They can see eachother in the room, so they should be able to figure out that they are all doing the same work. They might not do it yet, but they will certainly coordinate their efforts in the not-to-distant future. It doesn’t make sense for the AI service to expend resources on actual duplicated efforts, rather than just giving the appearance of duplication.
I have strong doubts about this happening in the not-too-distant future just from bots ‘seeing’ each other in the call. Too many variables (different platforms, different times joining the call, different default languages, different preferences on how notes should be taken). This is why many platforms offer an option to use a single canonical transcription bot - this sort of thing isn’t quite as easy as you seem to imagine.
For most of these calls, every participant is using the same link to join.
Each of these note taker bots is a different interface for the same AI service. The AI is not actually 25 different bots. It is 25 different faces of the same bot.
It is trivial for that one bot to recognize it has been directed to use the same link to connect to the same conference 25 times.
Yes, it is going to consolidate the work for all of those individual “faces” into a single task. It is absolutely ludicrous to assume it will be configured to duplicate its efforts 25 times.
I can absolutely see a single provider of collaborative online meetings spaces offering a ‘notes’ bot to the chat as a whole if they don’t already do so, since that’s already a thing. I see absolutely no reason why they should invest time in rearchitecting the conceptual boundaries of how private a user’s interaction with an AI is. I think you’ve missed some of the implications of collapsing the multiple to a single whilst retaining the illusion that it is a private space
I see absolutely no reason why they should invest time in rearchitecting the conceptual boundaries of how private a user’s interaction with an AI is.
Profit.
If AIs use as much power and resources as we’ve been led to believe, there are massive cost savings to be had by simulating multiple bots instead of using multiple bots. If they’ve budgeted to earn a profit from the operation of 25 independent bots, what are they earning by running only one and claiming it is 25?
There is very little chance that this degree of optimization hasn’t been employed.
For shared notes taking in a controlled environment - yes. It transparently happens anyway. For dynamic environments hosted by a separate service it’s a whole other can of worms. You now seem to be fairly clear you’re talking about the former, largely doable and indeed mostly implemented case. Nothing interesting left to talk about then.
You now seem to be fairly clear you’re talking about the former, largely doable and indeed mostly implemented case.
Quite the reverse, actually. That “dynamic” environment hosted by a separate service is not nearly as significant as you portray it. The entire point of a meeting is for every observer to share the same experience.
Again, it is completely trivial for the underlying AI to recognize it has been asked to sit in on the same meeting, and act as the personal representative for each of 25 separate people.
If you’re under the impression that there is a personal, private relationship between an individual and an AI instance, I suggest you disabuse yourself of that notion. If there is any distinction, it is only because the underlying AI has been instructed to schizophrenically simulate it.
Lol, well I can’t say I’m surprised your bullishness on the matter persists - although I would argue that A) the current architectural model is a single process running the translation in a user-scoped session, and B) given that a bot literally can’t recognise anything, any such implementation would be entirely conventional engineering, not waves hands AI voodoo magic. So I don’t share your stance. But also I genuinely don’t care, so that’s as much attention as I’m prepared to give this particular thought experiment.
As I said, I don’t know if it’s one AI service or several and there might be only one now but in the not so distant future, there might be a market or individualizable versions.
And coordination, exchanging addresses and sending and receiving encrypted messages might be too big of an overhead and delay for the user experience.
You shouldn’t overestimate efficiency. Often the easiest solution is good enough. It would cost real and good paid people to solve this and the other version is less prone to problems.
You shouldn’t underestimate profit motive. They aren’t going to do it for the sake of efficiency, but they will certainly do it for the sake of money. It is ludicrous to think this degree of cost optimization hasn’t already been implemented.
They can see eachother in the room, so they should be able to figure out that they are all doing the same work. They might not do it yet, but they will certainly coordinate their efforts in the not-to-distant future. It doesn’t make sense for the AI service to expend resources on actual duplicated efforts, rather than just giving the appearance of duplication.
I have strong doubts about this happening in the not-too-distant future just from bots ‘seeing’ each other in the call. Too many variables (different platforms, different times joining the call, different default languages, different preferences on how notes should be taken). This is why many platforms offer an option to use a single canonical transcription bot - this sort of thing isn’t quite as easy as you seem to imagine.
For most of these calls, every participant is using the same link to join.
Each of these note taker bots is a different interface for the same AI service. The AI is not actually 25 different bots. It is 25 different faces of the same bot.
It is trivial for that one bot to recognize it has been directed to use the same link to connect to the same conference 25 times.
Yes, it is going to consolidate the work for all of those individual “faces” into a single task. It is absolutely ludicrous to assume it will be configured to duplicate its efforts 25 times.
I can absolutely see a single provider of collaborative online meetings spaces offering a ‘notes’ bot to the chat as a whole if they don’t already do so, since that’s already a thing. I see absolutely no reason why they should invest time in rearchitecting the conceptual boundaries of how private a user’s interaction with an AI is. I think you’ve missed some of the implications of collapsing the multiple to a single whilst retaining the illusion that it is a private space
Profit.
If AIs use as much power and resources as we’ve been led to believe, there are massive cost savings to be had by simulating multiple bots instead of using multiple bots. If they’ve budgeted to earn a profit from the operation of 25 independent bots, what are they earning by running only one and claiming it is 25?
There is very little chance that this degree of optimization hasn’t been employed.
For shared notes taking in a controlled environment - yes. It transparently happens anyway. For dynamic environments hosted by a separate service it’s a whole other can of worms. You now seem to be fairly clear you’re talking about the former, largely doable and indeed mostly implemented case. Nothing interesting left to talk about then.
Quite the reverse, actually. That “dynamic” environment hosted by a separate service is not nearly as significant as you portray it. The entire point of a meeting is for every observer to share the same experience.
Again, it is completely trivial for the underlying AI to recognize it has been asked to sit in on the same meeting, and act as the personal representative for each of 25 separate people.
If you’re under the impression that there is a personal, private relationship between an individual and an AI instance, I suggest you disabuse yourself of that notion. If there is any distinction, it is only because the underlying AI has been instructed to schizophrenically simulate it.
Lol, well I can’t say I’m surprised your bullishness on the matter persists - although I would argue that A) the current architectural model is a single process running the translation in a user-scoped session, and B) given that a bot literally can’t recognise anything, any such implementation would be entirely conventional engineering, not waves hands AI voodoo magic. So I don’t share your stance. But also I genuinely don’t care, so that’s as much attention as I’m prepared to give this particular thought experiment.
As I said, I don’t know if it’s one AI service or several and there might be only one now but in the not so distant future, there might be a market or individualizable versions.
And coordination, exchanging addresses and sending and receiving encrypted messages might be too big of an overhead and delay for the user experience.
You shouldn’t overestimate efficiency. Often the easiest solution is good enough. It would cost real and good paid people to solve this and the other version is less prone to problems.
You shouldn’t underestimate profit motive. They aren’t going to do it for the sake of efficiency, but they will certainly do it for the sake of money. It is ludicrous to think this degree of cost optimization hasn’t already been implemented.