percent

Remember to use candidate name and company name variables.

Well it looks like this reminder worked 😆

If you're unsatisfied with my answer, then maybe consider asking them. I'm just a guy writing comments on Lemmy.

If most cars are autonomous, and capable of coordinating with each other (via mesh network, for example), then traffic congestion might become much easier to ~~prevent~~ reduce and ~~solve~~ mitigate. (Edit: Based on responses, I may have chosen my words poorly)

You're probably not wrong though. I imagine it'll get worse before it gets better.

So... you do assume that you're the first to think of this problem, or...?

If you assume that your brain is somehow superior[^1] to everyone involved in the R&D, engineering, data analysts/QC, etc., then this may come as a surprise to you: You're not even the first Lemmy commenter to think of it.

Literally multiple people here already thought about that and commented before you did. They're not the first either; the author of the article herself even thought about it.

This idea is among the most obvious potential problems that come to mind within seconds or minutes of just hearing about the concept. It's not a dumb idea by any means (it's completely valid), it's just not a particularly smart or special one.

911 is not the first department in that city[^2] to use this tech, and that city isn't even the first to adopt it. It's silly to assume that such an easy-to-solve problem hasn't been addressed by now, or that it somehow has not yet happened in other deployments.

[^1]: To be clear: I make no assumptions that your brain is not superior to theirs either – I couldn't possibly know either way. AFAIK, I've never even met you nor them... But I think it would be a safe bet that you don't know either.

[^2]: BTW, have you heard cajun accents? There's no way this bridge hasn't already been crossed during their 311 trials.

https://infosec.pub/comment/23116617

Very incorrect. Why do you ask?

I don't know the concrete answer to your "what if,' and I don't think you or the author of the article do either. That would be a question for Carbyne.

I would speculate that there is an answer, and that neither you nor the author are the first to think of these problem scenarios. There's design, engineering, and real-world testing involved.

Do you honestly think that nobody has thought about that and solved that problem already? Even with all the engineers involved, and after all the real-world testing, you're the first to have considered that scenario?

Even consumer-grade products like ChatGPT can be interrupted while talking. We're talking about an AI implementation, not some rigid set of if...else statements.

So if somebody calls and is completely out of his mind, what will AI do?

Is this a rhetorical question?

Just in case you wanted a real answer: The caller is obviously not saying "yes," so transfer to human.

To be clear: I don’t know anyone at Carbyne or OPCD. I can only offer speculation. But I'm curious: What would you have guessed?

I wish this were pinned at the top. It seems like almost nobody reads beyond the headline.

I (mostly) agree. I was just TL;DR'ing it for the shocking number of people who are commenting about things that are already addressed in the article that they didn't bother reading.

I hesitate to agree with "absolutely" though. I don't know enough about their situation to confidently have an opinion that strong[^1].

AI can be useful for some dynamic situations – and 911 call centers can get pretty "dynamic" at times.

Imagine a busy 911 call center. Clippy appears (wearing a firefighter uniform) on an operator's screen with a message like "The last 4 calls were about the same car fire. There are currently 9 calls in the queue. Want me to triage?" It would take WAY less time for a busy operator to click "Yes" than it would to step away and go record some voice message, configure some automated thing, etc.

[^1]: I only ever knew one dispatcher personally, and even in her town (much lower population than New Orleans'), they were overworked.

:sigh: Okay, I'll try to break it down even more...

I don’t think there’s any net positive that would account for not answering an emergency call at all.

Exactly. That's what they want to solve.

TL;DR: Even when callers reach the triage bot, they can still reach a human much faster than without the triage bot.

Comparing again:

• WITHOUT the triage tech:

  • NOBODY (or nothing) answers the call for a long while, because the caller is stuck in a very long queue of calls waiting to tell them about the same emergency

• WITH the triage tech:

  • AI bot answers the call instantly and probably knows how to help because the call is probably about the same emergency that 95% of the other calls are about
    • so 95% less spam for the human operators to get through
  • If the call is NOT about the same thing as the others, the caller can simply say that (i.e., "no"), and they reach a human within, say, 5-10 seconds because the operators aren't busy trying to get through the spam calls

They chose this tech because it has already proven to be a net positive on their non-emergency line.