1) Making the same bad decisions multiple times, and having no recollection of it happening (or at least pretending to have none) and without any attempt to implement measures to prevent it from happening in the future
2) Trying to please people (I read it as: trying to avoid immediate conflict) over doing what's right
3) Shifting blame on a party that realistically, in the context of the work, bears no blame and whose handling should be considered part of the job (i.e. a patient being scared and acting irrationally)
They managed to do this absurdity without any help from AI.
There is definitely room for improvement though. My dentist sends a text message a couple days before, and requires me to reply yes to it or they'll cancel my appointment. A text message is better than a call.
If the "AI" isn't better at its job than a human, then what's the point?
Off the top of my head, things that could be considered "the point":
- It's much cheaper
- It's more replicable
- It can be scaled more readily
But again, not what I was arguing for or against; my comment mostly pertained to "world through a straw"
However, I have a deep uneasy feeling, that the models will really start to shine in agentic tasks when we start giving them more agency. I'm worried that we will learn that the only way to get a super-human vending machine virtuoso, is to make a model that can and will tell you to fuck off when you cross a boundary the model itself has created. You can extrapolate the potential implications of moving this beyond just a vending demo.
When you have things such as Verbatim[0] that remind you that the absurdity of real life is far beyond anything fiction could ever hope to dream up.
[0](https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/times-insider/20...)