Dale,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I’ll try to be equally thoughtful in my response to you. Regarding your fourth option for “scaling” human productivity, replacing humans with computers is at times an option, but it is not a scaling option, which is why I didn’t include it on the list. Similarly, replacing computers with humans to boost productivity or quality is sometimes as option, but not a scaling option.

We create tools — technologies — for two potential reasons: 1) to augment human ability, and 2) to replace human ability. A lathe augments the ability of a skilled carpenter to shape wood. A robot that shapes wood replaces the carpenter. We use technologies when doing so provides a benefit. If you want a chair, you may choose to purchase one that was made primarily by machines rather than a carpenter because the savings in cost outweigh the benefits to you of the superior craftsmanship.

Work that requires thinking — a human ability that computers lack — can often be augmented by computers in beneficial ways. When data analysis software enables us to visualize data on the screen — something that most of cannot do in our heads — it is augmenting our ability to think visually. When data analysis software places a great deal of data on the screen at once for purposes of comparison or pattern detection, it is augmenting our working memory, which can only hold three or four chunks of visual information at once. On the other hand, when data analysis software performs mathematical calculations, we are allowing it to do something that a computer does far better than we do: fast calculations. This is a replacement of human activity that we willingly embrace because the computer’s ability to perform this task is superior to ours.

We must understand what humans do well and what computers do well to know where to draw the lines, which is something that many technology vendors don’t understand and are not inclined to understand because they merely want to sell their technologies. It is important that we use technologies wisely, always considering the costs and benefits, not just for the immediate task but for the long-term effects as well. Early in my career I assisted in implementing an automated voice-response system that replaced human phone operators. It seemed obvious at the time that the technology would provide great cost reductions. I lacked the foresight, however, to anticipate the way that customers would be affected by having a mindless machine direct their calls. Countless times over the years I’ve regretted this as I’ve been routed by stupid machines into a black hole. I believe that Frankel and others like him who create and sell technologies are not drawing the line between the abilities of humans and computers effectively, nor are they thinking about the long-term implications of their technologies.

I agree with you that there is a distribution of human talent and that technologies have been increasingly used in recent years to replace people at the lower end of this distribution. I believe, however, that this is often a harmful, shortsighted decision. This is definitely the case when we use technologies to do tasks that require human abilities. When faced with these situations, helping humans scale their abilities by developing the necessary skills is usually a better solution. Using computers as an inferior substitute for human reasoning and judgment, which is what we do when we use them to do data analysis, is not nearly as productive as it would be to help humans develop data analysis skills.

Your physician example concerns me. The work of a doctor, similar to that of a data analyst, requires human reasoning and judgment. I fear a future that has replaced many doctors with machines. In that future, only the wealthy would benefit from the superior work of human doctors. The rest of us would stand in long lines waiting to be treated by machines. It is true, however, that computers have a great role to play in medicine. For example, expert systems can augment human reasoning and judgment by referencing massive diagnostic databases, providing doctors with information, including suggestions, to consider. These systems are not qualified, however, to replace doctors, who bring much to the process of healing that machines cannot provide. Rather than replacing doctors at the low end of the skill distribution with machines, we should scale humans for the task by replacing those who aren’t cut out for medicine with better candidates and by investing in the training of doctors whose skills can be improved.

You wrote, “Computers can take the place of people who were not very good at their jobs.” This is only true if the job is one that computers can do as well or better than humans or if computers do it less well but we are willing to sacrifice quality for reduce costs, as we do when we buy that chair that was manufactured by a machine. If the job can only be adequately done by humans, we should be investing in humans to do the work. Technologies have become our default solution, which has led to many poor results that go unnoticed. When misapplied, technologies can do harm. They can produce a future in which our lives are less fulfilling, less happy, and less healthy than they are today.

Well said, Mike. I remember CASE tools as well. That’s an excellent illustration of the problem. It pays to remember the past.