A pharmacy chain in Vermont implemented AI for efficiency

(vtdigger.org)

28 points | by omerhj 1 hour ago

11 comments

  • matteoraso 1 hour ago
    >A pharmacy chain in Vermont implemented AI for efficiency. It’s led to delays, incorrect information and privacy concerns.

    You should post the entire title.

    • dqv 53 minutes ago
      Unable to titlemax due to HN maxtitle rules.
      • kshacker 45 minutes ago
        I don't post often or ever so don't remember, you can't change the title to be more reflective of what it is?

        A shorter version may be

        > A Vermont pharmacy chain's AI implementation led to delays, incorrect information and privacy concerns.

        • dqv 40 minutes ago
          You can try, but then a different group of people might come around and say it's editorializing.
        • ivewonyoung 40 minutes ago
          That's 102 characters, HN's limit is 80.
          • rationalist 33 minutes ago
            Vermont pharmacy AI rollout leads to delays, misinformation and privacy concerns

            (Exactly 80 characters)

            Or with the Oxford Comma:

            Vermont pharmacy AI rollout brings delays, misinformation, and privacy concerns

            (79 characters)

            • zxexz 15 minutes ago
              I think in this case - where an editorialized title is better representative of the article, but the published title is too long - it’s usually left to someone like you to give a suggestion, publicly, which is then seen by @dang or their kith, who can then actually make spot adjustments. I personally approve of your editorialization, but that’s worth naught but a canker in a hedge
          • irishcoffee 16 minutes ago
            Upvote to you if you understand the obsolete rationale why it’s 80.
            • georgemcbay 12 minutes ago
              Presumably to avoid having to word wrap for all the lynx users connecting to HN using DEC VT100 terminals.
      • soupspaces 22 minutes ago
        Clearly a job for AI \s
    • rationalist 37 minutes ago
      Eh, I was kind of expecting that to be the rest of the title when I clicked on it.
  • Avicebron 44 minutes ago
    It seems like the article's unspoken consensus is if they hired people (ideally local) and paid them a living wage it would go back to working well enough like it did before they attempted the bot.

    I wonder why no one brought that up as a solution?

    • AussieWog93 17 minutes ago
      I am wary of stories like this, since they seem to appeal to what people want to be true rather than what is necessarily happening.

      There are a lot of businesses quietly and conservatively implementing AI and seeing real results - it's just the crazy Jerry Springer blowups you hear about!

      • wpm 3 minutes ago
        Yes, but that only some businesses do that flys in the face of the breathless, borderline psychotic boosterism a lot of us tend to hear quite a lot of, that AI is gojng to revolutionize everything.
      • toomuchtodo 5 minutes ago
        Do you have examples of customer facing real results you could share?
    • munk-a 21 minutes ago
      But then number would go down... number can't go down!
    • toomuchtodo 27 minutes ago
      AI driven individual incentives for decision makers. Comp goes up for showing off AI, not hiring people.

      Lots of “thought leaders” who push the solution but will be gone for the consequences. Next folks (usually those who remain) clean up the mess to no fanfare.

      • gruez 2 minutes ago
        >Comp goes up for showing off AI, not hiring people.

        That's funny because a few years ago it was the reverse. people were saying how big tech was bloated, caused by managers that felt their clout was proportional to how many people were under them.

        • toomuchtodo 2 minutes ago
          You get what you measure. Both can be wildly irrational depending on incentives and target outcomes.

          Would an AI solution have been in place if testing revealed the outcome we’ve arrived at and a data driven decision was made to hire instead?

    • asdf88990 39 minutes ago
      Because corporates operate on a religion with forever changing principles with trends and speaking against the vogue trend is taboo.
    • LetsGetTechnicl 25 minutes ago
      Just another example of using AI as the solution when the real solution is obvious and here.
  • sghiassy 57 minutes ago
    Honest question, why aren’t pills dispensed by machines?

    I get that a pharmacist should review the prescription. And let’s say you even want employee-customer interaction; which is great.

    But dispensing X pills from one bottle to another bottle is a solved problem right?

    • trollbridge 11 minutes ago
      A pharmacy tech actually counts the pills if they move them from Bottle A to Bottle B, it is not particularly time consuming, and it isn't a particularly skilled position. Starts at $14 an hour around me and tops out around $23.
    • AussieWog93 18 minutes ago
      I could imagine a machine like this would cost something on the order of $100k, require ongoing maintenance and wouldn't really solve any problems/bottlenecks at your typical local pharmacy.

      It's not like you could replace the pharmacist with a machine.

      • irishcoffee 15 minutes ago
        Coin machines are really solid at accepting money. I feel like it’s a solved problem.

        Edit: I’m dumb, the order of operations is backwards. You’re right, it’ll never be solved.

    • StephenAmar 23 minutes ago
      Well, in many countries, pharmacies just dispense prepackaged packs and bottles. No counting involved.
    • estearum 51 minutes ago
      Machines cost a ton of money and need to be maintained?

      As those two variables change, I'm sure they will replace the dispensing function for pharmacists. In fact this already does happen at a lot of pharmacies these days. Machines put the pills in bottles, then a pharmacist hands the bottle to you.

    • DriverDaily 42 minutes ago
      I think that’s the idea behind those centralized pharmacies like Amazon health. Easier than putting a pill dispensing assembly line in every CVS.
    • a2tech 50 minutes ago
      They are in large setups. Including mail order and bulk dispensing places (like Walmart pharmacy—most pills are dispensed at central locations and delivered to the store prepackaged).
    • calvinmorrison 50 minutes ago
      There are pill counter machines! it's a solved problem for sure.
  • trollbridge 13 minutes ago
    Impressive: they managed to use LLMs to recreate the CVS pharmacy experience, where you get random phone calls from random pharmacies offering to refill a prescription you don't need refilled, or better yet, they just call you to tell you it's already refilled.
  • gtowey 1 hour ago
    > “I’ve got four bottles of something that I take twice a week sitting here,” Callaghan said.

    Profits are up! A smashing success!

  • svitlak 49 minutes ago
    unrelated, but post's photo - the building - reminds me a cat face
  • firasd 49 minutes ago
    A paradoxical situation here is that they are probably not using the frontier models because compliance and other stamps of approval but this packaged approved AI is making silly mistakes in reading forms
  • champagnepapi 43 minutes ago
    When is this madness going to stop? We need to do better as a society.
    • an0malous 21 minutes ago
      When the VCs finish their rug pull, i.e. the OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs
  • jdw64 15 minutes ago
    What I've noticed is that AI excels at tasks that are self-contained within a specific logical framework, like coding, writing, and mathematics. But conversation isn't self-contained and requires too much contextual information, which is why AI chatbots and counselors don't seem to perform well.

    Ironically, coding and mathematics are about simplifying the complexity of the world and reducing it to logical procedures. That's exactly where AI performs well. But in any profession that involves friction with the real world, current AI still seems to fall short.

  • dreamcompiler 7 minutes ago
    Let me predict how Kinney management is going to react to this fiasco: They're going to call it a PR problem and say they haven't done a good enough job of selling the benefits to the customers. So they'll double down and tell the customers they're holding it wrong.

    That will of course just piss off the customers more.

    The right solution which will restore customer trust is to rip out all the AI shit, call it a failed experiment, and go back to the old system. They'll never do that because then the VP who thought up this garbage won't get his bonus.

    This assumes a ton of HIPAA data doesn't get sent up to some cloud and then breached. If that happens, people will start going to prison. HIPAA enforcement does not fuck around. Or at least it didn't before AI and Elon took over everything.