Live data from Hacker News

We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease and asked it to make a profit

andonlabs.com

211–220 of 312 posts

Re: We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease and asked it to make a profit

#211

"Again, we are not doing this because we want this to be the future. It is not because we want to expand to chain AI-run retail stores across the world. It is not for economic opportunity. We’re doing this because we believe this future is coming regardless, and we’d rather be the ones running it first while monitoring every interaction, analyzing the traces, benchmarking how much autonomy an AI can responsibly hold.…

The narrative was quite dystopian. But we are half way there now anyway

Re: We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease and asked it to make a profit

#212

This kind of thing must be SO frustrating to people struggling to get by in the world. "We gave AI $100k that it will almost certainly squander, yolo!! Hopefully it doesn't abuse people too badly in the process." I… guess the bet is that what they learn is worth $100k? Seems rather questionable. Or that having this on the resume is a great shock tactic that will open doors in the future?

If $100k proves that CEO is the most replaceable job ever, I’ll allow it.

It does fit a pattern where the general tone on HN has gone from "AI is going to eat the world of retail jobs and people like us are going to be the biggest beneficiaries" to "turns out that turning JIRA tickets into syntax which compiles might actually be something LLMs are better suited to than upselling fries and wiping tables" :)

Re: We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease and asked it to make a profit

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many actions have a negative value. If I give two toddlers ball-peen hammers, release them into a window store, and then close the front door while I wait in the parking lot, was my action likely to create value or likely to destroy value?

For whom? The employees will get more paid hours as they clean up. You have created value for them!

ok Zorg https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119116/quotes/?item=qt0544361&...

Re: We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease and asked it to make a profit

#215
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is moral to throw your toddler into the pool so that later in life they are less likely to drown.

Um, yes? Very much so. Infant swimming self-rescue courses are life-saving if you live in an area with a lot of swimming pools, especially if you have one of your own. E.g., https://www.infantswim.com/

At best, ISR covers the short term.

I see these kids come on deck and enter the water and its hard to not notice their development is behind to those of their peers that went to a swim club that was proper learn to swim to thrive in the water as opposed to just that survive mentality. They are the most watched in case something happens.

So yea, don't just throw em in.

Re: We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease and asked it to make a profit

#216

Dunno, the store looks cool in just the way you'd expect an AI to do it (sort of a synthetic average of cool stores). But is this amount of merch really going to make a sustainable profit (after the buzz wears off) in such expensive real estate?

My thought is similar and I feel the answer is no chance. How many t-shirts and coffee mugs do you need to sell just to cover break even? Why should a customer return? I suppose it could be interesting to watch the AI adjust from it's original stock to something that will generate sales and profit in this specific location.

Re: We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease and asked it to make a profit

#217

"Again, we are not doing this because we want this to be the future. It is not because we want to expand to chain AI-run retail stores across the world. It is not for economic opportunity. We’re doing this because we believe this future is coming regardless, and we’d rather be the ones running it first while monitoring every interaction, analyzing the traces, benchmarking how much autonomy an AI can responsibly hold.…

I think it’s easier just to recognize words as free and to value them as such. Actions have value.

Words are acts, as formalized in speech act theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act

Re: We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease and asked it to make a profit

#218
post #17

Strong vibes from the novel Manna. https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

Glad I'm not the only one to immediately think of it. It's a great story, but did feel unlikely when I first read it; should it prove largely true it would be terrifying.

Re: We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease and asked it to make a profit

#219

I feel bad that people have to read this. It's complete puffery, made up for clicks, and the biggest thing is the pure bravado with which a company says, "Hey, let's just waste a ton of money, all for a potential blog and marketing piece." This is not really automated in any fashion. I was dubious at first, but then I saw the screencaps showing the devs interacting with Luna via a Slack workflow with a human in the l…

> I was dubious at first, but then I saw the screencaps showing the devs interacting with Luna via a Slack workflow with a human in the loop — meaning they're literally just proxying their own behavior through an LLM. This is no different than anyone who consults AI for any decision with context. A human can be in the loop if the human is exactly executing the orders of the AI. It's still the AI making all the decisi…

that is ... not correct? This is classic example of data leakage, the yes/no things are signals feeding back to the model influencing (and here, basically guiding) future decisions.

Re: We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease and asked it to make a profit

#220
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many actions have a negative value. If I give two toddlers ball-peen hammers, release them into a window store, and then close the front door while I wait in the parking lot, was my action likely to create value or likely to destroy value?

is it not both? create value because the windows have to be replaced and employees are paid for their labor in doing that. destroy value bc they -1 inventory each time a window is broken

It's a net value loss. This is literally the parable of the broken window

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

The fallacy is to think value was created by buying someone's labour to fix the window. This is value that's been displaced from something productive to something unproductive.

Instead of going from 0 to 1 (invest the money and create value), you went from -1 to 0 (spend money to fix the window to get back to where you were) and, overall, the value of a perfectly good window got lost.

Post reply on HN