Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI Market Clarity

blog.eladgil.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: AI Market Clarity

#51

Post by 9rx »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #36
OtherShrezzing wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is a dire indictment of the state of capitalism from start to end.

Is it just me or has the tide of opinion on HN really shifted against capitalism in the past year?

Nah. "Capitalism" is simply losing its original meaning amid more lower quality comments.

If you look closely, the earlier comment is really about the apparent failing of intellectual property laws (which are antithetical to capitalism!), not capitalism. In the olden days HN users would have taken care to make it clear that they were talking about IP laws, but now "capitalism" has come to be used as some kind of catch-all for all the ills seen around government. Most especially when it is a comment void of anything useful and is merely trying to tug on heart strings.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#52

Post by lxgr »

PaulHoule wrote: post #44
lxgr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> frustrate visitors into using email Many companies cleverly solve this issue by not having an email address in the first place. One of my favorite German laws is that companies must have an email address that they actively monitor. I can send support requests or cancellations there using my preferred medium, without having to figure out my account number or secret handshake, listen or read through a win-back opport…

Send an email with Reply-To: no-reply@example.com and go to jail!

That's not how it works. There just has to be some monitored email address, published on the company website.

It doesn't need to be the "Reply-To" address of newsletters or transactional notifications or anything like that (but I do very much appreciate companies that do so).

Re: AI Market Clarity

#53

Post by torginus »

fxtentacle wrote: post #23
bmau5 wrote: post #3

Customer Service keeps being touted as a success story of LLMs, but as a business owner and user I'd be very curious to see if it actually improves any UX CS metrics (NPS, CSAT) - as my experiences with AI chatbots are almost always negative. It can certainly frustrate visitors into using email or abandoning their efforts altogether, but at least for my business we've found current platforms aren't able to navigate t…

My experience has been pretty great: I regularly chat with the Dott support robot because their shitty app lets you book a ride without camera access, but then the in-app flow doesn't let you end the ride without camera access. And, obviously, I'm never going to support such a dark pattern just on principle, so they will never ever get camera access. That means after every trip, I copy&paste "dear robot, no camera, p…

Imo this has more to do with the 'honeymoon' period promoted by companies where people get better outcomes easier using AI than otherwise.

Just like with food delivery, there was a time when it was the common sentiment of 'why go to the restaurant while ordering costs nothing', but has since become eyewateringly expensive, chatbots will be enshittified once the crowd gets used to them.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#54

Post by PaulHoule »

lxgr wrote: post #52
PaulHoule wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Send an email with Reply-To: no-reply@example.com and go to jail!

That's not how it works. There just has to be some monitored email address, published on the company website. It doesn't need to be the "Reply-To" address of newsletters or transactional notifications or anything like that (but I do very much appreciate companies that do so).

It should be.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#55

Post by throwawayoldie »

District5524 wrote: post #48

Although there is a part on the use of AI in the legal market, but it is neither comprehensive, nor informative. A much better view of the law-specific state of the art models is available at https://www.vals.ai/vlair (although registration is needed to access the report). That benchmark in the report clearly shows that there is not much added value or moat in the custom training of Harvey (costing supposedly ~5M$),…

I think what the public really wants to know about Harvey is, is it named for Harvey Birdman, Attorney-At-Law?

Re: AI Market Clarity

#56

Post by mlinhares »

9rx wrote: post #51
AlecSchueler wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it just me or has the tide of opinion on HN really shifted against capitalism in the past year?

Nah. "Capitalism" is simply losing its original meaning amid more lower quality comments. If you look closely, the earlier comment is really about the apparent failing of intellectual property laws (which are antithetical to capitalism!), not capitalism. In the olden days HN users would have taken care to make it clear that they were talking about IP laws, but now "capitalism" has come to be used as some kind of catc…

Capitalism suffers from the same problem as communism, its either everything is capitalism or nothing is capitalism. The frequent pattern is if it is good, its capitalism, if it is bad it isn't.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#57

Post by 9rx »

mlinhares wrote: post #56
9rx wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. "Capitalism" is simply losing its original meaning amid more lower quality comments. If you look closely, the earlier comment is really about the apparent failing of intellectual property laws (which are antithetical to capitalism!), not capitalism. In the olden days HN users would have taken care to make it clear that they were talking about IP laws, but now "capitalism" has come to be used as some kind of catc…

Capitalism suffers from the same problem as communism, its either everything is capitalism or nothing is capitalism. The frequent pattern is if it is good, its capitalism, if it is bad it isn't.

That makes sense. Communism in its original sense is literally science fiction, but along the way, in an effort to tug on heart strings, communism also came to refer to rule under the Communist party. Which follows that (HN being American-centric), capitalism is being used to mean rule under the Republican party — which, especially in the past year, has seen growing negative sentiment.

Another commenter basically said the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44651323

But I maintain that is still a product of lower quality comments. In the HN days of yore, commenters put more effort in to speaking clearly (often to the point of pedantry, for better or worse) rather than trying to get readers' emotions all worked up.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#58

Post by mashygpig »

9rx wrote: post #51
AlecSchueler wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it just me or has the tide of opinion on HN really shifted against capitalism in the past year?

Nah. "Capitalism" is simply losing its original meaning amid more lower quality comments. If you look closely, the earlier comment is really about the apparent failing of intellectual property laws (which are antithetical to capitalism!), not capitalism. In the olden days HN users would have taken care to make it clear that they were talking about IP laws, but now "capitalism" has come to be used as some kind of catc…

I’m looking closely and I’m not seeing IP laws being relevant. Maybe regarding windows 11 keys? Can you elaborate?

I think the claim isn’t totally inaccurate. Claiming that companies prioritize making products last just beyond return windows because that maximizes profits is a critique of capitalism IMO. Since capitalism is about profit (capital) being the dominant signal as far as I understand it.

In my opinion, a lot of frustration about capitalism nowadays can be tied to Goodhart’s law. Profit being the measure and companies getting so efficient at optimizing it, that we’re starting to harm the things that profit is a proxy for.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#59

Post by gear54rus »

OtherShrezzing wrote: post #30
fxtentacle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience has been pretty great: I regularly chat with the Dott support robot because their shitty app lets you book a ride without camera access, but then the in-app flow doesn't let you end the ride without camera access. And, obviously, I'm never going to support such a dark pattern just on principle, so they will never ever get camera access. That means after every trip, I copy&paste "dear robot, no camera, p…

This comment is a dire indictment of the state of capitalism from start to end.

I'm stunned that they actually gave access for a chat bot to do refunds without human interaction. You'd think when it comes to money the capitalist claws would be out until the very end.

Re: AI Market Clarity

#60

Post by AlecSchueler »

Matumio wrote: post #47
AlecSchueler wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it just me or has the tide of opinion on HN really shifted against capitalism in the past year?

I don't think pointing out something that goes wrong under the current flavour of capitalism is the same as being against capitalism. Similarly, reporting a bad police officer doesn't really mean I'm against having a police, it can also mean that I want them to do a better job.

No, certainly not, but individual instances can be seen as part of a larger trend.
Post reply on HN