Whenever I call in to a service because it’s not working, when I get stuck talking to a computer, I’m fucking furious. Every single AI implementation I’ve worked with has been absolute trash. I spam click zero and yell “operator” when it says it didn’t hear me or asks for my problem, and I’ve 100% of the time made it through to a person. People also suck, but they at least understand what I’m saying and aren’t as patronizing.
You don’t need “ai” to do any of that. That is something we’ve been able to do for a long time. Whether or not call centers or help desks implemented a digital assistant is a different story.
I hope they all go under. I’ve no sympathy for them and I wish nothing but the worst for them.
Cool, but that doesn’t happen in the general election. The seems aren’t good, but had 3rd party and non voters voted for Harris, then yes, the Democratic party would have saved us from Trump. Realistically, it’s the people saving us from Trump via the Democratic party, but at the end of the day, we got Trump because those same individuals decided a Trump presidency was the better outcome. Full stop.
If someone is going to Wikipedia specifically looking for information in a STEM field, then an AI summary isn’t going to help them. Odds are they can also read, because they’re looking up STEM topics.
Also, is Wikipedia not available around the world, or you just think only Americans can’t read? Inflammatory just for the sake of being inflammatory I’m guessing. Shit troll job.
I agree with you on everything you wrote.
I’m not trying to say that Harris would have been good for Palestine, or even a good POTUS. I’m saying she was the less bad option overall in the election. I don’t know that anything would be different with Israel had she won, but I think there was a better chance that she would have done something good over Trump doing something good. That could still be a negligible chance, but it was the better of two chances.
Like you said, local elections and primaries (when they’re held, but that’s separate from this overall conversation) are when to vote for different parties and more fringe candidates. One of two people is already the winner in the election by the time November rolls around, so it comes down to least bad.
You’re right, it would have, but the reality was Trump or Harris. It was still an extremely easy decision, but it would have been better if the less shitty candidate was even less shitty.
It was, because that’s reality. It does disregard a lot of criticism, because again, at the end of the day, there were two candidates, and one was going to win. Harris wasn’t, imo, a good candidate, but Trump was a far worse.
In the US, it’s been that way for the better part of the past century, because FPtP always devolves to a two party system. This past election was no different.
I’m specifically arguing with/against non voters, 3rd party voters, and Trump voters. I also pinched my nose and voted for Harris in November. I’m not going to argue for the democratic party, because it’s the second worst major party in the US, and they suck. Unfortunately, we are a FPtP nation, so in the general we get two options and get to pick who’s less bad. Lot’s of people that voted for Harris did so with that in mind.
All, unfortunately, true.
Edit: Unfortunate for us in the US, not necessarily unfortunate for the rest of the world in some aspects. I still think as a whole his influence and other actions probably still make him worse for the world, but there is a valid argument about nations growing less dependent on the US.
Hopefully in 3.5 years (or please God, less), the US will be knocked down a peg on the world stage, other nations have a more diverse and stable trade relationships, and maybe Trump’s actions will help spark other countries into action against hard right politics to prevent the same thing from happening to them. Ideally, this could be a catalyst for positive change, but I’m not holding my breath.
The argument has always been, of the two candidates, one of which will win, which is less bad? People that voted third party or didn’t vote decided that Trump is less bad.
Some of them I’m sure thought it, but definitely a minority. It’s the fact that Gaza was used as a means to target Harris, and against all evidence suggesting it would be the same or worse, didn’t do the same to condemn Trump.
Same. I’ve had cancer wished on me, suicide, and a few other things. Like you said, it’s solidly let me know the kind of people that I’m criticizing.
Someone lost a friend in Lebanon, and that’s sad. I’m sure if they were still here, they’d be stoked that their friend effectively supported Donald Trump to help out though.
She would have been better for the world as a whole than Trump. If you truely think that things would have played out exactly the same in Gaza with Harris as POTUS, then it still comes down to two candidates last November, and every person knew that one of them would win. So a vote for Trump, a non vote, or a third party vote directly benefited Trump.
“Oh but I voted against genocide”, fuck no you didn’t. You voted in a manner that directly put Trump in charge, which was the worst possible outcome.
Ok, so assume all things equal, everything happens the same in Gaza… Trump is still significantly worse in every other facet. So yea, all third party voters and non voters are fucking moronic Trump supporters. A bunch of ignorant fuckwits that think that they made a difference by standing up against the establishment. Congrats, we got Trump.
There’s only so many ways to say that there were two outcomes last November, and everyone knew that. If y’all can’t wrap your head around that reality 6 months later, then that says everything about your ability to reason.
Oh boy you rustled some jimmies. Idk that I’ve seen a single comment where every response was down voted for being shitty takes.
I’m sure all of those third party and non voters are jerking off all over themselves for saving Palestine and ending the genocide through Donald Trump.
Hey, at least they’ve got their pedestals to look down on us from.
It’s not important. You said AI isn’t being marketed to be able to do everything. I said yes it is. That’s it.
You are both completely over estimating the intelligence level of “anyone” and not living in the same AI marketed universe as the rest of us. People are stupid. Really stupid.
Marketing does not mean functionality. AI is absolutely being sold to the public and enterprises as something that can solve everything. Obviously it can’t, but it’s being sold that way. I would bet the average person would be surprised by this headline solely on what they’ve heard about the capabilities of AI.
My counter is that if the question I ask the chat bot is too complicated to answer, then it should be redirected to a person that can.
Whenever I’m thinking of examples where I interface with these bots, it’s usually because my internet is down or some other service. After the most basic of prompts, I expect actual customer service, not being pawned off in something else.
It really is a deal breaker in many cases for me. If I were to call in somewhere as a prospective customer, and if I were addressed my a computer, I will not do business there. It tells me everything I need to know about how a company views it’s customers.
I do think “AI” as an internal tool for a lot of businesses makes sense in a lot of applications. Perhaps internal first contact for customer service or in code development as something that can work as a powerful linter or something that can generate robust unit testing. I feel it should almost never be customer facing.
I mainly disagree with you out of spite for AI, not because I disagree with the ideal vision that you have on the topic. It hasn’t been super mainstream long enough for me to be burned as many times as I have been, and the marketing makes me want to do bad things.