Comment on Hertz' AI System That Scans for "Damage" on Rental Cars Is Turning Into an Epic Disaster
papertowels@mander.xyz 4 weeks agoDo 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.
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
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.
Nah
Welp, as a wise person once said, you can’t argue with monkeys.
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
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.
papertowels@mander.xyz 4 weeks ago
Let’s make sure we’re building up from the same foundation. My assumptions are:
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”.
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
The implementation* itself is the human element.