this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
1016 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

70995 readers
5222 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 108 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Peoole aren’t appreciating just how bad these things are because they’re misinterpreting it. The goal of what they are doing here and with Amazon was never to just fake the technology right. The goal was to fake that the technology existed by using humans to do an automated thing and then to leverage that into making it actually automated.

But essentially what that means is theyre inventing technology that hasn’t been invented yet and selling it to you and the reason for doing so is to replace you with technology before it can even technically happen.

It’s essentially like someone building a new automated factory and telling workers at their other locations that they can’t be hired there since it’s automated but then someone goes inside and finds out they’re just using child laborers until the robots are ready and also robots haven’t been invented yet.

They’re using blood to grease wheels that don’t even exist to turn yet.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 5 points 3 days ago

Feels like it should be illegal to mislead people like that.

[–] eRac@lemmings.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

On the other hand, the only way to get good training data is to generate data indistinguishable from the real-world scenario and then have humans mark it up the way you want the system to do it. You might as well have the data actually be from the real world and recoup some of the costs with sales.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Sure, but you still shouldn't be selling the technology as actually working, instead of developing.

Amazon bought whole foods a while back. What would have stopped them from just collecting the data in their own stores, and then developed the tech?

Hint: shareholder value.

[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What would have stopped them from just collecting the data in their own stores, and then developed the tech?

I won't pretend that Amazon avoided that due to ethical concerns, but doing that would have almost the exact same ethical concerns.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

All they had to do was run the tech alongside traditional cashiers. Make it known on entry, and your fine. No ethical concerns.

But what they did was sell tech they didnt have to shareholders to pump up the stock.

[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

The lying is unacceptable, but either they hire temporary workers to obsolete themselves, or they force tenured people to obsolete themselves.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

From an engineering perspective they didn’t want to do this since it’s not just about AI tasks. If you go watch videos of it they have camera arrays and special shelf layouts and all sorts of stuff.

Not to mention the engineers probably wanted to be able to test it privately and without disrupting an actual store and community.

So it’s what I would’ve done as well frankly

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What are you talking about?

It was never AI. It was always cheap remote people working in foreign countries. But you would take that, and sell it as AI like they did?

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Looked it up and according to their claims (which we don’t have much other info on) they said that 70% needed manual review. And I’m saying AI here but really that’s the buzzword, there was a whole engineered system behind this that was automated to some degree. So yeah it wasn’t AI but it also wasn’t just people either.