Everything is Shit: Tracking the Great Enshittening

[troph 25088]

On 6/21/2024 at 9:12 AM, hookemATL said:

I think you just want to type/say “Boolean” bc it’s a funny and silly word that sounds like a magical elephant with a pierced clit. 

[Bevo 13817]

"Bootian" sound like a new creature in the next Guardians of the Galaxy movie.

[HenryJames 67113]

https://www.fastcompany.com/91142882/mcdonalds-ai-drive-thru-ordering-glitches

Spoiler

Bacon ice cream, a handful of butter: McDonald’s scraps AI drive-through orders after hilarious glitches

The fast-food giant is ending its testing of voice-automated ordering systems and going back to human workers at the window.

Sarah Bregel

McDonald’s is ditching its drive-through AI ordering system after too many customers wound up with hilarious, wonky orders from the artificial intelligence tech.

The fast food giant, which had been testing voice-automated ordering systems at about 100 restaurant drive-throughs since 2021, is now booting it from the menu. It seems to be because AI, at least when it comes to taking orders as people shout them from their car windows, turns out not to be a very good listener.

The systems’ miscalculations have led to some highly amusing viral videos with absurdly incorrect orders—like a handful of butter, hundreds of chicken nuggets, and ice cream loaded with bacon.

Restaurant Business was first to report the news that the chain would ditch AI and go back to real drive-through workers in all of its restaurants for the time being.

“After a thoughtful review, McDonald’s has decided to end our current partnership with IBM on AOT, and the technology will be shut off in all restaurants currently testing it no later than July 26, 2024,” Mason Smoot, chief restaurant officer for McDonald’s USA, said in an email obtained by Restaurant Business.

“While there have been successes to date, we feel there is an opportunity to explore voice ordering solutions more broadly,” Smoot explained. In a statement to Fast Company, McDonald’s said it was confident that “a voice ordering solution for drive-thru will be part of our restaurants’ future,” and it hoped to “make an informed decision on a future voice ordering solution by the end of the year.”

While the company is no longer working with IBM on the new tech, the email asserted that the corporation “remains a trusted partner” that McDonald’s “will still utilize,” while also seeking other partnerships in its future AI ventures.

The tech won’t be gone from the fast food giant’s restaurants forever, but the company says it will wait until competitors bring in AI, too.

However, lots of other chains are already using AI more broadly. Checkers, Hardee’s, Wendy’s, Dunkin’, and Taco Bell have tested AI technology in drive-throughs, while some have fully implemented it.

Wendy’s has begun using AI to adapt their menu, too, by implementing AI menu changes and suggestive selling based on things like the weather. Not only will it suggest items based on the weather, but the AI-driven menu could also change prices of more in-demand items—like boosting the price of ice cream on a hot day.

Chains have high hopes about AI, but the ordering systems haven’t been as smooth or accurate as customers would hope. It’s leading to a lot of grief in the drive-through lane, which has been making fast food a little less fast. Hopefully, the tech giants can work out the kinks—and fast—because absolutely nobody wants butter in place of a Big Mac. There are some things that robots just don’t understand.

 

[956 Worldwide 35513]

[HenryJames 67113]

Spoiler

Why You’re Paying Your Veterinarian So Much

People have grown more attached to their pets — and more willing to spend money on them — turning animal medicine into a high-tech industry worth billions.

Published June 23, 2024Updated June 24, 2024, 9:31 a.m. ET

 

Heather Massey of Carlton, Ga., with her dog, Lunabear. She is still paying off a bill for scans and care six years after her previous dog, Ladybird, was diagnosed with brain cancer.Audra Melton for The New York Times

Heather Massey brought Ladybird to the veterinarian when the 9-year-old muttbegan having seizures. A scan from an M.R.I. machine revealed bad news: brain cancer.

With the prognosis grim, Ms. Massey decided against further treatment at the animal hospital near her home in Athens, Ga., and Ladybird died four months later. The M.R.I. scan and related care had cost nearly $2,000, which Ms. Massey put on a specialty credit card she had learned about at a previous vet visit.

That was in 2018. She is still paying off the debt, with more than 30 percent interest.

“Could I afford to do that? Not really,” said Ms. Massey, 52, who is disabled and does not work. “Was it worth it to me? Yes.”

Ms. Massey’s experience illustrates the expensive new realities of owning a pet. For decades, veterinarians typically operated their own clinics, shepherding generations of pets from birth to death. They neutered, vaccinated and pulled thorns from paws and noses. When animals became seriously ill, vets often had little to offer beyond condolences and a humane death.

But in recent years, as people have grown more attached to their pets — and more willing to spend money on them — animal medicine has transformed into a big business that looks a lot like its human counterpart. Many veterinary offices have been replaced by hospitals outfitted with expensive M.R.I. machines, sophisticated lab equipment and round-the-clock intensive care units. Dogs and cats often see highly trained specialists in neurology, cardiology and oncology.

This high-tech care has spurred a booming market. Veterinary prices have soared more than 60 percent over the past decade, according to federal statistics. Private equity firms and large corporations have bought hundreds of facilities around the country, an acquisition spree reminiscent of the corporate roll-ups of doctors’ offices.

Veterinarians from around the country told The New York Times that their corporate managers were pushing clinics to become more efficient profit centers. Vets were often paid based on how much money they brought in, creating an incentive to see more pets, order more tests and upsell wellness plans and food.

Veterinary care prices have soared in the past decade

Cumulative change in prices since April 2014

The result is an increasingly unsustainable situation for animal owners, most of whom don’t have pet insurance.

The Times asked readers to share their stories about expensive vet bills, and hundreds responded. Sophia McElroy of Denver said she donated blood plasma and took extra freelance work to pay for her dog’s ongoing expenses.

Nancy Partridge of Waynesville, N.C., said that months after her cat was diagnosed with an inoperable tumor, she was still chipping away at the $1,500 bill. “We have a dead cat, and we’re still paying,” she said.

In 2015, Claire Kirsch was earning less than $10 an hour as a veterinary technician in Georgia when her own dog, Roscoe, and her horse, Gambit, each had medical emergencies, resulting in bills that totaled more than $13,000. Ms. Kirsch said her animals would have died had she not opted for additional care.

“I knew I would never be able to forgive myself if we didn’t try,” she said.

Claire Kirsch, with her horse, Gambit. Vet bills for Gambit and Ms. Kirsch’s dog, Roscoe, totaled more than $13,000 at a time when she was earning less than $10 an hour as a veterinary technician.Brittany Greeson for The New York Times

Ms. Kirsch maxed out a credit card, tapped into her husband’s retirement account and took out a personal loan. Roscoe lived another three years, and Gambit is still alive.

In interviews, veterinarians said pet owners who complained about care costs don’t appreciate the difficulties of running a clinic. Veterinarians make far less money than human doctors and are often in debt from years of education. Their prices have gone up partly because of the rising cost of drugs, vaccines and other supplies, as well as paying workers in a tight labor market.

And because of more advanced medical offerings, pets today can survive serious illnesses, like cancer, that would once have been unthinkable. They have access to surgeries and drugs that can vastly improve their lives.

“We live in the most technologically advanced time in human history, and how wonderful is that?” said Dr. Tracy Dewhirst, a veterinarian in Corryton, Tenn. “But it comes at a cost.”

Even run-of-the-mill visits can rack up big bills. Dr. David Roos, an 86-year-old veterinarian in Los Altos, Calif., said he decided to retire one day in 2014, when he checked on a dog whose owners were longtime clients. The animal had been admitted for vomiting. Dr. Roos said he normally would have told the owner to take the dog home and to give it sips of water. Instead, another vet had ordered X-rays, blood tests, intravenous fluids and a hospital stay. Dr. Roos knew the owners could not afford the bill.

“I realized at that stage that veterinary medicine had changed to the point where I no longer wanted to be a part of it,” Dr. Roos said.

Ms. Kirsch’s dog Roscoe after having his gallbladder removed at the University of Georgia. He lived for three more years.Claire Hirsch

Ms. Massey’s late dog, Ladybird.Celeste Cleary

With a growth in pet ownership and surveys showing that Americans are willing to go into debt to pay for their animals’ care, vet clinics have become increasingly attractive to investors. About one-quarter of primary care clinics and three-quarters of specialty clinics are now owned by corporations, according to Brakke Consulting, which focuses on the animal health industry.

In 2015, one major player, Mars — known for selling candy and pet food — acquired a specialty veterinary hospital chain, BluePearl, for an undisclosed sum. In 2017, it nabbed another hospital, VCA, for $9.1 billion. The trend peaked in 2021, with more than 200 private equity deals, according to Pitchbook.

Several veterinarians who have worked in corporate practices said that they were pressured to drive more business. One vet from California said she quit her job after she was told her “cost per client” was too low. Another, from Virginia, said she was told she needed to see 21 animals per day. A third, from Colorado, said she was taken aback when she overheard a manager saying some of the vets at her office needed coaching on “getting the client to a yes.” These vets asked to withhold their names because they worried that speaking out could jeopardize future job prospects with private-equity practices.

Other vets said that corporate ownership had no influence on the care they provided. Still, Dr. Andrew Federer, the medical director of a clinic in Mentor, Ohio, that is owned by a chain called National Veterinary Associates, said that when someone’s pay is tied to how many procedures and tests they perform, the incentives could be difficult to ignore, especially for vets who were just starting out.

“The more they bring into the hospital above their current salary, the more of a production bonus they will receive,” he said.

Dr. David Roos, a retired veterinarian in Los Altos, Calif., with his dog Chester. He said he decided to retire one day in 2014, when longtime clients could not afford the tests and other procedures that another vet ordered for their dog.Mike Kai Chen for The New York Times

Only about 4 percent of pet owners have insurance, and even for them, the options are limited. Pet insurance often excludes pre-existing conditions and costs more for older pets who are more likely to get sick.

Companies can also change the terms. This spring, the insurance company Nationwide notified thousands of pet owners that it was discontinuing their coverage, leaving them scrambling to enroll in new plans that excluded the pets’ pre-existing conditions. About 100,000 plans are being discontinued, said Kevin Kemper, a Nationwide spokesman.

Stephanie Boerger of Royal Oak, Mich., said that Nationwide had been covering her cat’s chemotherapy, but told her it would not renew her plan when it expired in August. The treatment, which costs about $1,000 every other month, will not be covered under any available plan.

“Now I feel like I have to choose between paying for my cat’s chemo or letting her die,” said Ms. Boerger, who was able to find new coverage through a competing company.

In a statement, the Nationwide spokesman cited the rising cost of veterinary care. “We are making these tough decisions now so that we can continue to be here for even more pets in the future,” he said.

Many veterinarians offer specialty credit cards sold by outside companies, such as the CareCredit card that was used by Ms. Kirsch and Ms. Massey. Last year, the Biden administration warned that these medical credit cards — which were also promoted by doctors and dentists — drove many consumers into debilitating debt. A spokeswoman for CareCredit said that about 80 percent of cardholders paid off their debt before the no-interest introductory period expired.

Some groups, including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, are researching how vets can perform common procedures more cheaply. And many veterinarians say they try to offer a “spectrum of care,” a nonjudgmental way of discussing less expensive options.

For many people, a pet’s companionship is priceless.

After Ladybird died, Ms. Massey adopted Lunabear, a Lab mix that she jokes is “allergic to the very air we breathe.” Lunabear needs prescription food that costs $6 a can and takes a $3 allergy pill three times a day. Last year, she had leg surgery.

These costs have totaled nearly $4,000, much of which has been charged to the high-interest credit card. But Ms. Massey, who has major depression and lives alone, said her dogs took top priority. “I pay my bills, and then I buy food,” she said.

Ben Casselman contributed reporting.

 

[HenryJames 67113]

[HenryJames 67113]

[Brisketexan 106607]

8 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Kurt.  Loder.  Wept.

[Biff Tannen 46060]

6 hours ago, HenryJames said:

  Hide contents

Why You’re Paying Your Veterinarian So Much

People have grown more attached to their pets — and more willing to spend money on them — turning animal medicine into a high-tech industry worth billions.

Published June 23, 2024Updated June 24, 2024, 9:31 a.m. ET

 

Heather Massey of Carlton, Ga., with her dog, Lunabear. She is still paying off a bill for scans and care six years after her previous dog, Ladybird, was diagnosed with brain cancer.Audra Melton for The New York Times

Heather Massey brought Ladybird to the veterinarian when the 9-year-old muttbegan having seizures. A scan from an M.R.I. machine revealed bad news: brain cancer.

With the prognosis grim, Ms. Massey decided against further treatment at the animal hospital near her home in Athens, Ga., and Ladybird died four months later. The M.R.I. scan and related care had cost nearly $2,000, which Ms. Massey put on a specialty credit card she had learned about at a previous vet visit.

That was in 2018. She is still paying off the debt, with more than 30 percent interest.

“Could I afford to do that? Not really,” said Ms. Massey, 52, who is disabled and does not work. “Was it worth it to me? Yes.”

Ms. Massey’s experience illustrates the expensive new realities of owning a pet. For decades, veterinarians typically operated their own clinics, shepherding generations of pets from birth to death. They neutered, vaccinated and pulled thorns from paws and noses. When animals became seriously ill, vets often had little to offer beyond condolences and a humane death.

But in recent years, as people have grown more attached to their pets — and more willing to spend money on them — animal medicine has transformed into a big business that looks a lot like its human counterpart. Many veterinary offices have been replaced by hospitals outfitted with expensive M.R.I. machines, sophisticated lab equipment and round-the-clock intensive care units. Dogs and cats often see highly trained specialists in neurology, cardiology and oncology.

This high-tech care has spurred a booming market. Veterinary prices have soared more than 60 percent over the past decade, according to federal statistics. Private equity firms and large corporations have bought hundreds of facilities around the country, an acquisition spree reminiscent of the corporate roll-ups of doctors’ offices.

Veterinarians from around the country told The New York Times that their corporate managers were pushing clinics to become more efficient profit centers. Vets were often paid based on how much money they brought in, creating an incentive to see more pets, order more tests and upsell wellness plans and food.

Veterinary care prices have soared in the past decade

Cumulative change in prices since April 2014

The result is an increasingly unsustainable situation for animal owners, most of whom don’t have pet insurance.

The Times asked readers to share their stories about expensive vet bills, and hundreds responded. Sophia McElroy of Denver said she donated blood plasma and took extra freelance work to pay for her dog’s ongoing expenses.

Nancy Partridge of Waynesville, N.C., said that months after her cat was diagnosed with an inoperable tumor, she was still chipping away at the $1,500 bill. “We have a dead cat, and we’re still paying,” she said.

In 2015, Claire Kirsch was earning less than $10 an hour as a veterinary technician in Georgia when her own dog, Roscoe, and her horse, Gambit, each had medical emergencies, resulting in bills that totaled more than $13,000. Ms. Kirsch said her animals would have died had she not opted for additional care.

“I knew I would never be able to forgive myself if we didn’t try,” she said.

Claire Kirsch, with her horse, Gambit. Vet bills for Gambit and Ms. Kirsch’s dog, Roscoe, totaled more than $13,000 at a time when she was earning less than $10 an hour as a veterinary technician.Brittany Greeson for The New York Times

Ms. Kirsch maxed out a credit card, tapped into her husband’s retirement account and took out a personal loan. Roscoe lived another three years, and Gambit is still alive.

In interviews, veterinarians said pet owners who complained about care costs don’t appreciate the difficulties of running a clinic. Veterinarians make far less money than human doctors and are often in debt from years of education. Their prices have gone up partly because of the rising cost of drugs, vaccines and other supplies, as well as paying workers in a tight labor market.

And because of more advanced medical offerings, pets today can survive serious illnesses, like cancer, that would once have been unthinkable. They have access to surgeries and drugs that can vastly improve their lives.

“We live in the most technologically advanced time in human history, and how wonderful is that?” said Dr. Tracy Dewhirst, a veterinarian in Corryton, Tenn. “But it comes at a cost.”

Even run-of-the-mill visits can rack up big bills. Dr. David Roos, an 86-year-old veterinarian in Los Altos, Calif., said he decided to retire one day in 2014, when he checked on a dog whose owners were longtime clients. The animal had been admitted for vomiting. Dr. Roos said he normally would have told the owner to take the dog home and to give it sips of water. Instead, another vet had ordered X-rays, blood tests, intravenous fluids and a hospital stay. Dr. Roos knew the owners could not afford the bill.

“I realized at that stage that veterinary medicine had changed to the point where I no longer wanted to be a part of it,” Dr. Roos said.

Ms. Kirsch’s dog Roscoe after having his gallbladder removed at the University of Georgia. He lived for three more years.Claire Hirsch

Ms. Massey’s late dog, Ladybird.Celeste Cleary

With a growth in pet ownership and surveys showing that Americans are willing to go into debt to pay for their animals’ care, vet clinics have become increasingly attractive to investors. About one-quarter of primary care clinics and three-quarters of specialty clinics are now owned by corporations, according to Brakke Consulting, which focuses on the animal health industry.

In 2015, one major player, Mars — known for selling candy and pet food — acquired a specialty veterinary hospital chain, BluePearl, for an undisclosed sum. In 2017, it nabbed another hospital, VCA, for $9.1 billion. The trend peaked in 2021, with more than 200 private equity deals, according to Pitchbook.

Several veterinarians who have worked in corporate practices said that they were pressured to drive more business. One vet from California said she quit her job after she was told her “cost per client” was too low. Another, from Virginia, said she was told she needed to see 21 animals per day. A third, from Colorado, said she was taken aback when she overheard a manager saying some of the vets at her office needed coaching on “getting the client to a yes.” These vets asked to withhold their names because they worried that speaking out could jeopardize future job prospects with private-equity practices.

Other vets said that corporate ownership had no influence on the care they provided. Still, Dr. Andrew Federer, the medical director of a clinic in Mentor, Ohio, that is owned by a chain called National Veterinary Associates, said that when someone’s pay is tied to how many procedures and tests they perform, the incentives could be difficult to ignore, especially for vets who were just starting out.

“The more they bring into the hospital above their current salary, the more of a production bonus they will receive,” he said.

Dr. David Roos, a retired veterinarian in Los Altos, Calif., with his dog Chester. He said he decided to retire one day in 2014, when longtime clients could not afford the tests and other procedures that another vet ordered for their dog.Mike Kai Chen for The New York Times

Only about 4 percent of pet owners have insurance, and even for them, the options are limited. Pet insurance often excludes pre-existing conditions and costs more for older pets who are more likely to get sick.

Companies can also change the terms. This spring, the insurance company Nationwide notified thousands of pet owners that it was discontinuing their coverage, leaving them scrambling to enroll in new plans that excluded the pets’ pre-existing conditions. About 100,000 plans are being discontinued, said Kevin Kemper, a Nationwide spokesman.

Stephanie Boerger of Royal Oak, Mich., said that Nationwide had been covering her cat’s chemotherapy, but told her it would not renew her plan when it expired in August. The treatment, which costs about $1,000 every other month, will not be covered under any available plan.

“Now I feel like I have to choose between paying for my cat’s chemo or letting her die,” said Ms. Boerger, who was able to find new coverage through a competing company.

In a statement, the Nationwide spokesman cited the rising cost of veterinary care. “We are making these tough decisions now so that we can continue to be here for even more pets in the future,” he said.

Many veterinarians offer specialty credit cards sold by outside companies, such as the CareCredit card that was used by Ms. Kirsch and Ms. Massey. Last year, the Biden administration warned that these medical credit cards — which were also promoted by doctors and dentists — drove many consumers into debilitating debt. A spokeswoman for CareCredit said that about 80 percent of cardholders paid off their debt before the no-interest introductory period expired.

Some groups, including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, are researching how vets can perform common procedures more cheaply. And many veterinarians say they try to offer a “spectrum of care,” a nonjudgmental way of discussing less expensive options.

For many people, a pet’s companionship is priceless.

After Ladybird died, Ms. Massey adopted Lunabear, a Lab mix that she jokes is “allergic to the very air we breathe.” Lunabear needs prescription food that costs $6 a can and takes a $3 allergy pill three times a day. Last year, she had leg surgery.

These costs have totaled nearly $4,000, much of which has been charged to the high-interest credit card. But Ms. Massey, who has major depression and lives alone, said her dogs took top priority. “I pay my bills, and then I buy food,” she said.

Ben Casselman contributed reporting.

 

God dammit.  Yep, my "local" vet was apparently bought out by VetCor at some point.  Prices have gone nuts.  

[Captainant 28374]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

God dammit.  Yep, my "local" vet was apparently bought out by VetCor at some point.  Prices have gone nuts.  

Hey man, selling out to private equity to covert your patients and customers into cash is a solid business move. Just ask chitown

[Incredulity 11859]

[wildcat09 29555]

19 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Did you get confused which thread you were posting in?

[Incredulity 11859]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Did you get confused which thread you were posting in?

not at all

[Captainant 28374]

incredulity, can you stop bringing your texags "gubmint BAD" memes over to surly?

[Incredulity 11859]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

incredulity, can you stop bringing your texags "gubmint BAD" memes over to surly?

[HenryJames 67113]

[Brisketexan 106607]

4 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Yeah, Bill....overpromising sunshiney results isn't a good look.

[HenryJames 67113]

https://latenighter.com/news/paramount-axes-comedy-central-website-show-clips-library/

[elfenix 34655]

On 6/24/2024 at 8:24 AM, HenryJames said:

and ice cream loaded with bacon.

next time i go to the register i'm asking for bacon with my cone

[Hank Kingsley 21597]

Burn it to the fucking ground. 

 

[immamac 44197]

3 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Burn it to the fucking ground. 

 

So what's the difference between AI and CGI without the visual effects artists? 

This is just generated CGI, and it's pretty bad. 

[Captainant 28374]

8 minutes ago, immamac said:

So what's the difference between AI and CGI without the visual effects artists? 

This is just generated CGI, and it's pretty bad. 

It's the difference between using a LLM to generate a new work based on tokens extracted from past works, and visual artists creating using computer tooling. 

 

In terms of end product, what's the difference between an LLM written article and something that a journalist created? On it's face there's not that much difference, but over time and as you read more and look deeper you quickly see the difference in depth and quality between the two works.

If you need "good enough at a glance", then AI is a decent fit to solve that problem. If you need "stands up to scrutiny and repeat viewings", then there's no getting around having humans work on it (for now, at least)

[Brisketexan 106607]

47 minutes ago, Captainant said:

If you need "good enough at a glance", then AI is a decent fit to solve that problem.

"Good enough at a glance."

What I'm getting from this is "thank goodness AI wasn't around to create women in bars when Brisket was single."  Because "good enough at a glance" was an achilles heel for me.

[immamac 44197]

46 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's the difference between using a LLM to generate a new work based on tokens extracted from past works, and visual artists creating using computer tooling. 

 

In terms of end product, what's the difference between an LLM written article and something that a journalist created? On it's face there's not that much difference, but over time and as you read more and look deeper you quickly see the difference in depth and quality between the two works.

If you need "good enough at a glance", then AI is a decent fit to solve that problem. If you need "stands up to scrutiny and repeat viewings", then there's no getting around having humans work on it (for now, at least)

I don't think that video generation is based on LLM/Transformer architecture is it? I thought this was based on an entirely different type of inference and the training was different. 

[Captainant 28374]

22 minutes ago, immamac said:

I don't think that video generation is based on LLM/Transformer architecture is it? I thought this was based on an entirely different type of inference and the training was different. 

The approaches that I've seen (so basically just Sora) are text to video transformers using the LLM architecture. It's just that the output tokens are video segments rather than word fragments or segments of a picture. It's significantly more complex, but they've made some pretty incredible strides in generated video to the point where it's no longer just pure nightmare fuel 

[Braff Zacklin 13675]

6 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Burn it to the fucking ground. 

This ad is so bad it caused Toys "R" Us to declare bankruptcy and close all of its stores** several years before the commercial even existed.

 

** Now reincarnated as a subsidiary of an international conglomerate. But the OG Toys "R" Us is quite dead.

[Js1 86916]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

"Good enough at a glance."

What I'm getting from this is "thank goodness AI wasn't around to create women in bars when Brisket was single."  Because "good enough at a glance" was an achilles heel for me.

Was?

[Hornius Emeritus 12777]

On 6/24/2024 at 5:29 PM, HenryJames said:

It's true. I was searching for Musical Youth and right after "the Dutchie" in "Pass the Dutchie on the left hand side" the website went blank.

[Goredho 17627]

There is probably no way to have a non-CR discussion about it, but after last night's Presidential debate, I am strongly of the opinion that both political parties need to be added to the pile of things that have become irredeemably enshittified.

[Deej 77661]

5 minutes ago, Goredho said:

There is probably no way to have a non-CR discussion about it, but after last night's Presidential debate, I am strongly of the opinion that both political parties need to be added to the pile of things that have become irredeemably enshittified.

We're getting exactly what we deserve.

[thunderlounge 8314]

[Hornius Emeritus 12777]

On 12/28/2023 at 1:14 PM, Wally Fairway said:

Have you been to a movie recently

Now that I get my seats in advance, I don't show up until 20 minutes after the scheduled start time. So far, have not missed a second of the movies. Usually just there for one more ad, maybe two. 

[HenryJames 67113]

Spoiler

MIT robotics pioneer Rodney Brooks thinks people are vastly overestimating generative AI

Ron Miller

When Rodney Brooks talks about robotics and artificial intelligence, you should listen. Currently the Panasonic Professor of Robotics Emeritus at MIT, he also co-founded three key companies, including Rethink Robotics, iRobot and his current endeavor, Robust.ai. Brooks also ran the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) for a decade starting in 1997.

In fact, he likes to make predictions about the future of AI and keeps a scorecard on his blog of how well he’s doing.

He knows what he’s talking about, and he thinks maybe it’s time to put the brakes on the screaming hype that is generative AI. Brooks thinks it’s impressive technology, but maybe not quite as capable as many are suggesting. “I’m not saying LLMs are not important, but we have to be careful [with] how we evaluate them,” he told TechCrunch.

He says the trouble with generative AI is that, while it’s perfectly capable of performing a certain set of tasks, it can’t do everything a human can, and humans tend to overestimate its capabilities. “When a human sees an AI system perform a task, they immediately generalize it to things that are similar and make an estimate of the competence of the AI system; not just the performance on that, but the competence around that,” Brooks said. “And they’re usually very over-optimistic, and that’s because they use a model of a person’s performance on a task.”

He added that the problem is that generative AI is not human or even human-like, and it’s flawed to try and assign human capabilities to it. He says people see it as so capable they even want to use it for applications that don’t make sense.

Brooks offers his latest company, Robust.ai, a warehouse robotics system, as an example of this. Someone suggested to him recently that it would be cool and efficient to tell his warehouse robots where to go by building an LLM for his system. In his estimation, however, this is not a reasonable use case for generative AI and would actually slow things down. It’s instead much simpler to connect the robots to a stream of data coming from the warehouse management software.

“When you have 10,000 orders that just came in that you have to ship in two hours, you have to optimize for that. Language is not gonna help; it’s just going to slow things down,” he said. “We have massive data processing and massive AI optimization techniques and planning. And that’s how we get the orders completed fast.”

Techcrunch event

Disrupt 2024 
Got Laid Off? Find Your Next Job At Disrupt. 

Get 50% Off The Disrupt Expo+ Pass San Francisco, October 28-30

Book Now & Save

Another lesson Brooks has learned when it comes to robots and AI is that you can’t try to do too much. You should solve a solvable problem where robots can be integrated easily.

“We need to automate in places where things have already been cleaned up. So the example of my company is we’re doing pretty well in warehouses, and warehouses are actually pretty constrained. The lighting doesn’t change with those big buildings. There’s not stuff lying around on the floor because the people pushing carts would run into that. There’s no floating plastic bags going around. And largely it’s not in the interest of the people who work there to be malicious to the robot,” he said.

Brooks explains that it’s also about robots and humans working together, so his company designed these robots for practical purposes related to warehouse operations, as opposed to building a human-looking robot. In this case, it looks like a shopping cart with a handle.

“So the form factor we use is not humanoids walking around — even though I have built and delivered more humanoids than anyone else. These look like shopping carts,” he said. “It’s got a handlebar, so if there’s a problem with the robot, a person can grab the handlebar and do what they wish with it,” he said.

After all these years, Brooks has learned that it’s about making the technology accessible and purpose-built. “I always try to make technology easy for people to understand, and therefore we can deploy it at scale, and always look at the business case; the return on investment is also very important.”

Even with that, Brooks says we have to accept that there are always going to be hard-to-solve outlier cases when it comes to AI, that could take decades to solve. “Without carefully boxing in how an AI system is deployed, there is always a long tail of special cases that take decades to discover and fix. Paradoxically all those fixes are AI complete themselves.”

Brooks adds that there’s this mistaken belief, mostly thanks to Moore’s law, that there will always be exponential growth when it comes to technology — the idea that if ChatGPT 4 is this good, imagine what ChatGPT 5, 6 and 7 will be like. He sees this flaw in that logic, that tech doesn’t always grow exponentially, in spite of Moore’s law.

He uses the iPod as an example. For a few iterations, it did in fact double in storage size from 10 all the way to 160GB. If it had continued on that trajectory, he figured out we would have an iPod with 160TB of storage by 2017, but of course we didn’t. The models being sold in 2017 actually came with 256GB or 160GB because, as he pointed out, nobody actually needed more than that.

Brooks acknowledges that LLMs could help at some point with domestic robots, where they could perform specific tasks, especially with an aging population and not enough people to take care of them. But even that, he says, could come with its own set of unique challenges.

“People say, ‘Oh, the large language models are gonna make robots be able to do things they couldn’t do.’ That’s not where the problem is. The problem with being able to do stuff is about control theory and all sorts of other hardcore math optimization,” he said.

Brooks explains that this could eventually lead to robots with useful language interfaces for people in care situations. “It’s not useful in the warehouse to tell an individual robot to go out and get one thing for one order, but it may be useful for eldercare in homes for people to be able to say things to the robots,” he sai

 

[Captainant 28374]

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

  Reveal hidden contents

MIT robotics pioneer Rodney Brooks thinks people are vastly overestimating generative AI

Ron Miller

When Rodney Brooks talks about robotics and artificial intelligence, you should listen. Currently the Panasonic Professor of Robotics Emeritus at MIT, he also co-founded three key companies, including Rethink Robotics, iRobot and his current endeavor, Robust.ai. Brooks also ran the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) for a decade starting in 1997.

In fact, he likes to make predictions about the future of AI and keeps a scorecard on his blog of how well he’s doing.

He knows what he’s talking about, and he thinks maybe it’s time to put the brakes on the screaming hype that is generative AI. Brooks thinks it’s impressive technology, but maybe not quite as capable as many are suggesting. “I’m not saying LLMs are not important, but we have to be careful [with] how we evaluate them,” he told TechCrunch.

He says the trouble with generative AI is that, while it’s perfectly capable of performing a certain set of tasks, it can’t do everything a human can, and humans tend to overestimate its capabilities. “When a human sees an AI system perform a task, they immediately generalize it to things that are similar and make an estimate of the competence of the AI system; not just the performance on that, but the competence around that,” Brooks said. “And they’re usually very over-optimistic, and that’s because they use a model of a person’s performance on a task.”

He added that the problem is that generative AI is not human or even human-like, and it’s flawed to try and assign human capabilities to it. He says people see it as so capable they even want to use it for applications that don’t make sense.

Brooks offers his latest company, Robust.ai, a warehouse robotics system, as an example of this. Someone suggested to him recently that it would be cool and efficient to tell his warehouse robots where to go by building an LLM for his system. In his estimation, however, this is not a reasonable use case for generative AI and would actually slow things down. It’s instead much simpler to connect the robots to a stream of data coming from the warehouse management software.

“When you have 10,000 orders that just came in that you have to ship in two hours, you have to optimize for that. Language is not gonna help; it’s just going to slow things down,” he said. “We have massive data processing and massive AI optimization techniques and planning. And that’s how we get the orders completed fast.”

Techcrunch event

Disrupt 2024 
Got Laid Off? Find Your Next Job At Disrupt. 

Get 50% Off The Disrupt Expo+ Pass San Francisco, October 28-30

Book Now & Save

Another lesson Brooks has learned when it comes to robots and AI is that you can’t try to do too much. You should solve a solvable problem where robots can be integrated easily.

“We need to automate in places where things have already been cleaned up. So the example of my company is we’re doing pretty well in warehouses, and warehouses are actually pretty constrained. The lighting doesn’t change with those big buildings. There’s not stuff lying around on the floor because the people pushing carts would run into that. There’s no floating plastic bags going around. And largely it’s not in the interest of the people who work there to be malicious to the robot,” he said.

Brooks explains that it’s also about robots and humans working together, so his company designed these robots for practical purposes related to warehouse operations, as opposed to building a human-looking robot. In this case, it looks like a shopping cart with a handle.

“So the form factor we use is not humanoids walking around — even though I have built and delivered more humanoids than anyone else. These look like shopping carts,” he said. “It’s got a handlebar, so if there’s a problem with the robot, a person can grab the handlebar and do what they wish with it,” he said.

After all these years, Brooks has learned that it’s about making the technology accessible and purpose-built. “I always try to make technology easy for people to understand, and therefore we can deploy it at scale, and always look at the business case; the return on investment is also very important.”

Even with that, Brooks says we have to accept that there are always going to be hard-to-solve outlier cases when it comes to AI, that could take decades to solve. “Without carefully boxing in how an AI system is deployed, there is always a long tail of special cases that take decades to discover and fix. Paradoxically all those fixes are AI complete themselves.”

Brooks adds that there’s this mistaken belief, mostly thanks to Moore’s law, that there will always be exponential growth when it comes to technology — the idea that if ChatGPT 4 is this good, imagine what ChatGPT 5, 6 and 7 will be like. He sees this flaw in that logic, that tech doesn’t always grow exponentially, in spite of Moore’s law.

He uses the iPod as an example. For a few iterations, it did in fact double in storage size from 10 all the way to 160GB. If it had continued on that trajectory, he figured out we would have an iPod with 160TB of storage by 2017, but of course we didn’t. The models being sold in 2017 actually came with 256GB or 160GB because, as he pointed out, nobody actually needed more than that.

Brooks acknowledges that LLMs could help at some point with domestic robots, where they could perform specific tasks, especially with an aging population and not enough people to take care of them. But even that, he says, could come with its own set of unique challenges.

“People say, ‘Oh, the large language models are gonna make robots be able to do things they couldn’t do.’ That’s not where the problem is. The problem with being able to do stuff is about control theory and all sorts of other hardcore math optimization,” he said.

Brooks explains that this could eventually lead to robots with useful language interfaces for people in care situations. “It’s not useful in the warehouse to tell an individual robot to go out and get one thing for one order, but it may be useful for eldercare in homes for people to be able to say things to the robots,” he sai

 

People are overestimating genAI like they were with blockchain a few years ago. Businesses are adding into their roadmap because their investors are asking them to - not because there's an actual business problem they're trying to solve and think it's the right tool. 

I don't think it's gonna be as revolutionary as all the MBAs need it to be, but there's such big bets being placed because they think it can replace a ton of workers with compute capacity. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 22239]

I guess they think that most businesses are like NASA in the 60's with rooms filled with people doing math calculations

[Goredho 17627]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

People are overestimating genAI like they were with blockchain a few years ago. Businesses are adding into their roadmap because their investors are asking them to - not because there's an actual business problem they're trying to solve and think it's the right tool. 

I don't think it's gonna be as revolutionary as all the MBAs need it to be, but there's such big bets being placed because they think it can replace a ton of workers with compute capacity. 

But, and hear me out… What if we develop a disruptive college football message board utilizing block chain AND generative AI?  Surly there would be some value to the IP that would be developed.

[Parliament 14555]

Would it have pics of dicks imbedded in the code?  How much would it all cost?

[thunderlounge 8314]

1 minute ago, Parliament said:

Would it have pics of dicks imbedded in the code?  How much would it all cost?

No, but if you zoom way out the code stops and starts morph into an image of dickbutt. 

[Hank Kingsley 21597]

2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

  Hide contents

MIT robotics pioneer Rodney Brooks thinks people are vastly overestimating generative AI

Ron Miller

When Rodney Brooks talks about robotics and artificial intelligence, you should listen. Currently the Panasonic Professor of Robotics Emeritus at MIT, he also co-founded three key companies, including Rethink Robotics, iRobot and his current endeavor, Robust.ai. Brooks also ran the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) for a decade starting in 1997.

In fact, he likes to make predictions about the future of AI and keeps a scorecard on his blog of how well he’s doing.

He knows what he’s talking about, and he thinks maybe it’s time to put the brakes on the screaming hype that is generative AI. Brooks thinks it’s impressive technology, but maybe not quite as capable as many are suggesting. “I’m not saying LLMs are not important, but we have to be careful [with] how we evaluate them,” he told TechCrunch.

He says the trouble with generative AI is that, while it’s perfectly capable of performing a certain set of tasks, it can’t do everything a human can, and humans tend to overestimate its capabilities. “When a human sees an AI system perform a task, they immediately generalize it to things that are similar and make an estimate of the competence of the AI system; not just the performance on that, but the competence around that,” Brooks said. “And they’re usually very over-optimistic, and that’s because they use a model of a person’s performance on a task.”

He added that the problem is that generative AI is not human or even human-like, and it’s flawed to try and assign human capabilities to it. He says people see it as so capable they even want to use it for applications that don’t make sense.

Brooks offers his latest company, Robust.ai, a warehouse robotics system, as an example of this. Someone suggested to him recently that it would be cool and efficient to tell his warehouse robots where to go by building an LLM for his system. In his estimation, however, this is not a reasonable use case for generative AI and would actually slow things down. It’s instead much simpler to connect the robots to a stream of data coming from the warehouse management software.

“When you have 10,000 orders that just came in that you have to ship in two hours, you have to optimize for that. Language is not gonna help; it’s just going to slow things down,” he said. “We have massive data processing and massive AI optimization techniques and planning. And that’s how we get the orders completed fast.”

Techcrunch event

Disrupt 2024 
Got Laid Off? Find Your Next Job At Disrupt. 

Get 50% Off The Disrupt Expo+ Pass San Francisco, October 28-30

Book Now & Save

Another lesson Brooks has learned when it comes to robots and AI is that you can’t try to do too much. You should solve a solvable problem where robots can be integrated easily.

“We need to automate in places where things have already been cleaned up. So the example of my company is we’re doing pretty well in warehouses, and warehouses are actually pretty constrained. The lighting doesn’t change with those big buildings. There’s not stuff lying around on the floor because the people pushing carts would run into that. There’s no floating plastic bags going around. And largely it’s not in the interest of the people who work there to be malicious to the robot,” he said.

Brooks explains that it’s also about robots and humans working together, so his company designed these robots for practical purposes related to warehouse operations, as opposed to building a human-looking robot. In this case, it looks like a shopping cart with a handle.

“So the form factor we use is not humanoids walking around — even though I have built and delivered more humanoids than anyone else. These look like shopping carts,” he said. “It’s got a handlebar, so if there’s a problem with the robot, a person can grab the handlebar and do what they wish with it,” he said.

After all these years, Brooks has learned that it’s about making the technology accessible and purpose-built. “I always try to make technology easy for people to understand, and therefore we can deploy it at scale, and always look at the business case; the return on investment is also very important.”

Even with that, Brooks says we have to accept that there are always going to be hard-to-solve outlier cases when it comes to AI, that could take decades to solve. “Without carefully boxing in how an AI system is deployed, there is always a long tail of special cases that take decades to discover and fix. Paradoxically all those fixes are AI complete themselves.”

Brooks adds that there’s this mistaken belief, mostly thanks to Moore’s law, that there will always be exponential growth when it comes to technology — the idea that if ChatGPT 4 is this good, imagine what ChatGPT 5, 6 and 7 will be like. He sees this flaw in that logic, that tech doesn’t always grow exponentially, in spite of Moore’s law.

He uses the iPod as an example. For a few iterations, it did in fact double in storage size from 10 all the way to 160GB. If it had continued on that trajectory, he figured out we would have an iPod with 160TB of storage by 2017, but of course we didn’t. The models being sold in 2017 actually came with 256GB or 160GB because, as he pointed out, nobody actually needed more than that.

Brooks acknowledges that LLMs could help at some point with domestic robots, where they could perform specific tasks, especially with an aging population and not enough people to take care of them. But even that, he says, could come with its own set of unique challenges.

“People say, ‘Oh, the large language models are gonna make robots be able to do things they couldn’t do.’ That’s not where the problem is. The problem with being able to do stuff is about control theory and all sorts of other hardcore math optimization,” he said.

Brooks explains that this could eventually lead to robots with useful language interfaces for people in care situations. “It’s not useful in the warehouse to tell an individual robot to go out and get one thing for one order, but it may be useful for eldercare in homes for people to be able to say things to the robots,” he sai

 

The problem as I see it is the loudest voices overestimating AI are 1. people that work in AI 2. people that invest in AI.  It has nothing to do with providing useful technology. They hype it up because they want to get rich. That's it. 

 

[HenryJames 67113]

40 minutes ago, Goredho said:

But, and hear me out… What if we develop a disruptive college football message board utilizing block chain AND generative AI?  Surly there would be some value to the IP that would be developed.

[thunderlounge 8314]

Which then turns into companies buying their bullshit, parroting whatever features they can think up to add to their product so their clients think their cool, then their clients start making shit up to want, and pass it onto their customers to seem hip and with it. All to end up as some super shitty chat bot that pissed people the fuck off.

That’s how the echo chamber is built and grows.

 

No kidding AI can do some things now, depending on training and such.  It also takes a lot of computing power. 
 

The reality of it is how it’s written, initially trained, and as it learns on its own, can it be kept within defined parameters.

Can it pass the Hal test? Meaning how does it react when it has a severe conflict in instructions?

[immamac 44197]

19 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The problem as I see it is the loudest voices overestimating AI are 1. people that work in AI 2. people that invest in AI.  It has nothing to do with providing useful technology. They hype it up because they want to get rich. That's it. 

 

Bingo. 

[HenryJames 67113]

Look I think it’s worth it to destroy the power grid if AI can make pictures of chicks with four tits.

[General Specific 3484]

Pics not loading, for science of course.

[hayden_horn 11401]

ai is this decade's 3dtv. just some recycled mid tech that becomes the new hotness because marketing reasons

[gofuckyourself 8939]

Latest enshittification article from Cory Doctorow, word coiner.

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/28/dealer-management-software/#antonin-scalia-stole-your-car

Quote

This is the American story of the past four decades: accumulate tech debt, merge to monopoly, exponentially compound your tech debt by combining barely functional IT systems. Every corporate behemoth is locked in a race between the eventual discovery of its irreparable structural defects and its ability to become so enmeshed in our lives that we have to assume the costs of fixing those defects. It's a contest between "too rotten to stand" and "too big to care."

 

Quote

The point of the system was what it did: create unimaginable wealth for a tiny cohort of the worst people on Earth without regard to the collapse this would provoke, or the plight of those of us trapped and suffocating in the rubble.

 

Edited July 2 by gofuckyourself

[Samson's Wig 3222]

On 6/29/2024 at 1:22 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

The problem as I see it is the loudest voices overestimating AI are 1. people that work in AI 2. people that invest in AI.  It has nothing to do with providing useful technology. They hype it up because they want to get rich. That's it. 

 

So you're saying it's the tech industry in a nutshell, eh?

[HenryJames 67113]

[immamac 44197]

On 5/28/2024 at 12:28 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Love that Zitron continuously calls out these shitbirds. 

 

The Shareholder Supremacy (wheresyoured.at) This edition is a 41 minute estimated read. It's so fucking good, I feel like I'm not a crazy person when I read this. 

[Captainant 28374]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

Generative Adversarial Networks are, like, sooooo 2019.