In many cases, Alzuhair writes, human supply chain managers are no longer being asked to override automatic shipments or intervene when discrepancies occur under their jurisdiction.
Don’t worry guys, AI will revolutionize everything. You won’t have to think at all!
Except AI is trash at doing what it’s advertised to do, it makes everybody dumber, and its shills will blame you once it inevitably mucks everything up.
“You’re prompting it wrong”
Last year McDonalds tried a test of replacing human drive thru workers with an AI running the speaker board. It was shut down after only 3 weeks.
My favorite bit was a guy trying to order a big mac meal large with a coke.
What the AI heard, was 81,000 bottles of Dasani water. Then asked “Is this correct?” To which the guy responded “81,000 bottles of fucking water???”
To which the AI added a big mac meal medium with a water. Then asked if his updated order was correct. He just drove off.
I was at a Bojangles earlier this year and they had an AI doing their drive thru. I was trying to order a meal, but didn’t want a drink. That confused the heck out of the AI. It kept trying to force a drink in me. Gave up and walked into the store. Guy behind the counter was smiling and said something like, “we can hear what you’re saying to it. Next time just pull around. We got you.”
How do we know that actually happened? Is there a video? Who recorded it?
Oh, ya got me! Clearly an AI never makes mistakes, and everyone who tells you otherwise, including me, is clearly lying!
So you can’t trust what people say ever. You need to always see video.
Wait, but now video can be easily manipulated by AI. I can make evidence that never happened.
So you can’t trust people. You can’t trust video. I guess nothing ever happens, and if someone says something happened, you can’t trust the proof now either. Guess nothing ever happens.
Stop building so many straw mans. It is a simple question.
If AI is “responsible” for the well-being of humans…DEAD humans can’t get sick. DEAD humans don’t have to pay rent. DEAD humans stay dead.
The logic is solid.
i mean i guess total collapse is a form of revolution
The final frontier
Except AI is trash at doing what it’s advertised to do, it makes everybody dumber, and its shills will blame you once it inevitably mucks everything up.
We don’t even have “AI”. We have LLMs, aka chatbots, aka glorified digital parrots that, just because they’re eloquent and sound competent, management with little to no technical expertise feels can replace large parts of the workforce.
If we just called it “cyberparrots” instead of “AI”, maybe more people would their limited utility and the utter folly of having these take over ever larger portions of business procedures.
Hey, can we stop calling everything with a computer “AI”? Order management systems have been a thing long before LLMs were invented (I’ve worked on one). This was perhaps one of the first applications of computing. Humans hand writing an order form in a major grocery store hasn’t been a thing since like the 80s.
Also, I’m like 80% sure this article was barfed out by an LLM. The em-dashes be everywhere.
I’m also suspicious that the ransonware attack had anything to do with AI, but I didn’t want to say so because going against the common consensus in threads like this gets me downvoted, so I’d rather not say it if people aren’t going to consider it (and then agree or disagree). heh
Then again, as a user of emdashes[1] — I suppose I’m under suspucion of being an LLM as well. ;-)
Would you like me to compose responses to any other comments in this thread?[2]
The argument it’s making is not relying on technology (in this case some AI) because it can be distrupted. I don’t think having a single point of failure is unique to technology in general
Who the fuck wrote such a terrible article? What is described is not a problem with AI per se, but rather automation and poor security. AI may be part of that automation system, but this is a trend which started with the dot com bubble and not something new. Besides, the models they reference to check plant diseases and so on are most definitely not the LLMs which have now become synonyms of AI.
Sure, a cyber attack can lock down your production; but it is mostly not AI who generated this problem. It may intensify the problem, but as of now we don’t have many examples in which that happened.
Computers used for logistics dates from 80s. Ransomware shutting down a system is a computer system vulnerability, but the right headline is “computer systems fail, we need to back to abacus”.
This should have many more upvotes. The security incidents quoted at the start of this article have no relation to its actual topic, i.e. the hypothesis that there may be increased fragility of supply chains as a result of AI adoption. While it’s plausible this may happen, the article makes it sound like this has happened when it clearly hasn’t. In other words: it’s little more than “hurr, durr, AI dangerous”.
AI
😹 How are we concerned with statistical systems being vulnerable (which is shitty, sure) when they don’t even lead to productivity increases, that is they cannot even do the jobs they’re made to do? Get real. What a clownshow
Yeah this is what bugs me.
There are no trade off, there are only disadvantages.
It’s like a drug that not only it’s bad for you, it’s also not fun to do.
It’s like a drug that not only it’s bad for you, it’s also not fun to do.
Cigarettes after a week?
Really? Just one week? I thought it took months to get numb to it.
Now that I think about it, it’s a good metaphor.
AI could reaaallly use a surgeon general warning on it.
Amen
No productivity increase? What? For waiters maybe.
“AIs” can’t even operate vending machines, let alone recognize handwriting reliably or translate text. I know a few people that work in archives with (pre-)medieval manuscripts and I myself have bitten my teeth out on Google Translate™ and DeepL™. That’s how I know. There was also a study done on that vending machine thing. Come to think of it, you could make a simple vending machine that collects usage statistics and sends reports via radio that just works using a few scripts. Emphasis on “works”.
My my my
What does that have to do with anything? DeepL is fucking amazing. So is OCR. Because there are areas where it does not work or has not been optimized for you think there is no productivity increase at all?
Google Translate feels more natural even if it’s not as “precise” than DeepL. I wouldn’t rely on it for communication, or any machine translation for that matter.
As someone who speaks more than two languages I am often dumbfounded by the sheer acceptance of these, I don’t want to call them this, tools.
Use of this stuff always leads to misunderstandings and inefficiencies down the line because you actually need to comprehend a sequence of words’ meaning in order to translate. But ANNs for translation do not understanding anything. They make a relation from a source to a target of some sort purely by way of statistics. That is basically rolling the dice with weights and patterns of distribution, where how you shake the dice is your input/source and the eyes on top is the output.
Now for a short lesson in biology. While it is true that synapses are indeed badly approximated by most ANNs, this is the only thing that ANNs really derive from biology with interesting reproducible properties that can be marketed to people who need to offload responsibilities. There is a complete disregard for internal dynamics of cells and dynamics that happen at a scale larger than the synaptic makeup of an organism. We do not really have the means to regard the interactions between organism and environment as objects that shape perception. We still don’t know how a thought forms and how meaning is generated from a perspective that is not purely philosophical, meaning we definitely do not know how this happens at a biological level. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or misinformed. As long as the biological bases aren’t crystal clear, we will never translate effectively.
A great man of history once said that all science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided. Of the tens of millions strings of words I’ve heard in my lifetime, this easily ranks as one of the most elegant. Let’s apply this to neuro-“science” in its computerized application. We know very little about the brain. Do you think that whatever devices we make with our current state of knowledge can even come close to what we do as aware beings?
Again, translation is an involved process that uses every function of the nervous system. Using statistical methods to very badly approximate our process of reading > contextualizing > imagining > [any step that could be necessary] > output, where reading is followed by vibes and then nothing before outputting will inevitably degrade information. A short paragraph could be handled when you’re conscious about Google Translate, etc. being used, but a book, something that happens in a very specific and exact environ like a README file or a manual, or god forbid, political philosophy, leads when put through DeepL to consequences that can’t be foreseen. I think of all the times I had difficulties reading descriptions of items on AliExpress due to the site’s translator use. This is not a productivity gain, this is a degradation of quality that will have to be fixed one day eating up precious time.
There’s nothing in this article about problems with AI specifically.
