The technology isn’t there to accurately assess damage. It’s there to give Hertz an excuse to charge you extra money. It’s working exactly as the ghouls in the C-suite like.
Stop lights are meant to direct traffic. If someone runs a red light, is the technology not working as it should?
The technology here, using computer vision to automatically flag potential damage, needed to be implemented alongside human supervision - an employee should be able to walk by the car, see that the flagged damage doesn’t actually exist, and override the algorithm.
The technology itself isn’t bad, it’s how hertz is using it that is.
I believe the unfortunate miscommunication here is that when @[email protected] said the solution was brilliant, they were referring to the technology as the “solution”, and others are referring to the implementation as a whole as the “solution”
You’re admitting the technology is in fact flawed if you think it needed to be implemented with supervision. An uno reverse is, every set of traffic lights needs a traffic controller to stop drivers running red lights. Unequivocal, right?
You’re admitting the technology is in fact flawed if you think it needed to be implemented with supervision.
You’re absolutely right. The technology isn’t perfect if it needs to be implemented with supervision, but it can be good enough to have a role in everyday society.
Great examples are self checkout lanes, where there’s always an employee watching, and speed cameras, which always have an officer reviewing and signing off on tickets.
An uno reverse is, every set of traffic lights needs a traffic controller to stop drivers running red lights.
Traffic lights are meant to direct traffic. Yet you don’t expect them to prevent folks from running red lights. Folks don’t expect them to, because that’s not their role in their implementation - they are meant to be used alongside folks who will enforce traffic laws, and, maybe in fact, traffic controllers. This is arguably an example of an implementation done right.
This technology is meant to flag car damage. If there was a correct implementation, I would be able to say “folks don’t expect them to be perfect, because that’s not their role in their implementation - they are meant to be used alongside employees trained to verify damage exists, who can correct the algorithm if needed”, but the implementation in this case is sadly bad.
At the end of the day, you will never have a “perfect” computer vision algorithm. But you can have many “good enough” ones, depending on how they’re implemented.
There is no human element to this implantation, it is the technology itself malfunctioning. There was no damage but the system thinks there is damage.
Let’s make sure we’re building up from the same foundation. My assumptions are:
Algorithms will make mistakes.
There’s an acceptable level of error for all algorithms.
If an algorithm is making too many mistakes, that can be mitigated with human supervision and overrides.
Let me know if you disagree with any of these assumptions.
In this case, the lack of human override discussed in assumption 3 is, itself, a human-made decision that I am claiming is an error in implementing this technology. That is the human element. As management, you can either go on a snipe hunt trying to find an algorithm that is perfect, or you can make sure that trained employees can verify and correct the algorithm when needed. Instead hertz management chose option 3 - run an imperfect algorithm with absolutely 0 employee oversight. THAT is where they fucked up. THAT is where the human element screwed a potentially useful technology.
I work with machine learning algorithms. You will not, ever, find a practical machine learning algorithm that gets something right 100% of the time and is never wrong. But we don’t say “the technology is malfunctioning” when it gets something wrong, otherwise there’s a ton of invisible technology that we all rely on in our day to day lives that is “malfunctioning”.
I was pretty clear about what I was referring to. The internet is just full of pedants lurking and waiting for their chance to UM ACKSHUALLY their way into a conversation.
Just because THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT PERFECT does not mean it is NOT DOING WHAT IT’S intended to do. Sorry I’m having trouble controlling THE VOLUME OF MY VOICE.
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?
Society typically understands “there’s nothing wrong with x” to mean it’s performing within acceptable boundaries, and not to mean that it has achieved perfection.
The technology is literally the problem as it’s not working
There’s literally nothing wrong with the technology. The problem is the application.
The technology is NOT DOING WHAT ITS MEANT TO DO - it is IDENTIFYING DAMAGE WHERE THERE IS NONE - the TECHNOLOGY is NOT working as it should
The technology isn’t there to accurately assess damage. It’s there to give Hertz an excuse to charge you extra money. It’s working exactly as the ghouls in the C-suite like.
It’s the guise of customer service sure, yeah
Do you hold everything to such a standard?
Stop lights are meant to direct traffic. If someone runs a red light, is the technology not working as it should?
The technology here, using computer vision to automatically flag potential damage, needed to be implemented alongside human supervision - an employee should be able to walk by the car, see that the flagged damage doesn’t actually exist, and override the algorithm.
The technology itself isn’t bad, it’s how hertz is using it that is.
I believe the unfortunate miscommunication here is that when @[email protected] said the solution was brilliant, they were referring to the technology as the “solution”, and others are referring to the implementation as a whole as the “solution”
Stop light analogy is completely unequivocal
You’re admitting the technology is in fact flawed if you think it needed to be implemented with supervision. An uno reverse is, every set of traffic lights needs a traffic controller to stop drivers running red lights. Unequivocal, right?
Just stop because you’re wrong, lol
You’re absolutely right. The technology isn’t perfect if it needs to be implemented with supervision, but it can be good enough to have a role in everyday society.
Great examples are self checkout lanes, where there’s always an employee watching, and speed cameras, which always have an officer reviewing and signing off on tickets.
Traffic lights are meant to direct traffic. Yet you don’t expect them to prevent folks from running red lights. Folks don’t expect them to, because that’s not their role in their implementation - they are meant to be used alongside folks who will enforce traffic laws, and, maybe in fact, traffic controllers. This is arguably an example of an implementation done right.
This technology is meant to flag car damage. If there was a correct implementation, I would be able to say “folks don’t expect them to be perfect, because that’s not their role in their implementation - they are meant to be used alongside employees trained to verify damage exists, who can correct the algorithm if needed”, but the implementation in this case is sadly bad.
At the end of the day, you will never have a “perfect” computer vision algorithm. But you can have many “good enough” ones, depending on how they’re implemented.
Nah
The stop light analogy would require the stop light be doing something wrong not the human element doing something wrong because.
There is no human element to this implantation, it is the technology itself malfunctioning. There was no damage but the system thinks there is damage.
Let’s make sure we’re building up from the same foundation. My assumptions are:
Let me know if you disagree with any of these assumptions.
In this case, the lack of human override discussed in assumption 3 is, itself, a human-made decision that I am claiming is an error in implementing this technology. That is the human element. As management, you can either go on a snipe hunt trying to find an algorithm that is perfect, or you can make sure that trained employees can verify and correct the algorithm when needed. Instead hertz management chose option 3 - run an imperfect algorithm with absolutely 0 employee oversight. THAT is where they fucked up. THAT is where the human element screwed a potentially useful technology.
I work with machine learning algorithms. You will not, ever, find a practical machine learning algorithm that gets something right 100% of the time and is never wrong. But we don’t say “the technology is malfunctioning” when it gets something wrong, otherwise there’s a ton of invisible technology that we all rely on in our day to day lives that is “malfunctioning”.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. That’s the problem.
I was pretty clear about what I was referring to. The internet is just full of pedants lurking and waiting for their chance to UM ACKSHUALLY their way into a conversation.
Just because THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT PERFECT does not mean it is NOT DOING WHAT IT’S intended to do. Sorry I’m having trouble controlling THE VOLUME OF MY VOICE.
Pick a lane troll
It’s the same lane moron. It can be both imperfect and also nothing wrong with it.
Given that it’s not solving the problem it was implemented to solve, there is something wrong with it. AI is garbage, you can’t change my mind
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
Society typically understands “there’s nothing wrong with x” to mean it’s performing within acceptable boundaries, and not to mean that it has achieved perfection.
It’s doing neither
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.
Can’t argue with monkeys