There’s a great 1983 paper on “the ironies of automation” with interesting thoughts on this. For example, if nobody knows the 80%, how do they gain experience to do the hard 20%? Or, if operators become essentially low skilled, low status babysitters, the smart people required to cover the challenging 20% might just leave for higher status roles. It’s been posted here before, worth a read if you haven’t come across it.
The only should is you should succeed in making the change wanted or needed by your customer or stakeholders or yourself. How you do it is a capital problem. Cheaper faster better is preferred.
Imagine saying the 30% rule is you must eat in 30% of the time or eat vegetarian 30% of the time. It’s missing the point.
There’s a great 1983 paper on “the ironies of automation” with interesting thoughts on this. For example, if nobody knows the 80%, how do they gain experience to do the hard 20%? Or, if operators become essentially low skilled, low status babysitters, the smart people required to cover the challenging 20% might just leave for higher status roles. It’s been posted here before, worth a read if you haven’t come across it.
https://ckrybus.com/static/papers/Bainbridge_1983_Automatica...
Could have just gone with 80/20 :) Also, AI is definitely more than automation.
The only should is you should succeed in making the change wanted or needed by your customer or stakeholders or yourself. How you do it is a capital problem. Cheaper faster better is preferred.
Imagine saying the 30% rule is you must eat in 30% of the time or eat vegetarian 30% of the time. It’s missing the point.