Agreed, but many drugs have a direct effect, not subtle and it's pretty much immediate to know, let say a user try that new sub-q injectable from a shady forum that discuss X compound that is supposed to cure acne, then follow protocols from other users, then do their report, often with photos, it's useful even if it's not standard, as you have a clear picture of before/after usage of that drug (it's probably fair to say that the acne clearing is that isn't placebo effect), it's useful even after a drug is authorized on the market as well as it gives additional user reports of efficiency. Realistically, some data is better than none.
Saying that wouldn't be useful is kinda like saying HN/Reddit isn't useful because it's all anecdotal, that applies to almost all topics in life.
Lastly, let's not pretend that most doctors do actually follow properly a patient blood before/during/after a course of a drug, in most cases, doctor will just ask How did it go, any side effects?... That's a new "data" for the doc, all anecdotal, almost the same value as a "trusted" rando on Reddit.
You'd need to train it only on Christian texts rather than "all of human writing", so I'd imagine it would be harder to get enough material to make an LLM that works as effectively. Probably the same reason that LLMs are generally in English, rather than Swahili or Esperanto
What would be the point? You can ask an existing LLM to reply as a Christian or explain Christian ideas.
In short, hardly anyone wants it, certainly not enough people to make it worthwhile.
Also, to be credibly Christian would require conforming to Christian values, which would be very difficult to do profitably so you would need a sponsor willing to commit a huge amount of money to subsidise it.
The point would be that some people seek answers purely from the Bible or its interpretations, and said interpretations should only come from "their" particular sub-section of the religion.
Isn't that the opposite though? Having a store for the customer to get face-to-face support is sometimes necessary even those who prefer it all to be online. It acts as a stop gap to people otherwise low support customers.
The newer upstarts you mention are self selecting for customers who would do everything they can to never make a support call. They are just another form of having a 15 minute wait time because online only is it's own customer service barrier.
No. In the case of cell phone carriers, the only times in the past 10 years I have ever darkened the door of a retail store is times when the carrier was too incompetent to let me get my problem solved another way. For instance, there was a time at AT&T where if you had acquired a brand new unlocked iPhone that needs eSIM, you needed to receive a physical piece of cardboard printed with a unique QR code on it in order to activate it successfully.
I’ve been with US Mobile for years now and never once felt the need for a physical store.
There's a lot of reasons for this. One of them is that it tends to be a lot cheaper to have one building in Denver to host support people than to have many buildings in every city.
Besides that concept, they're selling telephone and data services. It makes sense to -- you know -- make use of them.
When we had a telephone issue back in the landline days, we didn't load ourselves up into the car and go to a store to get help from someone in person; we instead used the phone.
(That may have been done by using the neighbor's phone, but whatever. We still have neighbors and not all of them are dicks. And these days, we still have cell phone stores for those who can't empty the water from a boot. The days of brick and mortar cell phone sales are not, at this time, numbered.)
With sims switching to e-sim there's basically no reason to have in person support for cellular service. There's nothing they can do, outside of what they can already do online or over the phone. Like, if you go to an AT&T store with a broken e-sim they can't wave a magic wand. They'll probably just reset it on their end, like they could do over the phone.
Some people just prefer going into a physical place and talking to someone in a face to face conversation they can understand. I’ll very rarely want to sit in a phone queue just to talk to “Jason” who has a thick Filipino accent sitting in a crowded support room talking through what sounds like a a 1kbps VOIP connection. And I’m never going to text chat an AI bot for help.
Contrast that to my kid who is horrified by in person interactions and thinks that the kiosks at McDonalds were the world’s greatest recent invention.
Not to mention people with disabilities that make one form of communication the only option.
People are different and good companies try to serve them all.
The person at the store has direct contact with the broken device, this is a much shorter feedback loop than telling you what to do, having you misinterpret it, having you read back the results, and then misinterpreting them.
reply