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

Every Company Needs a Cassandra

sunilpai.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: Every Company Needs a Cassandra

#11

Post by tiznow »

If people wanted to listen to Cassandras, or more broadly, people who don't have the power to make or stop changes but are voicing consent or considerations -- they would far more often, as that is very easy to do.

Corporate culture is especially nearly designed to never give Cassandras the time of day.

Why wouldn't people just write the agent off as 'broken'? Would this agent learn to keep most of it's responses to itself or end up actually broken/drifting as a result of having good advice ignored?

Re: Every Company Needs a Cassandra

#12

Post by conmod278 »

yetihehe wrote: post #5

And that Cassandra will be ignored too. It's the role of "a cassandra" to be ignored, like it's one of society operating rules. People who tend to be good at being a cassandra learn very fast to stop voicing their opinions.

There are modern version of Cassandra. They take all kinds of possible positions and hedge those positions depending on context and then remind the others that "I told you so".

Re: Every Company Needs a Cassandra

#13

Post by ecshafer »

I am not sure how this is Cassandra. Cassandra didn't say bad things. Cassandra knew the future and know one believed her, making her helpless to see doom unfold. The author even mentions the myth, but Cassandra didn't point out uncomfortable truths. There are tons of complainers in companies, automating it with AI isn't going to do anything.

Re: Every Company Needs a Cassandra

#15

Post by GMoromisato »

Yes, but sometimes forward motion, even in the wrong direction, is better than inaction (because forward motion reveals more information that you can use to course-correct). I think more companies, particularly large companies, fail from strategic inaction than from strategic mistakes.

I would pair this with Bezos's concept of one-way doors. If a decision is a two-way door, i.e., you can reverse the decision at low cost, then you don't need a Cassandra--just try it and see. It's only one-way doors that need a Cassandra.

ETA: This also reminds me of the Tenth-Man Doctrine, which I only learned from World War Z.

Re: Every Company Needs a Cassandra

#17

Post by dkuntz2 »

the author made the assumption that these speaking machines are actually thinking machines with any sort of interiority and capability for novel thought, something these explicitly are not and cannot do.

Re: Every Company Needs a Cassandra

#19

Post by yetihehe »

conmod278 wrote: post #12
yetihehe wrote: post #5

And that Cassandra will be ignored too. It's the role of "a cassandra" to be ignored, like it's one of society operating rules. People who tend to be good at being a cassandra learn very fast to stop voicing their opinions.

There are modern version of Cassandra. They take all kinds of possible positions and hedge those positions depending on context and then remind the others that "I told you so".

Exactly, and they are disliked too. Eating by snakes is not used anymore, but most people interacting with modern cassandras wish that this practice would return.

Re: Every Company Needs a Cassandra

#20

Post by [deleted] »

tiznow wrote: post #11

If people wanted to listen to Cassandras, or more broadly, people who don't have the power to make or stop changes but are voicing consent or considerations -- they would far more often, as that is very easy to do. Corporate culture is especially nearly designed to never give Cassandras the time of day. Why wouldn't people just write the agent off as 'broken'? Would this agent learn to keep most of it's responses to…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN