This is the only answer. Try it, and assess the results.
Heck, you can even A/B test it by randomly splitting your leads between humans and AI, then pick whichever has the higher ROI.
A better example (rather than replacing sales reps with AI, which is obviously difficult and nuanced) would be something like StitchFix deciding whether to fire their human stylists and moving everything to AI-recommendations only. Again, A/B test and see what users respond well to.
(Separately, I've always assumed StitchFix "stylists" weren't actual people, until I met someone with that job title... I was honestly quite surprised they still had a job)
The mess is the point. It's to show that it can't be done. The mess is what stops it becoming a full-time thing. The mess shows that humans are needed.
Normally we try to avoid damage - which frequently cannot be fully repaired.
And cleaning up mess is not an efficient use of resources.
Incentive is there to find non-damaging solutions first (Carlo Cipolla warns us about the amount of damage introduced in the system - the balance can be tricky). Cost-Risk-Benefit are due diligence.
...If a NN comes up with better solutions, it has won (the battle)...
The mess that is left behind is not damage. It's evidence. It's what would keep people in jobs. People losing their jobs is damage. People having work to do is not.
They were needed to keep jobs. People need to see that AI won’t replace humans before they’ll believe it. A 48 hour trial is short enough that it’ll create a mess but not long enough that it does actual damage.
And your attitude is why people like that ruin companies. Because you're too busy trying to be 100% right instead of getting the result you want. You're part of the problem too.
Kindly explain why noting that "people who need experience before knowing what is rationally evident should not be empowered" would be «trying to be 100% right» and opposing «getting the result you want».
If for «getting the result you want» you meant "creating damage in order to prove a point and discard some ways", I said that there must be a better way.
> Kindly explain why noting that "people who need experience before knowing what is rationally evident should not be empowered" would be «trying to be 100% right» and opposing «getting the result you want».
I'm not what you don't understand. People need experience before doing stuff with stuff that is completely brand new?! It's completely impossible. You're taking an approach which you think results in not being wrong. That is about you trying to be 100% right. And that attitude results in your being completely disregarded and those who you think are wrong doing stuff you don't want. You've just been a naysayer.
> If for «getting the result you want» you meant "creating damage in order to prove a point and discard some ways", I said that there must be a better way.
One you're talking about damage. If there is damage after 48 hours you're completely terrible are your job. It should just be a somewhat quick clean up. And there isn't. Anyone who has dealt with this sort of stuff and got the results they wanted knows sometimes you need to see the pain before you understand that something doesn't work. Most people need evidence to believe something. Your naysaying doesn't do it. You're not helping, you're just wasting time.
> People need experience before doing stuff with stuff that is completely brand new [...] Most people need evidence to believe something
Not exactly. Once something come out you study it as much as it is necessary, you assess it, then you employ it smartly - that's how it should be done. Those "needing evidence" in your depiction seem akin to those who decide to date drug addicts, jump down buildings etc. because "they do not know yet, it could work out fine": the first problem that one has to pose is that those profiles should not manage - that should be the main background idea. Then, if the issue - at human resources level - happens, strategies must be implemented to contain damage. This implies, you do not talk about creating damage lightly. One bad experience for a counterpart makes you lose opportunities forever: the failed counterparts will go, "good to know, now next please".
> And that attitude results in your being completely disregarded and those who you think are wrong doing stuff you don't want
Actually, what you would do in real life, is proving your point to the interlocutor through showing the evidence ("Have you noticed <this and that>?"). I do not have to convince you here about any specific position such as "LLMs can't fly", it's not the relevant purpose here.
> naysayer
I have said, (1) perform a Cost-Risk-Benefit and see what is the best strategy; (2) do not just stand over the specific case but foresee where its roots bring, and work on them roots. That is positive.
The first way is diplomacy. Show and reason. If it fails, then artillery. But in that order.
> Not exactly. Once something come out you study it as much as it is necessary, you assess it, then you employ it smartly - that's how it should be done. Those "needing evidence" in your depiction seem akin to those who decide to date drug addicts, jump down buildings etc. because "they do not know yet, it could work out fine": the first problem that one has to pose is that those profiles should not manage - that should be the main background idea. Then, if the issue - at human resources level - happens, strategies must be implemented to contain damage. This implies, you do not talk about creating damage lightly. One bad experience for a counterpart makes you lose opportunities forever: the failed counterparts will go, "good to know, now next please".
I don't think you've ever actually done any of this.
> The first way is diplomacy. Show and reason. If it fails, then artillery. But in that order.
If you mean that the "normal way" I have drawn is not feasible, show that it is not. If you mean "they cannot be convinced", well... They must be either convinced or overridden, if you are the one that bears the damage.
You think it's a two way door, but the one behind you will close shut and you'll realize it was a one way door once someone says: "but 48 hours wasn't enough to evaluate it" ;)
I think this is one of these scenarios where feeling the pain is the only way they'll ever truly understand.