HN Explorer

The preposterous notion of AI automating "repetitive" work

12 points by cadabrabra ↗ HN
This is just one of those narratives that people latch onto because it has a nice ring to it. Or maybe it’s because it makes AI sound less threatening and perhaps even palatable. “Don’t worry. AI is going to replace only the repetitive parts of your job.” But if you spend even a minute examining this narrative, then you will realize just how preposterous it is.

Humans have already figured out how to automate repetitive physical and digital labor, and we’ve been doing it for decades and even centuries by using machines and computing. Simply put: If it’s repetitive, then you don’t need AI to automate it.

In fact, the kinds of task we want AI to automate are precisely those that AREN’T repetitive. That was the whole god damn point of AI.

How did we go from the original purpose of AI to claiming that it will do what we’ve already been doing for decades? Where do these narratives come from, and why do people fall for them?

7 comments

[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 27.5 ms ] thread
tjr
Seeing a lot of claims about using AI to write "boilerplate" and other repetitive bits of code, I was somewhat surprised, as I have historically written my own code generation tools to spit out repetitive, formulaic code. I didn't need AI; I just needed to understand what I wanted and write a script for it.

I suppose that generative AI was seen as such a boon to writing boilerplate because it could do so without you having to specifically program anything; it was trained on enough sufficiently-close examples that it could pull it off without a thorough description.

nicbou
I am generally skeptical about AI but I do see the benefit here.

I write a bunch of widgets for my website. They're little calculators that use common components and apply simple logic. Think unit conversion or date arithmetic.

These currently take a few hours to write, and most of the work is just wiring things together in a predictable way: template, tests, common form controls.

I think that this would be a very good case for AI.

gtsteve
Perhaps your supposedly unique work is more repetitive than you thought: it just has a decision tree that's difficult to model with a regular algorithm, and annoyingly, it turns out you can just brute force that decision tree if you have enough electricity.

Unless your job is cutting-edge research where you are truly making new scientific discoveries and methods, you're just combining other peoples' ideas into a new unique package and selling it.

The truly valuable work is to notice that there is an underserved market and figure out how to meet their needs.

paulcole
Use the AI to make the “machine” that does the repetitive work?

I’m not a programmer but that’s what I’ve done. In the past I would’ve needed either to learn how to code or hire someone.

pancsta
AI automates deterministic tasks, in a non-deterministic way. Repetitiveness just gives you a pipeline.
adrianwaj
Well, wouldn't it be great if you had a barcode scanner next to your trashcan, and scanned everything that went into it. Then OpenClaw or something similar found the most inexpensive (and timely) replacement for it and then ordered it for you. It could also keep an inventory and work out when to hold off on the order while thinking about your stock levels, the expiry dates and perishability. It could also communicate with other Assistants in the area to get bulk discounts or arrange group deliveries. (Robotaxi or drone drop-off?)

Seems like the sweetspot of "repetitive in structure" and "repetitive in specifics" as mentioned by Newzino below.

The Assistant could also propose alternative products or find out what is in season and fresh.

So repetitive, but also efficient and effective. Time-saving, money-saving, life-affirming. Is that too optimistic for a very common and mundane task (grocery shopping)?