4 ms·

This was proven to be false on the WAN show. Only 20% of transactions were low confidence and handled by mechanical turk. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=433kipk

This was proven to be false on the WAN show. Only 20% of transactions were low confidence and handled by mechanical turk. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=433kipkEERY&t=8479s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=433kipkEERY&t=8479s

larrik 9mo ago
20% seems like a "significant portion" to me
- Breza 9mo ago
  For sure! Twenty percent moves you from "Game changing tech" to "Slightly improved self checkout."
mjr00 9mo ago
20% is an incredibly high number though, if a store has 400 people/hour that means you're manually reviewing 80 transactions per hour, over one transaction per minute. That's multiple human employees.
- iLoveOncall 9mo ago
  One transaction per minute is nothing at all when the transaction can be as simple as "did the person put that back on the shelf" with a 5 seconds clip.
  - freejazz 9mo ago
    If it was clear from just a 5 second clip it probably wouldn't have needed to be reviewed
    - iLoveOncall 9mo ago
      Hum, yes it does? It's not because it's not a complex action that it's necessarily supported by the models. It's not hard to imagine edge scenarios for which the models aren't trained, like a customer dropping an item, or putting an item back in a random shelf instead of the one it's intended for, or someone picking up that previously randomly placed item, etc.
      - freejazz 9mo ago
        Just a big assumption on your part when the more reasonable conclusion was just that it was not working and it was not a 5 second thing (hence why receipts were taking so long, etc).
pessimizer 9mo ago
Proven "false." I've noticed that if one admits the truth with a dismissive or offended tone, you can just continue to claim the lie and through sheer force of will people will still go with it. I think people just think that they must be misunderstanding something; that nobody could claim one thing while offering evidence of its opposite. 1/5 of purchases lose their significance.
whateveracct 9mo ago
Transactions or grabs? Cuz I grab >5 things every time..so it stands to reason Indians always reviewed me.
EdiX 9mo ago
Nothing has been "proven". The original story was The Information (paywalled article) reshared by Business Insider [1] and claimed that 70% of the transactions were reviewed by an indian. The source was an anonymous source. Business Insider also reached out to Amazon at the time and a spokesperson denied that actually reviewed any transactions. This "proven false" thing is just another anonymous source claiming that actually it was only 20%. So you actually have no proof of anything, you just have three persons claiming three different things (0%, 20% and 70%). [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-just-walk-out-actually-1-000-people-in-india-2024-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-just-walk-out-actual...

larrik 9mo ago

20% seems like a "significant portion" to me

Breza 9mo ago
For sure! Twenty percent moves you from "Game changing tech" to "Slightly improved self checkout."

mjr00 9mo ago

20% is an incredibly high number though, if a store has 400 people/hour that means you're manually reviewing 80 transactions per hour, over one transaction per minute. That's multiple human employees.

iLoveOncall 9mo ago
One transaction per minute is nothing at all when the transaction can be as simple as "did the person put that back on the shelf" with a 5 seconds clip.
- freejazz 9mo ago
  If it was clear from just a 5 second clip it probably wouldn't have needed to be reviewed
  - iLoveOncall 9mo ago
    Hum, yes it does? It's not because it's not a complex action that it's necessarily supported by the models. It's not hard to imagine edge scenarios for which the models aren't trained, like a customer dropping an item, or putting an item back in a random shelf instead of the one it's intended for, or someone picking up that previously randomly placed item, etc.
    - freejazz 9mo ago
      Just a big assumption on your part when the more reasonable conclusion was just that it was not working and it was not a 5 second thing (hence why receipts were taking so long, etc).

pessimizer 9mo ago

Proven "false." I've noticed that if one admits the truth with a dismissive or offended tone, you can just continue to claim the lie and through sheer force of will people will still go with it. I think people just think that they must be misunderstanding something; that nobody could claim one thing while offering evidence of its opposite. 1/5 of purchases lose their significance.

whateveracct 9mo ago

Transactions or grabs? Cuz I grab >5 things every time..so it stands to reason Indians always reviewed me.

EdiX 9mo ago

Nothing has been "proven". The original story was The Information (paywalled article) reshared by Business Insider [1] and claimed that 70% of the transactions were reviewed by an indian. The source was an anonymous source. Business Insider also reached out to Amazon at the time and a spokesperson denied that actually reviewed any transactions. This "proven false" thing is just another anonymous source claiming that actually it was only 20%. So you actually have no proof of anything, you just have three persons claiming three different things (0%, 20% and 70%). [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-just-walk-out-actually-1-000-people-in-india-2024-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-just-walk-out-actual...