Automation Is a Myth • Hacker News Board

Re: Automation Is a Myth

#21

Post by drewcoo » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 10:49 PM UTC

lukemunn wrote: post #15

hirundo wrote: post #3

While the title says "Automation Is a Myth," the description immediately retreats to "full autonomy" and "universal automation" are mythical. Those are very different propositions. That motte and bailey maneuver turns the title into clickbait and damages the credibility of the book from page one.

Yes the title is provocative, and can only be so long. The introduction chapter articulates more precisely what I'm arguing. Chapter summaries are available here: https://www.sup.org/books/extra/?id=34899&i=Contents.htm - I've pasted a section below that might help sharpen the claim. Automation is a myth, a long-running fable about the future of work that needs to be reconsidered. Whether embraced as dream or caution…

I was willing to accept the title until I read this. And now I agree with the GP.

You're clearly creating a strawman, stretching the meaning of automation into something nobody thinks it is so that you can proclaim it a myth.

The title should be "Total Automation . . ." or "Complete Automation . . ." so as not to mislead like this.

Re: Automation Is a Myth

#22

Post by imachine1980_ » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 11:03 PM UTC

drewcoo wrote: post #19

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #17

Automation has its limits. I've tried to automate many processes at work but only the simple ones will work over time. Once you put a bit of complexity to it then it starts to fall apart. It's impossible to account for everything so eventually something happens and things fail. We can take a hint from our current industrial automation where it's common for a process to stop and have to be reviewed by someone before i…

Lucky for us then that good design makes complex problems simple. Automation failures may be telling us we're trying to automate a something badly designed.

i think you are a software guy like me, some process are to dynamic to fully automatize and make excessive division would make the process less resilient and more prone to accidents, container are cool but real container are make of real material, ship problems happens, manufacturer them isn't cheaper or easy and this real physical scale make them expensive to storage. TL;DR the world isn't kubernetes

Re: Automation Is a Myth

#23

Post by lukemunn » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 11:20 PM UTC

drewcoo wrote: post #21

lukemunn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the title is provocative, and can only be so long. The introduction chapter articulates more precisely what I'm arguing. Chapter summaries are available here: https://www.sup.org/books/extra/?id=34899&i=Contents.htm - I've pasted a section below that might help sharpen the claim. Automation is a myth, a long-running fable about the future of work that needs to be reconsidered. Whether embraced as dream or caution…

I was willing to accept the title until I read this. And now I agree with the GP. You're clearly creating a strawman, stretching the meaning of automation into something nobody thinks it is so that you can proclaim it a myth. The title should be "Total Automation . . ." or "Complete Automation . . ." so as not to mislead like this.

Full/Total/Complete automation is one of the fictions, but it's not the only one.

Automation is also framed as a universal phenomenon that will sweep across the globe, remaking 'the economy' and society. But there are economies plural and technology is cultural and contextual. So I push against this concept and point to automated technologies and how they differ from place to place, in the book zooming into Xinjiang in China, for example, to examine how technologies intersect with historical prejudice.

Automation is also linked 'the human', but historically some people are more 'human' than others and the history of labor is one of inequality. So some (PoC, women, immigrants, etc) bear the brunt of automated technologies while others less.

In other words, automation is not just a myth because its not full automation, but because its a story that obscures the messier and more devastating details that happen on the ground.

Re: Automation Is a Myth

#24

Post by WheelsAtLarge » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 11:28 PM UTC

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #8

reso wrote: post #4

There's a lot of work that hasn't been done yet in studying what causes automation from an economics point of view. A common thought experiment is "Why hasn't fast food been automated?" We certainly have the technology to make burgers automatically, to the same quality that MacDonalds does. This technology is at least 40 years old. Yet we still have kids running these stores. The reason seems to be: kids are cheaper…

Fast food is significantly automated, though. Depending on the chain, you get various different parts of the process centrally automated, and standardized food components and ingredients are shipped out to restaurant locations or franchisees. Only prep and assembly are deferred to the very end, from the various standard components. The reason fast food works, and is consistent enough that you can expect the same Chal…

"few components into many distinct products with differences in technique or ratio is still cheaper to do with manual labor."

True, the more specialized the final product is the less likely it is that it will get automated.

Our current wave of automation will have its greatest impact on white collar jobs. Many of the jobs will get redefined into simpler functions and the very simple functions will be automated by software. Two I can quickly think of are Medical and legal services. These services will be greatly impacted in a few decades. The professionals won't go away but there will be a few elite ones that will have many assistants who will use information services to help them do their job.

I've started to see it. The medical offices I use have many more physician's assistants now than a few years ago to name one impact.

The idea of complete automation is unlikely to happen any time soon. I don't even think it will even happen in our grandchildren's lifetime but limited automation will have a great impact on our society.

We have to be careful with the word "Myth" since automation will have and is having a great impact on us.

Re: Automation Is a Myth

#25

Post by lukemunn » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 11:31 PM UTC

imachine1980_ wrote: post #22

drewcoo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lucky for us then that good design makes complex problems simple. Automation failures may be telling us we're trying to automate a something badly designed.

i think you are a software guy like me, some process are to dynamic to fully automatize and make excessive division would make the process less resilient and more prone to accidents, container are cool but real container are make of real material, ship problems happens, manufacturer them isn't cheaper or easy and this real physical scale make them expensive to storage. TL;DR the world isn't kubernetes

That's a great line - the world isn't Kubernetes. Yes, in the real world, things break and problems arise. Things that worked in one context break down in another. In one of the chapters, I talk about the huge amount of maintenance work needed to keep these systems running, 'unsexy' work that never gets mentioned in the founder's keynote. There's often an immense amount of labor, knowledge, and expertise behind the scenes, some of it well paid, much of it precarious and under-paid.

Re: Automation Is a Myth

#26

Post by emmo » Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 4:24 AM UTC

lukemunn wrote: post #2

Some HNers might be interested in the book below, which is coming out in a couple weeks with Stanford, and which can be pre-ordered now. It uses a provocative claim to push against the myths of automation but also develop a messier and more interesting portrait of the 'future of work'. Happy to field any questions. ----- For some, automation will usher in a labor-free utopia; for others, it signals a disastrous age-t…

Why does automation have more of an impact on PoC and women?

I would have thought its biggest impact would initially be on the types of jobs typically dominated by male workers.