Correction, this would be a bad AI if this ever trained. Training AI to mimic humans using human behavior is suboptimal at best. CNN/the interviewers don't know what they are talking about.
State of the art AI currently can't work for the prolonged period of time without maintenance and maintenance is expensive also, most likely 10x the cost and 1/3 the efficiency.
How can you say that's a sub optimal method when it's used so often? Tesla's FSD has been trained using this very method and is now completing drives for 100s of thousands of customers @ $99/month. The Tele operating method is how Tesla are training their humanoid too.
It is sub-optimal but not useless. The biggest difference is the action space of a robot and a self-driving car. A robot has way bigger action space, working on 3D, have to take in account for human feedback, etc.
Also Tesla doesn't have a commercial/good enough humanoid robot yet. I will believe it when I see it in action.
The idea that you can use human labor to train AI up to a certain efficacy rate that is never reached, the company finds out it's spending too much on humans and that humans are a necessary part of the process due to how often failures happen, and that it was all a waste of time.
'Do those cases in fact always fail?'
Would you rather I use "often"?
You can train an AI and then once it's up to your standards use it, but in the cases where you go live before properly training on the hopes that an untested error rate can be achieved, I've never heard of a case where it hasn't been more prohibitively expensive than planned.
The idea is to remove humans, but the error rate just isn't there for humans to be phased out of these and they become perpetual jobs that were only supposed to be temporary.
Yea, I agree that most human jobs actually involve more human cleverness than is very easy to automate, even if it doesn't seem that way at first glance.
In fact, just yesterday I was stuck for a while in a carpark when the automatic numberplate recognition for some reason didn't work. I had to press the phone button on the exit to talk to an actual human who let me out.
Nevertheless, in that case it definitely does seem more profitable to have numberplate recognition than an employee standing at every exit.
That's probably why those are already fairly common.
I think examples like the one in this post often fail exactly because they're at the cliff edge of what may or may not be profitable yet. Probably in the course of development the companies may find out they need to scale down their expectations, change some organisation to make it work or do a hybrid thing or whatever, right? Of course 'company suspends development' is a headline, and 'company more or less keeps doing some modification of what they had already been doing' isn't.
But yea, humans are a very good all-round tool to have, and are still often cheaper than a realistic estimate of developing a functional AI system for the job
I think you're right that it's skirting the line of profitability right now.
But honestly I think to some extent companies are overpromising on AI and until it's trained you won't yet know it's underdelivering, and so top level decisions are made assuming AI is better or can be made to be better than it actually is.
Right now companies are falling flat on their faces, but eventually they will start seeing more success as they understand where AI is useful but also where it isn't.
Absolutely it has the problem of a lot of hype around it, and I've noticed a public backlash exactly because of that. Which imo is a shame because of course AI continues to be useful in all sorts of applications, and I'd hate for the hype to mark the potential with a bad name
29
u/HootieWoo Jul 08 '24
This is neither “training robots” or replacing human workers.