[HN Gopher] Ironies of Automation (1983) [pdf]
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Ironies of Automation (1983) [pdf]
        
       Author : layer8
       Score  : 73 points
       Date   : 2023-06-28 12:13 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (web.archive.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (web.archive.org)
        
       | hospitalJail wrote:
       | That was a hard paper to read, as someone who automates jobs. I
       | only got 2 pages in.
       | 
       | I felt like I could finish every sentence.
       | 
       | Yes there are benefits, yes there are problems and humans needed,
       | yes you refine over and over, yes you can't use humans to do
       | checks because of long term focus so automation wins here,
       | predicting all edge cases are near impossible, etc...
       | 
       | Maybe I'll read this with friends to make it a bit more humorous
       | and less painful.
        
       | RedNifre wrote:
       | The endgame is that we will be spending 99% of our time
       | restarting IDEs and clearing caches to get rid of nonsensical
       | errors, but since we will be 1000x as productive in the remaining
       | 1%, it will still be worth it economically.
        
         | starbugs wrote:
         | Already approaching this with Xcode, but without productivity
         | gain.
         | 
         | And by productive you mean producing new problems that need
         | solving instead of really solving anything, so that business
         | can continue to make money?
        
         | j-a-a-p wrote:
         | Funny, I remember the discussion of this paper at my university
         | a few decades ago. On your topic, I remember also a case that
         | was discussed on a disinvestment of a fully automated factory.
         | Loads of money was invested in the automation, but on several
         | spots it still needed humans to glue the processes together.
         | This work was so limited and dumb that no workers could be
         | found who were able and willing to perform this task. As a
         | result, parts of the automation was reverted.
        
           | throwaway14356 wrote:
           | I see a factory like that! At one point the only remaining
           | work was when something went wrong. The production line ran
           | so fast, if something went wrong it produced enough garbage
           | for 15 people to clean up. Not sure how they arrived at 15
           | but with fewer it took longer to resume production.
           | 
           | I estimate the thing crashed from 2-3 times per day to every
           | 3 days or so with the later more often. Took about 15-20
           | minutes to clean up with 15. Say 1 person would need 4-5
           | hours. Then they gained 4.5 hours of production per incident
           | (with 15 people)
           | 
           | 15 * 8 hours * 3 days = 360 hours
           | 
           | each of the 4.5 hours would then cost 80 man hours.
           | 
           | Better numbers with more frequent crashes.
           | 
           | Investors didn't like to see people sit, chat and drink
           | coffee most of the day.
           | 
           | The solution was to remove some machinery and all of the
           | chairs. People had to work with insane speed to keep up. No
           | time to scratch your itch, the work spot was designed for a
           | machine, the one in storage.
           | 
           | Imagine working there and going from drinking koffie all day
           | to insane speed conveyor belt work because someone put the
           | machine in storage because an investor might visit 1 time per
           | year.
           | 
           | Really brings out the best in people (ehm!)
        
             | commandlinefan wrote:
             | > Investors didn't like to see people sit, chat and drink
             | coffee
             | 
             | I do believe that the "workers must be uncomfortable all
             | the time" mentality drives a ton of inefficiency. When my
             | son was born, my wife worked from home, but we still needed
             | a nanny to watch him most of the time so my wife could
             | work. So we hired a teenage girl to come over and keep an
             | eye on him for $10/hour. He was a baby, so it was pretty
             | easy work - she spent most of the time watching TV. My wife
             | complained that she was paying somebody $10/hour to just
             | watch TV and insisted that she spend time cleaning instead.
             | Well, she ended up leaving and we had a hell of a tough
             | time replacing her - I said, "why do you care what she does
             | as long as she gets her job (making sure our son doesn't
             | die) gets done?" But she was adamant that if she was paying
             | somebody, it had to look like "work" to her.
             | 
             | I spent six years in college practicing the fine art of
             | reading books and regurgitating their contents back in
             | various contexts so that I could qualify for a job where
             | any time spent reading anything is prohibited because it
             | doesn't look like "measurable" work.
        
           | buildsjets wrote:
           | Back when the F-22 was in production, I was in the building
           | in Seattle where the carbon fiber wing skins were being laid
           | up using an automated tape placement machine. The machine
           | head would come down to a precise 3D location on a complex
           | contoured mold, contact it with a precise pressure, lay out a
           | tow of CFRP tape prepreg for a precise length, then trim it
           | to a specific geometry. Before the machine started the next
           | tow, it extruded an inch of tape, trimmed it for the start of
           | the next tow. At this point, a mechanic would reach over with
           | a spatula taped to a length of steel electrical conduit to
           | collect the little piece of scrap and throw it away. I asked
           | a manufacturing engineer why they did not just add a little
           | vacuum hose to collect the trim - Apparently the mechanic's
           | union contract required each machine to have a full-time
           | operator, and they had to invent a task for the operator to
           | do to keep them engaged.
        
             | Pet_Ant wrote:
             | I'm sure his family appreciated it. I think he'd be okay if
             | you automated that but had to pay him the full salary
             | anyway in perpetuity.
        
       | stevenbedrick wrote:
       | Of interest:
       | 
       | Baxter G, Rooksby J, Wang Y, Khajeh-Hosseini A. The ironies of
       | automation: Still going strong at 30? In: Proceedings of the 30th
       | european conference on cognitive ergonomics [Internet]. New York,
       | NY, USA: ACM; 2012. p. 65-71. Available from:
       | http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2448136.2448149
        
       | dobbse wrote:
       | Also available on the author's website:
       | http://www.complexcognition.co.uk/2021/06/ironies-of-automat...
        
       | csours wrote:
       | My favorite Irony of Automation: People think that automations
       | solves problems, but in reality, you have to anticipate and solve
       | problems IN ORDER TO automate.
        
       | commandlinefan wrote:
       | It seems that we've long since reached the point where most
       | professionals should be spending most of their time training for
       | abnormal conditions (and the rest of it handling them), but
       | instead we have a rising managerial class whose primary function
       | is to find people to fire: those who haven't produced a visible
       | result in the past couple of days or so.
        
       | bob1029 wrote:
       | Automation is the only thing that will actually work in some
       | situations now.
       | 
       | Semiconductor manufacturing might be like a unicorn in terms of
       | this paper. You can't really put humans into a factory without
       | cratering the yield at 7nm and beyond. You see full-auto rates
       | approaching 100% in the highest-end foundries. It is likely that
       | all of the chips in all of your devices never saw any direct
       | human contact until they arrived at Foxconn or wherever.
       | 
       | Achieving this level of automation requires an unbelievable
       | amount of capital and extra human support. The irony definitely
       | holds in this case. The amount of trouble created by the
       | automation is exponentially beyond what any single human could
       | cause. These factories generate event logs at a rate of 300+
       | megabytes/hour. No human team on earth could break shit that
       | quickly.
        
         | hobo_in_library wrote:
         | Fun fact: in the early days of silicon wafer manufacturing (60s
         | or 70s IIRC) they would randomly have yields crater for a few
         | days each month.
         | 
         | Eventually they discovered yields were tanking when their
         | female employee was on her period.
         | 
         | Source: The Big Scoree
        
           | morkalork wrote:
           | Why would yields be influenced by that?
        
             | jvanderbot wrote:
             | No idea. Maybe she stayed home?
        
             | [deleted]
        
           | teddyh wrote:
           | That sounds remarkably similar to many urban legends.
        
           | YesThatTom2 wrote:
           | Related: one of the fake cancer cures that James Randi ("The
           | Amazing Randi") debunked didn't have very good test results
           | in December when a particular person would take vacation. She
           | was very Christian and took the whole month off to prep for
           | Christmas. She also felt that faking test data was ethical
           | because in her heart of hearts she wanted the cure to work.
           | When Randi showed that the data was faked in all months
           | except when she was on vacation.
        
           | jacquesm wrote:
           | Source link or bs.
        
         | jvm___ wrote:
         | I've read that the first person to touch a concrete cinder
         | block is the person installing it.
        
       | dang wrote:
       | Related:
       | 
       |  _Ironies of Automation_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33476157 - Nov 2022 (5
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Ironies of Automation (1983) [pdf]_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23300195 - May 2020 (11
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Ironies of Automation (1983) [pdf]_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19132724 - Feb 2019 (27
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Ironies of Automation (1983)_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18230258 - Oct 2018 (3
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Ironies of Automation (1983)_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17587611 - July 2018 (1
       | comment)
       | 
       |  _Ironies of Automation (1983) [pdf]_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9756838 - June 2015 (2
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Ironies of Automation (1983)_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7726496 - May 2014 (5
       | comments)
        
         | nickpeterson wrote:
         | The point of this paper about the relationship and absurdity of
         | human-machine automation could not be better summarized than
         | dang having to chime in with all the past submissions of the
         | same paper.
        
       | blueline wrote:
       | for a film interpretation of this paper: playtime by jacques tati
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-06-28 23:01 UTC)