• joe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    All it needs to do is be at least as good as a human, and humans get tired, distracted, irritable, etc. so it’s pretty easy to outperform humans.

    It’s only looking for the word “yes”. Literally any other sound and it routes to a human.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The difference being that operators aren’t working tired, distracted, and irritable for their entire shift while AI is functionally brain damaged the entire time.

      If you’re going to refuse to acknowledge that just listening for the word ‘yes’ isn’t enough in an emergency situation then there’s no point in continuing this. Which, if it’s literally just a binary yes/no why the hell do we need AI and not ‘press 1 if you’re calling about x emergency’?

      • joe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Which, if it’s literally just a binary yes/no why the hell do we need AI and not ‘press 1 if you’re calling about x emergency’?

        But but but what if the person is stroking out and presses 1 when they meant 2???

        • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Oh, so that is a concern when it comes to pointing out the ways in which AI is a solution looking for a problem, but not when it comes to pointing out this could kill people?

          Not that you bothered to ask, but my solution is to add enough operators so that they aren’t working barely staffed at all times and getting overwhelmed the second more than a few calls come in. Working constantly at minimum staffing is the problem, this was solvable before 2022 without AI and it still isn’t necessary.

          • joe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            I thought the extra question marks would have made it clear I was being sarcastic. No sarcasm this time: I’m sorry I wasn’t clear enough. That’s on me. Sorry.

            My ambiguous sarcasm aside, I was pointing out that your solution also had the same problem you were trying to solve, because that problem is always there, no matter what.

            Not that you bothered to ask, but my solution is to add enough operators so that they aren’t working barely staffed at all times and getting overwhelmed the second more than a few calls come in.

            And if we lived in a world where money wasn’t very frequently the limiting factor, your solution might have merit. Unfortunately, capitalism is still something we have to deal with.