Yeah increased productivity should be rewarded with a slice of the pie. If an organization is trying to conceal that increase or not reward it, that’s obviously bad, but most likely part of an attitude that’s baked in regardless of whether things are improving or deteriorating.

It’s culty for sure but middle management would be like that whether or not it was ever written. Their job is to steal your time. If you want to fix that attitude, we’re still waiting for your book to come out.

Meanwhile, if someone wants to defend their time effectively and spend more of it doing things that make life worth living, they can swallow their pride and use some of the book’s insights for an immediate improvement.

More like there’s always room to make your work time more productive, so your down time is longer, sustainable, and free of distractions.

I did mention that it was written by a human, yes, but the reintegration part is called “machine learning” and doesn’t necessarily require any further human input once the algorithm is given its authority.

I’m trying to say the racist outcome in this example isn’t the result of some tyranny of numbers that we need to keep subjugated to human sentiment or something. It’s actually the result of human overconfidence in the future mandate of our technological achievements, which is an emotional flaw, rather than something inherent to their simple performance as tools.

That’s only true if the algorithm is written to build patterns and reintegrate them into its decisions, which was a human decision to program, AKA hubris. There would be no problem if it was written to evaluate the relevant data alone. It wouldn’t do anything to fix the underlying social problems, of course, but ideally this would free up some human HR that could be put on the task.

Probability is part of what makes us human though, as with the ability to describe our odds of survival somewhere rather than simply feeling it in our bodies.

Our awareness of uncertainty and risk are rooted in emotion, or basic drives, and they later became quantitative disciplines, similar to psychology. Likely or unlikely outcomes have always shaped our actions and our beliefs, sometimes also in contrast to the odds, where things may become heroic, irresponsible, etc.

You might look to numbers not to justify your morality, which is a precise form of argument, but to investigate it. Numbers can bring you back in touch with basic human drives we may have forgotten in the realm of abstract thought. Justification can then be built on top of the findings of that investigation.