82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
Optimised [[automation]] has its place. Ceteris paribus, an organisation that has optimised its machines will do better than one which hasn’t. | Optimised [[automation]] has its place. Ceteris paribus, an organisation that has optimised its machines will do better than one which hasn’t. | ||
An organisation where machines are optimised is one whose ''people'' are also optimised: maximally free to work their irreducible, ineffable, magic. | An organisation where machines are optimised is one whose ''people'' are also optimised: maximally free to work their irreducible, ineffable, magic hunting out new lands, identifying new threats, forging new alliances — ''playing the infinite game'' — while uncomplaining drones till the fields, tend the flock work the pits, carry the rubble away from the coalface and police known pitfalls. To minimise the chance of [[human error]]. The machines must be historical. They look backward, by reference to available data, which is [[data is from the past|from the past]]. They cannot anticipate the future — because you can’t extrapolate the past from the future — any better than humans can. But humans can improvise in the face of the unexpected in a way that machines can’t. | ||
There is an ineffable, valuable role optimising those machines, adjusting them, reconfiguring them to be optimal in the environment as it evolves. | |||
Most likely, ''nor will you''. | Now, the dilemma. If, over thirty years, you have systematically recruited for those who best display machine-like qualities — if that is what your education system targets, your qualification system credentialises and your recruitment and promotion system rewards — ''your people won't be very good at it weaving magic''. | ||
Most likely, ''nor will you''. Your organisation will instead be fearful of human magic. Will see in it the seeds of [[Enron]], or [[Kerviel]], or [[Madoff]], or [[Archegos]]. | |||
But these disasters came about notwithstanding the modernist method. They are products of it. These people found and exploited zero-day flaws in the modernist system, ''which is [[air crash versus financial crash|what we should expect resourceful, dishonest people to do]]''. | |||
But a fully taxonomised system, that runs entirely in algorithm, however smart, derived from the scar tissue of the past, is ''literally blind'' to zero-day flaws. Unless mediated by people thinking and viewing the world unconventionally, it will repeatedly fail. And this has been the [[financial disasters roll of honour|tale of the financial markets]] since Hammurabi published his code. | |||
The age of the machines — our complacent faith in them — has made the situation worse. Machines will conspire to ignore “human magic”, when offered, which says “this is not right”. That magic was woven by [[Bethany MacLean]]. [[Michael Burry]]. [[Harry Markopolos]]. [[WireCard|Dan McCrum]]. The formalist system systematically ignored them, fired them, tried to put them in prison . | |||