3 ms·
I’ve used Kaedim a lot and it is great. We’ve known pretty much from the beginning it is people or mostly people. But not sure why that would be a problem for p
by dr_dshiv 3y ago
I’ve used Kaedim a lot and it is great. We’ve known pretty much from the beginning it is people or mostly people. But not sure why that would be a problem for people. I’m sure they try to automate as much as they can to save cost.
- nickpinkston 3y agoUnsure why this is controversial. It's pretty common practice to start full manual and then automate pieces of the process as you go with a human-in-the-loop, often with edge cases still being full manual forever as the cost of labor < cost to engineer out of all edge cases.
- Cenk 3y agoIt’s controversial because it’s fundamentally dishonest
- lancesells 3y agoBecause it's lying to your customers, to your investors, to the press, etc.
- nickpinkston 3y agoI'm unsure if they're claiming "It's 100% automated now" vs "Our goal is 100% automated". If it's the former, then yea that's dishonest, but the point is whether it's scalable now / likely possible eventually. I could imagine that being the case.
- abraxas 3y agoMostly because they positioned themselves as being a revolutionary AI shop that can crack the 2D->3D mapping with AI. They are not branding themselves as an outsourcing shop but from the circumstantial evidence presented in the article this is what they are. I think this is another case of a "fake it till you make it" attempt. While legally it might not be in the same category of fraud as Theranos it nonetheless feels pretty fishy when there is a literal man behind the curtain moving the chess pieces.