83,012
edits
Automation eliminates value but not risk: Difference between revisions
Automation eliminates value but not risk (view source)
Revision as of 14:00, 23 August 2021
, 23 August 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|design|}}If you can automate something, you can’t monetise it. You automate, therefore, as a ''defensive'' strategy: because everyone else is automating, and if you don’t, your unit cost is higher. | {{a|design|}}If you can [[Automated|automate]] something, you can’t monetise it. You automate, therefore, as a ''defensive'' strategy: because everyone else is automating, and if you don’t, your unit cost is higher. | ||
Automation keeps you in business; it isn’t ''a'' business. If every function in your organisation can be | This plays to a pet theory of the [[JC]]’s: [[the quotidian is a utility, not an asset]]. If you believe you have [[intellectual property]] in your [[boilerplate]], you will waste precious resource defending a common asset. You will misprice that asset, and you may be disappointed in how many people will be prepared to pay for it. | ||
Proprietors of contract assembly tools, take note. The value is in ''what'' you assemble, not ''how''. | |||
Automation keeps you in business; it isn’t ''a'' business. If every function in your organisation can be managed by an [[algorithm]], it is game over. There is no excitement, no difficulty, no skill required, ''no value left''. Behold the difference between [[noughts and crosses]] and [[chess]]: both are [[deterministic]], [[zero-sum game]]s — therefore unsuitable analogies for [[technological unemployment]], but that is another story — but [[noughts and crosses]] has been solved. There are trivial, mechanical steps to force a stalemate. It is no fun. Skill in [[noughts and crosses]] has no value. It doesn’t really even count as a skill. [[Chess]] is ''capable'' of algorithmic solution, but ''it has not been solved''.<ref>''Yet''.</ref> | |||
But (rigorous and competently executed) automation can remove ''micro''-risks — risks that are intrinsic/internal to the process being automated; you can iron out the inconsistencies, foibles and errors of the [[meatware]] — but not the extrinsic risks that arise from the interaction of your new automated process with the outside world. those are [[emergent]] risks, impossible to see at the level of the process (certainly when a machine is carrying out that process), but that are a function of [[complexity]]. | But (rigorous and competently executed) automation can remove ''micro''-risks — risks that are intrinsic/internal to the process being automated; you can iron out the inconsistencies, foibles and errors of the [[meatware]] — but not the extrinsic risks that arise from the interaction of your new automated process with the outside world. those are [[emergent]] risks, impossible to see at the level of the process (certainly when a machine is carrying out that process), but that are a function of [[complexity]]. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 11: | ||
*[[Proprietary information]] | *[[Proprietary information]] | ||
*[[Artificial intelligence]] | *[[Artificial intelligence]] | ||
{{ref}} | |||