I know the implied better solution to your example story would be for there to not be a standard that the specification has to conform to, but sometimes there is a reason for such a standard, in which case getting rid of the standard is just as bad as the AI channel in the example, and the real solution is for the two humans to actually take their work seriously.
patatahooligan@lemmy.world 4 days ago
This is really funny to me. If you keep optimizing this process you’ll eventually completely remove the AI parts. Really shows how some of the pains AI claims to solve are self-inflicted. A good UI would have allowed the user to make this transaction in the same time it took to give the AI its initial instructions.
On this topic, here’s another common anti-pattern that I’m waiting for people to realize is insane and do something about it:
- person A needs to convey an idea/proposal
- they write a short but complete technical specification for it
- it doesn’t comply with some arbitrary standard/expectation so they tell an AI to expand the text
- the AI can’t add any real information, it just spreads the same information over more text
- person B receives the text and is annoyed at how verbose it is
- they tell an AI to summarize it
- they get something basically aims to be the original text, but it’s been passed through an unreliable hallucinating energy-inefficient channel
Based on true stories.
The above is not to say that every AI use case is made up or that the demo in the video isn’t cool. It’s also not a problem exclusive to AI. This is a more general observation that people don’t question the sanity of interfaces enough, even when it costs them a lot of extra work to comply with it.
WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
patatahooligan@lemmy.world 3 days ago
No, the implied solution is to reevaluate the standard rather than hacking around it. The two humans should communicate that the standard works for neither side and design a better way to do things.
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 days ago
A good UI would have allowed the user to make this transaction in the same time it took to give the AI its initial instructions.
Maybe, but by the 2nd call the AI would be more time efficient and if there were 20 venues to check, the person is now saving hours of their time.
jj4211@lemmy.world 3 days ago
But we already have ways to search an entire city of hotels for booking, much much faster even than this one conversation would be.
Even if going with agents, why in the world would it be over a voice line instead of data?
FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 days ago
The same reason that humanoid robots are useful even though we have purpose built robots: The world is designed with humans in mind.
Sure, there are many different websites that solve the problem. But each of them solve it in a different way and each of them require a different way of interfacing with them. However, they all are built to be interfaced with by humans. So if you create AI/robots with the ability to operate like a human, then they are automatically given access to massive amounts of pre-made infrastructure for free.
You don’t need special robot lifts in your apartment building if the cleaning robots can just take the elevators. You don’t need to design APIs for scripts to access your website if the AI can just use a browser with a mouse and keyboard.
hansolo@lemm.ee 4 days ago
I mean, if you optimize it effectively up front, an index of hotels with AI agents doing customer service should be available, with an Agent-only channel, allowing what amounts to a text chat between the two agents. There’s no sense in doing this over the low-fi medium of sound when 50 exchanged packets will do the job. Especially if the agents are both of the same LLM.
AI Agents need their own Discord, and standards.
Start with hotels and travel industry and you’re reinventing the Global Distribution System travel agents use, but without the humans.
bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
Just make a fucking web form for booking