I was actually referring to UVEye which was referenced in the article. I looked into UVEye and nowhere did it say it used LLMs with their computer vision. That’s why I asked if anyone had any info on them using it. The comment I replied to assumed LLMs were used but supplied no evidence. None of the links you shared have anything to do with UVEye either.

Computer vision commonly uses convolutional neural networks on the input,

no where do you specify UVEye.

You could admit they're all over, but instead double down on how I assumed lol

Except they are using computer vision, not an LLM

That’s what I initially said, referring to the article. If you have nothing to say regarding the technology in this article that’s fine, but don’t just assume that since there is research of incorporating LLMs into computer vision means it was used in this specific case.

If you think so, then you should argue that point instead of trying to short-circuit the argument by being pedantic about a logical inconsistency.

It's not solving the problem because it's not being implemented properly. If you take a hammer and smash it into the the medium over and over again instead of hitting the nail, is that the hammer's fault or yours?

It’s your fault

You are spot on here. AI is great for sensitivity (noticing potential issues), but terrible for specivity (giving many false positives).

The issue is how AI is used, not the AI itself. They don't have a human in the checking process. They should use AI scanner to check the car. If it's fine, then you have saved the employee from manually checking, which is a time-consuming process and prone to error.

If the AI spots something, then get an employee to look at the issues highlighted. If it's just a water drop or other false positive, then it should be a one click 'ignore', and the customer goes on their way without charge. If it is genuine, then show the evidence to the customer and discuss charges in person. Company still saves time over a manual check and has much improved accuracy and evidence collection.

They are being greedy by trying to eliminate the employee altogether. This probably doesn't actually save any money, if anything it costs more in dealing with complaints, not to mention the loss of sales due to building a poor image.

The technology is literally the problem as it’s not working

It's really funny here. There already exists software that does this stuff. It's existed for quite a while. I personally know a software engineer that works at a company that creates this stuff. It's sold to insurance companies. Hertz version must just totally suck.

in this case, hertz doesn't rent to who doesn't have a credit card

debit = no rent

debit = no rent

Funny, I rented from Hertz about two weeks ago and there was a big sign at the counter explaining their terms of business for renting with a debit card. And it didn't say "We don't do it."

Rory "expert in all things" Sutherland?

He keeps cropping up in my youtube feed talking about a huge range of topics in his confident posh twat voice.

His background is in marketing... never trust a salesman

I've had from Hertz is they just told me to fuck off and didn't give me my reserved vehicle.

And here I thought they just didn't like me... WTF kind of business is this lol

Seinfeld even covered this decades ago, so it's nothing new. Somehow the business model works? I don't get it either; Captive audience I guess.