Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: If 1 person can control 10 AI agents, why would still need that person?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Ask HN: If 1 person can control 10 AI agents, why would still need that person?

#21

Post by flornt »

szszrk wrote: post #11
tacostakohashi wrote: post #8

See the "doorman fallacy". Customers don't actually want to do the work of their vendors. I don't want to scan my own groceries at a supermarket, or check myself in for a flight (if checking backs, or traveling internationally anyway). If I wanted to be doing that kind of work, I'd get a job at a supermarket or an airline.

Weird examples. Self service cash registers are huge in Europe and as the tech matured even elderly are choosing them to not wait in queues. There are a lot of complains, but on par with standard registries. Self checkout on flights, the online one, is the easiest and biggest time saver. Up to a point where cost is not the most important factor to fly with carry-on only.

Yes, but it's not exactly the same. Self-service checkouts are just a way to buy your groceries — same with online shops. In those cases, the human is simply involved in selling a product, not delivering a service in itself. What I'm thinking about is an AI agent that actually provides services the way a human would — like doing strategic monitoring, replying to emails, or producing documents as part of an AI-enabled workflow."

Re: Ask HN: If 1 person can control 10 AI agents, why would still need that person?

#22

Post by flornt »

aristofun wrote: post #9

I think you don’t really get the idea of engineering. The job is not to spit out code (but even here 10 or even 100 junior-mid developers will not deliver complex enough product without proper guidance from advanced people) - the job is to create a solution. Clients don’t care how exactly it is done, they pay for end result.

Sure, but once the solution is built, why would a company keep paying someone externally just to watch/control it? Won’t the future be about having an AI agent that can be fine-tuned to your company’s needs through natural language?"

Re: Ask HN: If 1 person can control 10 AI agents, why would still need that person?

#23

Post by flornt »

mikewarot wrote: post #6

Analogy - If a machinist oversees 10 cnc machines, yes you still need him. There's always going to be some level of expertise involved and especially with AI some person has to exercise judgement, watching out for hallucinations.

What you’re referring to is the difference between automation — following the rules — and autonomy — having the ability to break or adapt them. A traditional machine just follows instructions. It doesn’t make decisions on its own. But from what I understand, AI agents can show a certain level of autonomy. They don’t just execute predefined steps; they can adjust, prioritize, even improvise within a given framework.

Re: Ask HN: If 1 person can control 10 AI agents, why would still need that person?

#24

Post by flornt »

tacostakohashi wrote: post #8

See the "doorman fallacy". Customers don't actually want to do the work of their vendors. I don't want to scan my own groceries at a supermarket, or check myself in for a flight (if checking backs, or traveling internationally anyway). If I wanted to be doing that kind of work, I'd get a job at a supermarket or an airline.

see my answer below.I guess it's not quite the same thing. Self-service checkouts are just a way to buy your groceries — same with online shops. In both cases, the human is (or was) mainly there to help sell a product, not to deliver a service in the proper sense. Sure, you could argue that it’s still a form of service, but the core business of a company like Walmart isn’t about providing human services — it’s about selling goods.

Re: Ask HN: If 1 person can control 10 AI agents, why would still need that person?

#25

Post by kasey_junk »

flornt wrote: post #23
mikewarot wrote: post #6

Analogy - If a machinist oversees 10 cnc machines, yes you still need him. There's always going to be some level of expertise involved and especially with AI some person has to exercise judgement, watching out for hallucinations.

What you’re referring to is the difference between automation — following the rules — and autonomy — having the ability to break or adapt them. A traditional machine just follows instructions. It doesn’t make decisions on its own. But from what I understand, AI agents can show a certain level of autonomy. They don’t just execute predefined steps; they can adjust, prioritize, even improvise within a given framework.

Cnc machines adjust, prioritize and go against stated plans.

Re: Ask HN: If 1 person can control 10 AI agents, why would still need that person?

#26

Post by aristofun »

flornt wrote: post #22
aristofun wrote: post #9

I think you don’t really get the idea of engineering. The job is not to spit out code (but even here 10 or even 100 junior-mid developers will not deliver complex enough product without proper guidance from advanced people) - the job is to create a solution. Clients don’t care how exactly it is done, they pay for end result.

Sure, but once the solution is built, why would a company keep paying someone externally just to watch/control it? Won’t the future be about having an AI agent that can be fine-tuned to your company’s needs through natural language?"

> just to watch/control it

I think that you don't realize how maintaining software products work

Who is going to watch/control the agent and make sure it's doing the right work?

Re: Ask HN: If 1 person can control 10 AI agents, why would still need that person?

#27

Post by malfist »

szszrk wrote: post #11
tacostakohashi wrote: post #8

See the "doorman fallacy". Customers don't actually want to do the work of their vendors. I don't want to scan my own groceries at a supermarket, or check myself in for a flight (if checking backs, or traveling internationally anyway). If I wanted to be doing that kind of work, I'd get a job at a supermarket or an airline.

Weird examples. Self service cash registers are huge in Europe and as the tech matured even elderly are choosing them to not wait in queues. There are a lot of complains, but on par with standard registries. Self checkout on flights, the online one, is the easiest and biggest time saver. Up to a point where cost is not the most important factor to fly with carry-on only.

Self service checkouts are huge because they chronically understaff checkouts so if you want to get out quickly you have to temporarily be an employee of the store.

Re: Ask HN: If 1 person can control 10 AI agents, why would still need that person?

#28

Post by szszrk »

flornt wrote: post #24
tacostakohashi wrote: post #8

See the "doorman fallacy". Customers don't actually want to do the work of their vendors. I don't want to scan my own groceries at a supermarket, or check myself in for a flight (if checking backs, or traveling internationally anyway). If I wanted to be doing that kind of work, I'd get a job at a supermarket or an airline.

see my answer below.I guess it's not quite the same thing. Self-service checkouts are just a way to buy your groceries — same with online shops. In both cases, the human is (or was) mainly there to help sell a product, not to deliver a service in the proper sense. Sure, you could argue that it’s still a form of service, but the core business of a company like Walmart isn’t about providing human services — it’s about…

In a way, you just confirm what I said. I think that "fallacy" is cool for a ted talk or a sales book, but falls apart when faced with reality.

tacostakohashi chose very precise examples - cash registry and self checkout. These are clearly wrong, as proven by experience.

To meet your point it would be better to say "I don't want to be a farmer or a pilot". But even that is bogus.

Many people that can "be a farmer", plant their own vegetables. It's an option available for many people.

It may not be true in your local example, but it is for mine - almost every person that has a small piece of land (even tiny garden) at least experiments with some vegetables or fruits. On denser areas like mine (where houses are rare, blocks of flats are more common) it's not uncommon to plant tiny amounts on balconies.

Owning a share of "community gardens" right outside of city is insanely popular even with very high prices of those. The one my cousin has parcel in is over 1000 parcels (usually around 20x20 meters or so), where people plant and compost (mandatory).

Many people want to be a farmer if that gives them high quality products. They will jump through hoops to achieve that.

Post reply on HN