4 ms·

>But whether or not the entity on the phone is a human absolutely affects how they perform their job Except now you're back to where I was, talking about outco

by patmcc 4y ago

>But whether or not the entity on the phone is a human absolutely affects how they perform their job Except now you're back to where I was, talking about outcomes. I had a very minor issue with my ISP today - they sent me an email to return some equipment (that I never had). I used the chat widget on their site to contact them. I got (presumably) a real person and it went perfectly well; nice and pleasant, sorted out quickly. If instead it was an AI, what's the difference? If I didn't get to the same result, or it took 10x as long, then sure I'd be ticked off. But for the same outcome? Why waste a real person's time? I don't think we're at the point where an AI can reliably perform tier-1 support at the same level as a human, but I don't think that's too far off either. When we get there, I'll happily deal with the AI. If it doesn't work, then I expect an escalation path - the same way I do with the human support agent.

JohnFen 4y ago
If I'm actually chatting or calling support, it's because things have already gone so wrong that I've been compelled to chat or call support. That's already an escalation, and is something that requires human understanding and intervention. I don't see that the current state of AI is anywhere near being able to do that. > When we get there, I'll happily deal with the AI. If it doesn't work, then I expect an escalation path - the same way I do with the human support agent. I understand. If we ever get there, I suspect that I'll have no choice but to deal with an AI. Hopefully there will be some method by which I can just immediately escalate further and talk to a person. Part of what I want from support is to know that my problem has been heard and understood by a person. If it's an AI, that is just more separation between me and the company I'm having a problem with. It may not be rational, but I want to at least be able to think that some person at the company actually understands my issue, the importance of it, and cares. No matter how capable and "intelligent", no AI can give me that.
- patmcc 4y ago
  >>It may not be rational, but I want to at least be able to think that some person at the company actually understands my issue, the importance of it, and cares. This is really interesting. I think this might be another "oops, I might be neurodivergent" moment for me, because I realize you're probably in the majority here. Can I give you a hypothetical? I'm not trying to trick you or anything, just calibrating my sense of how folks view this. You have a minor issue with your ISP. They're overcharging you for some service, $60 when it should be $50. You've tried to resolve it through the site and can't do it self-serve. It's very clear, there's no ambiguity, some mistake on their end. Would you rather: A) Call in, be on hold 10 minutes, deal with a pleasant/empathetic/helpful person, get it resolved after 10 more minutes. B) Call in, no hold, deal with a robot/AI (still voice) who is all business, does not attempt to be human-like, get it resolved after 5 minutes.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    I'd prefer A for sure. However, if my hold time were an hour rather than 10 minutes, I'd probably prefer B in order to get out of my immediate jam, and then I'd find another ISP. But if I'm going with something like B, I'd much prefer it not be done with voice. Doing it on a website would be much preferable.

by patmcc 4y ago

JohnFen 4y ago

If I'm actually chatting or calling support, it's because things have already gone so wrong that I've been compelled to chat or call support. That's already an escalation, and is something that requires human understanding and intervention. I don't see that the current state of AI is anywhere near being able to do that. > When we get there, I'll happily deal with the AI. If it doesn't work, then I expect an escalation path - the same way I do with the human support agent. I understand. If we ever get there, I suspect that I'll have no choice but to deal with an AI. Hopefully there will be some method by which I can just immediately escalate further and talk to a person. Part of what I want from support is to know that my problem has been heard and understood by a person. If it's an AI, that is just more separation between me and the company I'm having a problem with. It may not be rational, but I want to at least be able to think that some person at the company actually understands my issue, the importance of it, and cares. No matter how capable and "intelligent", no AI can give me that.

patmcc 4y ago
>>It may not be rational, but I want to at least be able to think that some person at the company actually understands my issue, the importance of it, and cares. This is really interesting. I think this might be another "oops, I might be neurodivergent" moment for me, because I realize you're probably in the majority here. Can I give you a hypothetical? I'm not trying to trick you or anything, just calibrating my sense of how folks view this. You have a minor issue with your ISP. They're overcharging you for some service, $60 when it should be $50. You've tried to resolve it through the site and can't do it self-serve. It's very clear, there's no ambiguity, some mistake on their end. Would you rather: A) Call in, be on hold 10 minutes, deal with a pleasant/empathetic/helpful person, get it resolved after 10 more minutes. B) Call in, no hold, deal with a robot/AI (still voice) who is all business, does not attempt to be human-like, get it resolved after 5 minutes.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  I'd prefer A for sure. However, if my hold time were an hour rather than 10 minutes, I'd probably prefer B in order to get out of my immediate jam, and then I'd find another ISP. But if I'm going with something like B, I'd much prefer it not be done with voice. Doing it on a website would be much preferable.