61–70 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know it's the news orgs that transcribe the calls, right?
Of course. Not really sure what you think is a gotcha here though
It's just that not all calls are transcribed, and thus are not easily searchable. An extremely small fraction of them are transcribed, and I don't really see how one searches through those that are.
Maybe I've missed something here though.
How long until people die ? Probably people are dying already - fund the system properly, it may just be more obvious when they die now as the AI will have textual logging thats more easy to search.
911 calls are recorded. We see it all the time in various cases. Those tapes are transcribed. We see it all the time in news clips. Those transcriptions are also more easily searched. Why is this any better?
I don't agree with the luddite-esque AI views like using ChatGPT makes you dumber and it thinks for you , but- this is a real case of why people are angry and why they should be concerned about deployment of AI. The article says it's basically to handle high call volumes maybe during some kind of widespread incident. But in those cases why would AI even be needed- if calls are flooding in for something and people nee…
In case of major event they could just use prerecorded message at the beginning of the call to give people some simple advices for those who can call later, that's what we did in insurance claims department when the line was overloaded. By my experience sometmes dealing with pretty non-standard stuff + now experiences dealing with AI daily for work, this will 100% go wrong despite whatever their press release says about 100% success rate in 3 months (does anyone believe 100% rate?).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't agree with the luddite-esque AI views like using ChatGPT makes you dumber and it thinks for you I believe there are studies that indicate this to be true, however.
My $0.000002: You dont need a study to know delegating task X can make you worse at task X, nor do you need one to know its vacuously true and avoidable.
I don't agree with the luddite-esque AI views like using ChatGPT makes you dumber and it thinks for you , but- this is a real case of why people are angry and why they should be concerned about deployment of AI. The article says it's basically to handle high call volumes maybe during some kind of widespread incident. But in those cases why would AI even be needed- if calls are flooding in for something and people nee…
Having someone answer and provide updates or screen for new information is valuable. For instance someone calling can know exactly where the shooter is. Or it could be something related. Information is valuable. What's the alternative? Not have someone pick up the phones? No matter how much you over staff there will be times where peak volume will be more than you can support
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes the Internet still manages to astonish me, I tell ya.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It might actually be better. You might get higher throughput to actual first responders and a better ability to triage incidents. There are numerous examples of dispatchers being dismissive or ignoring people in emergency situations…this wouldn’t happen with an automated system
Instead there would be misinterpretations, misrouting, and deaths of despair when a model misjudges a situation. And it sounds like the model would be the first line of defense before routing, which is the WORST possible implementation of generative AI in a system like this. Ideally, models could be used here to provide additional information to a human operator (advanced transcription/translation for cases where cal…
good things can still come out of it if its done right
it will be a learning experience to patch out the rough edge cases, STT is quite good now