I usually think the word is overused but this situation really is kafkaesque. The order to fire the guy coming from some faceless, untraceable location, the security guards sympathetically having...
I usually think the word is overused but this situation really is kafkaesque. The order to fire the guy coming from some faceless, untraceable location, the security guards sympathetically having to kick him out of the building, the people actually in charge of him being totally clueless and powerless, it's surreal.
I was fired. There was nothing my manager could do about it. There was nothing the director could do about it. They stood powerless as I packed my stuff and left the building.
Automation bias is a real issue. We assume that computers make reliable decisions and that we shouldn't try to contradict/override them a lot of the time. It's going to be a problem more and more,...
Automation bias is a real issue. We assume that computers make reliable decisions and that we shouldn't try to contradict/override them a lot of the time. It's going to be a problem more and more, and it's especially worrisome that so many companies are implementing machine-learning systems where you can't even really get any insight into why a particular decision was made.
Worse than companies embracing automation, I'm worried about automated systems spreading through the rest of society. What happens when government agencies decide they can function better if they...
Worse than companies embracing automation, I'm worried about automated systems spreading through the rest of society. What happens when government agencies decide they can function better if they automate core parts of themselves? How far are we from something like the Homeland Security automating immigration decisions if we are already experimenting with algorithms determining if children are at risk?
People need to stop revering machines in the way they do; machines should be thought of as merely tools to build a better future, they are not the future themselves and are not the pseudo-divine blessings people seem to think they are. Otherwise, they will continue to be improperly inserted into society in areas where people should be.
I don't believe people are revering machines as much as they are automating simple processes. If any organization, government or not, relies on policy alone to make decisions and disables...
People need to stop revering machines in the way they do; machines should be thought of as merely tools to build a better future...
I don't believe people are revering machines as much as they are automating simple processes. If any organization, government or not, relies on policy alone to make decisions and disables employees from making exceptions, in the case of zero tolerance, there is no difference between using software or a person. One's just faster.
That's a good point, that the line between man and machine is blurring because contemporary work is almost entirely mechanical in nature. But I still think that no matter how strict or fastidious...
That's a good point, that the line between man and machine is blurring because contemporary work is almost entirely mechanical in nature. But I still think that no matter how strict or fastidious a policy or policymaker is, there is something inherently human that cannot be policed, and that part can be the difference between a policy harming or helping people.
Also, I was talking more about technophiles who wouldn't hesitate to put their brains in a machine or let a country be run by an AI or stuff like that. Not automating simple processes.
I read this a while a go and honestly am a bit surprised it doesn't happen more often. I work with similar software and the pattern I noticed is that everything is shifted towards notifications...
I read this a while a go and honestly am a bit surprised it doesn't happen more often. I work with similar software and the pattern I noticed is that everything is shifted towards notifications instead of approver checks. And notifications are easy to ignore.
Ibrahim had support from his superiors and a security guard. He had a machine that allowed him to work even with revoked access. It would be possible for someone to be fired by mistake like he...
[I am] surprised it doesn't happen more often
Ibrahim had support from his superiors and a security guard. He had a machine that allowed him to work even with revoked access. It would be possible for someone to be fired by mistake like he was, and no one would realize it was a clerical error.
So easily. I find a lot of it is in the wording of notifications too. To be honest, if I got an email about so and so no longer working with us, I probably wouldn't think too hard about it. And...
It would be possible for someone to be fired by mistake like he was, and no one would realize it was a clerical error.
So easily. I find a lot of it is in the wording of notifications too. To be honest, if I got an email about so and so no longer working with us, I probably wouldn't think too hard about it.
And the dehumanization of employees. I know of a company where, half their contractors just couldn't log in one morning and it turned out they were all laid off.
It's kinda typical that all this serious mess started because of a lazy middle-manager. I'm a big fan of automation but my approach is always of human enhancement exactly because the major point...
It's kinda typical that all this serious mess started because of a lazy middle-manager.
I'm a big fan of automation but my approach is always of human enhancement exactly because the major point of failure in a system, is always the human factor.
Something like these, should have had at least another "green" to be given by someone else apart that lazy manager that was """working""" from home.
I'm not sure we have enough information to determine that it was a lazy manager. For all we know it could simply be bad process. There should definitely have been more checks and balances though.
I'm not sure we have enough information to determine that it was a lazy manager. For all we know it could simply be bad process.
There should definitely have been more checks and balances though.
I think the issue was caused by the manager who was sent to work from home who did not renew the author’s contract? And this led to the automated termination process?
I think the issue was caused by the manager who was sent to work from home who did not renew the author’s contract? And this led to the automated termination process?
I usually think the word is overused but this situation really is kafkaesque. The order to fire the guy coming from some faceless, untraceable location, the security guards sympathetically having to kick him out of the building, the people actually in charge of him being totally clueless and powerless, it's surreal.
Wow, I just read the whole thing. This kind of thing happening is what makes me worry about automation in the military space.
Automation bias is a real issue. We assume that computers make reliable decisions and that we shouldn't try to contradict/override them a lot of the time. It's going to be a problem more and more, and it's especially worrisome that so many companies are implementing machine-learning systems where you can't even really get any insight into why a particular decision was made.
This is a pretty good article from the EFF about the topic: Math Can’t Solve Everything: Questions We Need To Be Asking Before Deciding an Algorithm is the Answer
Worse than companies embracing automation, I'm worried about automated systems spreading through the rest of society. What happens when government agencies decide they can function better if they automate core parts of themselves? How far are we from something like the Homeland Security automating immigration decisions if we are already experimenting with algorithms determining if children are at risk?
People need to stop revering machines in the way they do; machines should be thought of as merely tools to build a better future, they are not the future themselves and are not the pseudo-divine blessings people seem to think they are. Otherwise, they will continue to be improperly inserted into society in areas where people should be.
I don't believe people are revering machines as much as they are automating simple processes. If any organization, government or not, relies on policy alone to make decisions and disables employees from making exceptions, in the case of zero tolerance, there is no difference between using software or a person. One's just faster.
That's a good point, that the line between man and machine is blurring because contemporary work is almost entirely mechanical in nature. But I still think that no matter how strict or fastidious a policy or policymaker is, there is something inherently human that cannot be policed, and that part can be the difference between a policy harming or helping people.
Also, I was talking more about technophiles who wouldn't hesitate to put their brains in a machine or let a country be run by an AI or stuff like that. Not automating simple processes.
That's true. As a lot of things, it depends on who you're dealing with.
And yeah, I can see what you're saying about technophiles.
I read this a while a go and honestly am a bit surprised it doesn't happen more often. I work with similar software and the pattern I noticed is that everything is shifted towards notifications instead of approver checks. And notifications are easy to ignore.
Ibrahim had support from his superiors and a security guard. He had a machine that allowed him to work even with revoked access. It would be possible for someone to be fired by mistake like he was, and no one would realize it was a clerical error.
So easily. I find a lot of it is in the wording of notifications too. To be honest, if I got an email about so and so no longer working with us, I probably wouldn't think too hard about it.
And the dehumanization of employees. I know of a company where, half their contractors just couldn't log in one morning and it turned out they were all laid off.
It's kinda typical that all this serious mess started because of a lazy middle-manager.
I'm a big fan of automation but my approach is always of human enhancement exactly because the major point of failure in a system, is always the human factor.
Something like these, should have had at least another "green" to be given by someone else apart that lazy manager that was """working""" from home.
I'm not sure we have enough information to determine that it was a lazy manager. For all we know it could simply be bad process.
There should definitely have been more checks and balances though.
I think the issue was caused by the manager who was sent to work from home who did not renew the author’s contract? And this led to the automated termination process?