throwawaywriter
No bio...
User ID: 3429
throwawaywriter
5d ago
It’s on our company’s intranet, but IIRC (I’m away from my work computer for the next week) they attached sensors for detecting abnormal conditions with temperature, pressure, etc on various systems.
While I’m sure the headline sensationalizes their results (and the dog just looks cool), the point is not the medium, but the fact that the robot is doing something.
throwawaywriter
5d ago
To partially copy from another reply: I agree that someone else will do it, but it just sits slightly at odds with me. “Git gud” is a motto I live by and expect others too (to a certain extent), but it’s a bit more difficult when said others are standing right in front of me chatting about their families they support on the salary that could (will eventually?) be taken away by these robots.
I also resonate with cheaper production results in everyone being richer, and if everyone asked these questions before doing anything we would be wayyyyy less rich than we are now.
throwawaywriter
5d ago
I have high-ish (75%) confidence I would get a nice raise and promotion and low-ish confidence (20%) potential opportunity to lead this initiative across the company if it went well, so not entirely illusory, but I see your point—I’m a firm believer that large companies rarely proportionally reward their workers.
I agree that someone else will do it, but it just sits slightly at odds with me. “Git gud” is a motto I live by and expect others too (to a certain extent), but it’s a bit more difficult when said others are standing right in front of me chatting about their families they support on the salary that could (will eventually?) be taken away by these robots.
My asking here was more of a “please explain why and tell me what I’m wanting to do is good” along with a catch-all option for extra thoughts.
throwawaywriter
5d ago
I see an opportunity to replace certain human labor at my workplace with humanoid robots. For background, I am an equipment engineer at a Fortune 100 manufacturing company and think my job is somewhat low-risk of getting automated soon.
Pros:
- Good for my career at the company
- Improves my skillset in case I ever want to switch jobs. I predict humanoid robots will become much more common as more companies adopt them and their skills widen and improve.
Cons:
- I am putting people out of a job. This would likely substitute for people instead of complement them. The company recently laid off 100s of employees and soon thereafter announced using a robot dog for some of their tasks. Is this just a form of natural selection?
- Can look bad on me if the robot isn’t as good as promised. There are ways to temper expectations that I plan to do during my pitch to management.
What are The Motte’s opinions on this in regards to:
- My career development
- The moral implications of putting low-skilled people out of work
- Anything else
throwawaywriter
1mo ago
I am looking to discuss and get critical feedback on my writing and this is the best thread to post it in. I've been writing in an echo chamber for a few years now and have decided it's time to test my ideas in the wild where people can comment directly.
Peters Hide Amongst Us and Must Be Exposed
Disclaimer
I have worked in one organization for less than 10 years with three different bosses.
The use of the name Peter isn't referring to principle's eponym, but rather people who make it true. Parker is the first P name I thought of.
The Peter Principle
The Peter Principle states that:
in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence
This makes intuitive sense as a concept and why it continues to happens despite being known for the same reason: why stop promoting a high performer? After all, past performance is almost always indicative of future results!
What isn't talked about is what happens after Peter gets into his final position. There are a few options available to him:
- Hold on as long as possible and hope no one notices or does anything about it. Thank goodness for the bureacratic nightmare that is firing someone for poor performance!
- Hold on long enough to gain the necessary experience before moving jobs for that sweet pay bump despite no change in responsibilities or abilities
- Work hard in an attempt to develop the skills necessary to perform well, disproving the Peter Principle and making this entire essay pointless
All three types of Peters exist in the world, but the distribution likely isn't equal—the first option of holding on for dear life seems to be the most common. And in order to not be noticed, Peter must camouflage himself in a ghillie suit made of corporate lingo while ensuring his toes are well behind the company and his boss' lines at all times. Who would notice Peter is horrible at his job when he makes his boss happy, is vocally supportive of the company culture, and actively participates in company initiatives? In fact, some may say that those three qualities make him great at his job!
The Parker Principle
The Parker Principle states that:
Parkers can do the exact opposite of Peters and expect a promotion due to sheer competence
(Sure, Parkers may experience their names gradually or even automatically turn to Peter at some point during their next few promotions, but ignore that for now.)
Competence compensates for lack of compliance in other areas. Organizations don't care that Parker says lewd remarks or doesn't attend mandatory meetings if he's helping them reach their bottom line, whether that's related to money, fame, or some other goal. They may even pave the road for him and offer a new car.
Tradeoffs exist in all markets, including this one: the organization is trading their supposed values and procedures for betterment in Parker's area. "Rules for thee, but not for me" becomes "Rules for thee (except you if you make us enough money), but not for me". This is obvious when stated, yet still interesting to see the dichotomy in action between people at the same level of the hierarchy.
Some examples in my organization around people who are the exact same rank:
- Peter actively uses corporate lingo; Parker never says any of it
- Peter actively makes suggestions around corporate initiatives; Parker actively makes fun of the initiatives
- Peter follows his boss' orders exactly as stated and never pushes back; Parker tells his boss their idea isn't great and X should be done instead
- Peter undermines his employees' expertise (likely due to insecurity about his lack of); Parker relies on his employees' expertise (likely due to security about his lack of)
Now that the names have been listed, it's time spotlight them in the audience and call them to the stage.
Exposing Peters to Highlight Parkers
The existence of Peters is sad, rage-inducing, and understandable at the organizational and individual level. It's sad because Peters probably didn't know they'd be a Peter before the promotion; again, why would they suddenly suck at their job if their current one is going well? (This ignores a long build-up of suckiness over the course of multiple job promotions, but to the previous sentence's point, most promotions include step function increases in responsibilities that may not be filtered for in their current role.) It's rage-inducing because most organizations either haven't acknowledged the existence of Peters, or if they have, don't seem to do much about them. It's understandable for the same reasons it's sad, but also because no self-interested person would resign once (if) they realize they're a Peter—there's no point. Hold on, rake in that dough, and with enough bullshitting and manuevering maybe another rung can be climbed.
But these feelings shouldn't get in the way of trying to oust Peters from their positions of power to ensure Parkers get their time on the throne. Powerful Peters reduce an organization's potential prosperity by definition: unintelligent leaders are likely to make suboptimal, if not downright detrimental, decisions that can send damaging ripples both up and down the hierarchy. On the other hand, Powerful Parkers increase an organization's likelihood of success for the opposite reasons as their Peter counterparts.
Highlighting Peters requires precision and nuance. Other Peters may catch on and attempt to stifle the exposé efforts. It's like They Live, the organization edition. Some ideas on doing so, with the understanding that they may backfire and strengthen their position's stronghold due to seemingly competent responses:
- Ask Peter for their opinion on things they know little about in meetings with higher-ups. Phrase the questions in an innocent manner that comes across as "I thought you'd know the answer to that".
- Question Peter's decisions in a public forum using questions like "do you think doing X would be better?" or "why did you choose X and not Y?". These should be phrased in a kind manner that come across as looking for a learning opportunity instead of criticism.
Highlighting Parkers is straightforward and smiled upon:
- Provide regular, genuine feedback on Parker's performance to their boss
- Compliment Parker's performance and general behaviors to others
- Give Parker the option to be involved in more things that increases their visibility
Organization-wide Discrimination Against Peters
Organizations, and not just individuals, must take a stand against Peters for the sake of their betterment and competitiveness in the markets they serve. Any organization would jump at the opportunity to increase efficiency by double-digit numbers, which is exactly what a purge of Peters would enable. People are still fallible and prone to bias and judgment.
Testing for potential Peters when they are still a Parker is simple:
- Both managers and subordinates evaluate Parker's readiness to be promoted strictly on how they think he would do at the next level by providing evidence to a jury
- Promote Parker for X time if the general notion is "yes, ready"; otherwise, wait Y time for re-evaluation ** Should the duration of the trial period be known? Probably yes. This allows Parker to plan out his long-term approach instead of rushing into things for immediate points and the potential that the period could end tomorrow. The guillotine outlined in the next bullet looming over their head may also lead to rushing, but that may also lead to negative sentiment, ultimately resulting in things being even worse-off.
- Managers and subordinates evaluate Parker at the end of said trial period, while both managers and subordinates reserve the right to end the trial period under certain circumstances
There are issues with this approach whose risks can be mitigated:
- There is a potential opportunity cost spent while evaluating Parker for the X time. If he succeeds, then no harm. If he fails, then it was likely a waste. This risk is partially mitigated through both the initial evaluation by the interested parties and the ability to cut the trial period short if things aren't going well.
- Mismatch in ratings between and within the voting subordinate and managerial populations may lead to improper promotions (e.g., "Manager Alice likes Parker, but Sub Bob thinks Parker will be a Peter"). Votes can be weighted based experience within the organization (within reason), expertise, and an independent board or ombudsman.
- Existing Peters may try to block the system from doing its job since more Parkers leaves less room for Peters to hide, whereas more Peters makes discovery less likely across the board—the idiotic leading the idiotic. Parkers must lead here.
It's also important to maintain objectivity when reviewing the individual to ensure more powerful people aren't just swinging their political weight around with nothing to back it up. Parker would create a resume for his promotion that would be reviewed by others, while the reviewing parties would also bring evidence that supports and opposes the promotion. The trial period would also take note of objective measures (unbeknownst to Parker to ensure no gaming of the system) to ensure actual competence and not just vibes. Goodharting would need to be avoided, hence the hidden metrics to ensure the promotee has well-rounded performance during their trial period. In a dystopian world, sentiment analysis can be performed on the reviewer's texts, messages, and emails to get rough feelings towards the promotee.
I grossly misspoke in my original post: I think complementation would happen first, then eventually substitution. I am unsure of exact timelines here and venture to say 10+ years with low confidence. My immediate “moral concern” is that the complementation benefits would be enough to justify firing workers sooner because now everyone is X times as productive.
I haven’t done substantial research, but the Figure AI robots seem promising. And while I suspect their press releases are overhyping their results (much like BD’s Atlas hasn’t been widely implemented to my knowledge despite being introduced many years ago), they have actual production units in factories doing simple work, which is a plus in my mind. Open to any more thoughts you have!
More options
Context Copy link