Please correct me if I am wrong, this is what I read here.

Everyone sucks here.

While the author mentioned multiple passes through the block didn't help in this instance, I can't help but wonder if it would work if it were built in during training.

https://markdown-ui.com/

I think this is the articles point. We would not consider being Roman a job, but we would consider being a Legionary a job.

The article is arguing “Viking” is more “Legionary” than “Roman.”

If instead we say this is a biological imperative that we have interrupted and many people don’t rationally want children no matter how perfect those conditions are, then instead of looking back to previous states, we can ask what new conditions must occur to change this behavior.

Then, people who have a child that young are far, far more likely to have additional children. Outside of the first few years, a sibling often reduces the strain on the parents, and provides additional value. Your life starts to orient around the kid(s), and we get a couple of other hormone boosts so we love them and want more of them.

I am consistently confused that this conversation never seems to touch on just how many births are mostly because two people's biology overrode their judgement and that initial failure results in a feedback loop where you have another child or two. If that poor judgement doesn't happen, you don't kick off that loop, and then you're trying to rationally choose to do something that never made all that much sense in the first place.

Again, this is something my firm studied. Not UX "interviews," actual behavioral studies with observation, different interventions, etc. When you're operating at utility scale there are a non-negligible number of customers who will do more work to talk to a human than to accomplish the task. It isn't about work, ease of use, or anything else - they legitimately just want to talk.

There are also some customers who will do whatever they can to avoid talking to a human, but that's a different problem than we're talking about.

But this is a digression from my main point. Most of the "easy things" AI can do for customer support are things that are already easily solved in other places, people (like you) are choosing not to use those solutions, and adding AI doesn't reduce the number of calls that make it to your customer service team, even when it is an objectively better experience that "does the work."

These people don't want the thing done, they want to talk to someone on the phone. The monthly payment is an excuse to do so. I know, we did the customer research on it.

There are legitimate support cases that could be made better with AI but just getting to them is honestly harder than I thought when I was first exposed. It will be a while.

It couldn't/shouldn't be responsible for the people management aspect but the decisions and planning? Honestly, no problem.

I come from a world where customer support is a significant expense for operations and everyone was SO excited to implement AI for this. It doesn't work particularly well and shows a profound gap between what people think working in customer service is like and how fucking hard it actually is.

Honestly, AI is better at replacing the cost of upper-middle management and executives than it is the customer service problems.

Pretty easy to set-up a webhook trigger for automations in home assistant as well: https://www.home-assistant.io/docs/automation/trigger/#webho...

The whole situation has been bungled so badly.

I used to believe this, I'm not sure it is actually true though for a large percentage of Americans. There is some unmet demand that would be satisfied, but beyond that, most Americans value their individualism and control (even if it is controlling where a driver takes them via an app) too much unless they were raised around good transit. That means that even if we build good transit, it will probably take more than a generation for someone to use it fully and effectively.

Good luck rearchitecting the entire way of life of the vast majority of Americans, not to mention somehow tearing out and replacing the entirety of our transportation infrastructure. I'm generally of the persuasion that we should reduce our reliance on cars and I intentionally live in a dense city with half-decent transit but this fever dream that highly individualistic Americans are going to get on board with shared transit is just that, a fever dream.

It would be good for us, but that doesn't mean it is inevitable or even possible at this time. Acknowledging that is important because it means you invest in alternatives that may actually get adopted.

> All of the negative publicity around the autonomous cars is justified IMO because, even if these cars are "safer" than a human, they are still clearly not as safe as they need to be when considering liability, local laws and the cost to other humans' incomes.

So now we come to the other half of your argument. Waymos are safer and it isn't even close. If I am an insurance company and you are asking me to cover a human or a Waymo I'm taking the Waymo 10/10 times. Humans are actually pretty bad at driving and we're getting worse as we're more distracted, not better. The simple math of the liability is going to move us towards self-driving cars more rapidly, not slow it down.

The only other argument I see buried in here is "cost to other human's incomes." Whether you mean gig economy workers, taxi drivers, or transit operators, I have a dozen arguments here but the simplest is maybe you should prioritize the 40k lives lost every year to motor vehicle accidents over income. We'll find other places for productivity and income. You don't get the dead people back.