The article has named sources for its quotes, whereas your comment relies entirely on "almost certainly" which sounds a lot less informed.

▲

achow 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

OP to me sounds more authentic and seems to have inside information.

After a quick search I found a publication actually mentioning about these tools:

Ford previously told Business Insider that it had developed two bespoke AI-enhanced scanning tools that helped validate that cars were properly assembled before rolling off the lot. The tools, called AiTriz and MAIVs, both debuted in 2024. https://autos.yahoo.com/policy-and-environment/articles/ford...

And after doing cursory research on these tools, it is clear they are rudimentary (as compared to SOTA LLMs), they were essentially smartphone mounted on stands and doing visual checks using the camera - so OP could be very right.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-uses-ai-cameras-in-fact...

	▲	kamranjon 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A fine-tuned classifier purpose fit for a specific task can easily outperform a SOTA LLM on more modest hardware and often makes a lot more sense.
	▲	aprilthird2021 42 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How can it be inside information if it's in a yahoo article? And why does OP alleging they are talking about technology A not B and you finding out they use technology A (while we all know they also use technology B as well) make OP more likely to be right? Very fallacious thinking

▲

decimalenough 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nothing in the article contradicts their (IMHO accurate) claim. Three years ago boardrooms were not drinking the LLM Kool-aid yet, while ML-powered QC has been around for years. Remember Silicon Valley's hot dog vs not hot dog? That's pretty much all you need, only the hot dog is a car part.

	▲	ehnto 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Apparently it is not all you need, according to the article.