[HN Gopher] Human in the Loop and the Missing Productivity Growth
___________________________________________________________________
Human in the Loop and the Missing Productivity Growth
Author : intellectronica
Score : 7 points
Date : 2025-01-01 20:34 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (everything.intellectronica.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (everything.intellectronica.net)
| tuatoru wrote:
| Productivity in knowledge work is not difficult to measure, just
| very laborious. A few aspects need to be untangled to do it,
| though.
|
| We can use an analogue of the Kaya Identity for CO2
| production[1], the production identity:-
|
| Dollars of revenue per year equals dollars produced per
| keystroke, times keystrokes per hour, times hours at work per
| year.
|
| Revenue equals productivity times work intensity times worker
| utilisation.
|
| Worker utilisation is commonly measured and called
| "productivity". More rarely work intensity is also measured, and
| the product of intensity and utilisation is called
| "productivity". Processes are almost never analysed sufficiently
| deeply to measure true productivity (dollars per keystroke),
| though.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity
| willturman wrote:
| _Productivity in knowledge work is not difficult to measure,
| just very laborious. A few aspects need to be untangled to do
| it, though._
|
| Goodhart's law [1] is an adage often stated as, "When a measure
| becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". It is named
| after British economist Charles Goodhart, who is credited with
| expressing the core idea of the adage in a 1975 article on
| monetary policy in the United Kingdom: Any observed statistical
| regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon
| it for control purposes.
|
| 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law
| cess11 wrote:
| "Humans, by nature, do everything they can to avoid cognitive
| effort."
|
| This is why the prevalence of sudoku in human societies can only
| be explained as a result of harsh coercion.
| intellectronica wrote:
| :D
| voidhorse wrote:
| I have a somewhat different take.
|
| We do not spend time on something because it is the amount of
| time to reach some _objective_ standard, rather, we spend the
| amount of time that we feel is necessary for _our personal
| subjective standard_. So, of course, even as tools improve, we
| 'll spend the same amount of time. If it's something we didn't
| care about in the first place, AI tools won't save us any time
| because we probably already spent barely any time and effort. If
| it's something we do care about, sure we might use AI to automate
| so aspects of the job, but we'll still spend the same amount of
| time examining and tweaking outputs until we feel it is up to
| snuff.
|
| The real "gains" will only be realized once management
| _eliminates_ the human operators _and_ accepts the lower quality
| output that is a consequence of that.
|
| Also, writing about productivity in abstract terms is and will
| forever remain an example of complete stupidity. It is not an
| objective measurable universal like "amount of oxygen". The
| definition changes depending on what it is you are actually
| trying to _do_. To give an example, I might be trying to
| eliminate any and all use of AI in my workplace, under this goal,
| _any_ use of AI is fundamentally counterproductive.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-04 23:00 UTC)