this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
48 points (92.9% liked)

Technology

71997 readers
2883 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

It is an interesting article, even if it's conclusions are entirely too rosy. The "storefront" was a single vending machine, and the bot was instructed to interact with Anthropic employees (with an hourly cost attached) to do all physical interactions. While the bot did a decent job managing the stock most of the time, it made a lot of bad decisions based on trying to be too helpful to it's customers. It also frequently hallucinated, with some hilarious results I wont spoil here. But as anyone who owns a small business knows, one bad decision could put it under, so saying that an AI can manage a vending machine well "most of the time" is equivalent to saying it cant do the job at all.

Their conclusion is that with a bit more work, Claude might be able to perform as a middle-manager. To me, that says more about how useless middle-management is than how capable their AI is.

[–] sepi@piefed.social 3 points 2 hours ago

So what you are saying is the AI is ready to replace tech CEOs.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 17 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Anybody who thought the answer could have been even remotely close to Yes is delusional.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 11 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I doubt anyone expected it to work completely, but it is interesting to see to what extent it worked and how it failed (halucinations and sycophancy)

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 2 points 13 hours ago

True; I just hate headlines that ask stupid questions.

But then again, there's always the premise that it could work, in such attempts, which annoys me no less.

[–] Uff@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

This shit needs to start being regulated.

[–] Pro@programming.dev 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Uff@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

AI needs to be regulated. It's already creeping everywhere. People getting fired and replaced with sloppy AI, holding petabytes of people's data and work hostage, the list goes on. You can't even ask a question without being asked for personal data to the AI and you certainly can't do whatever you want with it.

If it's going to replace humans, it needs to be regulated like one.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago

There is currently no regulation against humans creating slop or making bad business decisions. Prohibiting the use of tools for certain tasks to save jobs is a recipe for disaster, which is actually what you are saying I think.