Comment on Hertz' AI System That Scans for "Damage" on Rental Cars Is Turning Into an Epic Disaster

• Trouble@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  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

  source

  • elephantium@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    The technology isn’t there to accurately assess damage. It’s there to give Hertz an excuse to charge you extra money. It’s working exactly as the ghouls in the C-suite like.

    source

    • Trouble@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It’s the guise of customer service sure, yeah

      source
  • papertowels@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • papertowels@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        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:

        1. Algorithms will make mistakes.
        2. There’s an acceptable level of error for all algorithms.
        3. 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”.

        source
      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        There is no human element to this implantation

        The implementation* itself is the human element.

        source
    • Trouble@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Stop light analogy is completely unequivocal

      You’re admitting the technology is in fact flawed if you think it needed to be implemented with supervision. An uno reverse is, every set of traffic lights needs a traffic controller to stop drivers running red lights. Unequivocal, right?

      Just stop because you’re wrong, lol

      source

      • papertowels@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        You’re admitting the technology is in fact flawed if you think it needed to be implemented with supervision.

        You’re absolutely right. The technology isn’t perfect if it needs to be implemented with supervision, but it can be good enough.

        Great examples are self checkout lanes, where there’s always an employee watching, and speed cameras, which always have an officer reviewing and signing off on tickets.

        An uno reverse is, every set of traffic lights needs a traffic controller to stop drivers running red lights.

        Traffic lights are meant to control traffic. Yet you don’t expect them to prevent folks from running red lights. Folks don’t expect them to, because that’s not their role in their implementation - they are meant to be used alongside folks who will enforce traffic laws, and, maybe in fact, traffic controllers. This is arguably an example of an implementation done right.

        This technology is meant to flag car damage. If there was a correct implementation, I would be able to say “folks don’t expect them to be perfect, because that’s not their role in their implementation - they are meant to be used alongside employees trained to verify damage exists, who can correct the algorithm if needed”, but the implementation in this case is sadly bad.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I was pretty clear about what I was referring to. The internet is just full of pedants lurking and waiting for their chance to UM ACKSHUALLY

      source
  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Just because THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT PERFECT does not mean it is NOT DOING WHAT IT’S intended to do. Sorry I’m having trouble controlling THE VOLUME OF MY VOICE.

    source

    • Trouble@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      There’s literally nothing wrong with the technology.

      Pick a lane troll

      source

      • papertowels@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Society typically understands “there’s nothing wrong with x” to mean it’s performing within acceptable boundaries, and not to mean that it has achieved perfection.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It’s the same lane moron. It can be both imperfect and also nothing wrong with it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments