Jump to content

Doorman fallacy: Difference between revisions

From IdeaWazaWiki
→Origin: it's ironic that an article about how AIs can't replace humans has a colon mistake associated with AIs. All style guides indicate that colons end main clauses. It makes no sense to put a colon in the middle of a clause, but AIs do that all the time.
Linked "Robert M. Wachter" to his page, described his title as on that page
Line 18: Line 18:
Recent discussions have extended the concept of the doorman fallacy to generative AI's replacement of white-collar and customer service roles.<ref name=conversation />
Recent discussions have extended the concept of the doorman fallacy to generative AI's replacement of white-collar and customer service roles.<ref name=conversation />


In 2025, the [[Commonwealth Bank|Commonwealth Bank of Australia]] laid 45 customer service staff off, replacing them with an automated AI voice bot. The bank reversed its decision amid pressure from a workers' union, admitting it "did not adequately consider all relevant business considerations and this error meant the roles were not redundant".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Subin |first=Samantha |date=2025-10-22 |title=AI is already taking white-collar jobs. Economists warn there's 'much more in the tank' |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/22/ai-taking-white-collar-jobs-economists-warn-much-more-in-the-tank.html |access-date=2026-06-24 |website=CNBC |language=en}}</ref><ref name=conversation>{{cite web|first1=Gediminas|last1=Lipnickas|accessdate=2026-09-25|title=The ‘doorman fallacy’: why careless adoption of AI backfires so easily|url=https://theconversation.com/the-doorman-fallacy-why-careless-adoption-of-ai-backfires-so-easily-268380|date=3 November 2025|website=The Conversation}}</ref> Robert Wachter, head of medicine at the University of California, described the idea that AI could replace doctors an example of the fallacy.<ref>{{cite web|first1=Frank|last1=Landymore|accessdate=2026-09-25|title=American Medical Association Fires Back Against Paper Finding AI Is Now Outperforming Doctors|url=https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/american-medical-association-fires-back-ai-doctors|date=4 September 2026}}</ref>
In 2025, the [[Commonwealth Bank|Commonwealth Bank of Australia]] laid 45 customer service staff off, replacing them with an automated AI voice bot. The bank reversed its decision amid pressure from a workers' union, admitting it "did not adequately consider all relevant business considerations and this error meant the roles were not redundant".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Subin |first=Samantha |date=2025-10-22 |title=AI is already taking white-collar jobs. Economists warn there's 'much more in the tank' |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/22/ai-taking-white-collar-jobs-economists-warn-much-more-in-the-tank.html |access-date=2026-06-24 |website=CNBC |language=en}}</ref><ref name=conversation>{{cite web|first1=Gediminas|last1=Lipnickas|accessdate=2026-09-25|title=The ‘doorman fallacy’: why careless adoption of AI backfires so easily|url=https://theconversation.com/the-doorman-fallacy-why-careless-adoption-of-ai-backfires-so-easily-268380|date=3 November 2025|website=The Conversation}}</ref> [[Robert M. Wachter]], Chair in Hospital Medicine at the [[University of California, San Francisco]], described the idea that AI could replace doctors an example of the fallacy.<ref>{{cite web|first1=Frank|last1=Landymore|accessdate=2026-09-25|title=American Medical Association Fires Back Against Paper Finding AI Is Now Outperforming Doctors|url=https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/american-medical-association-fires-back-ai-doctors|date=4 September 2026}}</ref>


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 00:26, 26 September 2026

Template:Short description The doorman fallacy is a category error in which a complex human role is reduced to a function, leading to the assumption that it can be replaced with a cost-effective automated substitute without loss of value, with decision-makers failing to understand the indirect, intangible, non-visible value they provide.[1]

The concept is closely related to ideas in behavioral economics and signaling theory, particularly the distinction between observable tasks and latent value creation.[2]

Origin

The term "doorman fallacy" was coined and popularized by Rory Sutherland in his 2019 book Alchemy. The Surprising Power of Ideas That Don’t Make Sense.[3]

The term "doorman" refers to the role of a hotel doorman, which is mistakenly assumed to be solely for opening doors. The hotel replaces the doorman with an automated door system as a cost-saving measure. However, they fail to realize the indirect functions such as the following:

  • Guest recognition and assistance
  • Providing security and surveillance
  • Status signaling and brand perception

Sutherland argues that such roles often create less visible value that exceeds their direct cost, meaning removal can reduce long-term profitability despite lowering operational expenditure.[3][4]

Use in AI

Recent discussions have extended the concept of the doorman fallacy to generative AI's replacement of white-collar and customer service roles.[5]

In 2025, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia laid 45 customer service staff off, replacing them with an automated AI voice bot. The bank reversed its decision amid pressure from a workers' union, admitting it "did not adequately consider all relevant business considerations and this error meant the roles were not redundant".[6][5] Robert M. Wachter, Chair in Hospital Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, described the idea that AI could replace doctors an example of the fallacy.[7]

See also

References