You are spot on here. AI is great for sensitivity (noticing potential issues), but terrible for specivity (giving many false positives).
The issue is how AI is used, not the AI itself. They don’t have a human in the checking process. They should use AI scanner to check the car. If it’s fine, then you have saved the employee from manually checking, which is a time-consuming process and prone to error.
If the AI spots something, then get an employee to look at the issues highlighted. If it’s just a water drop or other false positive, then it should be a one click ‘ignore’, and the customer goes on their way without charge. If it is genuine, then show the evidence to the customer and discuss charges in person. Company still saves time over a manual check and has much improved accuracy and evidence collection.
They are being greedy by trying to eliminate the employee altogether. This probably doesn’t actually save any money, if anything it costs more in dealing with complaints, not to mention the loss of sales due to building a poor image.
If it’s fine, then you have saved the employee from manually checking
Exactly. Not only that but the human is more likely to overlook some things. It also creates a digital record of the complete condition.
Have the AI go over the vehicle, being insanely meticulous and then pass that info off to a human who verifies any flagged damages in a couple of seconds and makes decisions about what needs to be charged.
You are spot on here. AI is great for sensitivity (noticing potential issues), but terrible for specivity (giving many false positives).
The issue is how AI is used, not the AI itself. They don’t have a human in the checking process. They should use AI scanner to check the car. If it’s fine, then you have saved the employee from manually checking, which is a time-consuming process and prone to error.
If the AI spots something, then get an employee to look at the issues highlighted. If it’s just a water drop or other false positive, then it should be a one click ‘ignore’, and the customer goes on their way without charge. If it is genuine, then show the evidence to the customer and discuss charges in person. Company still saves time over a manual check and has much improved accuracy and evidence collection.
They are being greedy by trying to eliminate the employee altogether. This probably doesn’t actually save any money, if anything it costs more in dealing with complaints, not to mention the loss of sales due to building a poor image.
AI is not uniqely prone to false positives; in this case, it’s being used deliberately to produce them.
Exactly. Not only that but the human is more likely to overlook some things. It also creates a digital record of the complete condition.
Have the AI go over the vehicle, being insanely meticulous and then pass that info off to a human who verifies any flagged damages in a couple of seconds and makes decisions about what needs to be charged.
Combining the 2 improves efficiency and accuracy.