Ford Rehires Human Engineers After AI Fails Quality Checks

[Zlantann]

I like the way Charles Poon, Ford's vice president of vehicle hardware engineering, defines Artificial Intelligence:

Artificial intelligence is a fantastic tool, but it's only as good as the information you use to train it

The company thought that AI could replace humans, but they have learned that human creativity and experience are irreplaceable. This might just be the beginning, as I foresee more organisations calling back their staff. Some of these organisations that are investing heavily in AI might have to have a rethink because it's not a perfect tool as they assume.

[Spaceman1000$]

The hype on AI replacing human workers has been making waves for years now. Some people predict a massive job losses in our industries. But a recent report from Ford is raising concern over that claim.

According to report Ford had to rehire human engineers after their AI systems could not consistently meet the rigorous quality standards required in automotive manufacturing. Source

Quality failures can cost millions or even billions in this crypto space. In Bitcoin and crypto, we already know security is everything. would you trust a fully AI-built bridge, wallet, or exchange system without human engineers doing final checks? I know AI is powerful but it still needs human oversight. We've all seen AI-generated code with hidden bugs.

At this point I think human role remain irreplaceable in high quality production.

The human roles considers a lot of factors that AI might not know, the human being has emotional intelligence that gives a different creativity, the AI works like a machine, it give you what you want, which to a large extent it's good for high level production, but at some point, human input still very much needed. I want to emotional intelligence comes with creativity which helps to improve on the already existing quality of product that other human beings have done before now. So I would rather an AI system should be in use to stand as an assistant to the human production capacity not being the main source of the central knowledge of production.

[X-ray]

I like the way Charles Poon, Ford's vice president of vehicle hardware engineering, defines Artificial Intelligence:

Artificial intelligence is a fantastic tool, but it's only as good as the information you use to train it

The company thought that AI could replace humans, but they have learned that human creativity and experience are irreplaceable. This might just be the beginning, as I foresee more organisations calling back their staff. Some of these organisations that are investing heavily in AI might have to have a rethink because it's not a perfect tool as they assume.

With that statement, doesn't that weirdly imply that they are seeking engineers *temporarily* to collect data and train on it?

Human creativity and experience is irreplaceable but everything always have pattern and AI could learn pattern. With enough quality data as implied by the Ford's vice president, a good enough AI is possible.

They are at the stage of harvesting data with the premise of hiring you.

[viljy]

Well, here's an example of how the desire to reduce costs led to losses. These engineers should have formed a union and demanded a significant increase in their salaries from the corporation if they returned to work. However, I suspect that they didn't even consider such a possibility. Instead, they probably expressed their gratitude to Ford for hiring them back. Each individual was focused solely on their own interests. Modern society is intentionally atomized, and individuals are indoctrinated with the idea of competition in the job market, which benefits employers.

[Marvelockg]

According to report Ford had to rehire human engineers after their AI systems could not consistently meet the rigorous quality standards required in automotive manufacturing.

Regardless the industry, AI can only serve well when helped by humans. Try to run a completely automated system that takes out human intervention and You will see errors and mistakes that are fully blown out.

AI comes with a lot of advantages but with all the advantages, it can't exist independent of humans and it strength fully comes out when we help it achieve what it's supposed to be found doing. Apart from the lazy ones that don't want to grow in like with what technology and AI is demanding of us, there's no way AI can completely take away our jobs. The relevance of human in every workspace is unmatched.

[slapper]

The thing Ford did was that they fired those old engineers before they thought to put their brains into a computer. Years of experience in what looks good but is not strong enough for winter in Michigan. Or, why a seemingly redundant tolerance is actually load-bearing in a particular failure mode that occurs on a scale of a few hundred thousand production cycles. There was no document that contained that knowledge. It was simply the people. Then those folks were gone. The AI, taught on whatever was left, was just spitting out technically correct, but practically useless, outputs. Charles Poon from Ford basically admitted it. "AI is only as good as the information you use to train it".

And then they brought 350 of those engineers back. Not to replace the AI with. To retrain it. What an inversion of the original idea (that AI will supplant human expertise). What really happened is that human expertise is more needed and not less when AI is involved.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

At this point I think human role remain irreplaceable in high quality production.

It's going to take AI sometime before they can retire some of us out of jobs especially when your jobs isn't that simple but a very complicated one like an engineer, AI are exceptional, but humans have something that AI don't and that is what make us superior to them. The most advantage AI/robots has ahead of the human is that they can be used more efficiently in producing large number of products without needing rest that much the way we humans need rest so we don't burn out. Many of the companies firing their staff and replacing them with AI will regret in the near future because not only will the use of AI become more expensive than humans but there might be reduction in quality of the product due to one mistake that they won't be able to identify on time and then it destroys their reputation. AI still needs supervision even though they are to be used in place of human, a better working system will be where AI assists human instead of them replacing them fully as we still need human beings to have a good product.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Well, there are some human roles that can never be replaced by AI, they can try but the outcome of their results might not really be like that of humans, that's why I still used to argue with people that days AI will take away all the human jobs in the future, they can try but it's really not going to be possible to displace some human roles just like that, secondly, about using a wallet that is completely developed by an AI, I can only use it only if other tech pros has verified that the wallet is very safe and open source.

[Shadiq]

AI technology still has room for improvement. However, I don't think AI will ever be able to do perfect work or build something that people will trust 100% of the time. AI does its work based on human commands, but that work can never be 100% perfect. It is foolish to rely solely on AI in a construction project where human lives are involved. Even in large financial cases, people will not like to rely on AI. So even if AI does the work, there is still a need for human supervision, because it is still difficult for AI to verify quality.

[Rain1620]

This issue of Ai taking over human labor has been a massive reality check. With all honesty, when searching for means to fasten labor, Ai was found promising the aim was to ease and fasten the work that could be done at a time beyond the achievable in human method via command. To some extent the hype became much and people were blinded with the idea of cutting labor cost and dived into automation fully without considering that the engineering pillars are actually humans.
For a Figure like Ford to call back the human engineers to work is a prove that these Ai are still just tools and are not viable enough to replace human engineers.

For people that has experimented Ai code generation, we can all agree that at first  it works with accuracy and speed, it gets to a point where it starts hallucinating and missing some vital edge cases.
For huge industries like decentralized finance and automotive manufacturing, a slight oversight can result in chaos of a million dollar exploit failing physically. Relying solely on Ai without human verification is technically an operation tragedy.

Actually this tells that the human eye and general sensitivity to true accountability cannot be coded and shouldn’t be underestimated. Not like Ai are irrelevant, they are aswell relevant but needs human engineering in the loop for adequate functioning.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

The hype on AI replacing human workers has been making waves for years now. Some people predict a massive job losses in our industries. But a recent report from Ford is raising concern over that claim.

According to report Ford had to rehire human engineers after their AI systems could not consistently meet the rigorous quality standards required in automotive manufacturing. Source

AI cannot completely replace humans, I keep saying this in any argument I engage in. It can only replace the average Joe, but for highly skilled and specialized jobs, it cannot handle it alone without human validation. It can if course increase efficiency when humans learn to work with the tools and utilize it properly, but for total replacement, I don't think that time would come. This over dependence in AI would cost some companies long-term damages. AI can lend a helping hand but we would always need humans to direct and validate it's output for maximum efficiency.

[retreat]

"We recognised that for us to enhance some of our automation and machine learning and artificial intelligence tools we needed to ensure that they were trained by the most experienced individuals," he said, per Bloomberg.

It seems that they aren't hiring these engineers on a permanent basis, but rather as "trainers" for the AI ​​they're developing, so that the AI ​​can gain more data and experience from them. And it's possible that once their AI has become more experienced, these engineers will simply be phased out because their services are no longer needed, and the company will focus solely on developing its AI. This approach is likely to be adopted by more companies because AI only needs data - once it has the data, it can operate and learn simultaneously. Meanwhile, humans may still play a role, but more as supervisors, and their numbers may be fewer than we expect.

[Satofan44]

It is possible that the artificial intelligence that handles that role is not yet advanced enough to properly do it better than humans. This is why the company has had to rehire humans to ensure quality control. Over time as artificial intelligence improves, the company may decide to give it a try again, and if they find out that artificial intelligence can now solve the issue better than before, that is because of the improvements in its technology. It can happen that they decide to sack workers again and take those jobs over to artificial intelligence to handle.

Don't get comfortable; keep working on improving your skills.

There is no "artificial intelligence" at all, predicting what the next textual output should be based on a collection of input data is not "intelligence". That it is able to produce any kind of work is not intelligence either, it is mostly statistical luck from model tuning and massive data ingestion. Therefore, not only are these "machines" not able to produce any kind of quality work, they make even the most basic of errors. Today you may be impressed to see your "AI agent" create some advanced script, tomorrow this same "AI agent" will nuke your production database and client data -- something that anyone with more than a squirt of cum for a brain knows that you should not do. Therefore, users on this forum need to stop hallucinating -- get educated or shut up about "AI".

Just because everyone is talking about it, that does not mean that they know what they are talking about -- learn the difference.

[Faisal2202]

Quality failures can cost millions or even billions in this crypto space. In Bitcoin and crypto, we already know security is everything. would you trust a fully AI-built bridge, wallet, or exchange system without human engineers doing final checks? I know AI is powerful but it still needs human oversight. We've all seen AI-generated code with hidden bugs.

At this point I think human role remain irreplaceable in high quality production.

If I could manage, then I would never go and work for Ford as an engineer. But we are talking about real money here, and who knows for how long they will be able to work. Maybe they will do something that could delay their replacement by AI.

Because they have been hired again to train the AI, so if they train it, they will be fired again, and the workforce will be replaced with AI.

But the surprising fact is, did they not check AI first before firing people? Their statement is very childish when they said they thought AI could make it perfect with their instructions and data. I mean, who are these guys to think like that? AI do not understand shit I say to it haha.

[stompix]

Meanwhile, in the actual article:

Those engineers were “at the heart” of Ford’s efforts to turn around quality problems, said Kumar Galhotra, chief operating officer. They now run mandatory meetings that rigorously troubleshoot quality problems and they have reprogrammed AI tools to head off glitches before they happen.

So , they are bringing them back to improve automatization and then guess what happens when automatization can do their task as good as they can?
Also, not really engineers but quality controllers, engineers haven't been building manually a car since half a century already!

[SUPERSAIAN]

I think there will always be jobs that AI can't handle. Human supervision seems essential to me. Even if AI does many things, it still won't be possible to have unmanned production. Human supervision is crucial AI and robots can't see things the way humans do. This news story perfectly illustrates this point. Some companies acted too hastily and laid off a lot of people, but they've already started rehiring them.

[tabas]

At this point I think human role remain irreplaceable in high quality production.

The cost of using AI for these productions is going to be costly for these companies. I think that it will revert to human resource because they're cheaper and more efficient. So, I am agreeing about this that human's role will remain to be irreplaceable somehow. Also saying about the water, cooling and other resources that AI consumes just to produce its input so, it will also have an impact that these companies need to be worried of.

[Agbamoni]

I always knew it was going to come to this. AI has limitations, at least for now, since it is still in a development phase where it is not perfect yet. In sectors like engineering and health services, AI cannot take over human jobs because of what is at stake. If AI does anything wrong in the health sector, it dangers the life of a person while engineering, it results in mechanical failure. A company would not want to lose big because of AI failures here and there.

[Satofan44]

So , they are bringing them back to improve automatization and then guess what happens when automatization can do their task as good as they can?

Are you new to modernity?

Also, not really engineers but quality controllers, engineers haven't been building manually a car since half a century already!

There are positions called quality engineers of many kinds and variations across different industries., so claiming "not really engineers" is incorrect.

I think there will always be jobs that AI can't handle. Human supervision seems essential to me. Even if AI does many things, it still won't be possible to have unmanned production. Human supervision is crucial AI and robots can't see things the way humans do. This news story perfectly illustrates this point. Some companies acted too hastily and laid off a lot of people, but they've already started rehiring them.

Stop posting nonsense, this is not a field for "thoughts" it is for knowledge and logical reasoning. "Human supervision" is not crucial to anything and absolutely "AI" will be able to see things through the human perspective and just about any perspective that you can imagine, making human thinking obsolete. Anyway, bringing up human thinking is a terrible example of a goal given that the majority of humans are complete idiots and barely more functional than animals -- you can see this with shitposters on this forum as well. A lot of production is already unmanned, once robots can completely produce the inputs on their own then there will be no need for human intervention. Why would business owners waste their time trying to sort out through a large pool of retarded candidates to find the few humans that are actually good at their jobs, when they can instead just turn on another robot and let it do the work instead? 

[DrBeer]

The hype on AI replacing human workers has been making waves for years now. Some people predict a massive job losses in our industries. But a recent report from Ford is raising concern over that claim.

According to report Ford had to rehire human engineers after their AI systems could not consistently meet the rigorous quality standards required in automotive manufacturing. Source

Quality failures can cost millions or even billions in this crypto space. In Bitcoin and crypto, we already know security is everything. would you trust a fully AI-built bridge, wallet, or exchange system without human engineers doing final checks? I know AI is powerful but it still needs human oversight. We've all seen AI-generated code with hidden bugs.

At this point I think human role remain irreplaceable in high quality production.

I’m not really surprised… Until people realize that AI lacks the most essential element "intelligence", it cannot REPLACE humans; it can only be a TOOL for humans. This approach-combining a highly effective tool with human intelligence and the unique characteristics of human thought-yields excellent results. But attempting to replace humans with "AI" across the board carries very significant risks.

I always say- the people who fail to learn about and start using AI are the ones who might lose their jobs because of it.