Supposedly AI is going to take all the jobs and yet it still can't do this task which it seems perfect for. Sure, eventually AI will get good enough to do it in the future, but there is just way too much hype given the reality of the current situation. This is a job that fast food workers are already required to do in addition to other duties, so it's not like it's labor saving from the company's perspective either.
There is no certainty that LLMs can overcome the current limitations they are stumbling on.
I think developments in AI will come but there is no guarantee they will. They seem to be suffering from the Pareto Principle just like self-driving car ML models and this despite huge investments.
100% this. The base algorithms used in LLMs have been around for at least 15 years. What we have now is only slightly different than it was then. The latest advancement was training a model on stupid amounts of scraped data off the Internet. And it took all that data to make something that gave you half decent results. There isn't much juice left to squeeze here, but so many people are assuming exponential growth and "just wait until the AI trains other AI."
It's really like 10% new tech and 90% hype/marketing. The worst is that it's got so many people fooled you hear many of these dumb takes from respectable journalists interviewing "tech" journalists. It's just perpetuating the hype. Now your boss/manager is buying in =]
Breakthroughs are so interesting and the reason predicting the future of tech is so hard. Text embedding and "Internet scale" training are likely the things that allowed this AI boom and the amazing initial results.
I think many people see AI (and other tech) moving linearly from the current point forward but any software developer knows this is rarely the case. And no one can predict the next breakthrough.
It doesn't help the hype and confusion around ML/LLM/AGI. And because on the surface LLMs seem intelligent people misunderstand their capabilities (much like politicians). They certainly have fantastic uses just as they are now but a lot of people are overly optimistic (or pessimistic depending on your point of view) of our new "AI overlords".
Personally, LLMs are absolutely amazing at supporting me in my professional writing. I don't let it do my work but it helps me play around to find a better way to express some things like if I had a sparing writing partner.
Why not just have a touchscreen menu then? You already need large screens so people can confirm the AI recorded their order correctly and this will skip the need of a person manning the drive through menu. You could even include options to "hold the pickle", etc.
This would also be nice. Usually, I only order fast food if I can place a call first (Indian, Chinese, Mexican, Pizza, etc). Grubhub fees are ridiculous or and apps are always taking your data.
The issue with touchscreen kiosks is that some have short arms.
On another note, I get the benefits of computer-voice-operated drive-thrus. No need to use your phone. If your phone's 🔋 is 3%, you can still buy food.
I actually went to a mcdonalds that did this. It was overall way more slow and annoying. I would be willing to make that concession if knew that it was something to worked towards a better future for humans, but all its means is that someone is getting fired under capitalism. Also it failed to understand if I wanted sauce and just referred me to someone actually working.
I think McDs always planned to roll out remote customer service to really maximize capitalism. And wrapping it under AI because that's a trendy buzzword!
I don't think that replacing order taking positions is stealing anyone's job, in fast food at least. I worked at a fast food joint one time. We were always shorthanded and we always had to do order taking while doing a bunch of other things. It was such bullshit. From an overworked employee perspective, if there was any way to get out of doing drive through orders while doing all my other tasks, I would be happy to use it.
They will still be short staffed and overworked. The company isn’t outsourcing the drive through out of the kindness of their hearts in order to lighten the workload on the employees.
I prefer a touchscreen in general. Although I realize that different companies have better or worse systems. I read complaints about self checkout in the USA and scratch my head since in Holland self checkout is lovely.
Got stopped a few times after leaving the self checkout. Very rudely. Extremely rudely. The excuse every time was that I did it too fast and they suspected theft. Refuse to use self checkout. They can shove it.
Touch screens for ordering are ok. Except when you have tech illiterate people in front of you.
The kinds of places that get touchscreen kiosks often have teenagers taking your order who are not paid or trained enough to give any shits about any of it. The touchscreen saves both of you from doing the worst part of the whole process.
I mean if I really need onions on a mcchicken I can still order at the front but then I have to deal with trying to get my specialty order across, which is even more hassle. Mainly I want no salt on my fries and no sauce on my burger.
Trust me, you don't need that shit. Melted cheese is good sauce and the residual salt in the fries tray is plenty, and you'll get fresh fries every time.
I like the touch screen ordering systems, but thats probably just because im autistic and find human interaction tough :p Im glad its an option, but it shouldnt be the only one for accessibility reasons.
It's fine when what you want is on the menu. But as soon as you have a question or need something a little bit off menu (hold the tomatoes, does that have nuts in it? I'm allergic, this food came out cold can I get another?) the glorified vending machine doesn't work.
The good machines (uncertain about McDonald's) let's you customize everything. Want three pickles? So it. Half mayo? Sure. No top bun? Live your life!b And it gives you ingredient listings.
And whose to say the minwage cashier even knows what's in the food? Not at all a insult, but in my area, many cashiers have English as their third/fourth language.
I wouldn't mind letting a "robot" do that kind of work. In a perfect world that would mean less work. In the real world it means they van fire some people and make even more money. But then again, i would never eat at McDonald's anyway, so it's hard to boycott
I'm kinda ok with a combination, like hey during the day run with mostly humans but at night supplement lack of staff when automation (so long as it's safe)
Agreed. It’s a manifestation of society’s collective acceptance that money > humans and all businesses should be expected to operate that way full speed ahead.
And unfortunately, it’s not just the businesses’ fault. Do we really think fast food consumers would reward the drive thru that adds a dollar to every burger so that your order is taken and cooked by real people?
I wonder if they could actually get worse than the drive-thru order stations I've experienced. I work in audio, so I know what is technically possible. To talk to and trying to convey an order through a system that sounds worse than my grandmas' rotary dial telephone during a thunderstorm is a real pain for me.
Why would they in the first place? What's wrong with a touchscreen menu to take an order?
Then, of course, I'm not sure such places fundamentally even need human personnel other than maintenance techs. Standard ingredients, prepackaged I think, standard hardware to cook, standard everything. It can just be a huge burger-selling machine with no human in sight.
I personally HATE those places where you walk inside and you need to use the stupid touchscreen. I've asked someone to take my order, they say no. So I get in the car and go to the drive through where you still get a person taking your order.
Not the OP but for me it takes like 4 times longer to use the tuch screen. Find the button for what i want. Do you want to super-sized? Do you want fries with that? How are you paying today? Blah blah blah whereas with the counter its me saying one sentence and them pushing 2 buttons.
If there are 4 people in line for a cashier, take away the cashier and you still have 4 people in line waiting for the kiosk.... And it will take longer because ordering from the kiosk is a slow process.
Maybe stand a foot further apart from the screen? That way you'll be able to see the button better.
What you hate about it are the constant upsell shenanigans, not the touchscreen per se. I dislike those, too, but I reckon the human staff are also trying to sell more than you want?
Its because those touch screens have clunky UI and are slow if they made it simple and straightforward instead of a question for every page it would be as fast if not faster than a person ordering at a register. Most PoS systems are touch screen nowadays so literally all your doing instead of putting in the options in yourself is telling someone else what to put in. They also do it hundreds of times an hour so they are way faster that someone whos only used a kiosk a few times
Lots of their drive thrus use a person to take the order, and at a busy drive thru this becomes a dedicated person or persons just to take orders. If they can flip it to AI then they could open more lanes and reduce staff. Problem is that a skilled person is going to be better than AI over a shitty audio system, look at how Alexa and Siri struggle even when they have an optimized reception setup than the crappy setup you have at a drive thru with the person sitting inside their car, with music on and so on.
Maybe voice interfaces are simply a fundamentally flawed idea. If one can extend a hand to take the package with the food, they can also push a few buttons. If those buttons are with hercons or such, they'll even last longer than consumer-grade touchscreens.
Of course it's easier when a human takes the order. But then if the cost of N screens with physical buttons is equal to that, one can make their order, say, N/2 times slower without any hurry and, well, the throughput should be higher still.
For drive thrus - that'd be M lanes with such terminals and a bit slower than M lanes with people. So - depends on how the cost of asphalt and space and people and terminals work economically.
What's definitely idiotic is to think one can replace a human with an "AI" without losing in efficiency. But then again, maybe it's worth it.
While I like the ideas with screens, and fixed buttons even more so, they haven't gone with them despite the tech being available for a considerable time. I do wonder if its mostly down to how people use them rather than a limitation of the tech itself. Watch how many people nearly swipe or even do scrape exit parking machines, even simple parking meters stop working, people struggle to use the ones inside, then add in weather damage/proofing and vandalism and I would guess thats a big part of it. As its often a closed queue system any problem becomes a major issue almost instantly.
Maybe I'm just really good with talking to robots, but the AI drivethru voice at my local McDonald's is way, way, way more accurate than basically all of the employees they used to have running it before. A few times it's been down for whatever reason and an actual human takes my order and I remember how shit they are at their jobs when they get my order wrong yet again, or can't hear me, or talk with gum in their mouths or whatever.
Two stories like this--as in, "oops AI sucks actually", in about as many weeks. (The other one was about Amazon shutting down their Just Walk Out mechanical turk nonsense.)
I think we're starting to see the tide turn against Altman's big con.
I liked this quote BTW:
the test left it confident “that a voice-ordering solution for drive-thru will be part of our restaurants’ future.”
lmao you... already have one of those? So the subtext of this message is "we can't just say AI was a terrible idea but yeah, we're going back to the shit that worked before"
I wonder if the concept could still be useful. It fails if the goal is removing human workers, but the tech basically enables "cashiers" to work from home, and that's a win for the cashiers who'd like that.
But no one is going to invest in a win for the cashiers, and if they did, then like we saw, it would be outsourcing the work to third world nations, rather than local people having the ability to work from home...