

Can a Computer Do Your Job? - ciscoriordan
http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/can-computer-do-your-job.html

======
Deestan
> In studies of expert performance admissions people are less good at
> predicting UG[undergrad] GPA than a simple algorithm. (The "algorithm" is
> simply a weighted sum of SAT and HS GPA!)

If you replace the admissions people with a simple algorithm (or even a
complex one), you get a machine that can be gamed very efficiently. In a
couple of years, the algorithm is going to _suck_ unless you have a team of
experts constantly changing it. (Hi, Google!)

~~~
jamesbkel
This quote also implies that the goal of an admissions officer is to maximize
total UG GPA/be able to predict UG GPA of admitted students.

Isn't the goal ostensibly to build a solid UG class of talented individuals?

[update]

I don't have any data to back this up, but I would even hazard a guess that
admissions officers take a certain number of calculated risks on students who
they know won't be stellar academic performers but add value in other ways.

~~~
dkarl
They can accomplish a lot just by being human. If the applicant can sell
himself to them despite his poor academic achievement, then he can sell poor
products to customers, keep employees faithful at crappy jobs, and attract
investment dollars to underperforming companies. If he can't, maybe he can get
a series of promotions anyway. By acting as "charisma detectors" and "bullshit
quality meters" (i.e., normal human beings) admission officers can spot people
who have a future, people whom it will be beneficial to have the college brand
on and who might donate to the university later.

------
zdw
The relevant XKCD: <http://xkcd.com/793/>

90% of what people do in a job is mundane, simple stuff an interested hobbyist
could figure out to do. That last 10% is what people get paid for.

~~~
pavel_lishin
A few friends of mine are in various sorta-financial fields - insurance
underwriting, and some sort of accounting thing. They're constantly amazed at
how much of what they do could be automated... and then ignore us when we tell
them that they should just spend a month picking up python and lessening their
workload.

Then again, their computers are locked down pretty tight, and I guess if you
write an app that does your job, you're basically proving to management that
they don't necessarily need you.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_I guess if you write an app that does your job, you're basically proving to
management that they don't necessarily need you._

This varies depending on where you work. I know at least one investment bank
has an explicit policy that if you make your job redundant, it can only
benefit you [1]. Also, if you don't have an explicit replacement plan (i.e., a
list of people who can do your job), it counts against you at your yearly
review.

[1] I know of one case where someone (call them Q) made their own job
redundant in 2008 (a time of many layoffs). The bank fired _someone else_
(call them Z) and gave their job to Q (with a tiny pay boost, in a time when
most people took big pay cuts).

------
notahacker
The computer can't be trusted to specify the model without insightful human
input though. Correlations that work very well in the short term can break
down spectacularly in the longer term.

from the comments below the blog, a comment I can only hope was intended to be
ironic:

 _The only thing a loan underwriter really needs to know is loan to value and
foreclosure costs & timeframe. Keep it low enough and creditworthiness is
basically irrelevant, you will get paid from the collateral no matter what the
borrower does._

It's amazing how much was lost from assumptions that foreclosure costs
wouldn't vary with average borrower creditworthiness...

------
Wawl
Reminds me of this article :
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gv/statistical_prediction_rules_out...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gv/statistical_prediction_rules_outperform_expert/)
which talked about similar algorithm in statistics

------
presidentender
Risk management analysis is best performed by a human aided by a computer,
yes. Those among us whose jobs are essentially risk-management-oriented would
be best served either to become that human computer operator, or to find a
different task.

------
sramam
wonder if PG can apply a similar "simple trick" to predict YC applicant
success!

~~~
_debug_
I strongly bet that pg has discovered some extremely weird (i.e., extremely
human) correlations, and uses them, but possibly cannot reveal them for fear
of ridicule or worse, people gaming the process. For example, big nose ==
great non-technical founder, esp. in terms of communication! Something along
those lines. :-)

~~~
TeMPOraL
Maybe that's why YC accepts so many applications - pg is gathering the data to
improve The YC Algorithm ;).

