making things bad on purpose

linebaugh

linebaugh

Well-known member
Leo said:
the ones that still have cashiers intentionally make the customer experience as unappealing as possible, in hopes people won't use them anymore. they have no incentive to make the line move faster.
Click to expand...
I return the favor and do my best to excude an uncomftorable repelling energy while at the bank. They never ask me to start building credit or open a new account any more
 
Clinamenic

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
I wonder if anyone here disagrees re: my LLM point, or if people would prefer things be kept “bad” on “purpose” just out of ludditic spite. Of course, I know I’m silly for expecting engagement here on these topics.
 
william_kent

william_kent

Well-known member
Open AI making their "chatGTP browse with Bing" feature bad on purpose:

ChatGPT Browse with Bing is a beta feature (available to ChatGPT Plus subscribers) that allows ChatGPT to search the internet to help answer questions that benefit from recent information. We have learned that the ChatGPT Browse beta can occasionally display content in ways we don't want. For example, if a user specifically asks for a URL's full text, it might inadvertently fulfill this request.

As of July 3, 2023, we’ve disabled the Browse with Bing beta feature out of an abundance of caution while we fix this in order to do right by content owners. We are working to bring the beta back as quickly as possible, and appreciate your understanding!
Click to expand...

citing "an abundance of caution" just in case chatGTP actually does what you asked it to do, like getting the full text of an article without seeing any adverts...
 
W

wild greens

Well-known member
Clinamenic said:
I wonder if anyone here disagrees re: my LLM point, or if people would prefer things be kept “bad” on “purpose” just out of ludditic spite. Of course, I know I’m silly for expecting engagement here on these topics.
Click to expand...

Your main issue is assuming the best of technology and the corporations intending to implement LLMs to remove people from payroll. You can attempt to condescend as part of the argument if you wish, but the reality is quite clear to most. Easy quick one, let's use todays FT as a small example


If this is the type of the behaviour exhibited on a day to day basis- I'm sure we could find examples of this every day for the last 50 years- then the idea that an LLM will be implemented under the same mentality on an altruistic basis is quite naive really
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
sufi said:
this is blatantly not true look at wikipedia web archive etc yawn zzz
Click to expand...
Right, but at the risk of stating the obvious, Wikipedia isn't owned by Google, whereas YouTube is. And Google is not a charity.
 
Clinamenic

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
wild greens said:
Your main issue is assuming the best of technology and the corporations intending to implement LLMs to remove people from payroll. You can attempt to condescend as part of the argument if you wish, but the reality is quite clear to most. Easy quick one, let's use todays FT as a small example


If this is the type of the behaviour exhibited on a day to day basis- I'm sure we could find examples of this every day for the last 50 years- then the idea that an LLM will be implemented under the same mentality on an altruistic basis is quite naive really
Click to expand...
Oh I definitely agree that the market forces driving these things are not altruistic - got to learn that firsthand in blockchain, where the forces driving the public goods applications are quite small compared to the venture capital forces driving the financial/speculative applications.

HuggingFace, or more broadly some subset of the open-source AI developer community, seems like an analogous example here to the public goods crowd I'm referencing, where the bulk of the funding in the industry is (presumably) going to proprietary models which will be deployed to profit-maximizing ends, whereas any altruistic applications would need to be fueled by philanthropic funding and/or free time of open-source developers.

Re: customer service, I'm not familiar enough with the industrial landscape of AI to know who is working on this, but I'd imagine that particular application is already seeing instances of this, and I'd imagine the right handling of it would be a smoother user experience than the multi-choice voice options where you need to say the exact phrase listed in the options.

Would an LLM be a smoother user experience than an actual human representative? I'd say that depends on a lot of things, such as the sophistication of the model, the tendency for human representatives to get jaded/frustrated with customers, etc.

That said, if companies start to find that LLMs do outperform human representatives in this customer support role, I'd imagine best practices would shift accordingly - not because companies care about customer experience for altruistic reasons, but because they care about customer experience for profit-maximizing reasons.
 
Clinamenic

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Don't mean to imply that open-source necessarily means for the public good, but open source does generally tend to be a characteristic of digital public goods (non-excludable, non-rivalrous).
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
Right, but at the risk of stating the obvious, Wikipedia isn't owned by Google, whereas YouTube is. And Google is not a charity.
Click to expand...

Everything should be free and provided by benevolent, altruistic nonprofit organizations that also maintain high levels of innovation, Tea.
 
Clinamenic

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
I'm actually developing a praxis to that effect, however naively, informed by my experience in the nonprofit subsector of a regulatory vacuum caused by emerging tech. The gist is that if nonprofit self-regulatory institutions can be set up in industries (primarily tech, I'd imagine) which have regulatory vacuums, these bodies can help coordinate those markets and nudge the tech a bit closer to the public good, rather than just letting pure market forces determine the societal entelechy of emerging tech.
 
Clinamenic

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
But that notion of change-making is so far upstream from the material reality most people experience (IE effectively farther ahead into the future, according to that "future is unevenly distributed" idea), that not only is it difficult to actually steer the entelechy, but it is also difficult to identify causal provenance.

EG consider the DAO space, a ultra-niche industry which is essentially building new digital native consensus mechanisms for more horizontal organizational structures. If any of these mechanisms "catch on," either intentionally or incidentally, and, say, change how labor unions work, it will likely be difficult to look back and identify the precise actions which amounted to said mechanism(s) being conceived, developed, and adopted.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Leo said:
the only way a “free service” for users can exist is to be ad supported. If you use ad blockers, what do you expect? there’s no such thing as a free lunch, versh.
Click to expand...
I was going to say 'Did Jesus come with ads?' but then realised that Jesus was all ad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top