I suspect the (perhaps misguided) goal was to avoid a scenario where an array of patchwork solutions leads to a deluge of exceptions to the patchwork solutions require even more intervention. IMO, what they should have done was issue a mandate that finals carry on as usual for any class where they can do so without tightening any access limitations: In-person can remain in-person or go online, synchronous ("the final is at 9:00am-11am") online can stay as such or go asynchronous ("take the final at your convenience today")
huh? Have you never bought clothing in person before? Is Costco really your only exposure to buying clothes in a physical space? Is "big shop full of clothes" an American thing no one has ever pointed out to me?
Fair, I did leave out the soda that comes with the hotdog. But that could be a diet soda. (and seems to frequently be, given that my local Costco has 4 diet coke spouts, as opposed to 1-2 of any others)
I did look up the calorie count for both. 550-ish for the hotdog, 650-ish for the pizza.
The Government taking money and burning it is called "taxation". With fiat currency, the government makes the money, out of nothing, at its discretion. They then collect most of it back in the form of taxes. Keep in mind, the money they're collecting is going into the pile of infinite money, and Inf + 1 = Inf.
Fiscal policy all about adjusting those levers (how much, and where, the government injects money into the economy, and how much, and where, the government extracts it back out) in order to promote the society we want to have.
This is a tired point of discussion, brought up exclusively by contrarians trying to be edgy. No one earnestly believes that they don't have free will, because if they did, it would result in obvious deviance in behavior. Everyone treats each other as if they have choices, and in turn behaves like they have choices. If the assertion is that we don't have free will, but are forced to (due to our lack of free will) to behave and believe like we do, than there's no difference in experience to compared to having free will, and it ends up in the pile of pointless conversations like what if we're a brain in a jar, or in a simulation, or whatever.
> No one earnestly believes that they don't have free will, because if they did, it would result in obvious deviance in behavior.
That's just not true. I'm not convinced I have free will, though in my day-to-day life I admit it makes no difference whether I make choices or merely experience the illusion of making choices. And it's certainly not edginess that drives my uncertainty. I could probably find you talks by at least one person that's quite convinced they don't have free will and would try to convince you of the same.
Funnily enough I share parts of both of your opinions - due to the lack of the better explanation for what I'm experiencing I do believe I'm conscious (something LLM would say!), but I'm also not entirely convicted I have a free will - it might be free-ish, within the confines of some narrow set of parameters, like a inside of the straw for the ant.
However once again for the lack of the evidence to the contrary, I treat myself and others like we have a free will (for the most part).
Sabine Hossenfelder has a fascinating video on the subject.
Not just difficulty on the browsing side, difficulty on the presentation side, too. It took a while for anybody to figure out a decent presentation for forums on mobile devices, and in the meantime the experience was terrible. Frankly, you can get away with much worse UI on desktop, which made hacking together a webpage much easier.
On the spend management side of things, I've found pretty remarkable success in letting LLMs check "does this receipt match this reimbursement request and based on all the information about the user, the request, and our policy, is it appropriately allocated to appropriate GL, Location, Department, and Project codes?" If the verification step fails, it kicks it back and the user can either override it (which gets it flagged for AP review), or fix it. It does substantially better than the naive Bayes classifier I was using before.
Why? It sounds exactly like the design I would hope for. It automates what I'm going to do already without needing to wait. And it allows you to bypass it entirely and just revert to the manual process (along with waiting).
That all sounds reasonable until you realize that the same logic is how we ended up with customer support systems that try to walk you through a phone tree and if you are lucky, you will be able to press 0 to speak to a human without answering a bunch of questions first and being referred to the online help articles.
Do you enjoy using any of those systems? Do you want the world to be that way?
Maybe we are interpreting the GP differently. In this scenario, the phone tree is doing the same questions that the human agent is going to do but does it immediately when I call rather than "waiting for an operator" to ask me those questions. And as long as I can "press 0 to eject" (just like I can in the accounting scenario, then its completely kosher to me.
No, we end up with crappy systems because people are optimizing to save money over providing a good service. OP has simply replaced the traditional room full of clerks applying policy rigorously with a baysian algorithm and now AI. The management and oversight is still in place, and that is what makes a system that doesn't suck. To make it suck and save money, you remove access to that oversight or just remove it all together. And falling down that slippery slope is not inevitable, even if it sometimes seems like it is.
Regarding customer support on phone:
I usually have lock with just waiting and not responding to the tel bot, very often you are routed to a human at the end :-D
In many businesses, the employee is responsible for inputting most of that. If a LLM can get to 95% accuracy and flag exceptions, the employees (and AP team) would actually have less work and bureaucracy.
Though we’ve had a few incidents where employees have submitted AI-generated receipts for reimbursement which is another issue..
It's already pretty common for some sort of tool involving some sort of AI to collect receipt data and attempt to categorise them and hook up to your accounts. They also make mistakes, though the advantage of more tractable, less configurable and more limited models is they're unlikely to interpret a prompt as "invent receipts that have never been submitted" or "delete records", as well as trained much more on receipt OCR and less on poetry....
As a business, you've also got to remember that employees are much more likely to complain if the 'agent' or any other form of automation errs by denying their claim or underpaying than the reverse. Depending on the scale of expenses and how likely you are to be audited, the cost of the odd mistake might be more or less than the cost of doing it manually.
Yeah the ones that were just fraud we termed almost immediately.. there were a few in the middle ground of where they’d lost their receipts (or decided that fabricating a receipt was easier) but we could verify that the expense actually took place from a cc statement. We added an extra approval step for those employees going forward which is annoying for everyone involved so hopefully they’ve learned their lesson there.
What is your point? This is pretty normal expense management in any company setting. I don’t know what is so bad about being on the other side of that. Hope I am not too inflammatory by asking what is the point but genuinely you pointed it out like it’s some archaic process flow but it’s part of almost every expense system.
I guess my current company’s processes may be easier to deal with than others. That or my position affords me some extra catering to.
The system is currently using a simple app to submit expenses and any issues gets a simple human chat request and a call if requested.
They try to avoid kicking anything back and if they do they make sure it’s reviewed first to make sure that it’s needed and to make sure the reason is understood.
Our company is also very large so I’m not sure how they manage but they do. People rave about the process instead of hating it.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. To add some color… most expense systems are setup so that the user has to input a couple fields like the category or GL code. Some of the fields might be auto populated. Some companies might not care about the classification but usually the intent is to capture things like travel or software etc. What was described earlier is really not painful for users most of the time but a LLM helps automate so much of it these days.
Kitten Space Agency is being made by one of the studios that attempted to land the contract to make KSP2. Basically, KSP1 had fundamental engine limitations that were blocking adding stuff that the developers really wanted (interstellar travel, better colonies, etc). So instead of just developing more DLC, they decided to make KSP2. Since the company that made KSP1 wasn't a game developer (they were a marketing company that gave their devs some free time), they shopped around for a studio to take it over. Of the studios that offered to take on the project, they ended up choosing Take2, because they had a flashy, art-focused pitch. Take 2 muddled around in development hell, then decided to abandon the engine rewrite, and focus almost exclusively on releasing a graphics overhaul of KSP1, all while still promising the features that required the engine rewrite in the first place. Queue absolutely disastrous early access launch. Rocketwerks, the KSA studio, were another one of the studios that pitched for KSP2, on the technical basis of their proposed replacement engine which would actually solve the problems that was KSP2 raison d'être. After Take2's KSP2 failed miserably, fired all it's staff, and then pretended that KSP2 wasn't dead for months, Rocketwerks announced that they were going to build their own game, KSA, on the engine that they had developed for KSP2.
In short, KSA is more of a KSP2 than what Take2 gave us.
reply