Abstract
When Lisanne Bainbridge wrote about counterintuitive consequences of the increasing human–machine interaction, she concentrated on the resulting issues for system performance, stability, and safety. Now, decades later, however, the automized work environment is substantially more pervasive, sophisticated, and interactive. Current advances in machine learning technologies reshape the value, meaning, and future of the human workforce. While the ‘human factor’ still challenges automation system architects, inconspicuously new ironic settings have evolved that only become distinctly evident from a human-centered perspective. This brief essay discusses the role of the human workforce in human–machine interaction as machine learning continues to improve, and it points to the counterintuitive insight that although the demand for blue-collar workers may decrease, exactly this labor class increasingly enters more privileged working domains and establishes itself henceforth as ‘blue collar with tie.’
Highlights
Almost 40 years ago, Bainbridge (1983) reflected on ironies of automation. Her brief but astute and strongly referenced paper oscillates around the fact that machines work more precisely and more reliably than their operators, “the more advanced a control system is, so the more crucial may be the contribution of the human operator” in case of anomalies
Machines are more and more seamlessly coupled to each other and even learn automatically without human intervention. Such artificial workforces progressively outperform the human workforce in a variety of ways
If the job is ‘deskilled’ by being reduced to monitoring, this is difficult for the individuals involved to come to terms with. It leads to the ironies of incongruous pay differentials, when the deskilled workers insist on a high pay level as the remaining symbol of a status which is no longer justified by the job content.”
Summary
Almost 40 years ago, Bainbridge (1983) reflected on ironies of automation. Her brief but astute and strongly referenced paper oscillates around the fact that machines work more precisely and more reliably than their operators, “the more advanced a control system is, so the more crucial may be the contribution of the human operator” (ibid., p. 775) in case of anomalies. Whereas Bainbridge, and many others recently, including Strauch (2018), elaborated on the ironic consequences for system performance, stability, and safety inherent to sociotechnical systems, a human-centered reformulation would address inevitable consequences for human operators that face a constantly rising automized world and ironically rise in number as well, machines are increasingly replacing them. Their number may not grow in absolute. After a brief and general outline of Bainbridge’s core idea, each of the three ironic facets will be introduced as originally discussed, followed by a concise human-centered reformulation that considers intermediate developments
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call