I read an article about a “dumpster fire” of a project – https://www.propublica.org/article/general-dynamics-artillery-factory-failed
An urgent problem was met with an innovative (and untried) solution to meet an urgent deadline.
I have been on projects like that that crashed and burned and others that came through spectacularly. Though I admit that I have never actually run a project for 500 Million USD that accomplished
- No useful output according to Pro Republica
- Flaming robot arms smashing into equipment
- Machines moving mysteriously, some team members wondering if others were spies or saboteurs and the building sinking into a swamp all at the same time.
It is a great read. I loved it for the quality of sentences and descriptive prose, but the bizarre reality of what seems to have happened added to the story too.
Anyway someone has done an assessment and they will replace these old practices that seem unproductive:
- “Giant metal arms … drenched in oil .. 1800 degrees … periodically erupted into columns of fire”.
- “bunch of guys taking turns going at the machine with a sledgehammer every night”
The next step is to use older equipment, that I assume does not explode unexpectedly, and add AI to the equation.
I didn’t ask Uncle Claude what the chance of success was now. I imagine the algorithm will be pessimistic but I also think I can exercise human judgement to form my own opinion based on the much smaller disasters and much less costly turnarounds I have experienced on my own life.
But I do think it would be unfair to blame an AI solution for failing to address problems that include distrust of each other, buildings sinking while machines explode and the product no longer being in demand.
So, moving forward I wonder which skills and factors AI will address and where we need “Human Things” and “Environmental Factors” to do the hard work.
I am going to ponder that over the next few days, but I am curious what you think too.
James King 