Yep.

Part of the issue will be convincing the decision makers. They may not want to document a process for deviation x because it’s easier to pretend it doesn’t occur, and you don’t need to record specific metrics if it’s a generic “manual fix by CS” issue. It’s easier for them to give a support team employee (or manager) override on everything just in case.

To your point, in theory it should be much easier to dump that ad-hoc solution into an AI knowledge base than draw up requirements and budget to fix the application. Maybe the real thing I should be concerned with is suits using that as a solution rather than ever fixing their broken products.

I think there’s good potential where the caller needs information.

But I am skeptical for problem-solving, especially where it requires process deviations. Like last week, I had an issue where a service I signed up for inexplicably set the start date incorrectly. It seems the application does not allow the user to change start dates themselves within a certain window. So, I went to support, and wasted my time with the AI bot until it would pass me off to a human. The human solved the problem in five seconds because they’re allowed to manually change it on their end and just did that.

Clearly the people who designed the software and the process did not foresee this issue, but someone understood their own limitations enough to give support personnel access to perform manual updates. I worry companies will not want to give AI agents the same capabilities, fearing users can talk their AI agent into giving them free service or something.

They are almost certainly not actually working that much though. Look up the recent Massachusetts state police overtime scandal.

For agencies that are “funded” by the companies they regulate, they sure give them a hard time and cost them a lot of money. Even the biggest pharmas spend a significant amount of resources erring on the side of caution over even minor details, so as to not have a regulator throw out their results and tell them to do it again. Which does happen sometimes.

Of course no research review is flawless. If your standard is flawless, you’re deliberately setting an impossible standard for no discernable concrete benefit. But it’s rigorous, public, and the regulators have the authority to pull treatments off the market if post-approval research has troubling results. Which they do sometimes.

This sort of asinine concern trolling is a serious danger to public health. It would be one thing if it was valid criticisms, of which there are plenty, combined with realistic proposals for alternatives. But it never is, and now we have nearly or previously eradicated diseases making a comeback.

FDA, EMA, and PMDA to name a few. Do you not know the basics about the thing you seem to have a very strong opinion about?

What did you think was going to happen? Another company or university would graciously fund and conduct a trial of Moderna’s product for no reason?

If conducting a regulated clinical trial and having the results independently reviewed by government agencies in each market they seek to enter is not sufficient, I think you’ve already made up your mind.

Viruses and prions fall under the umbrella of germs/pathogens. They did not disprove germ theory. They still align with the idea that pathogens cause diseases. That’s still true.

I’m pretty sure this is just how people try to manipulate Trump. He responds to flattery, and this almost makes it sound like Trump would be weak to do nothing.

So this is what Cardi B was talking about.