6 ms·

I worked at a company last year (specifically their RPA sector) that one of the projects we got was create a "robot" to automate certain tasks within a client.

I worked at a company last year (specifically their RPA sector) that one of the projects we got was create a "robot" to automate certain tasks within a client. Later after we delivered it, we learned that project alone was the reason the client cut 700 low level positions. A single "robot" could do in an afternoon what 700 people did in a week. (Was/is a pretty large company.) The words from my manager still echo in my mind: "If we think of the "ethical" aspect of it, we wouldn't have our own jobs."

pydry 6y ago
If the client could cut 700 low level positions with automation then they were probably treating human beings like robots.
- meritt 6y ago
  Yeah, imagine a world where each employee had a team of highly trained specialists ensuring they had absolutely everything they need to do their job, and if they became sick at 2am on a Saturday, multiple people get woken up to take care of them. When the CEO parades investors around on the assembly floor, those employees are shined up, their capabilities are demonstrated, and they are showcased as the pinnacle of why their company is the best. Low level employees would be lucky to be treated like robots.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    If low level people were as productive as 700 other low level people they wouldn't be low level people.
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      No, they'd be superhuman.
virgilp 6y ago
I don't have a moral dilemma about my work cutting those kinds of jobs; it's busywork, their existence doesn't improve humanity. We're better off with something like UBI than paying people to do boring stuff that they don't really need to do.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  I'm not saying it won't be the right move eventually, but that was 700 people who were getting paid for busywork who now aren't. Today I'd say there's still a dilemma.
  - true_religion 6y ago
    Think about how many secretaries and clerks that Microsoft Office put out of work. On the other hand, isn’t it better that everyone can type their own reports and check spelling and grammar themselves via code?
    - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
      It is, and that's why it's complicated. I'm not saying it's the wrong move, but there's still a dilemma there.
      - jfk13 6y ago
        >> isn’t it better that everyone can type their own reports and check spelling and grammar themselves via code? > It is... Is it really? Seems like an awful lot of stuff just doesn't get checked any longer. The "checking" done by MS Word et al is no substitute for the eye of a skilled human.
  - Closi 6y ago
    You can stop any investment or operational improvement with that mindset though. Should we give our gardeners a lawnmower? Nah that would result in redundancies, leave them with their nail scissors.
dkarl 6y ago
Society was rich enough to support those 700 people, and now it's richer. Should be good news for them. It's a huge challenge getting to that point as a society, but there are also very rapidly evolving attitudes towards the problem (much more readiness to acknowledge that it is a problem, to start with.) I feel optimistic that this could be solved in the next hundred years.
dgb23 6y ago
The problem is not that jobs get automated away. Efficiency in of itself is a good thing. The problem is that the gained efficiency is often not used to improve the lives of all (former) participants: There is little responsibility towards employees and customers. Businesses are not seen as communities, neither by employers nor by employees. Leaders, owners, investors, employers and other powerful actors profit disproportionally, because their decisions are not tied to a holistic responsibility but only to financial metrics (which are also directed by them; a whole other problem). There are also actors with higher (or sufficient?) ethical standards that will invest efficiency gains like you describe to educate and train their employees or at least give them the financial means. This inspires loyalty and trust. I'm longing to hear more about such cases.
rwbhn 6y ago
Curious about how you feel about the number of people needed to farm 100 acres of, say corn, today vs 200 years ago. Was all the automation applied to that problem unethical?
- jfk13 6y ago
  When you consider what it's doing to the land and environment, maybe so.

pydry 6y ago

If the client could cut 700 low level positions with automation then they were probably treating human beings like robots.

meritt 6y ago
Yeah, imagine a world where each employee had a team of highly trained specialists ensuring they had absolutely everything they need to do their job, and if they became sick at 2am on a Saturday, multiple people get woken up to take care of them. When the CEO parades investors around on the assembly floor, those employees are shined up, their capabilities are demonstrated, and they are showcased as the pinnacle of why their company is the best. Low level employees would be lucky to be treated like robots.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  If low level people were as productive as 700 other low level people they wouldn't be low level people.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    No, they'd be superhuman.

virgilp 6y ago

I don't have a moral dilemma about my work cutting those kinds of jobs; it's busywork, their existence doesn't improve humanity. We're better off with something like UBI than paying people to do boring stuff that they don't really need to do.

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
I'm not saying it won't be the right move eventually, but that was 700 people who were getting paid for busywork who now aren't. Today I'd say there's still a dilemma.
- true_religion 6y ago
  Think about how many secretaries and clerks that Microsoft Office put out of work. On the other hand, isn’t it better that everyone can type their own reports and check spelling and grammar themselves via code?
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    It is, and that's why it's complicated. I'm not saying it's the wrong move, but there's still a dilemma there.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      >> isn’t it better that everyone can type their own reports and check spelling and grammar themselves via code? > It is... Is it really? Seems like an awful lot of stuff just doesn't get checked any longer. The "checking" done by MS Word et al is no substitute for the eye of a skilled human.
- Closi 6y ago
  You can stop any investment or operational improvement with that mindset though. Should we give our gardeners a lawnmower? Nah that would result in redundancies, leave them with their nail scissors.

dkarl 6y ago

Society was rich enough to support those 700 people, and now it's richer. Should be good news for them. It's a huge challenge getting to that point as a society, but there are also very rapidly evolving attitudes towards the problem (much more readiness to acknowledge that it is a problem, to start with.) I feel optimistic that this could be solved in the next hundred years.

dgb23 6y ago

The problem is not that jobs get automated away. Efficiency in of itself is a good thing. The problem is that the gained efficiency is often not used to improve the lives of all (former) participants: There is little responsibility towards employees and customers. Businesses are not seen as communities, neither by employers nor by employees. Leaders, owners, investors, employers and other powerful actors profit disproportionally, because their decisions are not tied to a holistic responsibility but only to financial metrics (which are also directed by them; a whole other problem). There are also actors with higher (or sufficient?) ethical standards that will invest efficiency gains like you describe to educate and train their employees or at least give them the financial means. This inspires loyalty and trust. I'm longing to hear more about such cases.

rwbhn 6y ago

Curious about how you feel about the number of people needed to farm 100 acres of, say corn, today vs 200 years ago. Was all the automation applied to that problem unethical?

jfk13 6y ago
When you consider what it's doing to the land and environment, maybe so.