Automation Thread: Imagine johnny 5 squashing your job, forever

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Automation Thread: Imagine johnny 5 squashing your job, forever

«‹›3 »

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Being able to model a physical (or any abstract honestly) system essentialy by drawing it and then specifying the equations for the relationships is pretty drat abstract. Much of the maths for coming up the equations can also be done by the computer, even for pretty complicated poo poo.

# ¿ Jun 29, 2017 01:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 00:27

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Tei posted:

This ignore that software is a machine. Sure, all programmers can build anything to the spec. Like you can get car engineers and build a car. But if you want something that will last 15 years, that will need repairs rarely, that will not create extra work, that will be easy to expand and so on you need somebody that can think about the side effects on the long term of every decision, small and big, and take decisions on architecture that other people will follow. That in most companies I suspect is what the senior developers do.

I make this comment, but is a bit offtopic in this thread. Sorry.

This is very on topic. Basically you are describing what the way one would be taught to think in a good MIS classes.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2017 03:13

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

All that pressure on labor changes the answer to: Does it make sense for business X to automate X? So there would be a balancing loop, a damping term basically.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2017 17:17

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

ElCondemn posted:

This is how it works in many companies today.

I wonder how much of automation has been put off, delayed because of outsourcing.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2017 21:35

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Think Thin! posted:

i wish someone would automate murdering every motherfucker in this thread myself included

Reality has got that one covered as automatic already. Just mind the relatively short queue. But hey, you can jump the line anytime you want.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2017 05:24

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Dumping some stuff on automation I read back in grad school:

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/where-machines-could-replace-humans-and-where-they-cant-yet

Not going to copy / paste it, images have a lot of the info.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 04:12

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

This one is older, but the program head still thought it was relevant:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...9KcqIvjB0UB82tA

Sorry about the formatting

article posted:

Four Questions Every CEO Should Ask
About IT
For starters: Are we thinking big enough?
April 25, 2011

have the information they need to do their jobs; and whether employees
throughout the company see technology as a tool to move forward, or an anchor
that keeps them running in place.
This doesn't mean that top executives should review every IT investment
proposal and decision. But it does mean that senior management must define
how the company as a whole will do business in a digital economy. It means they
must lead the IT initiatives that cut across all business lines. And it means they
must resolve issues that local interests cannot resolve�like what data and
processes will be standardized companywide.
Unfortunately, too many CEOs and other top executives often don't even know
where to begin when it comes to managing IT. To that end, we offer the four IT
questions that every CEO needs to think about�and answer.
Question No. 1
Are we using technology to transform our business, or are we just
adding bells and whistles to existing processes?
There are all sorts of possibilities for, say, inserting new technologies into
existing processes. But most of these improvements are incremental. They are
worth doing; in fact, they may be necessary for survival. No self-respecting
airline, for instance, could do without an application that lets you download
your boarding pass to your mobile telephone. It saves paper, can't get lost and
customers want it.
But while it's essential to offer applications like the electronic boarding pass,
those will not distinguish a company. Electronic boarding passes have already
been replicated by nearly every airline. In fact, we've already forgotten who was
first.
What is far more lasting�and much more difficult�is for companies to rethink
how they deliver core customer services. The starting point for such a rethinking
isn't asking, "How do I use technology strategically?" It's, "What would be the
ideal way to interact with and serve my customers?"
When you ask what you can do with technology, you get the electronic boarding
pass or the email notice about a change in a flight. Nice, but not differentiating.
When you rethink your business, you get a new kind of airline. You make even
those customers traveling economy class feel important; you optimize schedules
to effectively use equipment and help the most customers get to where they want to go with the least amount of hassle; you develop pricing mechanisms that take the stress out of buying a ticket; you help your customers know when to leave their house to get to the airport in time; you tell them the fastest and the
cheapest ways to get to the airport; you tell them before they get
on a plane exactly what kind of food is available; you make flying a pleasant experience. Doing this means
you'll have to change existing systems, processes, roles and technology. In other words, you'll have to change everything�and you'll have to do it in stages over several years. But companies get better each step of the way. And over time they can build a huge advantage over companies that are simply inserting technology into the way
they've been doing business for years.
USAA has been through this kind of transformation. Like most financial-services
companies, the San Antonio, Texas-based USAA traditionally served customers
through distinct businesses that specialized in a particular set of services. USAA
customers had to decide whether they needed banking, insurance or financial
advice. The choice was not always obvious to a customer. For example, the bank
and the advisory-services group were both happy to sell a customer an IRA.
Rethinking its business for the digital economy, management decided to provide
services according to customers' life events (a new baby, say, or a job transfer)
rather than according to USAA's internal structure. This meant redesigning
processes, integrating old systems, building new ones and sharing data across
business units. As a result, customers don't have to figure out how USAA works
before they ask for service.
Nearly everyone at USAA has been affected by this digital transformation.
Recently, 12,000 call-center employees were centralized in a new organization
so they could look across the business units to meet customer needs. This was
just the most recent change in a transformation that started nearly 10 years ago.
Question No. 2
Are you ignoring important business differences as you
standardize processes
across the company?
One tenet of the digital economy is that standardizing business processes is a
no-brainer: It allows a company to operate the same way, everywhere, and
creates a reliable, consistent experience for the customer.
For example, an insurance company could standardize how its life-insurance
products are sold, processed, managed for returns, accounted for and so on.
Every time a new product is introduced, the company doesn't have to reinvent
the wheel�it simply reuses the process and the underlying system. It saves the
company time and money, and makes interactions easier for customers who
have other policies with the company.
The problem, though, is that at some companies, senior management believes
that if some standardization is good, more is always better. And it isn't.
So, for instance, say a manufacturing company comes up with sales processes
that require reliable communications and transportation systems. That's fine
when the manufacturing company is operating in developed countries. But in a
developing country, those standardized processes could wreak havoc.
Or consider a consumer-product company that has created a digital system for
its biggest customer�Wal-Mart. What happens when those processes are forced
on the company's distribution centers that service local convenience stores?
Here global standardization is a naive impediment to local business
effectiveness.

In other words, senior management can't just evangelize about the desirability
of standardized processes. They need to first define what should and shouldn't
be standardized.
Campbell Soup Co. offers a telling example. From 2006 to 2008, the company
implemented three standardized processes that redesigned customer service,
accounting, reporting and supply-chain processes across 25 North American
facilities. But then management found that one of its businesses, Pepperidge
Farm, had unique requirements because baked goods are more perishable than
canned soups.
So some standards were relaxed and some systems were changed for Pepperidge
Farm. Similarly, when Campbell started to implement these processes in
Australia and New Zealand, unique business conditions in those countries
demanded changes in the standards. Selective standardization allowed
Campbell to reap significant cost savings without tying the hands of local
managers.
Question No. 3
Who is making sure the company's digital strategy is being
implemented?
If a telecommunications company wanted to become more competitive by
improving customer service, top managers might bring together the heads of the
company's regions, product lines and functions and ask them to identify how
their individual units could work together to improve service for global business
customers.
These leaders might identify new companywide technology systems that could
make the company more efficient and better serve key customers. Good idea.
But senior management might then be inclined to rely on that committee to
implement those enterprise processes. Bad idea.
Many managers assume that a good technology can ensure effective execution.
It can't. That's because most managers work within a business unit, function,
region or product line. Companywide systems, by definition, are executed across
organizational units. Local managers can't take responsibility for the design or
improvement of such enterprise processes.
Somebody needs to own this responsibility. Thus, top executives must name an
executive who will be accountable for every enterprise process, and who has the
political clout to overcome resistance. A committee is not capable of such
oversight.
Say that managers from a telecommunications company agreed that they could
better serve large business customers if they could track the customers' orders
from the salespeople or website through fulfillment, delivery, invoicing and
payment. The company then needs to assign one person�call him or her the
process owner�who would interact with people all along the line to design the
process and underlying systems.
The process owner will also design initial training on the system. After
implementation, the process owner would monitor performance and work with
people executing the process to identify opportunities to improve it.
Tetra Pak International SA, a Swiss-based packaging and processing company,
has a business-transformation department, which consists of executives
responsible for each of its seven core processes, including customer
management, product creation and supplier management. These process
owners at Tetra Pak take responsibility for developing process and data
standards, establishing metrics and ensuring continuous improvement. They
then work with local business managers to execute the standardized processes
and maintain data integrity. The head of the business-transformation
department reports to the chief financial officer.

Question No. 4
Is electronic data empowering your people or controlling them?
For most companies, the great advantage of the digital revolution is the data
they can now collect. They know the minute-by-minute electricity usage and the
names and buying patterns of shoppers who buy diapers; they know how much
more soup gets sold if they drop the price by 10 cents, or what arguments work
best when a life-insurance agent cold-calls a prospective customer.
All that data can lead companies down two very different paths. First, it can help
push decision making down to front-line employees. Alternatively, it can be used
to centralize decision making and monitor employee performance.
Evidence indicates that the former approach offers benefits for both companies
and employees.

When companies use data to control people, the assumption is that all the good
thinking happens at the top of the organization. By contrast, relying more on
operating-level people to make fact-based decisions creates smarter, more
innovative organizations. Seven-Eleven Japan Co., which runs 7-Eleven convenience stores in Japan and the U.S., centralizes the purchasing and logistics to gain efficiencies. But it pushes buying decisions down to the salesclerks at its 13,000 Japanese stores. That's more than 200,000 salesclerks. They all receive data on what's been selling in their store for the categories they manage, along with information on weather conditions and new products. Each salesclerk then makes "hypotheses" about what kinds of products will sell on a given day. Salesclerks place orders each morning according to their hypotheses, and starting that evening receive feedback on their business results. Counselors visit each store twice a week to help salesclerks interpret the results
and improve their hypotheses going forward. By placing ordering decisions in the hands of individual store clerks, Seven-Eleven Japan ensures that the inventory in each store will be customized to the demands of that store's clientele. The result is constant innovation in local customer offerings and, more important, extraordinarily rapid inventory turnover, the single most important metric at the company. It also results inhighly motivated employees.
Dr. Ross is the director of the MIT Sloan Center for Information Systems Research
in Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Weill is the chairman of the center. They can be reached at
reports@wsj.com.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 04:20

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

I've been looking for this one to post here for a while:

# ¿ Jul 7, 2017 04:28

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Guavanaut posted:

Fortunately it's pretty easy to spin an induction motor at the right speed regardless of what state malware programs are doing.

Gas centerfuges...

# ¿ Jul 10, 2017 05:01

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

If we expect individuals/groups in the future to be able to do what nationstates can do in the present. That's a pantshittingly dangerous future.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2017 21:16

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Or turning on thousands of ovens at the same time...

# ¿ Jul 11, 2017 16:27

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Yeah they've bought several other banks in the last decade (eg. Wachovia is the first that comes to mind) that's probably been coming for a while.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2017 17:46

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Solkanar512 posted:

Now that you have that done, you expect the same person to pick up and maintain certifications for 747/767/777/787 as well? What about the similar planes made by Airbus? Do you expect a pilot to hold type ratings for all of those as well?

Your arguement here assumes regulatory changes to the licensing/certification structure aren't possible...

On the maritime side (remote / automated bridges are a thing being discussed in my industry too) they have "unlimited" licenses (tonnage and horsepower) for mates and engineers who can just do everything. There is no reason a similar thing can't exits for pilots. Now making it exist and changing international treaties / national laws for these things to be kosher, is a different matter. It's all hard to change, but not impossible.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2017 17:47

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Solkanar

It's harder to get the marine licenses than to get the aviation ones. It's also harder to keep them, where pilots need hours, mariners need days. I have one and I know people with both types of license. I'm also the last person you want to lecture on regulation being bought with blood. I can talk at length on specific instances of that particular subject.

I'm also not talking about throwing anything out. I'm talking about the processes where nations send representatives to discuss these issues and issue new rules, guidelines, and recommendations under treaties that then filter down into national laws. That process lags technology, often by decades, but it always eventually catches up. Eventually things like full bridge automation or remote operation (when they exist) will be addressed in the same ways unattended engine rooms have been addressed.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2017 19:58

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

We are as good as the models in our brains are.

A computer is as good as the model we give it.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2017 04:35

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

We still came up with the machine learning strategies.

Edit: for now at least.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2017 06:37

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

ElCondemn posted:

What are you implying?

I remember being a undergrad learning about GE using evolutionary algorithms to design turbine blades. I also remember learning about evolutionary algorithms being used to design whole systems, systems that we didn't know how or why they functioned more efficiently.

Right now this "Recently google created an AI that learned to walk on it's own." is still the case. At some point in the future it might not be. But for now or biases, our assumptions are still in the creation of these things even if we don't have an understanding of what they spit out.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2017 07:06

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Man can't create an ensouled being, only God.

Most things that happen are repeatable. I think consiousness is possible to repeat. No guesses as to a timeline on that.

ElCondemn posted:

Maybe I didn't get your initial point. What you're essentially saying is because we built the computer it has limitations inherent to us. But you also just admitted that we can make computers that respond in ways we didn't program them to.

Even though computers can produce solutions we didn't think of you have a problem with the "model"? I'm not really sure what you are trying to say, it seems like you think computers are inferior to humans because we created them?

I'm saying we still set the constraints, objectives, assumptions, etc. Some of the models we give automation or that program we create give automation are way better than models we hold in our heads. Some not so much. I'm not saying one or the other is better, they are just different. They all (including the ones in our heads) also have the limitations inherent in all models.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2017 20:56

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

ElCondemn posted:

I'm not really understanding how you think AI is supposed to work if not by being given input and letting it make decisions using those inputs. Can you explain how your AI concept is supposed to solve for flight problems if it isn't being given objectives and sensor data? Even a general AI will need to have some kind of feedback system, just because humans created the feedback system doesn't mean it's inherently flawed or limited. Not that I'm saying AI is easy, I'm just saying for what we're trying to do (fly a plane) computers can learn to be better than a human pilot, and nothing about how we would teach a computer to fly would make it less proficient than a human. The people designing the AI certainly don't have to be the best fliers to make a robot that can surpass their flying capability either.

Eh I'm talking more abstract and less the specific instance of planes. But you're also projecting a value judgement onto what I'm saying that isn't there. Maybe I can say this more clearly. A person flying a plane is doing so with a model in that person's head. A computer flying a plane is doing so with a model inside the computer. We people created all the models being discussed. There isn't anything special about the ones that exist in our brains. The distinction bwtween the two is a false category. Mental models and automation are both just technology.

ElCondemn posted:

I'm not sure where you got this idea that automation leads to less defense in depth. Do you have any examples of this being the case? I'm not really seeing how increasing automation removes layers when typically automation adds layers of abstraction that weren't there before. Depth in defense is usually something we talk about when discussing security anyway so I'm not sure that your example really applies.

I've seen it in loading computers. Computer dependant mates are dumb. I written about it in other threads damned if i can find it now. Sometimes having a model in the computer let's a less competent person get away with out having the appropriate models in thier head.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2017 03:36

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

ElCondemn posted:

We did not create all the models being discussed. The google AI that learned to walk created the model it uses to walk, the engineers didn't tell it to walk a specific way they just gave it muscles, joints and a reward system that emphasized movement in a specific direction.

Right they set the constraints, assumptions and objectives... maybe I said literally that already? We we aren't doing those things you can tell me we aren't creating these things.

ElCondemn posted:

There's a huge difference between a computer generated model and one someone put together in their mind furthermore neither model has to correlate with the other even if their objective is the same. Not really sure what you're trying to say about mental models and automation being technology, it doesn't mean anything to me and it certainly doesn't say anything about our discussion.

Not really both are technology we use to make poo poo we do easier.

ElCondemn posted:

I'm just not understanding what you're trying to say here, yes a model that's been programmed into a computer can be useful as a guide or assistant to a human operator that doesn't have the model in their head, but what does that have to do with how an AI would generate a model?

It doesn't anything to do with how an AI would generate a model and I'm not sure why you think it does?

You're not getting a concept. A system of equations in a persons head, a nomigraph, a calculator and stability booklet, an automated loading computer, all those things are in the same category, that might be used to solve one problem. Sometimes when one chooses to use one tool instead of another there are tradeoffs.

# ¿ Aug 14, 2017 05:25

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

ElCondemn posted:

Ideas are not technology, I'm really not getting whatever concept you're trying to explain.

This is the thing you are not getting. Any physical technology needs a corresponding conceptual technology to be useful. Sometime you get the idea that's a tool first, sometimes the physical tool. They're both technology.

One has to think about both. A new widget that does a new thing is nothing without a use case inside a larger system. A physical technology implies systems in which it is used (and occasionally that goes on the other direction too).

Technology can be knowledge, or a system, or even an ideology.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2017 06:01

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

ThisIsJohnWayne posted:

Or it could be the most pretentious way to say you found another use for a thing. "Hey Bob! I ~~found a new use for~~invented a disruptive use case of the hammer! Turns out, you can hit people with it too!"

I'm sparing you the pretentious stuff. I've got some "context of the firm" diagrams from grad school that are hooo boy.

I'm also not saying something controversial or extraordinary. It's neither of those things to say ideas can be technology.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2017 16:54

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Tei posted:

Humans are painfully irrational. The coming of AI will be awesome if only for having somebody to talk that is not a literal irrational animal.

Losing capitalism is a small sacrifice we will make. Whatever is next I hope is a fun thing.

The machine Big Other, judgement will be automated.

And now I'm sad.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2017 20:21

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

It's not the machine part that particularly worries me. It's the "Big Other" part.

# ¿ Aug 31, 2017 17:18

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Tax policy probably has something to do with it too.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2017 01:41

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Bet they're going after drayage.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/16/technology/tesla-semi-truck-reveal/index.html

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 07:15

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

I hear drayage companies bitching about it being impossible to meet new state emission standards for thier trucks all the time.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 07:17

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Drayage you idiots.

And again several west coast states have recently made drayage haulers have more restrictive emission standards, that many haulers are having trouble meeting...

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 18:38

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Drayage is by far the hardest part to make self driving, I think they're shooting for the emissions reductions at this point

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 18:41

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Drayage you goddamn idiots. Container terminal gates tend to be open only during the day like 0800 to 1700.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 18:49

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Times has its version of the tesla article up, this is the part that matters:

NYTs posted:

As a result, Tesla is estimating it will cost $1.26 per mile to operate, compared with $1.51 a mile for a diesel truck. The cost can fall further — to 85 cents a mile, according to Tesla — if groups of trucks travel together in convoys, which reduces wind drag. “This beats rail,” Mr. Musk said.

If true that's a bfd.

Tesla Unveils an Electric Rival to Semi Trucks https://nyti.ms/2jxfSh0

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 19:28

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Hunt's a surprise to me, but then again I don't interact with them much.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 19:41

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Seems like an even bigger deal in Europe, where cargo trucks move about 46% of freight compared to 30% in the US. Actually, I wonder how it shakes out given different fuel/electricity prices in other countries - the US has famously low gas prices, for its wealth, but US electricity prices are actually even lower relative to the prices in many European countries.

The big thing is the cross over between door to door direct and intermodal. There is a distance afterwhich it makes sense to switch to intermodal instead of door to door with a truck. Distances between cities are further in the US so more goes intermodal rail. If they have truly brought down the cost per mile, this could push that distance crossover outwards. Also some customers strongly prefer door to door anyway (if you gently caress up intermodal you can get hosed pretty hard).

# ¿ Nov 17, 2017 21:29

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

TyroneGoldstein posted:

When you say gently caress up intermodal do you mean like a TEU gets put on a wrong train or something?

There are interchanges between different modes. Different modes have different regulatory requirements. Let's take a three mode haz shipment as an example. The shipper chooses a freight forwarder. The freight forwarder picks a trucking company to stuff the container and placard it. Door to door that would be the end of things until the destination.

But in intermodal it isnt. At the rail interchange the railroad doesn't like the locations of the placards ( they have requirements as to where they need to be to be visible) so they get moved (couple hundred bucks). Rest of the rail goes smoothly. The drayage driver from the rail terminal to the marine doesn't have haz credentials. So he strips the placards off (illegally or legally) and takes it to the container gate. In the container terminal it gets inspected by a surveyor for the shipping line, he finds oh poo poo nothing is secured and it doesn't have placards. More gste fees. Now the shipper /freight forwarder has a big problem. They have to get the container restuffed a thousand miles away from thier facility. This might even happen in a foreign country.

Another way to say all this is that intermodal shipments get looked at, at interchanges, by surveyors regulators, etc. Door to door unless it gets stopped on the roads, nobody really looks at. Basically shipper can get away with a lot more bullshit, or even illegality door to door. They eventually get burnt intermodal if they do dumb things

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Nov 18, 2017

# ¿ Nov 18, 2017 22:22

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

RandomPauI posted:

Edit: The message was that the job market sucks for employees who often take on debt to get crap jobs. Like, no benefits or protection from a union and the constant threat of having jobs automated away, hours cut, etc.

Some of these drayage truckers are waiting in line outside terminals the night before because of gate delays. Like to the point of they live in thier trucks. They don't make much either. I don't think it's going to get better.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2017 23:35

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

No one has come close to showing the exact details on how they are going to automate the jobs either. All parts of talking about any future that is anything but exactly like the exact way it is right now always involves some level of thinking people in the future will figure out things collectively that people in the present don't really know yet.

Just about everything you can flow chart can be automated. The question is compartive cost. Tech automation competes with more traditional automation and the cost of labor.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2017 19:50

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

For being into tech you don't know a lot about the relationship between tech and business, even though it's been posted in this thread.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2017 20:14

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

BrandorKP posted:

I've been looking for this one to post here for a while:

OOCC you should look at this and think about what it implies.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2017 20:29

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I am assuming you just are posting this flow chart totally unrelated to your very recent claim that:

Or else are you suggesting that maybe corporations themselves will end up independent legal organisms that automate away the workers then automate away the managers and just end up being their own entities that rule over us without even being "real" AIs? Because that kinda actually seems like the real thing that will happen.

No you idiot.

What is the relationship between a tech company, oh let's say IBM and other businesses? That diagram is. A more modern tech company, oh let's say Amazon would be everything in the diagram.

Now what does this relationship generate, what are these "tech kits" the tech companies make for traditional business?

Automation. What's the loving point of automation? To serve the needs of business. Tech companies make tech for capital. What's this automation stuff for? TO MAKE BUSINESSES MONEY It's essential to tech and automation that they increase the concentration and accumulation of capital!

# ¿ Dec 9, 2017 03:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 00:27

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Is this ordained by god? Is this hundred or so year old relationship eternal and forever and can not be changed or altered ever?

It's a description of what is. It is a not at all controversial description of what is. That diagram is from a mangement MS program taught by a retired IBM exec.

Can you see the Kingdom of Tech on that shining hill? Tech won't save us and you know better.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2017 05:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Automation Thread: Imagine johnny 5 squashing your job, forever

«‹›3 »