Skip to content

Hertz' AI System That Scans for "Damage" on Rental Cars Is Turning Into an Epic Disaster

Technology
163 92 2.5k
  • Why front-end development will persist

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    19 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    29 Aufrufe
    H
    An LLM has “zero context” about your project’s specific stack and style guidelines. In other words, an AI might produce a generic <Modal> component, but integrating it into your app’s unique architecture is still a human task. This is very old. Nowadays, in Copilot for example, you add files to context and tell "hey look how I did that thing there, do this new thing following the same structure, with the same naming conventions" and it's enough. And tools like Cursor just throw your whole project into context by default.
  • Vibe coding service Replit deleted production database

    Technology technology
    118
    1
    580 Stimmen
    118 Beiträge
    3k Aufrufe
    iavicenna@lemmy.worldI
    And you are talking about obvious bugs. It likely will make erroneous judgements (because somewhere in its training data someone coded it that way) which will down the line lead to subtle problems that will wreck your system and cost you much more. Sure humans can also make the same mistakes but in the current state of affairs, an experienced software engineer/programmer has a much higher chance of catching such an error. With LLMs it is more hit and miss especially if it is a more niche topic. Currently, it is an assistant tool (sometimes quite helpful, sometimes frustrating at best) not an autonomous coder. Any company that claims so is either a crook or also does not know much about coding.
  • 19 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    41 Aufrufe
    J
    Pretty cool stuff, thanks for sharing!
  • 238 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    182 Aufrufe
    A
    Unless you are a major corporation... you are not free to take anything.
  • Why doesn't Nvidia have more competition?

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    33 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    234 Aufrufe
    B
    It’s funny how the article asks the question, but completely fails to answer it. About 15 years ago, Nvidia discovered there was a demand for compute in datacenters that could be met with powerful GPU’s, and they were quick to respond to it, and they had the resources to focus on it strongly, because of their huge success and high profitability in the GPU market. AMD also saw the market, and wanted to pursue it, but just over a decade ago where it began to clearly show the high potential for profitability, AMD was near bankrupt, and was very hard pressed to finance developments on GPU and compute in datacenters. AMD really tried the best they could, and was moderately successful from a technology perspective, but Nvidia already had a head start, and the proprietary development system CUDA was already an established standard that was very hard to penetrate. Intel simply fumbled the ball from start to finish. After a decade of trying to push ARM down from having the mobile crown by far, investing billions or actually the equivalent of ARM’s total revenue. They never managed to catch up to ARM despite they had the better production process at the time. This was the main focus of Intel, and Intel believed that GPU would never be more than a niche product. So when intel tried to compete on compute for datacenters, they tried to do it with X86 chips, One of their most bold efforts was to build a monstrosity of a cluster of Celeron chips, which of course performed laughably bad compared to Nvidia! Because as it turns out, the way forward at least for now, is indeed the massively parralel compute capability of a GPU, which Nvidia has refined for decades, only with (inferior) competition from AMD. But despite the lack of competition, Nvidia did not slow down, in fact with increased profits, they only grew bolder in their efforts. Making it even harder to catch up. Now AMD has had more money to compete for a while, and they do have some decent compute units, but Nvidia remains ahead and the CUDA problem is still there, so for AMD to really compete with Nvidia, they have to be better to attract customers. That’s a very tall order against Nvidia that simply seems to never stop progressing. So the only other option for AMD is to sell a bit cheaper. Which I suppose they have to. AMD and Intel were the obvious competitors, everybody else is coming from even further behind. But if I had to make a bet, it would be on Huawei. Huawei has some crazy good developers, and Trump is basically forcing them to figure it out themselves, because he is blocking Huawei and China in general from using both AMD and Nvidia AI chips. And the chips will probably be made by Chinese SMIC, because they are also prevented from using advanced production in the west, most notably TSMC. China will prevail, because it’s become a national project, of both prestige and necessity, and they have a massive talent mass and resources, so nothing can stop it now. IMO USA would clearly have been better off allowing China to use American chips. Now China will soon compete directly on both production and design too.
  • 92 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    353 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?
  • 131 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    575 Aufrufe
    I
    Arcing causes more fires, because over current caused all the fires until we tightened standards and dual-mode circuit breakers. Now fires are caused by loose connections arcing, and damaged wires arcing to flammable material. Breakers are specifically designed for a sustained current, but arcing is dangerous because it tends to cascade, light arcing damages contacts, leading to more arcing in a cycle. The real danger of arcing is that it can happen outside of view, and start fires that aren't caught till everything burns down.
  • 33 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    112 Aufrufe
    E
    Can you replace politicians I feel like that would actually be an improvement. Hell it'd probably be an improvement if the current system's replaced politicians. To be honest though I've never seen any evidence that AGI is inevitable, it's perpetually 6 months away except in 6 months it'll still be 6 months away.