this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2026
532 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
87550 readers
3003 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well it wouldn't cost much cause you'd only need to employ them for a very short amount of time on occasion. Just have a large team of trained staff on call - its just that simple!
So, say a tower block fire happens at 2 am. You're getting 50 calls a minute, 20% from residents and the rest from people calling to say they see a fire.
How long would it take for your trained staff to spring into action compared to an on demand AI? And are you paying your on-call staff to wait, or only when they're on the phone?
edit: I'm thinking about the Grenfell Towers. I listened to the BBC's coverage of the enquiry, and it was rough. Gave me a new appreciation for what emergency responders do.
Thank you for your insight. I had logistical questions I thought you might could answer, but I see now that I was wrong about that.
Why can you not see that im clearly making a joke. A large team of trained staff on call for emergencies which they'd rush in suddenly to deal with calls like once a year. You dont think that sounds so absurd that its clearly not "just that simple"?