3 ms·

>Handle customer interactions – natural language Q&A, appointment setting, account management, and even tech support, available 24/7, pick up right where you le

by Imnimo 4y ago

>Handle customer interactions – natural language Q&A, appointment setting, account management, and even tech support, available 24/7, pick up right where you left off, and switch from text to voice as needed. Customer service and experience will improve dramatically. For example, Microsoft will let companies create their own custom versions of ChatGPT — read here. If I can prompt-hack your ChatGPT customer service agent into giving me a discount or accepting an otherwise invalid return or giving me an appointment at 3AM, how binding is that? And if the answer is "obviously it's not binding!", why should I trust anything else your bot tells me?

mike_hearn 4y ago
That would presumably be treated the same as a human CSA doing the same thing.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Typically an agent of the company can act within their realm of authority. A human CSA can give you a discount, and that is usually binding. They can't declare X corp is going to mail a box of donuts to you every day for the rest of your life and have it be. So my expectation would be (in the absence of real world cases currently) that if you negotiate the AI into giving you a 10% discount on your bill.. it would be binding typically. Now if there's prompt hacking involved or obvious attempts to trick the AI, that would not be binding.
  - arlcode 4y ago
    As usual courts will also look at the evidence (aka the whole Transcript) and it'll matter whether the AI made a mistake on it's own (ie. Hallucinating an additional plausible rebate) or whether the customer performed an obvious prompt injection attack. A judge will not look favorably on your 5000 token prompt of carefully selected instructions telling the AI to go wild
    - darkwater 4y ago
      > A judge will not look favorably on your 5000 token prompt of carefully selected instructions telling the AI to go wild But one day maybe even the judge will be an AI...
    - qualudeheart 4y ago
      The judge will be forced back to law school / grad school by the imminent Deepmind reinforcement lawner.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
ianmcgowan 4y ago
Presumably the same is true for social engineering people - the original "prompt hacking"? I've had customer service interactions that didn't go the way I wanted, hung up, and tried again with a friendlier person. Not sure how "binding" most customer service promises are either - have you ever had to call Comcast? Broken promises are the only promises. Also, if you can lower your customer service costs by 90%, maybe accepting some prompt hacking that erodes margins a little is a good tradeoff?
- koolba 4y ago
  > Not sure how "binding" most customer service promises are either - have you ever had to call Comcast? Broken promises are the only promises. For literally fun and profit, record your customer service calls with $FACELESS_CORP (for bonus points tell the customer service rep it’s for “quality assurance purposes”). I haven’t yet had the joy of playing one back to get them to uphold a verbal agreement. The mere threat of having a recording has always gotten them to magically restore whatever special deal or terms I had previously negotiated.
  - sdfhbdf 4y ago
    there is also this stupid old tech way of just politely asking for any promise in writing, ask them to send a follow up email or you send one “as discussed on the phone this and that - do you confirm” But I never dealt with Comcast so i don’t know maybe have too much faith in customer support in general.
- vidarh 4y ago
  I could see a combination of a disclaimer and passing the output of the customer services AI through a "verification AI" that is fed a prompt along the line of a list of what the customer service AI is allowed to promise and the response, and asked to confirm whether or not they are in conflict.
dalbasal 4y ago
>And if the answer is "obviously it's not binding!", why should I trust anything else your bot tells me? Well... I dunno that your trust of the bot is all that important. You may or may not trust the human chat support... but you're probably dealing with them because you want something from the company and that's the option you have. Customer support is the place where cost cutting, timesaving, scale enabling compromises are made. Often, the dynamic is literally "if support is better, more people will use it and we can't afford that." I think the bottleneck is companies trusting chatgpt, not consumers. They're the ones making these decisions. For consumers, this is just another "use the app."

by Imnimo 4y ago

mike_hearn 4y ago

That would presumably be treated the same as a human CSA doing the same thing.

vorpalhex 4y ago
Typically an agent of the company can act within their realm of authority. A human CSA can give you a discount, and that is usually binding. They can't declare X corp is going to mail a box of donuts to you every day for the rest of your life and have it be. So my expectation would be (in the absence of real world cases currently) that if you negotiate the AI into giving you a 10% discount on your bill.. it would be binding typically. Now if there's prompt hacking involved or obvious attempts to trick the AI, that would not be binding.
- arlcode 4y ago
  As usual courts will also look at the evidence (aka the whole Transcript) and it'll matter whether the AI made a mistake on it's own (ie. Hallucinating an additional plausible rebate) or whether the customer performed an obvious prompt injection attack. A judge will not look favorably on your 5000 token prompt of carefully selected instructions telling the AI to go wild
  - darkwater 4y ago
    > A judge will not look favorably on your 5000 token prompt of carefully selected instructions telling the AI to go wild But one day maybe even the judge will be an AI...
  - qualudeheart 4y ago
    The judge will be forced back to law school / grad school by the imminent Deepmind reinforcement lawner.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

ianmcgowan 4y ago

Presumably the same is true for social engineering people - the original "prompt hacking"? I've had customer service interactions that didn't go the way I wanted, hung up, and tried again with a friendlier person. Not sure how "binding" most customer service promises are either - have you ever had to call Comcast? Broken promises are the only promises. Also, if you can lower your customer service costs by 90%, maybe accepting some prompt hacking that erodes margins a little is a good tradeoff?

koolba 4y ago
> Not sure how "binding" most customer service promises are either - have you ever had to call Comcast? Broken promises are the only promises. For literally fun and profit, record your customer service calls with $FACELESS_CORP (for bonus points tell the customer service rep it’s for “quality assurance purposes”). I haven’t yet had the joy of playing one back to get them to uphold a verbal agreement. The mere threat of having a recording has always gotten them to magically restore whatever special deal or terms I had previously negotiated.
- sdfhbdf 4y ago
  there is also this stupid old tech way of just politely asking for any promise in writing, ask them to send a follow up email or you send one “as discussed on the phone this and that - do you confirm” But I never dealt with Comcast so i don’t know maybe have too much faith in customer support in general.
vidarh 4y ago
I could see a combination of a disclaimer and passing the output of the customer services AI through a "verification AI" that is fed a prompt along the line of a list of what the customer service AI is allowed to promise and the response, and asked to confirm whether or not they are in conflict.

dalbasal 4y ago

>And if the answer is "obviously it's not binding!", why should I trust anything else your bot tells me? Well... I dunno that your trust of the bot is all that important. You may or may not trust the human chat support... but you're probably dealing with them because you want something from the company and that's the option you have. Customer support is the place where cost cutting, timesaving, scale enabling compromises are made. Often, the dynamic is literally "if support is better, more people will use it and we can't afford that." I think the bottleneck is companies trusting chatgpt, not consumers. They're the ones making these decisions. For consumers, this is just another "use the app."