McDonald’s is removing artificial intelligence (AI) powered ordering technology from its drive-through restaurants in the US, after customers shared its comical mishaps online.
A trial of the system, which was developed by IBM and uses voice recognition software to process orders, was announced in 2019.
It has not proved entirely reliable, however, resulting in viral videos of bizarre misinterpreted orders ranging from bacon-topped ice cream to hundreds of dollars’ worth of chicken nuggets.
You’re projecting the future. It fundamentally cannot be factual. It’s a guess. Some guesses (that LLMs are a deeply flawed technology) come from a place of understanding how shit works that other guesses (LLMs are magic) don’t, but the actual future impact of the tech inherently must be an opinion, regardless of how well informed it is. There is no objective truth.
(All of this is without the fact that very little of the past is super concrete either. We know specific things happened with relatively high certainty, but why is, again, always a guess.)
Hmm is this a true statement no matter what people think of it?
It has not happened yet. By definition there is no “reality”.
There are merely informed opinions, uninformed opinions, and fraudulent opinions.
It’s a true statement for any future event.
It doesn’t soften the fact that opinions can be stupid and uninformed.
I see. So you say that any prediction about the future is subjective, except of course this prediction that you are making now? Every rule has en exception, except this rule, but if it doesn’t it does and if it does than it doesnt.
Not to date you too badly but 2500 years ago is when we figured out that everythinf is subjective leads to contradictions.
No, that’s not even sort of what I said. The fact that there is no inherent source of truth to compare to does not give license to idiotic takes. It doesn’t invalidate people pointing out that an opinion is idiotic. It’s simply an acknowledgement that multiple intelligent opinions are possible.
There’s inherent uncertainty to everything, down to such an extreme level that predicting individual particles’ behavior has to be probabilistic. The existence of that uncertainty doesn’t prevent some statements from being stupid and wrong.
So you are saying I was wrong before?