I think it’s generally a brilliant solution but there are a couple of problems here:
The scanner seems to flag fucking everything and charge for minor damage where a human would probably flag it as wear.
No one is allowed to correct the scanner:
Perturbed by the apparent mistake, the user tried to speak to employees and managers at the Hertz counter, but none were able to help, and all “pointed fingers at the ‘AI scanner.’” They were told to contact customer support — but even that proved futile after representatives claimed they “can’t do anything.”
Sounds to me like they’re just trying to replace those employees. That’s why they won’t let them interfere.
Companies have been fucking consumers since the beginning of time and consumers, time and time again, bend over and ask for more. Just look at all of the most successful companies in the world and ask yourself, are they constantly trying to deliver the amazing service possible for their customers or are they trying to fuck them at every available opportunity?
I feel like the go to strategy would be to offer incredible service at first, then once you are big enough to force out competitors and the like, then you start fucking the consumer
I’m not sure how you can make the points you make, and still call it a “generally brilliant solution”
The entire point of this system - like anything a giant company like Hertz does - is not to be fair to the customer. The point is to screw the customer over to make money.
Not allowing human employees to challenge the AI decision is very intentional, because it defers your complaint to a later time when you have to phone customer support.
This means you no longer have the persuasion power of being there in person at the time of the assessment, and means you have to muster the time and effort to call customer services - which they are hoping you won’t bother doing - who even if you do call can then easily swerve you over the phone.
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”
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.
In this case, the lack of human override discussed in point 3 is, itself, a human-made decision that I am claiming is an error in implementing this technology. That is the human element.
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”.
It’s really funny here. There already exists software that does this stuff. It’s existed for quite a while. I personally know a software engineer that works at a company that creates this stuff. It’s sold to insurance companies. Hertz version must just totally suck.
I think it’s generally a brilliant solution but there are a couple of problems here:
Sounds to me like they’re just trying to replace those employees. That’s why they won’t let them interfere.
Sounds like they want to lose those customers.
Companies have been fucking consumers since the beginning of time and consumers, time and time again, bend over and ask for more. Just look at all of the most successful companies in the world and ask yourself, are they constantly trying to deliver the amazing service possible for their customers or are they trying to fuck them at every available opportunity?
I feel like the go to strategy would be to offer incredible service at first, then once you are big enough to force out competitors and the like, then you start fucking the consumer
The word used for that strategy is usually “enshittification”. It happens a lot after digital tech is introduced in a new sector.
Not many people today remember when Google was actually useful. Once upon a time.
From “don’t be evil” to “be as evil as possible”
But they know their competitions are doing to adopt the same type of tech, so where are those customers going to go when they have no choice?
I’m not sure how you can make the points you make, and still call it a “generally brilliant solution”
The entire point of this system - like anything a giant company like Hertz does - is not to be fair to the customer. The point is to screw the customer over to make money.
Not allowing human employees to challenge the AI decision is very intentional, because it defers your complaint to a later time when you have to phone customer support.
This means you no longer have the persuasion power of being there in person at the time of the assessment, and means you have to muster the time and effort to call customer services - which they are hoping you won’t bother doing - who even if you do call can then easily swerve you over the phone.
This is all part of the game plan.
Because the technology itself is not the problem, it’s the application. Not complicated.
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
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”
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:
In this case, the lack of human override discussed in point 3 is, itself, a human-made decision that I am claiming is an error in implementing this technology. That is the human element.
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”.
It’s really funny here. There already exists software that does this stuff. It’s existed for quite a while. I personally know a software engineer that works at a company that creates this stuff. It’s sold to insurance companies. Hertz version must just totally suck.