[enraged_camel]

I've been working in the business automation field for over 10 years. I strongly disagree with what you wrote.

The entire purpose of automation (meaning, automation in general, not just business automation) is to take humans out of the equation for mundane and repetitive tasks[1], and have them deal only with exception scenarios and edge cases cannot be properly handled by the machine (either by design or due to system limitation).

Guess what happens when you have humans approve each and every automated action like you suggest? You defeat the purpose of automation, and users end up hating the system because mundaneness and repetition are reintroduced, except in a different context.

[1]The reason you want to do this is because the more mundane and repetitive a task is, the more likely people are to make mistakes, and mistakes can be costly. In fact they are often more costly than the labor itself.

[amenod]

That very much depends on the work you are automating away. For much of the business automation I agree. Invoice processing? Automate. Drip campaigns? Automate. Measuring performance of something? Automate.

But - picking the right photo for some restaurant, as GP stated in another comment? Make good UI and perform manually. Alternatively, train NN in background - but it might not make sense in a startup world where the effort for this would be prohibitively high. In the end it's the photos that matter to your business, not that fancy photo picker algorithm that took ages to develop and that you can't sell to anyone else.

[enraged_camel]

>>But - picking the right photo for some restaurant, as GP stated in another comment?

That’s not a good example though because it is unlikely to be repetitive and mundane. It’s a decision most restaurenteurs make at most a few times for each restaurant.

[mnutt]

Not in all cases, but in this particular case I think the "stepping on toes" part applies. Assuming that some percentage of repo authors do not want your proposed changes, your automated work is now now creating manual work for them to close the PRs. You either need to signal to the repo author that you have put at least as much effort into opening it as they would have to in order to evaluate and close it, or your proposed changes need to be _really_ beneficial.