5 ms·

Yet. Chat bots don't deliver good customer service yet. They will get better and eventually get better than humans. It's a new use of technology, give it time

by throwaway2016a 9y ago

Yet. Chat bots don't deliver good customer service yet. They will get better and eventually get better than humans. It's a new use of technology, give it time to improve. I already know of companies using AI to adapt to customers like this article says chat bots don't do. It's cutting edge but it is out there.

michaelt 9y ago
Maybe. But in that time the early adopters' reputations will be in the gutter because chatbots are the worst customer support out there.
- epicide 9y ago
  I don't think it's a high risk for their reputation, though. Compared to other forms of support, it is still better. I'd rather talk to a chatbot than: - the same (or worse) bot over a phone - someone who only vaguely speaks my language - nothing/nobody at all - someone who speaks my language but spends 10 minutes and 30 "thank you"s to tell me they can't accomplish what I need The only form that wins out is a living person who is well-trained and speaks my language well. Most companies already won't provide that.
  - michaelt 9y ago
    Personally, if a company can't provide support where you speak to a human, I'd prefer that they be honest about that - rather than having my hopes raised then dashed and my time wasted by a chat/phone/e-mail contact that doesn't go to a human.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      I worked on some IVR implementations some time ago. Quite a few would interpret and understand swearing, and route you to a human via a priority call queue. Similar for multiple button presses of the zero key.
- fragmede 9y ago
  Chatbots aside, Comcast and United Airlines continue to be big consumer businesses despite horrible customer service reputations. Socially it's bad, but economically it's hard to justify spending that much on customer support. (Those companies also enjoy semi-monopoly positions, though, so I wouldn't recommend emulating that unless you enjoy a similar position in the market.)
  - vkou 9y ago
    Comcast is a monopoly, with a huge barrier to entry. People complain that UA hasn't learned anything about customer service. I am surprised that those people haven't learned anything about UA, and are still flying it. (Perhaps it's because flyers don't actually care about customer service, and will take whichever flight saves them $15.)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
radarsat1 9y ago
> It's a new use of technology, give it time to improve. Why is it a new use of technology? I seem to remember chatbots being around in the 90's... or am I imagining things? Of course, they sucked, and people said "they will get better and eventually get better than humans." I don't see what has changed in that regard. Maybe the assertion is still true, but despite advances in NLP and other areas of ML, it hasn't seem to have improved the bots, or their associated customer experience.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Piskvorrr 9y ago
Exhibit A: flying cars, "yes, they suck now, but they'll get awesome Real Soon Now" - same core meta-issue: most of the problems are still unknown and haven't been explored yet.
jtms 9y ago
came here to say exactly this

michaelt 9y ago

Maybe. But in that time the early adopters' reputations will be in the gutter because chatbots are the worst customer support out there.

epicide 9y ago
I don't think it's a high risk for their reputation, though. Compared to other forms of support, it is still better. I'd rather talk to a chatbot than: - the same (or worse) bot over a phone - someone who only vaguely speaks my language - nothing/nobody at all - someone who speaks my language but spends 10 minutes and 30 "thank you"s to tell me they can't accomplish what I need The only form that wins out is a living person who is well-trained and speaks my language well. Most companies already won't provide that.
- michaelt 9y ago
  Personally, if a company can't provide support where you speak to a human, I'd prefer that they be honest about that - rather than having my hopes raised then dashed and my time wasted by a chat/phone/e-mail contact that doesn't go to a human.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    I worked on some IVR implementations some time ago. Quite a few would interpret and understand swearing, and route you to a human via a priority call queue. Similar for multiple button presses of the zero key.
fragmede 9y ago
Chatbots aside, Comcast and United Airlines continue to be big consumer businesses despite horrible customer service reputations. Socially it's bad, but economically it's hard to justify spending that much on customer support. (Those companies also enjoy semi-monopoly positions, though, so I wouldn't recommend emulating that unless you enjoy a similar position in the market.)
- vkou 9y ago
  Comcast is a monopoly, with a huge barrier to entry. People complain that UA hasn't learned anything about customer service. I am surprised that those people haven't learned anything about UA, and are still flying it. (Perhaps it's because flyers don't actually care about customer service, and will take whichever flight saves them $15.)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

radarsat1 9y ago

> It's a new use of technology, give it time to improve. Why is it a new use of technology? I seem to remember chatbots being around in the 90's... or am I imagining things? Of course, they sucked, and people said "they will get better and eventually get better than humans." I don't see what has changed in that regard. Maybe the assertion is still true, but despite advances in NLP and other areas of ML, it hasn't seem to have improved the bots, or their associated customer experience.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Piskvorrr 9y ago

Exhibit A: flying cars, "yes, they suck now, but they'll get awesome Real Soon Now" - same core meta-issue: most of the problems are still unknown and haven't been explored yet.

jtms 9y ago

came here to say exactly this