It would have to be a stroke during the time there was an ongoing scenario that resulted in higher than typical call volume about the scenario, and a stroke victim calling in who could only say "yes".

Not impossible, but wildly unlikely.

You seem to see yourself as experienced AI user, but all you do is repeat the empty marketing promises.

Which ones? There are lots of empty marketing promises around AI; the signal-to-noise ratio is crazy. I try avoid the ones that I'm not confident in, but I admit that I don't always express that clearly enough. (It's sort of a bad habit/weak skill for me. These things are more obvious and sort of become "common sense" amongst colleagues, and I've never been much of a social media guy.)

I'm happy to try to clarify something, if needed.

The fact is, if they use an LLM, there will be mistakes, just like Claude will happily ignore part of it’s instructions a few times per day.

Of course there will be. Artificial neural networks are function approximation algorithms.

The thing about LLMs is that they're almost always configured to run non-deterministically[^1]. Most tools that depend on LLMs can't be expected to work or fail deterministically. Building these tools is an iterative process of evaluating and tuning to maximize success rate, thus minimizing failure rate. So yes, LLM-based tech like this will definitely fuck up with a non-zero failure rate. And no, you probably won't hear about this amongst the marketing noise.

Regarding the problem that the 911 triage thing aims to address: The solution would probably be to hire more operators/dispatchers. Unfortunately, there has been a nationwide shortage of them for years. The AI triage thing has proven to have a success rate high enough (and thus a failure rate low enough) to provide net-positive value[^2]. It doesn't 100% solve the problem, it just mitigates it, so the situation is less bad – not solved.

[^1]: This is the temperature hyperparameter. There are reasons for needing it to run non-deterministically, but that's another topic.

[^2]: Sort of like vaccines or condoms: While not 100% effective, their success rate is high enough to provide real value.

“AI fluency” is not a thing

It absolutely is a thing, and usually becomes VERY obvious when you start building things to use LLMs for automation. It's like those iceberg memes. I'm not sure if "AI fluency" is the "correct" (as in widely-adopted) term for it though, but some people have called it that.

Some even try to quantify this, in some industries. For example, I've heard of a "Yegge scale" (or something like that) to estimate the AI fluency of a software engineer.

AI makes you lose your critical thinking skills, which then makes you rely even more on AI.

This is a very broad statement. It's not always true, and not always false. It really depends on how the person uses AI. But yes, it's true for a lot of everyday users of the mainstream, consumer-grade interfaces (e.g. ChatGPT) who offload their thinking to AI. It's one of many sources of brainrot for the masses, and that sucks. I suppose that's a different topic though.

Apologies for the wall of text. People often make such loaded, over-generalized (though usually reasonable) statements in AI-related conversations, and I have a bad habit of yapping about the nuances 😬