Comment on AI Laundromat????

partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• Canconda@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  business point of view, how much more for the product/service would you be willing to pay for a human operator

  Inversely; How comfortable would you be in a society where you couldn’t access another human if you couldn’t afford one? Because that’s where prioritizing profit over people is going to lead us.

  source

  • Hackworth@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    When I’m on the phone with a real human being in customer service, I’m often actually talking to an egregore of the company. They’re reading scripts (written by AI?), being scored by an AI that’s listening in to the recorded conversation, and responding in ways that the conversation tree tells them to respond. Even in the call center jobs that aren’t so managed, there’s really only so far someone can go off script. So while I definitely want more genuine human interaction in the world, I dunno if this is the hill to fight on. All that said, we’re definitely headed for the cyberpunk future, cause everything’s run by a buncha gonks.

    source

    • Canconda@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Totally. But that’s not what I’m saying. Just to recap.

      Buddy said AI/automation/clankas/gonks save money so if we want humans to provide us services we need to be willing to pay more. I posited that money being a barrier to human interaction is probably not a good endgame.

      When I had my first ever surgery, I got wheeled into an operating room full of strangers operating who all introduce themselves and participated in making me feel safe and calm. If it weren’t for them, I’d have 100% freaked the fuck out.

      Now I’m okay with robot surgeons and dentist doing what they’re programmed to do… but I don’t fucking trust them. I would only accept that kind of treatment if there a human in control of that situation.

      That’s where my mind goes when I imagine a world where human provided service is paywalled.

      source
  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Inversely; How comfortable would you be in a society where you couldn’t access another human if you couldn’t afford one? Because that’s where prioritizing profit over people is going to lead us.

    I’d argue we’re already there in many aspects of our society.

    source

    • Canconda@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I would fully agree. But it could still get worse.

      source

      • kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I would fully agree but you all couldn’t afford my input.

        source
  • Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    That was one of my main thoughts against. Profits over people. I don’t want a dime of my money going to AI run companies if I can give it to a human. So far AI has not proliferated to the point where I cannot get a specific service via human. I am also sure that time will come. Since I am old I hope I die before that happens.

    source
• qarbone@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Have you seen prices drop since companies have laid off all the human help? If human interaction is such a botique concession how did business manage until now and where did their savings go?

  Why are prices staying the same (if we’re lucky) or still rising, services are staying the same (if we’re lucky) or getting worse, companies are taking all these cost-saving measures like sweeping layoffs, and yet the biggest companies are generally posting record profits?

  I understand you’re probably playing devil’s advocate but devils aren’t entitled to an attorney.

  source

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Have you seen prices drop since companies have laid off all the human help? If human interaction is such a botique concession how did business manage until now and where did their savings go?

    A portion to expensive human salaries. Another portion so naked profit taking on the part of these businesses.

    To the salaries angle, look at nations which still have massively large populations with low labor costs. You’ll see that work is done by dozens or hundreds of low paid humans instead of automation. There is a tipping point where it becomes cheaper to invest in automation rather than paying a human. In places like Europe, USA, and Japan we’re way past that tipping point and automation (whether thats robots, computer automation, or AI) becomes the significantly cheaper option to getting something done/manufactured. China is quickly joining our ranks too. While they still have a large population, the cost of labor in China is reaching middle class levels and we’re starting to see the same thing there were automation is replacing human workers.

    Why are prices staying the same (if we’re lucky) or still rising, services are staying the same (if we’re lucky) or getting worse,

    Because in our economic system a small amount of inflation is necessary. A deflationary status in our economy would actually be devastating. However, when the economy overheats we get significant inflation.

    companies are taking all these cost-saving measures like sweeping layoffs, and yet the biggest companies are generally posting record profits?

    I don’t disagree with this.

    I understand you’re probably playing devil’s advocate but devils aren’t entitled to an attorney.

    I am, but if people are asking these question non-rhetorically, then they actually want to know why these things happen. I’m willing to provide the understanding I’m aware of, most of which isn’t obvious without prior study. Understanding why the current state exists is the starting point for affecting change, if they want change.

    source
• Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I would pay more for a human without a second thought.

  Fuck AI

  source

  • Canconda@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    what do you really save when you personally save for example $.30 on a transaction when the AI spends five dollars in energy?

    Exactly. The economy right now is a big ball and cup game so that the rich can convince workers to keep funding their kleptocracy.

    We pay taxes for public services and utilities that generate private profits while the rich get to benefit of the infrastructure that we funded. The cups, the balls, and the god damn table were all built and paid for by the working class.

    source
  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I would pay more for a human without a second thought.

    Fuck AI

    Edit: what do you really save when you personally save for example $.30 on a transaction when the AI spends five dollars in energy?

    Your scales are off. The fully loaded cost of a human worker that can answer customer service questions is probably $60k-$100k per year. That worker can only talk to one customer at a time. That worker can’t cover an entire shift by themselves because you have to have extra workers to accommodate sick/vacation time. So the cost to the company to service the customer service request is potentially $15-$40.

    The cost of the AI to provide customer service (we’re not talking about quality in this statement) is maybe $1 to $5 per customer serviced.

    The cost of the automated support is about an order of magnitude less than the human worker. Those higher costs for the human have to be rolled into the cost of the product or service.

    This might mean you pay $10 or more for the product or service (possibly much more if multiple customer service events are expected for the product/service). Likely not 30 cents saving you’re estimating.

    source

    • Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Then why are they asking people to stop having showers in cities to power the AI?

      source

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Then why are they asking people to stop having showers in cities to power the AI?

        Because those communities have not structured their laws/regulations/bylaws to properly capture the true cost of utilities to its consumers and price it accordingly. Users should have fairly low rates up to a certain point, and then higher rates for higher consumption. The higher the consumption should cost exponentially more. Think of “gas guzzler” taxes on inefficient cars. Up to now these water utilities probably haven’t needed to make these changes.

        If the water utilities price it appropriately high for the data center provider one of two things will happen:

        • the data center provider will not build there and go elsewhere
        • the data center provider will switch to a “closed loop” system so they don’t have to use so much water.

        The reason DCs don’t do that second one by default is because “open loop” (extremely water hungry) is significantly cheaper to operate.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      As we know, people are stupid and they won’t manage their city/ county whatever’s utility management. So I guess it would be more beneficial to keep that in mind and not do the AI crap or are people going to magically become smart?

      source

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        As we know, people are stupid and they won’t manage their city/ county whatever’s utility management.

        Well thats up to you. I interact with my water co-op yearly at our annual meetings of operations and budgets. This is how I have all this info on Data Center water usage. We have two DCs being built in our co-op coverage territory as we speak. One is a regional colo provider “closed loop” system and uses only marginally more water than an office building of cube farms. The other is an AWS datacenter that is going “open loop” and wants the most water at the worst time (hottest time) of the year. We’re putting the the screws to them and charging them out the yang for it. Its going to pay for additional water infrastructure elsewhere to serve more of the co-op customers and allow us to build an expensive pipeline from one end of the service area to the other.

        So I guess it would be more beneficial to keep that in mind and not do the AI crap or are people going to magically become smart?

        Make sure you don’t use crypto either then. Its been a larger offender of electricity and water waste than AI has yet.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  how much more for the product/service would you be willing to pay for a human operator on the other side or conversely, how cheap would the non-human supported product/service have to be for you to choose it over the more expensive human supported option?

  The fucking normal amount. These changes within the corporate world are not advantageous, they cut their overhead and operating costs without furnishing any decreased cost to the end-user (that you, me, and anyone else giving patronage to the business in question). A similar setup can be observed in the quality of ‘consumer goods’, where the materials used in manufacture (wood/aluminum/paint/lacquer/finish) were compromised with cheap, flimsy, shitty plastic. Some of it is literally garbage straight out of the box. Despite this, prices have not only not decreased, but normalized. Even worse, it’s become difficult to source products which aren’t worthless pieces of shit which cannot be repaired, at least not without considerable research - some of it also cannot be repaired without cannibalizing copies of the same device because no replacement parts have been manufactured.

  People ‘vote with their wallets’ inasmuch as people on a raft in the ocean vote for beef instead of fish for supper. There is none available, of course they’re going to eat the fucking fish.

  source

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    The fucking normal amount.

    The “normal amount” keeps going up especially with the cost of human labor. So the “normal amount” would actually be a “large increased amount” for the same service with no additional benefits.

    Some of it is literally garbage straight out of the box. Despite this, prices have not only not decreased, but normalized at best. Even worse, it’s become difficult to source products which aren’t worthless pieces of shit which cannot be repaired, at least not without considerable research - some of it also cannot be repaired without cannibalizing copies of the same device because no replacement parts have been manufactured.

    The good ones can still be had, but they are massively more expensive, so people don’t buy them. Lets take washing machines. This is generally the same design, quality, and longevity out grandparents bought 40 years ago. This is a basic unit without any fancy features:

    Image

    Here’s the modern enshitified basic unit like the kind you’re referring to that won’t last:

    Image

    People ‘vote with their wallets’ inasmuch as people on a raft in the ocean vote for beef instead of fish for supper. There is none available, of course they’re going to eat the fucking fish.

    Speedqueen exists! What brand of washer do you own? Do you walk the walk and did you spend over $1000+ more for a unit that does the exact same job, but is repairable will last 20 or 30 years or did you buy the cheap one?

    source

    • TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      The cost of labour keeps increasing, so prices increase, almost as if the two were intrinsically tied. The “large increased amount” for the same service with no additional benefits is precisely the problem. Companies contrive to rake in massive profits for themselves and their shareholders at the expense of their employees and customers, a state of affairs which I’d argue has become intolerable.

      Image

      As for your example of the washing machines, I’ve got news for you and it’s not good - they’re both shit, the above cited example isn’t an example of the washing machines purchased by our Grandparents which were built like brick shithouses. The unit costing $1000 more isn’t on par with the models and designs of yesteryear, not nearly. Add to this the shrinking pool of home appliances which are manufactured without tied-in computerization, another factor which will shorten their service life considerably (replacement chips will be in short supply once the model is discontinued, forcing owners to source a small pool of qualified repairmen who in turn will be unable to source parts or be forced to cannibalize other broken units). I seriously can’t believe that your example of high quality appliance is Speed Queen sold at Best Buy, is it the one that you bought, or could you really not think of a better one on the spot?

      source

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        As for your example of the washing machines, I’ve got news for you and it’s not good - they’re both shit, the above cited example isn’t an example of the washing machines purchased by our Grandparents which were built like brick shithouses. The unit costing $1000 more isn’t on par with the models and designs of yesteryear, not nearly.

        Citation needed. How are they not good repairable washers?

        Add to this the shrinking pool of home appliances which are manufactured without tied-in computerization, another factor which will shorten their service life considerably (replacement chips will be in short supply once the model is discontinued, forcing owners to source a small pool of qualified repairmen who in turn will be unable to source parts or be forced to cannibalize other broken units).

        The Speedqueen has none of those things so I’m not sure why you’re bringing that up as a rebuttal to my Speedqueen example.

        I seriously can’t believe that your example of high quality appliance is Speed Queen sold at Best Buy, is it the one that you bought, or could you really not think of a better one on the spot?

        This is a really odd question you’re asking because how you asked it destroys your own argument. “or could you really not think of a better one on the spot?” suggests you know of a good washer equal to the units of the past, but your argument above is that better washers don’t exist. So which is your argument, that there are the good washers like those in the past that I simply haven’t cited, or that no better washers exist and they are all enshitified?

        source
• brendansimms@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Can you provide an example where “Most people … choose the non-human one because its significantly cheaper to the consumer of the product/service.”

  source

  • Canconda@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    because its significantly cheaper to the consumer of the product/service."

    This. The only example where I pick a robot over a human is self checkout… and that’s cuz it’s faster due to there only be 1 queue for several checkouts. Not because it saves me money.

    source

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      This. The only example where I pick a robot over a human is self checkout… and that’s cuz it’s faster due to there only be 1 queue for several checkouts. Not because it saves me money.

      You choose to go to a store that has outsourced human labor to machines. Even if you only occasionally use the self-checkout yourself, many other shoppers use the self-checkout. The prices you’re paying for your purchases are lower across the board because they don’t have to pay for as many cashiers.

      Are there no stores (for the particular goods you’re buying in this example) that have zero self-checkout? If there are others that employee humans exclusively to check out, then your philosophy should have you shopping only at those and not at stores that have replaced humans with automation. I should warn you, those stores are probably more expensive to shop at.

      source

      • Canconda@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        The prices you’re paying for your purchases are lower across the board because they don’t have to pay for as many cashiers.

        In theory yes. But that’s not going to be universal for every product. Not every product can become a “loss leader”. So to a degree it depends on the individual shopper.

        I should warn you, those stores are probably more expensive to shop at.

        While that’s true, you have to admit that stores with zero checkout automation also likely lack the buying power to purchase in bulk like the large retailers who can afford checkout automation.

        My philosophy with grocery shopping is I want it to be done asap. IMO self-checkout isn’t inherently faster than cashiers. It’s arrangement of single queues leading to multiple registers that speeds up the lines.

        Additionally, I prefer to bag my own groceries so that I know the fragile items won’t be damaged getting them home.

        source
  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Can you provide an example where “Most people … choose the non-human one because its significantly cheaper to the consumer of the product/service.”

    Sure. Frontier airlines charges a fee to talk to a customer service human agent while the same tasks can be accomplished for free through the app/website:

    Image

    source

    source
• knightly@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  how much more for the product/service would you be willing to pay for a human operator on the other side or conversely, how cheap would the non-human supported product/service have to be for you to choose it over the more expensive human supported option?

  Better question, how much is a company willing to pay me to use an LLM instead of going to one of their competitors?

  Because if the answer is insultingly small then I’m not patronizing them.

  source

  • HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Because if the answer is insultingly small then I’m not patronizing them

    Why would they pay you anything at all?

    source

    • knightly@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Because if they don’t then I won’t use their chatbot.

      source