MudMan

Top upvoted comment just tore a big fat hole into the entire argument and I have to say, good for the comments section. That’s so rare.

One open question here is whether we’re seeing youth employment decrease because AI is effectively replacing entry level workers in these fields, or because executives wrongly think AI can or will soon be able to do so?

You have to assume that if anybody puts a hiring freeze for junior employees right now it’d be out of some combination of caution, hype and insecurity about the economic landscape thanks to the usual suspects.

Turns out if the discussion is “quantitatively rich” but is ignoring the obvious qualitative observation it may end up flip-flopping a bunch. I’m not sure I’m as excited about that as the author, because man, is that a constant of the modern corporate world and does it suck and cost people money and stress.

There’s a growing wisdom gap coming in America. The people who are already well versed in company practices and culture are going to use AI to complete the tasks that they would have otherwise given to assistants and junior resources.

Counterpoint: no, they are not. Not with the current path of tech progress on the field, at lest.

Because seniors well versed in company practices and culture will get tired of having to manually redo junior work corrections really quick, and we are nowhere close to closing the error correction needs at this point.

Repetitive work that could feasibly have been automated or removed already? Maybe. There was a TON of room for automation that people weren’t investing on doing and the AI gold rush will feasibly take advantage of some of that. But AI replacing junior jobs wholesale? Nah. The tech isn’t there.

I do like to cancel my golf appointments when I die. It just distracts from the work at hand, you know?

That seems overengineered as hell to me. But then, having an entire LLM to do what much older voice recognition software could do better is overengineered by definition. The LLM won’t validate those things because the point of it, if it has one at all in this scenario, is for it to recognize off the cuff speech and malformed orders.

Which is partly why people are finding this idea doesn’t work, I suppose. Have a chatbot improvise based on what people are shouting and you get garbage inputs. Have strict requirements for voice commands and you get lots of failed attempts.

Unlike a bunch of other applications of AI chatbots this one maaaay eventually work. But then again, so may your idea. Honestly, if I was going to overengineer the shit out of having a tortilla-wrapped laxative inside a car I’d have you order directly in your phone and use that license plate recognition idea to prevent you having to talk to anybody or anything in the first place.

Holy crap, people have been reposting takes on this interview for like three days and you can track the degradation of the actual content via the game of telephone in the headlines.

It’s kinda depressing.

FWIW, having read the original interview everybody is reheating, the 18000 waters was a random example the Taco Bell exec WSJ interviewed used to explain that part of the issue is that people feel less guilty about messing with automated orders than when they’re talking to a human. They are also not backing out from automated orders, which is why the headline is using “rethink”.

The core of the issue is correct, though, the guy does spend a significant amount of time giving corpolese synonims of “it’s a mess”. “We’ve certainly learned a lot” has to be my favourite.

I am very confused by this repot, as it seems to imply something different than what it’s saying and what it’s saying seems to be… nothing specific at all?

So things are not going great, but that is not stopping Taco Bell from pushing forward with its AI embrace in one way or another. The fast food staple’s parent company, Yum Brands, announced a partnership with Nvidia earlier this year with the goal of improving the technology that powers its AI operations, including the order takers.

Now I have cognitive dissonance from both the uncanny use of fastidiously grammatically correct but unnanutral sounding Spanish in the headline AND the headline being entirely mismatched with the article.

Also, Gizmodo is still a thing? Holy shit. Would have lost money on that bet.

EDIT: Oh, it turns out the mismatched headline seems to be because the article is straight up retyping a similar piece from WSJ. WSJ’s take is also light on a specific event they’re reporting, beyond an executive talking about a thing, but at least they bother clarifying to what extent there is a change of policy. Turns out Gizmodo is absolutely still a thing. I had forgotten the regurgitated reporting-on-reporting stuff.