What's the most ideal form of a company, in the eyes of it's board? Low cost due to cheap workforce or replacing of humans by automation, higher revenues due to faster deliveries and increased market footprint. Those directions remain as the strategic focus with or without AI.
However, let's imagine the most "ideal" situation where it's possible to replace 90% of the workforce with AI automation. Then the remaining 10% workforce will enjoy 10 times more income, assuming revenues didn't go down (or increased). Now comes an interesting situation. Where are the revenues coming from? Who can afford buy the products/service of this company when 90% of the workforce is out of job?
Case-1: Since there is a flood of products and services - all automated and bot-based - the prices would fall to rock bottom and to there is no longer a need for humans to work hard hard to afford the material affluence.
Case-2: This results in an extreme concentration of delivery capacity for products and services. A few companies are now capable of serving the needs of entire humanity. Everyone should work for these companies for pennies and still can be happy, because things cost pennies, thanks to automations.
Case-3: Humans revolt. They break their shackles - their needs. Rediscover what they really need for living. They go for minimal living. Abandon cities and expensive living, go country side and do farming just enough to feed their families. No college, no office, no car, no highways. They realize what their basic needs are as humans. Sort of Amish.
Case-4: There is still some work left that can't be automated. But there are very less number of jobs and they require hard work. The current generation can't handle it. They were schooled and grown up in cities, expecting a milder office work. They fall out of employment. But they were not built to deal with hard reality. They lost their survival instincts a few generations ago. The genes are gone. The job of rebuilding the survival instincts is delegetaed to future generations. Meanwhile the so-called developed nations undergo generational cycles of poverty and richness.
Case 3 is leftist dream. They want to make it happen.
Case 4 is the likely result of their (ill) effort.
If capitalism with mild restrictions have it's way, we end up with case 1 or 2. Both will increase the quality of life for most of the population compared to current.
These AI doomers never understand that they can't eat money. It is the wealth creation. The more we create, the more we lift up the bottom part.
Increase quality 9f life? Only if it defined as cities full of old people having material affluence, without their own kids and grand kids, ctieis surviving on work by immigrants, who rapidly change the demographic profiles.
So yeah, it all depends on what you call as quality of life, or life, or identity or nation, ...
Need #1: we need a fridge.
Need #2: we need it to be smart
Need #3: we need it connected to internet
Need #4: we need it to be controlled by the seller.
There's still some problem with that approach. OK, I will tell what I'm going change to prevent recurrence of the issue. How does that makes sense to the audience? Unless they just want hear that "some" change will be there and don't care about how that change would make any sense.
It boils down to what exactly is the ownership or accountability of your SVP around the issue. Why are they even bothered to ensure that there will be some change? If they are responsible for ensuring that the issue doesn't happen again, then they do need to say "I want the details".
I think there is a subtle additional level of trust that the author didn't call out. As the author noted, the SVP trusted that everyone involved in the issue responded rationally and professionally. But they left out the part where the SVP also trusted that the author and their engineering counterpart had already analyzed what happened and how.
The SVP doesn't have time to dig into the "who did what and when" timeline of a problem. They do need to communicate that they're willing to invest resources in preventing recurrence. Was the team burned out by noisy alarms? Then the SVP needs to hear "We're spending time improving automation to reduce alarms, and tuning remaining alarms to make them less noisy. This will take engineering time away from feature work." Or maybe the system had a single point of failure that broke, and the SVP needs to hear "We're redoing X to eliminate a single point of failure, but it will increase our infrastructure budget by $Y".
The SVP is inviting a higher level discussion around what resources need to be consumed in order to be sure this doesn't happen again. And they're opening the door to defending that use of resources.
What you describe is exactly what a 'leader' is supposed to 'see'. When to know when details are needed, and when to trust their delegate. The trust is also balanced: if what you say does not align with what the leader is 'seeing', then trust falls apart.
Everyone has some measure of the 'big picture' and the person at top is supposed to see the biggest, final picture. Where everyone and their processes fit, within the big picture. Delegation could be perfectly aligned (and trust would be easy) if not for quality:
Quality determines how well the relationship works between leader and delegate.
The amount of quality is determined by the amount of need, and urgency available. The relationship (and communication) evolves over time as quality is determined by leaders.
Regardless, there's always going to be difficulty because there's never an ideal system where quality is perfectly measured. That's why communication with people, as people, is also very important. When we perceive disrespect: communication shuts down. Humility must be respected.
If you can't communicate, there's definitely no measure of quality available for the relationship between leader and delegate. If communication is there (and communication should be measured as transmission of real information), then trust is more easily measured.
Once you know how much you trust something, then you know how much detail you need when you 'need to get something done'. Because you know the big picture, and where this thing you need fits. And how well it works.
OP is already at the director level. The further you go up the management chain, the less people are involved in process or technical decision making -- they are primarily concerned with organizational decision making. It sounds like the issue was something that was fully within the management scope of lower levels of management here:
> Something had gone wrong that shouldn't have.
The SVP is trying to determine what change in management is taking place, not what technical change is taking place.
There are a set of principles at play: used by leaders and engineers, when trying to 'do work'.
When you need to get something done, unless you can build the entire thing, you have to trust someone to help you. There's very few people who choose to live a life where they are 100% self-sufficient, living-off-the-land.
Leaders have to trust people, engineers have to trust components.
It's not just people. Shuffling people around is not fix everything. People, process and technology - any of them could hold the key for a solution. That would mean, you do need to understand whether is is people issue, process issue or is it tech issue. That requires listening to details.
Free and open source software communities were not always friendly, even at their peak... And now there are far too many projects that are outright hostile towards anyone who uses AI for any purpose. Very discouraging.
Goal definition is way down at step 5. Why do you even care about doing something even before you know the goal?
Why does step 6 has word "urgency" in it, as if it applies to all goals?
Getting more fundamental, why do you need to go through any of this at all? What happens if you don't do all of this? What's the cost-benefit analysis of doing all this and not doing?
The fact that it requires so much explanation, indicates the level of degradation in the reasoning ability of the audience. A value of a subtype shall deliver all of the expectations of its super type, because it is wearing both the hats of super type and sub type.
What part of GP's one-sentence explanation is not strictly logical? Does obfuscating a simple logical concept by describing it in academia-wanky-terms like Liskov's Substitution Principle make it More Logical? Or does it just make the author and their in-crowd feel more intelligent?
Note, also, that the article isn't even objective. It asserts that the definition of a subtype is Liskov's principle. However, Liskov's principle is only one of multiple possible definitions. In other words, the article is really only invoking Liskov's name as an appeal to authority. So much for strict logic.
If the article is written for human consumption, then it fails the primary goal (or logic?) of being useful. If a human has to digest a flood of this logic slop just to get convinced about this simple concept, they are not going to be able to do anything useful.
Accept everything as moulded by the evolution. All the trends since the cave days to now. Believe that there is a purpose for the trend, even if the purpose is extinction.
Do not assume that you caused something or invented something. You are just a carrier of the change, with minimal resistance. If you can't carry the change (invent stuff) with minimal cost to the evolution, then it will pick the next least resisting guy to carry the change. And he will claim that he invented something. That's the carrot offered for being the carrier.
Nice idea. How does the provider receive the order from customer? Is it through phone call, or via some other app? If it is an app, won't that app have a status tracking feature?
Finding patterns and information using machines, in a seemingly random noise should no longer be a surpise, much the same way as lifting tonnes of weight using a crane is no longer a surprise.
However, let's imagine the most "ideal" situation where it's possible to replace 90% of the workforce with AI automation. Then the remaining 10% workforce will enjoy 10 times more income, assuming revenues didn't go down (or increased). Now comes an interesting situation. Where are the revenues coming from? Who can afford buy the products/service of this company when 90% of the workforce is out of job?
Case-1: Since there is a flood of products and services - all automated and bot-based - the prices would fall to rock bottom and to there is no longer a need for humans to work hard hard to afford the material affluence.
Case-2: This results in an extreme concentration of delivery capacity for products and services. A few companies are now capable of serving the needs of entire humanity. Everyone should work for these companies for pennies and still can be happy, because things cost pennies, thanks to automations.
Case-3: Humans revolt. They break their shackles - their needs. Rediscover what they really need for living. They go for minimal living. Abandon cities and expensive living, go country side and do farming just enough to feed their families. No college, no office, no car, no highways. They realize what their basic needs are as humans. Sort of Amish.
Case-4: There is still some work left that can't be automated. But there are very less number of jobs and they require hard work. The current generation can't handle it. They were schooled and grown up in cities, expecting a milder office work. They fall out of employment. But they were not built to deal with hard reality. They lost their survival instincts a few generations ago. The genes are gone. The job of rebuilding the survival instincts is delegetaed to future generations. Meanwhile the so-called developed nations undergo generational cycles of poverty and richness.
reply