4 ms·

Yes plus when you call a support desk, if the "person" on the phone is not a real person, the first words said is "You are talking with an AI, not a person." I

by jmclnx 4y ago

Yes plus when you call a support desk, if the "person" on the phone is not a real person, the first words said is "You are talking with an AI, not a person." I believe the only reason for Commercial Orgs are looking at ChatGPT is to eventually replace all support people with some kind of AI.

bediger4000 4y ago
In a world where support people are often 10.5 or 11.5 timezones away, how will we tell? Seriously. A couple of years ago I hit a truck tire tread and roached my radiator 30 miles east of Denver on I25. I have State Farm auto insurance, I probably pay more than I should. Their after hours support was terrible, as if they'd never heard of someone needing a tow on an interstate highway outside of city limits and street/number/zip code addressing. "Westbound I25, east of Denver at mile marker 316" is a good location, but I had to talk myself hoarse because the idea of "Interstate Highway 25" was incomprehensible. Several reps wanted a street address, which just wasn't possible. The towing company also basically held my car for ransom, I guess that's an experience an AI can't provide. Yet
- ted_dunning 4y ago
  Well, the problem with an AI-based system here might well have been that I-25 goes north and south through the heart of Denver rather than east and west. The location "30 miles east of Denver on I-25" literally does not exist. Perhaps you meant I-70? And perhaps neither support humans far from Colorado nor an AI with a map would know to make that correct.
bko 4y ago
If talking to an ai is the cost of not being put on hold for 20 min for the simplest request so be it. Honestly I welcome ai customer service. Most of the time it's just something super simple i want to do.
- toss1 4y ago
  "If" is doing a LOT of work in that comment I have never seen nor heard of any "ai" system for customer service that remotely approaches a barely competent human, and those are frustrating and annoying enough. ChatGPT4-level systems may be able to get much closer if they are provided the training set, and if they can, then great. BUT, the absolutely need to be able to figure out when they are at the limit of their knowledge/ability, and then hand-off to a human. ChatGPT4 has been spectacularly unable to do anything even close to this; and it actually just starts fabricating bullcrap in a highly confident voice. Corporate managers are already no good, horrible, awful, terrible at actually providing service, as it seems their only goal is to provide a cursory appearance of service and reduce their human costs. (Incidentally, this also massively misses the opportunity to gather excellent data on where their company could improve it's product/service and gain market share.) "AI" will only exacerbate the trend until several generations in the future when it is actually good enough, and it may become a competitive advantage to provide better service.
  - IggleSniggle 4y ago
    > a barely competent human My problem hasn't been getting a barely competent human, it's been getting a barely competent human (or better) that also has the correct authority for my situation. Unfortunately, in the case of both AI or humans, unlocking the person that has both the correct competence and the correct level of authority to correct a problem is the hard part. If it was resolvable with the automated system, I already tried those steps. If it's not, there's often a reason (for the company, and not necessarily a good one) that it's not. And that's where the authority part comes in; if the AI (or the call person) is doing the "figuring out" of the technical part of a problem but passes the authority on to someone without that knowledge, then how can the person with authority possibly provide authorization without first lending their authority to the end-user support provider? Ultimately, the reason you can't do the things you need to do is because someone in management removed the authority of that end-user support provide to give it; that will still be true in the case of competent AI, and you'll probably have even less recourse since there is no person to advocate for you to the authority on your behalf.
patmcc 4y ago
I care a lot more about outcomes than whether the person I'm talking to is "real" or not. If my bill gets corrected by an AI but not a person? I'll take the AI. Think of the classic "is 0.002 cents the same as 0.002 dollars?" call - https://verizonmath.blogspot.com/ https://verizonmath.blogspot.com/ - I just tested, and chatGPT seems to understand the difference - so maybe this would be a case where the AI is better. edit: to be clear I'm fine with labeling if that's desired, it's the "I want to talk to a real person" that I think is silly (and oddly similar to the "I want to talk to an American" that people also say).
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  If outcome is your goal, then why continue the overhead of inter-human dialogue?
- standardUser 4y ago
  And most people don't care how many carbs are in a candy bar but we mandate labelling because it creates transparency and accountability and empowers the public. We should be doing the same with technology, only far more aggressively and comprehensively.
- jebr224 4y ago
  You logic is sound ... maybe too sound. Have AI already taken over HK comments.
- olyjohn 4y ago
  I'd rather they use the bot to correct the bill in the first place before they even send it to me.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  My guess is the AI will be less likely to correct your bill than a person.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > I'm fine with labeling if that's desired, it's the "I want to talk to a real person" that I think is silly So anything that you don't value is silly?
thomastjeffery 4y ago
Until "Artificial Intelligence" actually exists, we should use a different word. I understand the distaste for "bot", but something like "system" or "computer" or "network" would be fine. We really need to stop personifying every project that has the categorical goal of AI, but not the result.
- circuit10 4y ago
  The word AI has come to mean machine learning of any kind, which definitely exists. Maybe you’re thinking of AGI (artificial general intelligence)?
  - olyjohn 4y ago
    AGI, you mean what we used to call... AI?
    - brookst 4y ago
      The AGI term came about to distinguish a certain level of capability, just alike ASI is appearing now. I don't see a problem with terminology getting more refined as a field matures. We used to have "cars" and "trucks." These days we have SUVs and sports cars and crossovers and who knows what else. Yes, they used to be "cars". People still find it useful to have more granular categories.
      - thomastjeffery 4y ago
        Yes, but in this case, the word is getting less defined. "AI" used to mean one thing, but now it doesn't, because "AGI" took its place. At no point, however, was this distinction made literal. It can only be found in the surrounding context.
        brookst 4y ago
        I'd argue that "AI" used to mean a whole universe of things, from self-optimizing rice cookers to computers that figure out the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Today AI remains a catch-all, but having more narrowly scoped terms like ML, AGI, and ASI lets people talk without tripping over whether or not the rice cooker is going to turn us all into paperclips.
sigstoat 4y ago
> the first words said is you want to make the call even longer than necessary to provide me with information i can do nothing about. excellent.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I would find the information useful. It would allow me to adjust how I'm interacting with whatever is on the other end of the line.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> I believe the only reason for Commercial Orgs are looking at ChatGPT is to eventually replace all support people with some kind of AI. Support work is far from the only kind of human labor commercial orgs would like to automate if possible, and far from the only kind that AI could automate.

by jmclnx 4y ago

bediger4000 4y ago

In a world where support people are often 10.5 or 11.5 timezones away, how will we tell? Seriously. A couple of years ago I hit a truck tire tread and roached my radiator 30 miles east of Denver on I25. I have State Farm auto insurance, I probably pay more than I should. Their after hours support was terrible, as if they'd never heard of someone needing a tow on an interstate highway outside of city limits and street/number/zip code addressing. "Westbound I25, east of Denver at mile marker 316" is a good location, but I had to talk myself hoarse because the idea of "Interstate Highway 25" was incomprehensible. Several reps wanted a street address, which just wasn't possible. The towing company also basically held my car for ransom, I guess that's an experience an AI can't provide. Yet

ted_dunning 4y ago
Well, the problem with an AI-based system here might well have been that I-25 goes north and south through the heart of Denver rather than east and west. The location "30 miles east of Denver on I-25" literally does not exist. Perhaps you meant I-70? And perhaps neither support humans far from Colorado nor an AI with a map would know to make that correct.

bko 4y ago

If talking to an ai is the cost of not being put on hold for 20 min for the simplest request so be it. Honestly I welcome ai customer service. Most of the time it's just something super simple i want to do.

toss1 4y ago
"If" is doing a LOT of work in that comment I have never seen nor heard of any "ai" system for customer service that remotely approaches a barely competent human, and those are frustrating and annoying enough. ChatGPT4-level systems may be able to get much closer if they are provided the training set, and if they can, then great. BUT, the absolutely need to be able to figure out when they are at the limit of their knowledge/ability, and then hand-off to a human. ChatGPT4 has been spectacularly unable to do anything even close to this; and it actually just starts fabricating bullcrap in a highly confident voice. Corporate managers are already no good, horrible, awful, terrible at actually providing service, as it seems their only goal is to provide a cursory appearance of service and reduce their human costs. (Incidentally, this also massively misses the opportunity to gather excellent data on where their company could improve it's product/service and gain market share.) "AI" will only exacerbate the trend until several generations in the future when it is actually good enough, and it may become a competitive advantage to provide better service.
- IggleSniggle 4y ago
  > a barely competent human My problem hasn't been getting a barely competent human, it's been getting a barely competent human (or better) that also has the correct authority for my situation. Unfortunately, in the case of both AI or humans, unlocking the person that has both the correct competence and the correct level of authority to correct a problem is the hard part. If it was resolvable with the automated system, I already tried those steps. If it's not, there's often a reason (for the company, and not necessarily a good one) that it's not. And that's where the authority part comes in; if the AI (or the call person) is doing the "figuring out" of the technical part of a problem but passes the authority on to someone without that knowledge, then how can the person with authority possibly provide authorization without first lending their authority to the end-user support provider? Ultimately, the reason you can't do the things you need to do is because someone in management removed the authority of that end-user support provide to give it; that will still be true in the case of competent AI, and you'll probably have even less recourse since there is no person to advocate for you to the authority on your behalf.

patmcc 4y ago

I care a lot more about outcomes than whether the person I'm talking to is "real" or not. If my bill gets corrected by an AI but not a person? I'll take the AI. Think of the classic "is 0.002 cents the same as 0.002 dollars?" call - https://verizonmath.blogspot.com/ https://verizonmath.blogspot.com/ - I just tested, and chatGPT seems to understand the difference - so maybe this would be a case where the AI is better. edit: to be clear I'm fine with labeling if that's desired, it's the "I want to talk to a real person" that I think is silly (and oddly similar to the "I want to talk to an American" that people also say).

thomastjeffery 4y ago
If outcome is your goal, then why continue the overhead of inter-human dialogue?
standardUser 4y ago
And most people don't care how many carbs are in a candy bar but we mandate labelling because it creates transparency and accountability and empowers the public. We should be doing the same with technology, only far more aggressively and comprehensively.
jebr224 4y ago
You logic is sound ... maybe too sound. Have AI already taken over HK comments.
olyjohn 4y ago
I'd rather they use the bot to correct the bill in the first place before they even send it to me.
HWR_14 4y ago
My guess is the AI will be less likely to correct your bill than a person.
JohnFen 4y ago
> I'm fine with labeling if that's desired, it's the "I want to talk to a real person" that I think is silly So anything that you don't value is silly?

thomastjeffery 4y ago

Until "Artificial Intelligence" actually exists, we should use a different word. I understand the distaste for "bot", but something like "system" or "computer" or "network" would be fine. We really need to stop personifying every project that has the categorical goal of AI, but not the result.

circuit10 4y ago
The word AI has come to mean machine learning of any kind, which definitely exists. Maybe you’re thinking of AGI (artificial general intelligence)?
- olyjohn 4y ago
  AGI, you mean what we used to call... AI?
  - brookst 4y ago
    The AGI term came about to distinguish a certain level of capability, just alike ASI is appearing now. I don't see a problem with terminology getting more refined as a field matures. We used to have "cars" and "trucks." These days we have SUVs and sports cars and crossovers and who knows what else. Yes, they used to be "cars". People still find it useful to have more granular categories.
    - thomastjeffery 4y ago
      Yes, but in this case, the word is getting less defined. "AI" used to mean one thing, but now it doesn't, because "AGI" took its place. At no point, however, was this distinction made literal. It can only be found in the surrounding context.
      - brookst 4y ago
        I'd argue that "AI" used to mean a whole universe of things, from self-optimizing rice cookers to computers that figure out the meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Today AI remains a catch-all, but having more narrowly scoped terms like ML, AGI, and ASI lets people talk without tripping over whether or not the rice cooker is going to turn us all into paperclips.

sigstoat 4y ago

> the first words said is you want to make the call even longer than necessary to provide me with information i can do nothing about. excellent.

JohnFen 4y ago
I would find the information useful. It would allow me to adjust how I'm interacting with whatever is on the other end of the line.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> I believe the only reason for Commercial Orgs are looking at ChatGPT is to eventually replace all support people with some kind of AI. Support work is far from the only kind of human labor commercial orgs would like to automate if possible, and far from the only kind that AI could automate.