FaceDeer

It’s the Register, ranty articles written like a teenager is kind of their brand.

On the one hand, I hate seeing people scammed.

On the other hand, it’s nice that they have less money to spend on political donations.

That’s what the test will ultimately determine.

And next community over there’s [email protected], who continuously illustrate the capricious and hateful nature of many human moderators.

I say give AI a chance at it and see what happens. If it works, great. If it doesn’t, people will just go elsewhere.

Unlikely. AI is cheaper than humans, that’s the whole point. And you have no idea how well it’ll be able to do the job. Neither do they, which is why they’re planning a test first.

The problem with that kind of thing is always “who decides what’s hate-filled and false?” If there was a Federal government mechanism for that in the United States it would now be in the hands of Trump and the Republicans.

What is the point in posting an article when nobody’s going to address the contents of it?

Those questions can be asked about humans who are making the decision too. How long does it take for a human to determine that it’s an emergency? How many are going to mis-identify as a non-emergency? There’s nothing unique about AI here.

Seems like a good idea to have a mechanism to divert the non-emergency calls off of the 911 dispatchers, then.

They do want to hire more humans, there are job openings they’ve posted that are not being fulfilled. Since they’re not being fulfilled and they don’t have the money to increase their salaries to draw in more, they’re having to look for ways to make the resources they do have stretch farther. Hence, AI screening to shunt the non-emergency calls away from their existing human emergency dispatchers.

I didn’t bother looking up much about the parade, far more interesting things were going on yesterday. But I did see that one snippet of video where that one old WWII tank is driving past the mostly-empty bleacher in near total silence except for the “squeak-a squeak-a squeak-a squeak” of the tank’s treads, and that was just perfect. I don’t need to see any more.

Why is the AI required?

Because they don’t have enough human operators to field all of the calls they’re getting. If they did then they wouldn’t be having to look into using AI to screen them.

This is in the article.

If your standard is 100% accuracy and not a single call lost, then the existing human-staffed system fails at that too.

Oh, I’m not forgetting I’m on Lemmy, I know I’m in a strongly anti-AI bubble here. I just think it’s important for bubbles to be challenged, and this particular article seemed to be drawing a particularly strong knee-jerk reaction. I seem to have got a few people to actually read it, at least.

At the end of the day it’s not like upvotes or downvotes here matter. These AI systems will get implemented or not based on real-world considerations, not whether it’s popular in some particular niche online. It’s just nice to keep informed.

There’s without a doubt a problem, but AI isn’t the solution.

Unless it literally is. Do you know that it won’t be? What other example do you have to base your assertion on?

You said my comment conflicts with the article. In what way? What does the article say happens?

What does the article say, then? You know the answer, go ahead and correct me.

I’d say if one person calls with an emergency, gets AI, and doesn’t get transferred, then the entire system is failed and someone should go to jail.

Alright, let’s go with that standard for purposes of argument.

If one person calls the emergency line with an emergency and doesn’t get through because the human dispatchers are currently overwhelmed with non-emergency calls, does that mean the entire current system is failed and someone should go to jail?

Again, did you read the article?

Or even the comment I wrote that you are responding to right now? I said the answer to this in the comment you’re responding to.

Thank you for being the first person in this thread to actually go to any sort of effort to dig up factual counterarguments.