
Replacing Middle Management with APIs - gwintrob
http://rein.pk/replacing-middle-management-with-apis/
======
krschultz
I'm not dismissing this line of thought, but realize this probably already
exists, and has existed for 100+ years.

When I graduated college I started out as a mechanical engineer, sometimes
going down to the factory to work on new design issues. There was a constant
source of friction between the 22 year old mechanical engineers and the 50+
year old factory workers. Here are a bunch of skilled guys that have been
building the product for 30+ years, and they in essence often have to report
to kids half their age right out of college that don't know a thing. There was
a pathway up through the factory, but there was no pathway across to
engineering without getting a degree.

If you were a smart engineer, you realized that these guys had an enormous
amount of knowledge - more than you could ever hope to get out of a simple
degree - and that they were worth listening to. If you were a cocky, dumb,
engineer you ignored their opinion.

The solution in the past to this problem has been unions. The startups are
moving a bit too fast for the unions to catch up, but in all of these recent
'What happens when everything is Uber?' posts written by engineers the role of
unions, politicians, and large masses of affected people seem to be ignored.

~~~
cbd1984
> The solution in the past to this problem has been unions.

How? Does a union provide a path from the factory floor to being an engineer
without needing a degree, or... what?

I honestly don't see how unions would even be relevant here.

~~~
michaelchisari
Unions negotiate for better wages, stable hours, and benefits. Often those
benefits include tuition reimbursement, but the other things are just as
important for establishing a predictable career path so that factory work can
be a step to something else, if you so wish it to be.

~~~
malandrew
Unions do nothing to contribute to productivity (in the broader economic
sense). If anything, they are a hindrance to it.

I would rather see a focus on a "union" we already have on the scale of entire
states or the entire country called the legislative process. Through it we can
argue for basics like guaranteed livable income (so you have the time to
better yourself), universal healthcare (so you're not always one accident or
sickness from being destitute) and a high quality educational system. A
livable income, healthcare and education are the foundation upon which most
other opportunities rest.

~~~
vidarh
> If anything, they are a hindrance to it.

Yes, by doing things like get us the 8 hour working day (parts of what is not
the AFL-CIO were the largest driver for that, taking decades, and having
members die in the process, and leaving us with May 1st as the international
day for labour demonstrations as another direct result).

Productivity is not a measure of the success of a society.

~~~
blfr
_by doing things like get us the 8 hour working day_

How do you figure? To me it seems that most of the union jobs were simply
automated away, moved to third world countries, or heavily supplemented with
illegal immigrant labour. None of those arrangements maintain an 8 hour
working day limit.

The remaining positions are generally high-skill or based on independent
contractors. No wonder they command higher wages and have better working
conditions.

Unions rode the tide of technology and globalization but didn't actually cause
it.

~~~
sp332
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-
hour_day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day)

~~~
blfr
From your link,

 _Although there were initial successes in achieving an eight-hour day in New
Zealand and by the Australian labour movement for skilled workers in the 1840s
and 1850s, most employed people had to wait to the early and mid twentieth
century for the condition to be widely achieved through the industrialized
world through legislative action._ [And many other countries followed the same
trajectory.]

How come? I'll take a guess: because it was only made possible in practice in
the 20th century by a sufficient increase in productivity, mainly through
automation but also economies of scale. And as the process continued, those
jobs went away completely.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc)

------
fudged71
I have been thinking about this exact thing for a while now.

With Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, the resource utilization of a
business is simply an algorithm, which can use any number of APIs to return
profit and grow the entity.

All of these APIs we are creating for various functions may soon replace us.
Many APIs already do directly dispatch humans to do certain tasks. The scary
part is that when someone is providing a service to you, they may not be aware
of whether their superior is a human or an algorithm.

A minimum viable autonomous corporation could be a lemonade stand that is
managed entirely by an algorithm; with virtual currency it can hire a person
to set up a lemonade stand at a certain datetime, and take a cut of earnings.
If sales are slow, it could hire someone to design a poster, and another to
post them in the area; or even an analyst to decide what the best course of
action is. Over time, with many locations and employees, it would be able to
learn the best locations and conditions for optimal profit. Perhaps also
deciding which employees to continue working with and which ones to fire.

These "management algorithms" would likely need to be developed by someone.
But what if the algorithm hired the person to write the algorithms, updates,
and performance tweaks?

There could be a bootstrap algorithm that is simply an idea (these could be
automatically generated based on search trends, market fluctuations, etc).
These seeds would be open to the public for investment with virtual currency
(bitcoin could be used to allocate the cap table as well), the program would
be able to hire talent to build out the idea, and the investors would receive
dividends.

I see this evolving as a kickstarter for viral autonomous businesses. And I
don't see why it couldn't be viable with today's technologies and APIs.

~~~
grecy
> _All of these APIs we are creating for various functions may soon replace
> us._

Good. Then we can get that promise of more leisure time that's been hanging
around since the 50s.

Imagine if everyone had more time to learn another language, play guitar and
ponder the meaning of life. APIs and robots can grow my food and wash my
clothes for me, I have better things to be doing.

~~~
vidarh
The promise have been around since the 1840's or before. The origin of
socialism was the idea that the rise of industrialisation would increase
efficiency to the point that scarcity would eventually become a thing of the
past - at least for everything needed to meet normal human needs. People like
Saint Simon, Fourier, Owens, Marx, Proudhon and many others started with those
assumptions.

Large parts of Marx entire theory of how socialist revolutions would come
about is based around the combination of this idea and the idea that the
capitalists won't willingly grant it.

~~~
draugadrotten
> _scarcity would eventually become a thing of the past - at least for
> everything needed to meet normal human needs._

We're really there aren't we. Almost everyone in the industrialised parts of
the world have access to food, shelter and other basic human needs. Damn, in
Western Europe even the romanian beggars have iPhones.

Even the poorest have a less poor life.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdDkF0Lw-
ag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdDkF0Lw-ag)

------
addicted44
Getting more stuff done with less human effort is a good thing. However,
combining that with an economic system which sets your ability to feed
yourself and your families based on the effort you put in is a bad thing.

Capitalism which was a great 2th century economic system, is not suited for
the 21st century where there really aren't any jobs left for humans to do.

The benefits of automation only accrue to the owners of capital, while
everyone else gets completely left out. Since the owners of capital are an
increasingly smaller number of people (not surprising since capital accrues
capital exponentially while labor only accrues it linearly) our economic
systems are headed for collapse.

~~~
plextoria
Then what would be the right way forward? We've known capitalism is broken
since at least the times of Karl Marx.

~~~
vidarh
And indeed one of Marx key predictions was that capitalism through increasing
efficiency would eventually lead to an overproduction/under-employment crisis.

~~~
Normati
You don't get to keep waiting for a prediction to finally come true when it
doesn't come with a deadline. It already didn't happen despite all our labor
saving technology so far (we don't even weave cloth by hand anymore!). Sure it
might happen in another 100 years, or another 1000. But that's almost a given
for most predictions.

------
Animats
That's an excellent article.

I've been using the phrase "Machines should think, people should work" to
describe this for some time. Amazon/Kiva order processing, where the humans
are just arms for the computers, is well known. Uber has also been mentioned.
Marshall Brain's "Manna" is the SF precursor of this concept.

This has been pointed out repeatedly since Adam Smith visited the pin factory
in 1776, and wrote, in the Wealth of Nations _" One man draws out the wire,
another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it
at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three
distinct operations; to put it on, is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins
is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the
important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about
eighteen distinct operations."_

Some people like it that way. Henry Ford, on assembly line labor management:
_" We shift men whenever they ask to be shifted and we should like regularly
to change them—that would be entirely feasible if only the men would have it
that way. They do not like changes which they do not themselves suggest. Some
of the operations are undoubtedly monotonous—so monotonous that it seems
scarcely possible that any man would care to continue long at the same job.
Probably the most monotonous task in the whole factory is one in which a man
picks up a gear with a steel hook, shakes it in a vat of oil, then turns it
into a basket. The motion never varies. The gears come to him always in
exactly the same place, he gives each one the same number of shakes, and he
drops it into a basket which is always in the same place. No muscular energy
is required, no intelligence is required. He does little more than wave his
hands gently to and fro—the steel rod is so light. Yet the man on that job has
been doing it for eight solid years. He has saved and invested his money until
now he has about forty thousand dollars—and he stubbornly resists every
attempt to force him into a better job!"_

The history of auto labor relations indicates that task boredom isn't a big
issue for many people. Workers have fought for higher wages, better benefits,
shorter working hours, more breaks, and more dwell time between cycles. But
not for job rotation.

A lot of people seem to be OK with dull, boring jobs, provided they get paid
reasonably well for them and have enough time off.

~~~
Retra
A dull, boring job is predictable, and you can plan around it. You can devote
your attention to whatever else you like. Until we start paying people to take
vacations and entertain themselves, boring is the next best thing.

Beats the heck out of being told what to think, want, and do. Worrying all the
time that you can't take it and that you'll have to find something better
(when you explode at someone for being an idiot.)

~~~
dicroce
Boring is not the next best thing... Some people are actually paid to do the
thing they love...

~~~
Retra
You are correct. Let's just call it "one of the more tolerable things" then.
(That lacks the same rhetorical punch, I must admit...)

~~~
jacalata
rephrase: "As long as we aren't giving everyone the option of being paid a
decent wage to follow their passion of basket-weaving, then a boring job is
the next best thing"?

------
karlheinz
This is a paradox rooted in capitalism itself, as Karl Marx pointed out in
1858:

"Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce
labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as
sole measure and source of wealth."

~~~
Raphael
I wonder if Marx considered that labour could shift to serve new markets.

~~~
mooreds
What he didn't think of was productivity increases. See Piketty's Capital in
the 21st Century.

~~~
vidarh
Yes, he did. His entire ideology is based around the premise that capitalism
would lead to productivity increases sufficient that redistribution would lift
everyone out of poverty.

Already in The German Ideology (1845) he specifically made the point that the
productivity increases inherent in a capitalist economic system was a
_prerequisite_ for a successful socialist revolution as otherwise
redistribution would just make want common, and the same class struggles would
start all over again as people fight to get out of poverty (like what happened
in the Soviet Union, China, where the party organisations became the new upper
class).

In the Communist Manifesto he and Engels spelled out how they saw capitalist
productivity increases eventually lead to over-production and under-
employment, and that this, according to Marx, is what will eventually lead to
an intensification of class struggle and finally enable a socialist revolution
as economic productivity under capitalism reaches its peak.

------
athenot
I would argue that the shift to "Cogs in a giant automated dispatching
machine" already happened with living in an industrialized society, except
it's software instead of bureaucracy.

In either case, the organizational "middleware" is under the control of its
owners.

~~~
avn2109
Agreed. It feels like we're merely changing the means, not the ends, ie. the
system is doing what it's always done, just now it is more efficient.

------
YesThatTom2
This guy should see how a Google datacenter works.

Need something done in a datacenter? Open a ticket and people respond. Common
tickets become standardized by making them API calls that schedule the people.
The most common API calls are eventually automated completely.

I saw this for requesting a machine be power cycled (ticket -> API call ->
automated).

The people that work at the datacenter are great, but I feel sorry for them
because their job becomes less and less interesting as time goes on.

When Google opened a datacenter in [redacted] there was an article about how
local people were signing up for Community College classes on computer science
topics. I felt terrible... the skills that datacenter would be hiring for were
more akin to a warehouse than a startup.

\-- Tom \-- Ex-Goolger

~~~
eldavido
There isn't a lot going on creativity-wise but there _is_ a lot operations-
wise. Tightly measuring, controlling, and iterating on critical systems to eke
out the last 1 or 2% is really important in mature industries like grocery
stores or datacenter management! I feel like it's too easy to ignore how hard
it is to get things under statistical control, and how important a role that
plays in many industries.

------
jobu
Obligatory link to "Humans Need Not Apply":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU)
I highly recommend giving it the full 15 minutes if you haven't already seen
it.

We as a society need to figure out how to handle a future where the majority
of people are no longer compatible with the economy.

~~~
sqrt17
There's a thought error in here: "the economy", as an unmovable construct,
does not really exist. As an example, a good shirt does not cost thousands of
dollars anymore, because we have automated weaving looms and a whole textile
industry. We're not poorer from it, though, because we shifted from weaving
shirts to doing construction work or working in finance.

If we can automate simple manual labor, people will shift to different tasks;
the non-beneficial changes is that now the energy needed for that task is
consumed directly by the machine, and also the investment that has been done
to get the machine there in the first place. Beyond that, people who did
simple tasks before may perform tasks that require conscience or risk-
awareness (for example, machines injuring or killing humans cannot be fired or
fined, so someone has to be responsible), that require empathy and human
attention; or people will resort to being burglars or robbers or
revolutionaries or salesmen.

~~~
chii
> We're not poorer from it, though, because we shifted from weaving shirts to
> doing construction work or working in finance.

the video specifically has a refutation for the argument you made - that
technological improvement is not necessarily always augmented by better jobs
that people could do. Their example with the horses and automobiles is quite
pertinent.

The point about jobs that require human empathy is moot - if the cost of
hiring the human is much higher than a machine, the machine will win.

~~~
sqrt17
You're arguing from a frame where there is a demand for a constant set of
things ("jobs") and people capture the money that can be exchanged for that
set of things. This assumes that a number of parameters in the market are
fixed, and that you can "create" or "destroy" jobs with economic actions that
are partly independent of the non-economic world.

Looking at historical economics, another way of looking at this is to see an
economy as things going in (sunshine, non-renewable resources consumed, loot
acquired in wars) and things going out (people eating, garbage produced,
etc.), and the ways of distributing the flow between these.

It turns out that you can have a "surplus", when you suddenly have more
money/resources than you had before. There are different means of getting rid
of surplusses, including wars, social programs, or simply population growth
(consider how New York's area used to sustain about a hundred people).

Looking back at the demise of weaving and spinning as jobs, you see that the
immediate effect of that was a higher concentration of wealth in the hands of
some individuals, which (in Europe) led to counter-movements involving
democratization and social issues.

The real problem is not that it's possible to find more effective ways to do
some jobs than employing people for it, the real problem consists in the
readjustment of power relationships that becomes necessary when you remove
resposibilities from lots of people and put them in the hands of relatively
few people.

Maybe some governments institute a robot tax, which augments the cost of
robots by a percentage not high enough to consider other alternatives (e.g.
moving off-shore, which has been possible with production jobs but not with
manufacturing jobs), and use these funds towards things that society as a
whole regards as beneficial (such as building nice parks, everyone getting a
university degree, or every city having an opera and a theater, or war or
terrorism or spying on your citizens, if those are what a society thinks it
wants).

Standard "capitalist" economic doctrine wants us to believe that surplusses
always belong to the innovators or those taking associated risks, and both
historically and currently this has only been partly true. Maybe those
surplusses will just be destroyed in the next "AI" bubble, maybe they will be
used to create a post-democratic oppressive state, maybe they will be used to
create a modern-day utopia. We don't know yet what will happen, but we sure
should not let others reframe the issue as technocrats-vs-luddites, because
that is not what it is.

------
dm8
> The gap in training and social groups above and below could mean that new
> automation technology causes sudden, large-scale unemployment.

This also scares me. I've often wondered, what will happen to people in a
largely automated world (which could be reality in next 40-50 years). Will
there be riots as employment will be unprecedented? Will it open new
industries or entirely new period of creativity for humanity (e.g. industrial
age giving birth to age of information)?

When we transitioned to industrial age, I believe people had similar concerns
but somehow things worked out well. Can we repeat that?

~~~
glesica
The idea that "work" is somehow good and noble is outdated, and serves only to
trap workers into undesirable situations for the profit of the capitalist
class. Work isn't noble, it's just something we do so that we can do other
stuff (and eat).

So preserving work in the face of massive changes in the economy would be an
incredibly unfortunate thing to do. Why not simply allocate social resources
such that people who are not _needed_ for work simply don't have to work?
Allow them to have food, and shelter, and healthcare, and let them explore
whatever it is that brings them happiness, without having to worry about
spending their days performing some menial task because someone has decided
that they must "work" for their meals.

~~~
blumkvist
We tried that. It ended in disaster.

People thinking like this really makes me furious. This is such a narcisistic
thinking, that I feel disgusted.

Human beings are driven by incentives. From drinking a glass of water, to
writing a book it is all incentive based. If you have your basic needs
covered, you have no incentives. When you make policy, you have to think about
the lowest common denominator, not the select few top speciments. It is
extremely vain and naive to think removing incentives to educate yourself and
work will end in anything other than disaster. Apart from that, the model you
describe fosters enormous corruption at every level of society. From the
factory workers who go drunk to work and steal, because when everyone is a
principal, noone is a principal, to the political leaders who engage in
atrocities to keep and grow their power.

PLEASE stop trying to make communism happen. It has destroyed so many lives
already.

~~~
Karunamon
_If you have your basic needs covered, you have no incentives._

Self-betterment is an incentive. Betterment of everyone else is an incentive.
The idea that people must be forced to work to make money or else they won't
do anything else is a capitalist ideal, _NOT_ absolute fact.

Wouldn't it be nice if people could actually do things that interest them
instead of worrying about putting food on the table?

~~~
ehvatum
Living in Norway taught me that faceless charity embitters and dissatisfies
most recipients. Far from considering how to better themselves, too many
internalize their implied uselessness, while blindly groping for someone or
something to blame. An obvious path to self worth is then to view oneself as
intelligent for taking from the hard working sheeple too dumb or deluded to
win.

Charity to help someone achieve their goals is very different from payouts for
having no aspirations or abilities.

~~~
icebraining
_Living in Norway taught me that faceless charity embitters and dissatisfies
most recipients. Far from considering how to better themselves, too many
internalize their implied uselessness, while blindly groping for someone or
something to blame._

What if that's the result of being _charity_ (to those in need)?

Right now, there's a divide which separates the "useful" \- who get a salary -
from the "useless" \- who get a pension -, which leads to those feelings of
alienation and self-deprecation. But does anyone feel useless because they
didn't have to work for the sunlight they get, or the air they breath?

I'm not affirming anything, but it'd interesting to know if the problem you
identified would disappear if _everyone_ got those resources, instead of just
those "in need".

------
kcole16
While this may lead to a short term increase in unemployment if there is a
massive shift from middle managers to a technology layer, it will increase
efficiency, and hopefully, job satisfaction. Less middle managers to wonder
what value they really add (often very little), and less employees asking the
same question (and thinking they are smarter/more qualified than their boss).

~~~
bonaldi
Except the workers will be even more commoditised and have their wages driven
to a minimum, leading to lower satisfaction.

And the middle-managers losing their jobs will accelerate the destruction of
the middle classes, whose spending is what keeps the economy motoring.

Not sure where that plays out, short of either guaranteed incomes or new-
feudalism

------
SixSigma
The major roles of middle management are

1) Communicate the vision

2) Allocate resources

3) Set criteria for decisions of unequivocal data

4) Make judgement calls on equivocal data

5) Facilitate the voice of the worker being heard

Computers can only do 2 & 3

~~~
CmonDev
I felt like a bit of anti-hype is needed:

1) Because engineers need translation

2) Not preventing teams from doing their work

3) A bit of arbitrage, fair

4) Flipping the coin based on the choices well-prepared by underlings

5) Politics, CEO will always only hear the board, which only cares about
themselves; I bet anonymous feedback forms and a bit of cheap data mining
would be a more sure bet

~~~
SixSigma
If that's how your management works, time to find a new place to work.

~~~
lmm
You mean like one of the increasing number of places without middle
management?

------
mystique
I have been thinking about this for a while now too.

I feel more troubled by the fact that folks in non-AI field don't see this as
an imminent problem. They don't realize that with current advances in
computing power that enables us to store more and more data cheaply, how much
can be learnt from it and how much can be automated.

There don't seem to be any easy solutions. Training/teaching folks new skills
would help but will not solve this for every person affected. I suspect the
collateral damage from this will be big.

~~~
SCHiM
There are people who do see this happen. I vaguely remember bill gates saying
things about automation encroaching on low-skill jobs, and that many white-
collar jobs would not be far behind. [0]

I don't think his solution is viable however, since it would only delay the
inevitable. Even if you make humans dirt cheap, the power of computers and all
the benefits of automation will still be cheaper, only later.

He extrapolates that our current take on our economy will soon be very
outdated and that it needs to be rethought. Perhaps our star-treck economy
will not be the result of space-travel, but automation. Imo this is the best
possible outcome I can imagine.

[0]: [http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/bill-gates-interview-
robots/](http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/bill-gates-interview-robots/)

------
a3n
Someone needs to make a tshirt:

You can be replaced with a small REST API.

~~~
Pxtl
I assume a reference to this:?

[http://www.kleargear.com/1474.html](http://www.kleargear.com/1474.html)

~~~
ryan-c
Buying anything from that site is probably a bad idea. They fined people for
bad reviews and turned them over to collections[1].

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_v._Kleargear.com](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_v._Kleargear.com)

------
cpprototypes
There is a potential dark side to this kind of automation:

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/starbucks-w...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/starbucks-
workers-scheduling-hours.html)

There could be a lot of turmoil in the next few decades as society adapts to
this new world of increased automation.

~~~
cortesoft
That is certainly something to worry about, but it isn't a criticism of
automated scheduling directly. Both a human and an algorithm can choose to
either care about schedule consistency or not. We just have to make sure we
choose to include those considerations when designing our AIs.

------
SmallBets
What doesn't get brought up enough in these discussions is the degree to which
the advances in AI and resource distribution bring down costs and increase the
accessibility of having your needs met.

For example, as Uber has advanced to UberX and now UberPool, the possibility
of being car-free is much more feasible and potentially cheaper than
ownership. So the labor hours required to own a car are cut out as a need for
those workers. Similarly, craigslist, AirBNB etc. are impacting the renting
vs. buying scenario and reducing costs in those areas.

Will this increase in accessibility happen at the same rate of labor loss?
Probably not and there will be some turbulence, but I think the net result
will be a realization of excess in western culture and an adjustment to more
reasonable standards of living.

Sure, there will be 'above the api' haves, but there is reason to believe the
accessibility of meeting basic needs will scale up as a long term net result
after short/mid term turbulence.

~~~
lucaspiller
> Similarly, craigslist, AirBNB etc. are impacting the renting vs. buying
> scenario and reducing costs in those areas.

If anything AirBnB has caused the price of property to go up. Where I live you
could easily make enough to cover rent or a mortgage from letting a property
on AirBnB for one or two weekends a month. The rest of the time it is empty,
which means the demand for housing in the local area is higher, which means
rents go up. In my 200 unit building I think around 5% of the properties are
vacation rentals.

Really AirBnB isn't much different to holiday homes / timeshares, but what
they have done is bring it to the masses. It will be interesting if / when
they introduce surge pricing to combat this - right now the control is still
with landlords, but eventually they'll just be another pawn in the game.

------
girmad
Yes, scheduling is better done by machines than people, and we as a society
will be better for it. Ironically, this will eventually lead to "higher end"
shops, which retain the human touch.

This process happens over and over as technology improves, it hurts in the
short run and opens lots of new doors in the long run.

------
dberlind
Amazing conversation that really provokes us to think about who of us has it
right? Those of us who are ambitious about creating opportunity, climbing the
corporate ladder, etc? Or those of us who consciously decide to opt for
autonomy and convenience (potentially undermining the structure of our
capitalist system!). I've written a more detailed response and posted it to
ProgrammableWeb since any conversation about APIs are so near and dear to our
hearts [http://www.programmableweb.com/news/do-apis-eliminate-
middle...](http://www.programmableweb.com/news/do-apis-eliminate-middle-
management-or-improve-quality-life/analysis/2015/02/04)

------
TeMPOraL
Well, that describes a dream I have - to make all services function calls. I
should be able to order a pizza by just issuing a POST request to some API
endpoint, preferably without caring about anything else than the size and list
of ingredients. I definitely should be able to install a local print shop as a
system printer, so that instead of calling them and sending them e-mails and
wiring money I could just do File->Print, change few options, click Print and
have it at my doorstep the next day.

Come to think of it, a lot of services _are_ but glorified function calls -
it's just the API (i.e. having to talk to people) that's messy and too broken
for any automated use.

------
AnonJ
This article makes no sense. All those services mentioned are pretty much
_third-party marketplace_ -style thing. What’s the point in insisting a “path
upwards” or whatsoever when in all manners the marketplace just exists to
connect customers with service providers? I don’t think it’s the marketplace’s
duty to cater to the service providers who simply use the marketplace, just
like it’s not an office space's duty to ensure that the companies which loan a
space live long and prosper. And anyways I don’t see normal taxi drivers
having a clear “path upwards” either. The arguments are quite invalid and TBH
a bit sensational.

------
smithy44
Does anyone think that our whole economic meta-model might be overcome by 3D
printing, permaculture and sufficiently efficient solar, etc.? (combined with
sufficiently efficient energy use.) Has anyone read Clifford Simaks' City?
There are technologies that automatically accrue the power to live in the
other direction, or at least more widely and uniformly. Perhaps it's time to
focus on those. We can have a economy in which the true currency is only
ideas. And the money economy is only for luxuries. And in which we are all a
lot more free.

------
georgeecollins
This has been going on for over fifty years. McDonalds replaced diners with
standardized food and processes. WallMart replaces smaller stores, often
locally privately owned. Through efficiency and standardization they decrease
the amount of labor needed and in particular the skill of labor needed.

The mobile web lets you standardize mobile services (like delivery and taxis)
and replace small companies owned by middle class people with leaner, larger,
public ones.

------
valevk
Thank god, we still need somebody to write that API.

~~~
cubano
Do we really?

And for how long do you think that job may be safe from automation?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
I was thinking a while back that an obvious AI application would be to replace
the entire management structure of a corporation.

All of it. All the way up to the C-Suite.

This would naturally improve efficiency, and in not a few cases it would
probably apply a significant multiplier to overall profitability.

That doesn't mean it would be a good idea politically or socially - although
depending on the value system and long-term strategic insight of the AI, it
might be an improvement there too.

You could even have an automated YC, where a model of Paul Graham selects
between different business models produced by a selection of AI agents.

This could just be a joke, but to be honest I'm not completely sure it's not a
serious prediction.

~~~
gertef
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organization)

------
mfringel
If all you have is a resource allocation problem (e.g. scheduling, launching
jobs, etc.) in a group of people lower than the Dunbar Number (i.e. ~150),
then replacing middle management with an API is a reasonable choice, because
you don't have an interesting management problem that requires critical
thought or leadership.

------
jordwest
I, for one, welcome our new algorithm overlords.

Option A - Work for a system run by an algorithm that hires, fires, and judges
you based purely on the work you do.

Option B - Work for a system run by irrational humans that hires, fires, and
judges you based on their own prejudices and ego.

~~~
striking
"Garbage in, garbage out" tells us that since the algorithms are made by
irrational humans, the algorithms will too be irrational.

------
spiritplumber
Basic Idea: In small groups management can be automated. If it can be
automated well enough, a hierarchy is not necessary. Small groups need to be
able to switch quickly beteween adhocracy and democracy while preserving
fairness. The following principles are a first attempt to provide a framework
for this.

Principle: An operating ageement should be written with a specific purpose, in
very simple language or ideally in pseudocode or actual code. Corollary: This
document should contain a way to programmatically deal with issues such as
"there is no person to do job X", by random selection or by rotation or by
whatever other method is agreed upon. Corollary: This document should contain
a way to programmatically allocate revenue and split profits.

Principle: Job titles are optional. Hats worn are necessary. Everybody should
list the jobs they are happy to do in order of expertise. Corollary: Hats
needed should be specified as soon as the scope of the project is determined.
Corollary: Any hats left unworn by unwillingness should be traded around with
some frequency.

Principle: Everybody contributes to a common diary or blog, at least once a
day, with at least one sentence, explaining what they did during that day.
Corollary: Everybody should be able to identify at least one useful thing they
did each day they are working. Corollary: Anybody wanting to not work for a
time should let everybody know in advance.

Principle: Everybody gets one vote. Tie breaks are decided by whoever is
wearing the largest hat in that area or as specified by the operating
agreement. Corollary: Votes are called when there is a disagreement and
resolved as close to immediately as possible. Corollary: Valid vote outputs
are yes, no, don't care, don't know enough.

Principle: Every rule agreed upon after the starting document is generated
should carry an explanation as to in response to what event it was made.
Corollary: The reason for the starting document itself is assumed to be "To
accomplish our primary goal", which should be specified. Corollary: The more a
rule can be automated, the more it should be, but this machine must never
override anybody.

Principle: Any procedure that gets in the way of the stated goal must be moved
out of the way. Corollary: When in doubt between toss and keep, default to
keep. Corollary: When in doubt between open and closed, default to open.

Principle: Nobody should create emergencies. Everybody should react to
emergencies. Corollary: Emergencies should be definied strictly. Corollary:
Emergency response is coordinated by anybody who is there and knows what they
are doing.

(c)mkb2012

~~~
Retra
> _Any hats left unworn by unwillingness should be traded around with some
> frequency._

This reminds me of a useful reflection on social moral processes. If you have
a group of people who all have agreed to achieve some goal, say, "everyone
should be happy," then you have to support it with a rule: "Any person has the
power to demand change, and no other person has the power to veto this."

So if one person is unhappy, they simply say "change," and _something_ is
required to change. Even if everybody else is happy and they all disagree.
Even if all known changes result in fewer people being happy. The goal was not
met. So implicitly, the real goal is that nobody demand change.

You can't get stuck in a local maximum if you're looking for a global maximum.
You have to prove that you are _at_ a global maximum to resist change, and you
have to prove it to those who demand change.

The only way to get there is to find out what people actually want and need,
and to deliver it.

~~~
breischl
It's an interesting point to think about.

But my first thought was what would happen if you accidentally let a troll
into your group. ie, someone who enjoys yelling "change" just to watch
everyone else jump.

Heck, that person might be genuinely unhappy unless everyone is changing! Add
in someone else who hates all change, and you have an unresolvable
contradiction.

~~~
Retra
There is no such thing as a troll, they are fictional creatures. I'm talking
about humans.

>Add in someone else who hates all change, and you have an unresolvable
contradiction.

No, you have a meta-problem. One that can be solved by a suitable virtual
reality pretty handily.

~~~
breischl
I'm aware that bridge-dwelling, toll-collecting trolls do not exist. I was
referring to an internet-style troll, "a person who sows discord on the
Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people... with the deliberate
intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise
disrupting normal on-topic discussion. ... Media attention in recent years has
equated trolling with online harassment." [1]

If one person is only happy when things change, and someone else is only
happen when they don't change, I don't see how there is any way to resolve the
difference. I'm curious what solution you see for this, and especially in how
a virtual reality would help.

[1] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29)

~~~
Retra
Yes, I know what you meant. I was being facetious, as I don't approve of the
implication that 'trolls' are somehow fundamentally different from other
people. There is no law of nature that says "if someone is a troll, they will
never be happy unless others are unhappy." That's not a _fact_ , and I'm not
willing to pretend it is.

Either way, I've already given you a potential solution to that problem, and I
see no reason to elaborate further. Use your imagination.

~~~
breischl
When I was writing my previous comment I was wondering if I was being trolled.
Too bad I was right.

~~~
Retra
Oh, I see what you were saying. You were saying that you can know everything
there is to know about a person from a few posts on the internet. No wonder
you believe in trolls.

But If I were to follow that line of reasoning, I would be forced to conclude
that your incompetence here is simply an innate part of your being. But I
don't believe that, even if you think I should.

So try to do a little better, ok?

~~~
breischl
You're the only one here who seems to believe that "troll" is an indelible and
unchanging character trait. I never said or implied that, and my point does
not require it to be the case.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could actually believe that, which
is why I'm fairly certain you're trolling me. But I suppose it's possible that
you're not particularly perceptive.

By the way, you still haven't mentioned your magical way to satisfy the
conditions "X" and "Not X" (ie, "constantly changing" and "unchanging") at the
same time.

------
rsl7
The leap to self-driving cars will be a massive and painful and complicated
one. Way too much faith in tech in these here parts.

