Finnish government AI plan puts thousands of public sector jobs at risk - Nordic government estimates huge cost savings and productivity gains through public sector AI plan
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366650321/Finnish-government-AI-plan-puts-thousands-of-public-sector-jobs-at-riskOpen linkView original on reddthat.com
21 replies
if it all worked out (press x for doubt) but ignoring that, if it did, as Bertrand Russell pointed out in 1934 (In Praise of Idleness) , a 50% productivity gain (his example) should result in the workforce working 50% less hours for the same pay.
I'm pressing 🅧 for doubt on you. The social critique is on point but let's go over the numbers:
1 "+ 50 %" = 1.5 (productivity multiplier)
1 "− 50 %" = 0.5 (time multiplier)
1.5 × 0.5 = 0.75 ≠ 1
A workforce working 50 % fewer hours but doing 50 % more work per hour would only get 75 % of the original work done. The actual amount to cut work time by to compensate for a 50% productivity gain is ⅓ or 33.3̅ %.
Bertrand Russell was a mathematician and logician first and foremost. He wouldn't allow such a slip-up.
this is a surefire way to lose an election to the opposition.
They fucking fell for it. Seriously?
Please send the representants this:
https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/ai-for-decision-makers/
🤦
If AI can do the same job with equal quality, why would it be bad if the primary motivation is to secure savings only?
I'm not Finnish but as a citizen i would rather have my tax money spent on stuff that can't be automated then on stuff that can.
Because if your prime factor to optimize for is cost savings "AI can do the same job equally well but cheaper" quickly becomes "AI can so a somewhat worse job but much cheaper", then becomes "AI does quite a shitty job, but that's what we have to live with now as we laid off all workers to save money"...
(Also thanks to capitalism it then continues with "Now that AI is the only option in that sector, let's raise prices to increase our profit margin".)
That's why I emphasized if, there are plenty ways to get lower quality with human employees aswell.
I don't really understand the last paragraph, its a government so they don't have a profit margin?
Profit cannot come before people. Otherwise Finland becomes America.
I agree, but the article is about the Finnish government, unless there is something I don't know they weren't making any profit to begin with.
They're just trying to spend less, which is functionally the same.
If only our system was not currently being demolished in the name of optimization.
Because the alternative to saving money with AI is providing better services with AI - if it can be done. And the people to do that are the people doing the job.
Why are those mutually exclusive?
If a human clerk handling applications or something makes an error 1 in a 100 applications and an AI system has the same error rate but is far cheaper. Then quality stays the same.
Because now you exluded the option of having the employee choose which applications to have Ai process and which need human review - the option that delivers the most quality
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?
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
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.
Hardly, you need to maintain the same numbers to double check the work of AI. Haven't improved throughput, but this guarantees better quality