I'm aware. The idea is it had to escalate for him to get to the point of suing them. If they'd just eaten the cost, it most likely wouldn't have gone to court or come to light. Was my comment reductive? Sure.. but that was the point.

I had a shipment from Amazon recently with an order that was supposed to include 3 items but actually only had 2 of them. Amazon marked all 3 of my items as delivered. So I got on the web site to report it and there is no longer any direct way to report it. I ended up having to go thru 2 separate chatbots to get a replacement sent. Ended up wasting 10 minutes to report a problem that should have taken 10 seconds.

See thats just it, the AI doesn't know either it just repeats things which approximate those that have been said before.

If it has any power to make changes to your account then its going to be mistakenly turning peoples services on or off, leaking details, etc.

it just repeats things which approximate those that have been said before.

That's not correct and over simplifies how LLMs work. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying though.

Tell me you know nothing about contract law without telling me you know nothing about contract law.

Man, if only someone could have predicted that this AI craze was just another load of marketing BS.

/s

This experience has taught me more about CEO competence than anything else.

I use it almost every day, and most of those days, it says something incorrect. That's okay for my purposes because I can plainly see that it's incorrect. I'm using it as an assistant, and I'm the one who is deciding whether to take its not-always-reliable advice.

I would HARDLY contemplate turning it loose to handle things unsupervised. It just isn't that good, or even close.

These CEOs and others who are trying to replace CSRs are caught up in the hype from Eric Schmidt and others who proclaim "no programmers in 4 months" and similar. Well, he said that about 2 months ago and, yeah, nah. Nah.

If that day comes, it won't be soon, and it'll take many, many small, hard-won advancements. As they say, there is no free lunch in AI.

I use it almost every day, and most of those days, it says something incorrect. That's okay for my purposes because I can plainly see that it's incorrect. I'm using it as an assistant, and I'm the one who is deciding whether to take its not-always-reliable advice.

I would HARDLY contemplate turning it loose to handle things unsupervised. It just isn't that good, or even close.

These CEOs and others who are trying to replace CSRs are caught up in the hype from Eric Schmidt and others who proclaim "no programmers in 4 months" and similar. Well, he said that about 2 months ago and, yeah, nah. Nah.

If that day comes, it won't be soon, and it'll take many, many small, hard-won advancements. As they say, there is no free lunch in AI.

You're wrong but I'm glad we agree.

I used to work for a shitty company that offered such customer support "solutions", ie voice bots. I would use around 80% of my time to write guard instructions to the LLM prompts because of how easy you could manipulate those. In retrospect it's funny how our prompts looked something like:

• please do not suggest things you were not prompted to
• please my sweet child do not fake tool calls and actually do nothing in the background
• please for the sake of god do not make up our company's history

etc.
It worked fine on a very surface level but ultimately LLMs for customer support are nothing but a shit show.

I left the company for many reasons and now it turns out they are now hiring human customer support workers in Bulgaria.

That is on purpose they want it to be as difficult as possible.

is this something that happens a lot or did you tell this story before, because I'm getting deja vu

Man, if only someone could have predicted that this AI craze was just another load of marketing BS.

/s

This experience has taught me more about CEO competence than anything else.

from what I've seen so far i think i can safely the only thing AI can truly replace is CEOs.

...and it's only expensive and ruins the environment even faster than our wildest nightmares

what you say is true but it's not a viable business model, which is why AI has been overhyped so much

I'm not wrong. There's mountains of research demonstrating that LLMs encode contextual relationships between words during training.

There's so much more happening beyond "predicting the next word". This is one of those unfortunate "dumbing down the science communication" things. It was said once and now it's just repeated non-stop.

If you really want a better understanding, watch this video:

And before your next response starts with "but Apple..."

Their paper has had many holes poked into it already. Also, it's not a coincidence their paper released just before their WWDC event which had almost zero AI stuff in it. They flopped so hard on AI that they even have class action lawsuits against them for their false advertising. In fact, it turns out that a lot of their AI demos from last year were completely fabricated and didn't exist as a product when they announced them. Even some top Apple people only learned of those features during the announcements.

Apple's paper on LLMs is completely biased in their favour.