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

'Hey Number 17 '

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 168 posts

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#51

Post by darkwater »

ryandrake wrote: post #37

What I'd love to know is: Assuming the founders pitched this idea for feedback to many people before getting this far, including to friends and family, didn't a single one of those people pull them aside and say: "Wait a minute, maybe stop and think about what you're actually creating here..." Could they find nobody in their circle of advisors who are able to empathize with low paid factory workers or at the very lea…

> What kind of bubble are the founders living in?

The article points this out: both come from families owning sweatshop^W factories, so that's the bubble. They probably were applauded by their fathers for the good idea and execution.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#52

Post by some_random »

neilv wrote: post #40

I disapprove of this application (knowing how these things will be used), but I hesitate to condemn whomever worked on it, without knowing more. A few background thoughts... I remember browsing angel.co, and most of the startup blurbs were just depressing -- either crypto scams, or people who sounded unaware that they were doing something bad for society. Many worse-sounding than this one. So depressing, that even Li…

I understand where you're coming from but that demo video makes it very, very clear that the founders knew exactly how it was going to be used and explicitly approved. It is completely unambiguous that they have zero regard for natural human empathy and caring, and view slow factory workers as worthy of humiliation and punishment.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#53

Post by hmmm-i-wonder »

phillipcarter wrote: post #18

Consider nearly any professional sports team and the relative effort that athletes put in. There's very little disagreeing on objectives our outcomes (score/prevent points, win games) and incentives are directly tied to this (win more games, get more money). And yet when you listen to what some of the highest-performing athletes say, they'll readily admit they don't go 100% effort 100% of the time. In fact, that's of…

This is exactly my issue with "sprints" and "Agile".

As a business, even as a "project" the needs change between the start and the end of a project. Periods of low and high activity coincide with the various phases of things. Expecting some crunch time at the end and allowing some slack time at the start/middle allows a natural flow.

Now managers have decided employees must work at a high level of output/at crunch time pace ALL the time. Any change in forecasted points, burn down results in meltdowns at the VP and higher levels, while actual expectations, requirements and deadlines are changed at the drop of a hat multiple times.

Waterfall (not the sprint version of waterfall, the Deming version of waterfall with iteration between steps) gives a much more natural alignment of this while also ensuring the starting point doesn't get shifted at the whims of a VP with a "good idea" in the middle of a project.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#54

Post by phillipcarter »

bandofthehawk wrote: post #36
phillipcarter wrote: post #18

Consider nearly any professional sports team and the relative effort that athletes put in. There's very little disagreeing on objectives our outcomes (score/prevent points, win games) and incentives are directly tied to this (win more games, get more money). And yet when you listen to what some of the highest-performing athletes say, they'll readily admit they don't go 100% effort 100% of the time. In fact, that's of…

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but trying to think of a counter example I'm reminded of the movie Moneyball. Reviewing the detailed stats of each baseball player vs. the cost of hiring them seems pretty close to measuring "time doing useful things on the field". I'm not sure how common this practice is in general in current professional sports.

It's also worth pointing out that the "Moneyball" strategy ultimately failed because it produced a team who could succeed in the regular season, but fail consistently in the playoffs and ultimately lead to good players leaving due to salary constraints.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#56

Post by HenryBemis »

Etheryte wrote: post #15

This is exactly why we need regulations that prohibit this. The upcoming EU regulations [0] seem to at least partially cover this, as employment is one of the high risk categories for AI systems. What that means in detail is still to be seen, but at least the groundwork is already there. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43152937

GDPR also makes this practically impossible:

  a camera pointed straight at your face every working moment
  profiling
  use of AI

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#57

Post by neilv »

some_random wrote: post #52
neilv wrote: post #40

I disapprove of this application (knowing how these things will be used), but I hesitate to condemn whomever worked on it, without knowing more. A few background thoughts... I remember browsing angel.co, and most of the startup blurbs were just depressing -- either crypto scams, or people who sounded unaware that they were doing something bad for society. Many worse-sounding than this one. So depressing, that even Li…

I understand where you're coming from but that demo video makes it very, very clear that the founders knew exactly how it was going to be used and explicitly approved. It is completely unambiguous that they have zero regard for natural human empathy and caring, and view slow factory workers as worthy of humiliation and punishment.

I actually assume that this tech will almost immediately be used worse than in the video skit.

If anything, I think they're unaware or sugar-coating it, but not doing a great PR job of that for US audiences.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#58

Post by hn_user82179 »

adocomplete wrote: post #2

I don't think the issue is necessarily the tool, but rather the execution. I think everybody can agree that improving efficiency is a good thing, and tools to track/improve it are a net benefit, but the way they approached it was abhorrent. But seriously, who approved posting that (before it was deleted)?

The thing that got me (random person with no factory experience), their own website and the HN Startup page sounds fantastic. AI + cameras to identify bottlenecks is a huge gain. I never would've realized it was actually for monitoring the _workers'_ outputs.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#59

Post by HenryBemis »

imglorp wrote: post #31

We were told the machines would free us from repetitive or injurious work, letting us pursue more meaningful and prosperous lives. Or at least they would be our partners we could leverage. Instead, will they be the tools of our enslavement to The Man?

When was the last time in history that people didn't use the most advanced technology to subdue/imprison/etc. other people?

I am not saying that good things didn't happen, but where there is money to be made, money WILL be made. And for some countries that don't enjoy regulations like GDPR (China, India, with growing economies 'solutions' like this will definitely come to play). Some people will replace a form of slavery with a newer form of slavery.

Re: 'Hey Number 17 '

#60

Post by jagged-chisel »

>For the workers? They get the tantalizing benefit of being “held accountable for good or bad performance.”

No. They will not be 'held accountable' nor rewarded for good performance. The reward will be the ever-rising bar on performance until management is satisfied that they will never be required to pay out on those motivational performance bonuses and that workers fear for their jobs.

Post reply on HN