Yeah I just don’t buy that there is a case where any “net gain” here is justified. These are people’s lives that you’re playing with by reducing them to what amounts to a balance sheet in the name of saving money.
The idea that you would create the possibility of denying someone emergency care that didn’t exist before, no matter how improbable (probably not even that improbable, given the propensity even the most advanced frontier AI models have for getting things wrong or hallucinating entirely despite simple instructions) just to save 10-15 seconds on average for other callers is not only absurd on its face, but morally bankrupt. You can personally ignore it because you don’t live there and it’s not the lives of you or your family at stake. I think those who this system could fail would not be able to ignore a flaw like that when it happens to them, and the idea that their peril was “highly improbable” will not be of much comfort to them.
The problem is that there are staffing shortages. The solution is hiring more staff. Trying to cheat our way out by implementing a system prone to unmitigatable flaws that could have life-altering or even life ending consequences isn’t a solution, it’s dystopian.
AI bot tells them that responders have already >been dispatched
So you’re gating whether or not a caller in an emergency gets to speak to a human based on the audio recognition of a robot?
Easy enough to make it so that if the bot doesn’t hear a yes or a no clearly it defaults to forwarding the call, but what happens when a person says no and the bot “hears” yes?
It has a meaning, there just isn’t a strictly defined point at which something is no longer a startup. It’s used when it makes sense, which it does in this case. I’m guessing you’re not a native English speaker which is the source of your frustration. In the English language we have lots of words that are used to describe things which aren’t like enforced by some kind of regulating body. Colloquial uses of all kinds of words are pretty common.
If openAI has an "unproven business model" they're not a startup they're a failed business living off of borrowed and leveraged assets.
Thats what makes them a startup. “Failing businesses living off borrowed and leveraged assets with a hope and a dream that if they get big enough they won’t be failing anymore” is a pretty accurate assessment of what a startup is.
You’ve said plenty pro-AI lol. You don’t have to get so defensive about it, just own your position.
I’ve exaggerated nothing. Hank himself said he’s spoken to both his wife and brother about his AI use and said they “didn’t pull any punches”, which implies there was a blunt conversation about it, if not two.
Startup doesn’t really have a strict definition but generally the term is used for a business with an unproven business model that has to scale rapidly just to be viable, and often relies on VC funding. This is opposed to like starting your own plumbing business with your own capital and you’re profitable as soon as you pick up a couple regular clients.
OpenAI doesn’t have a business model yet and they don’t make any money so it makes sense that they haven’t shed the startup label. Like a roughly accurate test is to imagine what would happen if all the outside investments disappeared overnight. Could OpenAI continue operating on its own two feet? If the answer is no, it’s still a startup.
He said they “did not pull any punches” which implies it was a more blunt conversation than you’re suggesting.
Hank Green himself describes his relationship with AI the same way you would an addiction, and specifically mentions the dopamine reaction driving his use of it to a point where he became overwhelmed by it.
He’s not describing a casual discussion about table salt, he’s literally describing a drug/alcohol addiction.
His AI use caused him so many problems in his private life that his family had to intervene. His point of view is “This technology has had a negative impact on my life and the lives of the people I care about”.
The reason this is happening is because the cost of DRAM is ballooning the prices of all electronics and they are fully aware that people can’t pay the new higher prices even if they wanted to. Lower monthly payments is the difference between whether a lot of people buy an Apple or Samsung device at all.
I wouldn’t call this move nefarious on its own, but it is a dystopian side affect of the real problem which is DRAM price gauging.
In America you can have whatever the top tier of vision insurance is available to you and it’s basically a $100 off coupon for frames. I’ve never not spent $300-$400 for glasses.
Yeah I just don’t buy that there is a case where any “net gain” here is justified. These are people’s lives that you’re playing with by reducing them to what amounts to a balance sheet in the name of saving money.
The idea that you would create the possibility of denying someone emergency care that didn’t exist before, no matter how improbable (probably not even that improbable, given the propensity even the most advanced frontier AI models have for getting things wrong or hallucinating entirely despite simple instructions) just to save 10-15 seconds on average for other callers is not only absurd on its face, but morally bankrupt. You can personally ignore it because you don’t live there and it’s not the lives of you or your family at stake. I think those who this system could fail would not be able to ignore a flaw like that when it happens to them, and the idea that their peril was “highly improbable” will not be of much comfort to them.
The problem is that there are staffing shortages. The solution is hiring more staff. Trying to cheat our way out by implementing a system prone to unmitigatable flaws that could have life-altering or even life ending consequences isn’t a solution, it’s dystopian.