So why not Amazon for their shopping system in stores?
I think they’re pretty different cases.
Amazon’s one was essentially a side project for them, likely fully funded in-house using their R&D (research and development) budget.
In Nate’s case, it was their entire product. They received funding from investors purely for the AI functionality that didn’t actually exist or work. They specifically claimed that it did work, which is how they got the money. They spent all the investor money and had essentially nothing to show for it.
A perfectly legitimate question, especially since this misleading approach is precisely why Amazon’s Mechanical Turk is named like that.
The Mechanical Turk, also known as the Automaton Chess Player, was a fraudulent chess-playing machine built by Wolfgang von Kempelen in 1770. It appeared to play chess autonomously but was actually operated by a skilled human chess player hidden inside. (Source)
I don’t know the answer, but I assume that it probably has something to do with money and power…
I don’t think it’s exactly the same. If I used MT to label data for AI/ML, that would be one thing. If I used MT to complete tasks and calling their effort AI, that would be fraud.
Yes, that’s true. I just find it funny that Amazon named this line of business after a fraudulent device. For some of the things you can do with it, it’s probably quite the fitting name.
AGI is actually an acronym for “a guy instead”
In all honesty, if I was told my data would be handled by some guy in the Philippines rather than a black box algorithm, I’d consider that a plus.
“Human-handled” needs to be some a badge of honor.
“organic AI”
That’s just I.
yes, but with at least $100M of additional VC funding
This is scandalous! We were supposed to get a different kind of fraud!
They even probably worked better than real AI, the shame!
This is literally the plot to Trillion Game.
Hopefully they’re using all the interactions to train an actual model
