Dual_Sport_Dork’s Ironclad Law Of AI Productivity: The amount of effort you must expend on ensuring that the unsupervised chatbot is always producing accurate results is precisely the same amount of effort you would expend doing the same work yourself.
No chat or didn’t give misleading information. It acted on the companies behalf and gave truthful information that the company didn’t agree with. Too flippin bad companies. You deploy robots to fulfill the jobs of humans, then you deal with the consequences when you lose money. I’m glad you’re getting screwed by your own greed, sadly it’s not enough.
Imagine when they find out it’s actually shit and they need to hire the people back and they ask for a good salary. They’ll turn around again asking their gouvernements for subsidies or temporary foreign workers saying no one wants to work anymore.
I’d love if there were some sort of salary baseline that companies are required to abide before asking for staffing handouts. “We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas!”
Lol. I’m all for raising the minimum wage to something livable. But also at the same time, there’s got to be some kind of mechanism that forces these companies to pay people properly. Either that or make unions mandatory.
The minimum wage really only applies to the lowest-requirement, manual-labor jobs. Ideally, the baseline he’s suggesting would adjust for certain expertise fields, perhaps just around the subject of when they can request immigration visas or outsourcing assistance.
So for instance you need a software engineer, you shouldn’t be able to offer a 70k salary, get no one (because software engineers value their time), and then claim there are no software engineers - you would have to be offering 110k+ before any assistance.
It’s called a prevailing wage request and one is required before an overseas worker can be considered for a position in the US. Yes this isn’t for handouts but for outsourcing work but that does exist in a sense.
Experts told the Vancouver Sun that Air Canada may have succeeded in avoiding liability in Moffatt’s case if its chatbot had warned customers that the information that the chatbot provided may not be accurate.
Customers are forced to. Companies would rather give shitty and inaccurate information with the veneer of helping someone rather than pay a human to actually help someone.
They will continue using chatbots as long as they think it won’t cost them more in lost customers or this sort of billing dispute than it saves them in not paying people. What was this, $600? That’s fuckall compared to a salary. $600 could happen a few hundred times a year and they’d still be profiting after firing some people.
It’s off for now, but it will return after the lawyers have had a go at making the company not liable for the chatbot’s errors.
To employ someone at 10$/hr, their actual cost is probably close to 15$/hr when you factor I them coming in to work in the office and all the costs associated with that. At 15$/hr it takes 40 hrs to cost 600$ to thr company. That is one week of work for one employee. This means that they could have a 600$ fuck up every week and still break even over hiring a person. And we are talking about just one person. Chat support is nor.ally contracted out as entire teams and departments.
What i find most stupid about all of this is that Air Canada could just have admitted a mistake, payed The refund of ~450 USD which is basically nothing to them. It would have waisted no one’s time and made good customer service and positive feedback. Then quietly fix the AI in the background and move on. Instead they now spend waaayy more money on legale fees, expensive lawyers, employees sallery, have a disabled AI, customer backlash and bad press all costing them many hundreds of thousands of dollars. So stupid.
You’d think they’d have tried a better case then. They lost in the court of public opinion as soon as it was about bereavement and their argument that the chatbot on their own site is a separate legal entity they aren’t responsible for is pants on head stupid.
In a way, we should be grateful they bungled it and are held liable, other companies may be held to the same standard in the future.
Paid. Something something “payed” is only for nautical rope or something.
waisted
Wasted. Something something “waisted” is only for dressmaking or something.
I can’t remember the details of what that bot says, but it is something along these lines. I am not a bot, and this action was performed manually. Cheers!
Thanks. I do know tho, but im slightly dyslexic and English is not my first language so it’s hard for me to catch my own mistakes, while I can easily see it when others are making it. Also autocorrect is a blessing and a curse for me sometimes.
I think it’s crazy that your comment is true right now, but we are also just on the cusp where it would be 100% possible to have every one of your Lemmy comments proofread and edited by a LLM “editor”.
I wonder how much time and space there will be to “play” between the first case in the US that would uphold this standard legally, and when companies lock down AI from edge cases. I’ve been breaking generative LLMs since they hit public accessibility. I’m a blackhat “prompt engineer”(I fucking hate that term).
It’s weird that Republicans latched onto something Obama did that Mr Bush did a few times each.
Except, in the past, tan suits and coloured face paint weren’t a sin; now we see it’s only an issue for them based on who’s doing it and whether they can rephrase and leverage it. Put Obama in mime makeup and a tan suit and some barely-used heads will explode.
It’s not weird. They just don’t give a fuck about truth or consistency. Consider: “what about her emails” vs. whatever it is they are saying about having boxes of classified documents and a copy machine in the bathroom.
What they care about is creating, maintaining, and empowering white supremacist hierarchies. Truth and integrity are secondary to their hierarchy.
He was black which is what they ‘latched’ on to. From that perspective - everything he does, wear, eat, say is wrong.
Just like that bitch Karen in HR, or some mean aunt, you probably hate. Once you have decided you hate someone - everything they do will be wrong. Even when it is a kind gesture - you will assume an ulterior motive.
LLMs only become increasingly more politically correct. I would assume any LLM that isn’t uncensored to return something about how that’s inappropriate, in whatever way it chooses. None of those things by themselves present any real conflict, but once you introduce topics that have a majority dataset of being contradictory, the llm will struggle. You can think deeply about why topics might contradict themselves, llms can’t. Llms function on reinforced neutral networks, when that network has connections that only strongly route one topic away from the other, connecting the two causes issues.
I haven’t, but if you want, take just that prompt and give it to gpt3.5 and see what it does.
That’s interesting. A normal computer program when it gets in a scenario it can’t deal with will throw an exception and stop. A human when dealing with something weird like “make Obama rewrite the Bible in Chinese” will just say “WTF?”
But it seems a flaw in these systems is that it doesn’t know when something is just garbage that there’s nothing that can be done with it.
Reminds me of when Google had an AI that could play Starcraft 2, and it was playing on the ladder anonymously. Lowko is this guy that streams games, and he was unknowingly playing it and beat it. What was interesting is the AI just kinda freaked out and started doing random things. Lowko (not knowing it was an AI) thought the other player was just showing bad manners because you’re supposed to concede when you know you’ve lost because otherwise you’re just wasting the other player’s time. Apparently the devs at google had to monitor games being played by the AI to force it to concede when it lost because the AI couldn’t understand that there was no longer any way it could win the game.
It seems like AI just can’t understand when it should give up.
It’s like some old sci-fi where they ask a robot an illogical question and its head explodes. Obviously it’s more complicated than that, but cool that there’s real questions in the same vein as that.
I once had a charge for Air Canada on my credit card. I immediately called in to the fraud number and said my number had been stolen. They asked me how I knew. I said I would never in my life fly on Air Canada unless there was no choice. They laughed and canceled the charge.
Can only speak for the UK but as the lowest civil court here, small claims decisions are not binding on any other court (including other small claims courts) but they are considered “pervasive” and thus a judge should be aware and take them into consideration.
Yeah, I mean, at the very least, it’s a solid argumentation. Any judge who’s given a similar case and doesn’t look up, if someone else already dealt with such a case, is just doing a disservice to themselves…
I could see this simply resulting in every chatbot having a disclaimer that it might be spitting straight bullshit and you should not use it for legal advice.
At this point, I do consider this a positive outcome, too, because it’s not always made obvious whether you’re talking with something intelligent or just a text generator.
But yeah, I would still prefer, if companies simply had to have intelligent support. This race to the bottom isn’t helping humanity.
Experts told the Vancouver Sun that Air Canada may have succeeded in avoiding liability in Moffatt’s case if its chatbot had warned customers that the information that the chatbot provided may not be accurate.
As usual, corporations want all of the PROFIT that comes with automation and laying off the human beings that made them money for years, but they also fight for none of the RESPONSIBILITY for the enshittification that occurs as a result.
No different than creating climate change contributing “externalities,” aka polluting the commons and walking away because lol you fucking suckers not their problem.
Add comment