• TheMightyCat@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    No? Where have I excluded that option? If for normal volumes 100 employees are need to process. And with AI only 50 are needed, then it’s still cost saving?

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      If we’re making up numbers my point is that with 100 employees using AI you get 2x the quality than 50 employees using AI

      • TheMightyCat@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’m making up numbers because I don’t have the actual numbers and 2x is easy for the example, insert whatever numbers you like.

        The issue with that statement is that putting double the employees on a project doesn’t always improve its quality.

        If we go with the numbers we have been going with and a employee with AI is twice as productive then adding AI effectively doubles the time available. This only leads to a quality increase if work was being cut short. If each employee already got the required time necessary to handle a application with full quality then you haven’t increased quality but the capacity. If the now increased capacity is far above normal volume it is a waste to have so much excess capacity.

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days ago

          Hardly, you need to maintain the same numbers to double check the work of AI. Haven’t improved throughput, but this guarantees better quality

          • TheMightyCat@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 days ago

            If we accept that employees spend the same amount of time as without AI but now the error rate is reduced then yes. I don’t think that is the case but I don’t have the numbers so who knows.