-3 years for now? For sure automated penalization system in case you don't do those things correctly.
Do I have enough morality to not do those alerts/ "small productivity hacks" for me and do it manually for greater good instead? Tbh I need to think about it.
By themselves those things look innocent, and just automate my headache of writing emails to correct the info.
What will it be 2-3 years for now? For sure automated penalization system in case you don't do those things correctly.
Do I have enough morality to not do those alerts/ "small productivity hacks" for me and do it manually for greater good instead? Tbh I need to think about it.
I would say that first thing you should do is to make sure the emails/notifications you send contain all information needed that the affected person knows what he did wrong and also contain a way to dispute.
We need to push against broken system that abuse us, like in my case I got an email from Sony that I violated a super generic rule and my account is suspended for 2 months, with no way to dispute this and sure enough no refunds or compensation for my currently paid and active yearly subscription. (this can happen to any of us is not only Google/Apple/PayPal/Amazon that can screw you with their automation and shit customer support , the list is much larger and probably growing)
We need to push against broken system that abuse us, like in my case I got an email from Sony that I violated a super generic rule and my account is suspended for 2 months, with no way to dispute this and sure enough no refunds or compensation for my currently paid and active yearly subscription. (this can happen to any of us is not only Google/Apple/PayPal/Amazon that can screw you with their automation and shit customer support , the list is much larger and probably growing)
Thing is, it's not just automated systems that are broken. As worrying to me, or even more so, are those huge, lumbering, old-school systems called corporations, where the humans who work in them are merely functionaries, cog-wheels that make the machine work, without discretion or leeway to exercise judgement, and they're getting worse because those little cog-wheels are increasingly tasked, measured, hired, promoted and fired by algorithms, too. You may be dealing with a human, but they have absolutely no way to exercise their humanity, even when their job-title is something like "Bank Manager".
“I would say that first thing you should do is to make sure the emails/notifications you send contain all information needed that the affected person knows what he did wrong and also contain a way to dispute.”
This should become law. Otherwise we end up in Kafka’s “The Trial” world.
This should become law. Otherwise we end up in Kafka’s “The Trial” world.
> This should become law
I'd like to see that too, but I think it's... unlikely. In the case of OP, he lost access to his Sony account (I assume that's an online gaming platform) and there were monetary damages included, but imagine a generic "you can't be suspended from an online account without a way to dispute with an actual human person" law applied to, say, Facebook or Twitter or Reddit?
I'd like to see that too, but I think it's... unlikely. In the case of OP, he lost access to his Sony account (I assume that's an online gaming platform) and there were monetary damages included, but imagine a generic "you can't be suspended from an online account without a way to dispute with an actual human person" law applied to, say, Facebook or Twitter or Reddit?
So my account was banned for 60 days , I could use the console offline but no multiplayer/chat features. I am paying a yearly subscription for Play Station Plus that includes some online features that were made useless by the ban, so I was paying for nothing (in my case I was a paying customer) . My son told me that he got threats from some guy that if he did not gifts him Fortnite stuff he will do many fake Abuse Reports to Sony , I could see this system getting abused and adding on top the chats were not in english this could have been the cause (I can't be 100% sure and Sony did not told me what exactly triggered this so AFAIK it could be a screenshot from a video game that triggered Sony bots).
The law should force this company to refund completely or partially when this ban is happening , or in this case they could have extended the subscription with 60 days. The law should also force them to tell me what phrase or image or report triggered the system, it might make Sny job harder but the law should make our live easy not some giant corporation.
In this case Sony last a loyal customer, I will do my best to avoid giving them any more money in the future, consoles or other products, so if anyone wants to implement a similar system that screws with customer keep in mind that the ones you screw over will not stay silent and will spread the word and you lose more then 1 potential customer.
The law should force this company to refund completely or partially when this ban is happening , or in this case they could have extended the subscription with 60 days. The law should also force them to tell me what phrase or image or report triggered the system, it might make Sny job harder but the law should make our live easy not some giant corporation.
In this case Sony last a loyal customer, I will do my best to avoid giving them any more money in the future, consoles or other products, so if anyone wants to implement a similar system that screws with customer keep in mind that the ones you screw over will not stay silent and will spread the word and you lose more then 1 potential customer.
" so if anyone wants to implement a similar system that screws with customer keep in mind that the ones you screw over will not stay silent and will spread the word and you lose more then 1 potential customer."
I am pretty sure they have run the numbers and decided it's more profitable to f..k over some innocent guys versus spending money on customer service.
I am pretty sure they have run the numbers and decided it's more profitable to f..k over some innocent guys versus spending money on customer service.
A small example: I had a Uber driver who was afraid to deviate from the app-selected route even though he could see an obstruction.
Recommend reading this paper which introduces the concept of 'pre-automation'
https://sociologica.unibo.it/article/view/11657
Helps understand (for me at least) what's going on here
https://sociologica.unibo.it/article/view/11657
Helps understand (for me at least) what's going on here
[deleted]
That page had me download over 11000 elements and 80MB.
Machines should think. People should work. That's the new reality.
How far away is an AI system that supervises web developers?
How far away is an AI system that supervises web developers?
One step closer to Elysium ...
And I do agree with him: If whether you get work or not decides on a black box AI and your only support channel is another black box AI, that is pretty much a Kafka-esque nightmare.
I'd guess we here on HN are the people best equipped to prevent the worst. So the next time you help someone automate their customer support, ask yourself: How would I feel if my well-being depended on this? Because for some poor soul, it might. Is there a clear fall-back in case the AI fails horrible? Because, you know, they always do.
I once had my own support automation problem with Amazon, but luckily I had no stakes in it. They accidentally sent me someone else's parcel. So I filed a support request to inform them. They very politely apologized within a minute and informed me that they are sorry about my lost parcel and they'll send another one. So I got the same wrong parcel again. After waiting a while, I opened up the two parcels, each roughly 10x5x5 inches (25x10x10 cm) large. It was two single pencil erasers.
But boy would I have been furious if I had received the same support quality for a lost high-value parcel... Also, I did ponder if it is OK for Amazon to waste my time if I'm not even their customer. I mean their support forms are difficult to reach, no matter why you need to contact them.