(Glad we’re treating each other with mutual respect)
Would you rather pay for a limited in depth, energy inefficient (food/shelter/fossil-fuel consuming) and less accessible (needs to sleep, has an outside life) human, or an AI that can adapt and gain skills with a few thousand training cycles.
I dont buy the energy argument. I dont buy the skills argument. I do buy the argument that humans shouldn’t be second to automatons and deserve to be nurtured, but only on ethical grounds.
If we have a people communication method, let them talk to people. If it’s a computer interface, apeing humans is a waste and less accessible than a web form.
How is someone that speaks a different language supposed to translate that voice bot? Wouldn’t it be more simple to translate text on a screen?
What’s the value add pretending?
The AI can’t adapt in the moment. A hotel is not a technology company that can train a model. It won’t be bespoke, so it won’t be following current, local laws.
w.r.t to aping and using text: I agree with your appeals, which make sense to seasoned web users who favour text and APIs over instead images, videos, and audio.
But consider now your parents generation: flummoxed by even the clearest of web forms, and that’s even when they manage to make it to the official site.
Consider also the next generation: text/forum abhorrent, and largely consumes video/audio content.
It’s not the way things should be, but it is the way things are/are going, and having a bot that can navigate these default forms of media would help a lot of people.
I’d say that AI definitely can adapt in the moment if you supply it with the right context (where context-length is a problem that will get cheaper with time). A hotel doesn’t need to train the model, it can supply its AI-provider with a basic spec sheet and they can do the training. Bespoke laws and customs can be inserted into the prompt.
The older generation isn’t going to be getting their end-user AI agents working either. While the next generation may consume more video content than before, all the kids I know still get frustrated at a video that could have just been text unless it is something they want to enjoy.
The only time voice makes sense is to facilitate real time communication between two humans because they can speak faster than they can type. Conversational approach to use cases often have limits, though that doesn’t preclude AI technology from providing those interfaces, so long as they aren’t constrained to voice. A chat agent that pops up a calendar UI when scheduling is identified as the goal, for example.
The older generation are going to give permission to some random monolithic AI company to listen to their calls and handle their lives for them. Bookings will take place automatically, and a verbal grievance will be voiced to prompt the AI (local or otherwise) to negotiate a rebook. It’s way faster than dealing with a form.
Frankly the folks old enough to be defeated by the technology are old enough to likely be unable to even give them fodder for training. At this point you are talking about people generally in their 80s and/or with some dementia, who need someone with power of attorney to take care of any of these scenarios anyway. They may be able to do day to day life, but they need someone who can act on their behalf knowing what they would want even if they themselves can’t competently convey it.
People under 80 generally can navigate these interfaces now without a problem, and frequently prefer it. The out of touch 60 year old is a pretty old stereotype.
But what if my human is late or my customers are disabled?
If you spent time giving your employees instructions, you did half the design work for a web form.
I guess I’m not quite following, aren’t these also simple but dynamic tasks suited to an AI?
How is it suited to AI?
Would you rather pay for a limited, energy inefficient and less accessible thing or a real human that can adapt and gain skills, be mentored?
I don’t know why there’s a question here
(Glad we’re treating each other with mutual respect)
Would you rather pay for a limited in depth, energy inefficient (food/shelter/fossil-fuel consuming) and less accessible (needs to sleep, has an outside life) human, or an AI that can adapt and gain skills with a few thousand training cycles.
I dont buy the energy argument. I dont buy the skills argument. I do buy the argument that humans shouldn’t be second to automatons and deserve to be nurtured, but only on ethical grounds.
If we have a people communication method, let them talk to people. If it’s a computer interface, apeing humans is a waste and less accessible than a web form.
How is someone that speaks a different language supposed to translate that voice bot? Wouldn’t it be more simple to translate text on a screen?
What’s the value add pretending?
The AI can’t adapt in the moment. A hotel is not a technology company that can train a model. It won’t be bespoke, so it won’t be following current, local laws.
w.r.t to aping and using text: I agree with your appeals, which make sense to seasoned web users who favour text and APIs over instead images, videos, and audio.
But consider now your parents generation: flummoxed by even the clearest of web forms, and that’s even when they manage to make it to the official site.
Consider also the next generation: text/forum abhorrent, and largely consumes video/audio content.
It’s not the way things should be, but it is the way things are/are going, and having a bot that can navigate these default forms of media would help a lot of people.
I’d say that AI definitely can adapt in the moment if you supply it with the right context (where context-length is a problem that will get cheaper with time). A hotel doesn’t need to train the model, it can supply its AI-provider with a basic spec sheet and they can do the training. Bespoke laws and customs can be inserted into the prompt.
The older generation isn’t going to be getting their end-user AI agents working either. While the next generation may consume more video content than before, all the kids I know still get frustrated at a video that could have just been text unless it is something they want to enjoy.
The only time voice makes sense is to facilitate real time communication between two humans because they can speak faster than they can type. Conversational approach to use cases often have limits, though that doesn’t preclude AI technology from providing those interfaces, so long as they aren’t constrained to voice. A chat agent that pops up a calendar UI when scheduling is identified as the goal, for example.
The older generation are going to give permission to some random monolithic AI company to listen to their calls and handle their lives for them. Bookings will take place automatically, and a verbal grievance will be voiced to prompt the AI (local or otherwise) to negotiate a rebook. It’s way faster than dealing with a form.
Frankly the folks old enough to be defeated by the technology are old enough to likely be unable to even give them fodder for training. At this point you are talking about people generally in their 80s and/or with some dementia, who need someone with power of attorney to take care of any of these scenarios anyway. They may be able to do day to day life, but they need someone who can act on their behalf knowing what they would want even if they themselves can’t competently convey it.
People under 80 generally can navigate these interfaces now without a problem, and frequently prefer it. The out of touch 60 year old is a pretty old stereotype.