• shirro@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 days ago

    Working my way through Person of Interest again. Just watched one where a search company was directing suicidal inquiries to ads instead of helplines. And that was before they get bought by the evil AI overlord. Its surreal seeing Palantir, Flock and all the tech companies race to implement a dystopia no sane person would ever want and there is so little push back. What the fuck is wrong with regular people?

  • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 days ago

    This is exhausting y’all. God I fucking hate LLMs so much. This tech could be such a exciting break through, a step towards real artificial intelligence, but stuck in academia where it belongs. Instead of getting to be excited and interested this inanimate compilation of matrices is breathing down my neck constantly.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      This tech could be such a exciting break through, a step towards real artificial intelligence

      No, not really lol.

      The best analogy for this that I’ve heard is that it’s like saying elevators are a step towards teleporters. Calling it “intelligence” is a marketing coup. It is not intelligence, artificial or otherwise.

      • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Have you seen the first elevators? Or even used a chat bot prior to this? The definition of “AI” for a long time was just “decision trees” or some really neat classification systems. This is different. The hype and terrible business practices is the problem not the idea itself.

        I also agree that calling it Artificial intelligence is a marking scheme, it’s a loaded term machine learning is better. This has always kinda been a problem. Technically it’s very loosely defined. I always refer to it as LLMs

      • zbyte64@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        But what is intelligence?

        -every idiot who can’t tell the difference when they talk to a clanker

    • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      You’re not wrong. Swatting in that area is going to be so easy. United States police force has already shown for years now that if AI says anything they’ll just go with it and not question it. So if someone lives in the area and you want them ‘dealt with’ by the police, it’s going to be very easy. And the police aren’t going to look into it or hold themselves accountable. And the AI won’t be questioned or removed. If this goes large scale you can just make an API… Don’t like someone on twitch, well when you know it there will be an app for that…

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        shit, I didn’t even think of swatting, just a voice bot stalling really urgent calls for aid or an ambulance until patients die. What you brought up is even worse.

  • M137@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 days ago

    That title is written by someone who failed basic grammar. It should be “New Orleans will use AI instead of humans to answer 911 calls”.
    What it says as it’s written is “AI will only answer 911 calls but not a human”… which doesn’t make any sense.

    • percent@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      It’s also sensationalized. I guess the article’s actual headline just isn’t spicy enough:

      New Orleans hoping limited AI use could speed response for emergencies

  • TransNeko@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    there are tv shows that explain why this shit shouldn’t be done…

    like AI rejecting calls because the people were (rightly) hysterical and the AI could not calm them down.

  • zebidiah@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    Hey I bet Kanye West and a bewildered Mike Myers can explain why…

    …too bad Kanye West isn’t around anymore

  • terry_jerry@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    6 days ago

    All yall saying this is gunna kill people do not live in New Orleans. 911 is well know to move at the pace of a snail goin the wrong way up an escalator. This can only improve things (it won’t, but anything helps) , worst case it’s a change that no one notices. Some ones nephew got a contract for this, I garuntee it.

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      Oh I am sure putting a machine that’s only goal is to say things that seem real is going to help that…

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        Oh, how long until an AI ends up swatting people. There will probably even be different categories:

        1. Legit swat scenario, wrong address (or otherwise incorrect details make it turn tragic)
        2. Caller deliberately trying to swat innocent victim, AI goes along with it and adds credibility (not that humans seem to take away much credibility, so maybe this one shouldn’t really be a black mark for AIs if it does happen)
        3. AI just misinterprets a caller’s description, deploys swat team
        4. AI doesn’t trust the caller’s description, deploys swat team (anyone ever seen an agent start suspecting they were in an adversarial situation where something was injecting things into the context? I have)
        5. AI uses dispatching tool incorrectly, accidentally deploys swat team
        • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Or just as likely never dispatches in the case of a real emergency. I have a hard time thinking of what could go right.

    • Rachel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Hire more operators? Nah Ai bot? Sure Solid logic I also love how bloated police budgets are but get the other departments in the city related are struggling to keep the lights on.

    • PRIMEcavitationfetishist@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Yes. So many. Everyone involved in this decision, on both the legislative and corporate sides, needs to get the fucking wall.

      But it’s new Orleans, so some of the difficult to emotionally comprehend number of deaths it causes might at least be funny.

      • arrow74@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        I have mixed feelings on this and how they are implementing it. Here’s the direct quote

        This is intended to handle the increase of calls that are related to one incident, so callers get automatically routed to an AI agent who asks if they are calling regarding the incident. If the answer is yes, then callers can receive information or updates, and if it’s no, then the callers are transferred to a human.

        In a way this will reduce caller volume for the same incidents being called in over and over again. Seems like they are using a direct yes or no question which decreases any issues with the AI making shit up.

        I do see how this can free up humans to deal with other calls and dispatch lifesaving services faster, eliminating repeat calls.

        However, even if the AI works as described (which is a big if anyway), having to navigate even a simple yes or no will reduce time to lifesaving care.

        Our 911 system has been slow and inadequate for a long time now. There has been an absolute refusal to fix it, and this has led to deaths. I do see this application easing that issue a bit, but I also see how this will cause deaths in a different way. Is it better to die on hold waiting for an operator or is it better to die navigating an AI system? I think less would die overall with the new system. It has been trained using the non-emergency call line.

        To be clear I want us to just fund people to staff the 911 call center, but these shortages have been an issue for decades. Local governments refuse or are unable to take on the additional costs. I’m really unsure on how to feel about all this. My gut reaction is disgust, but I do see what they are trying to do. I guess we’ll have to wait for the data and stories

        • PRIMEcavitationfetishist@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          The key is to remember you can’t actually fix anything except with the wacky fashionable new scam. .and since when does a y/n require fucking “ai"?

          • arrow74@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            I think the summary of the existing incident and providing updates is where they are using the AI. Which if given a limited data set should work.

            These LLM models do actually a good job of summarizing a list of facts you feed it. The issues happen when you want it to make something “new”

            For 911 I’d rather the government find the money to fund them, but I do feel like they are using AI in an appropriate scope.

            AI should not be used in life and death situations like a 911. But the way they are going about the roll out is demonstrating how to actually use AI as a tool and not some miracle machine.

            They should have left it only on the non-emergency line and called it there.

            • PRIMEcavitationfetishist@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              A person could do this better faster cheaper lower odds of failure.

              ‘It can kinda do it sometimes so it’s ready to go live’ is slopper propaganda. There is no “AI” extant at this date.

              This is just an excuse to kill poor people. As all “ai” is.

      • percent@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        I ask this out of genuine, burning curiosity, and mean no rudeness by this…

        Did you read the article that the OP linked to?

        I don’t mean to single you out with this question, I’m just confused after scrolling this far through sooo many similar comments. It almost feels as if I somehow ended up reading a different article from everyone else.

        • theolodis@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Did you read the article?

          callers get automatically routed to an AI agent who asks if they are calling regarding the incident. If the answer is yes, then callers can receive information or updates, and if it’s no, then the callers are transferred to a human.

          So if somebody calls and is completely out of his mind, what will AI do?

          • percent@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            So if somebody calls and is completely out of his mind, what will AI do?

            Is this a rhetorical question?

            Just in case you wanted a real answer: The caller is obviously not saying “yes,” so transfer to human.

            To be clear: I don’t know anyone at Carbyne or OPCD. I can only offer speculation. But I’m curious: What would you have guessed?

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 days ago

              What if someone is obviously out of their mind and says yes? Random example, say someone has a stroke and has just barely figured out how to use the big red emergency call button on their phone screen. The AI asks if they are calling about blah blah emergency. Maybe the person only understands half of it, thinks they’re being asked if they’re calling about an emergency and say “yes”. Now they’re stuck having a form letter read to them by AI while their brain is dying. A person would catch something was up even if they said yes.

              The article even notes this can be a problem without anything medical going on:

              It’s also possible that AI agents handling 911 triage could fail to understand individuals with stronger accents and dialects, as well as differences in pitch and articulation. This is because AI is programmed with automatic speech recognition systems and, therefore, could potentialy be unreliable when presented with a speech unlike the ones used the AI is trained to recognize.

              Responding to people having emergencies is too important a task to leave up to voice recognition slapped on top of an LLM.

              • joe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                A person would catch something was up even if they said yes.

                Besides “because it supports the conclusion I want to arrive at”, what makes you believe this is true?

              • percent@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                I don’t know the concrete answer to your "what if,’ and I don’t think you or the author of the article do either. That would be a question for Carbyne.

                I would speculate that there is an answer, and that neither you nor the author are the first to think of these problem scenarios. There’s design, engineering, and real-world testing involved.

                • theolodis@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  I gave you the benefit of the doubt. If you’ve had lots of interactions with AI, I am not sure how you can think that anything with AI can work as expected, specially in complicated edge cases.

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      And then it will be nobody’s fault, nobody could have predicted this. <- Their pre-planned excuse.