Half of companies planning to replace customer service with AI are reversing course
Technology
179
Beiträge
102
Kommentatoren
284
Aufrufe
-
Ever sat in a boardroom? I have.
Decisions are not made based on proper market/business analysis, they are made knee-jerk by overprivileged idiots.
An example of this was when one of the companies I worked where I was in charge of all the online training.
Then the big fat morons who invested came into the boardroom, instructed us to change all of our training to Flash clips... Because he also had a financial interest in Macromedia.
We ended up losing massive business partners and investment firms (e: we made extremely industrial strength financial planning software). Because a huge part of it was being able to provide consistent, usable training material. The company was later purchased for a song and dance. Then shut down.
Yes, that's why I'm amazed that any of them figured out the stupidity of their previous decisions.
-
I use it almost every day, and most of those days, it says something incorrect. That's okay for my purposes because I can plainly see that it's incorrect. I'm using it as an assistant, and I'm the one who is deciding whether to take its not-always-reliable advice.
I would HARDLY contemplate turning it loose to handle things unsupervised. It just isn't that good, or even close.
These CEOs and others who are trying to replace CSRs are caught up in the hype from Eric Schmidt and others who proclaim "no programmers in 4 months" and similar. Well, he said that about 2 months ago and, yeah, nah. Nah.
If that day comes, it won't be soon, and it'll take many, many small, hard-won advancements. As they say, there is no free lunch in AI.
And a lot of burnt carbon to get there
-
Yes, that's why I'm amazed that any of them figured out the stupidity of their previous decisions.
It comes from that massive disconnect that people are largely unaware of, which is the assumption that people
purchasee:invest in businesses to help run them more efficiently and become more profitable.That really has very little to do with it! It's a giant shell game. I believe the initial investors came in to disrupt our company, to prime it for fire-sale later. To make us so incredibly uncompetitive that we effectively had to shut the doors. It worked!
-
Teach me how to trick a chatbot to give me millions of dollars, wise one, but for real.
You should buy my book on the topic...
-
I have been part of a mass tech leadership exodus at a company where the CEO wants everything to be AI. They have lost 5 out of 8 of their director/VP/Exec leaders in the last 3 months, not to mention all the actual talent abandoning ship.
The CEO really believes that all of his pesky employees who he hates will be full replaced by cheap AI agents this year. He's going to be lucky to continue to keep processing orders in a few months the way it's going. He should be panicked, but I think instead he's doing a lot of coke.
He should be panicked, but I think instead he's doing a lot of coke.
That would explain so much.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If I have to deal with AI for customer support then I will find a different company that offers actual customer support.
-
It comes from that massive disconnect that people are largely unaware of, which is the assumption that people
purchasee:invest in businesses to help run them more efficiently and become more profitable.That really has very little to do with it! It's a giant shell game. I believe the initial investors came in to disrupt our company, to prime it for fire-sale later. To make us so incredibly uncompetitive that we effectively had to shut the doors. It worked!
People who do this should be judged by the employees of the companies they screwed, and when found guilty, should be shipped to an uninhabited island to fend for themselves for the rest of their lives. The island should be livable, but just barely.
-
I'm aware. The idea is it had to escalate for him to get to the point of suing them. If they'd just eaten the cost, it most likely wouldn't have gone to court or come to light. Was my comment reductive? Sure.. but that was the point.
Yes it's very circular.
You know it had nothing to do with the $700, it had to do with not opening precedent to a flood of future lawsuits.
I probably would not have replied the way I initially did, but you framed it a $700, and it has nothing to do with it.
-
I had a shipment from Amazon recently with an order that was supposed to include 3 items but actually only had 2 of them. Amazon marked all 3 of my items as delivered. So I got on the web site to report it and there is no longer any direct way to report it. I ended up having to go thru 2 separate chatbots to get a replacement sent. Ended up wasting 10 minutes to report a problem that should have taken 10 seconds.
Sounds like everything's working as intended from Amazon's perspective.
-
This post did not contain any content.
from what I've seen so far i think i can safely the only thing AI can truly replace is CEOs.
-
See thats just it, the AI doesn't know either it just repeats things which approximate those that have been said before.
If it has any power to make changes to your account then its going to be mistakenly turning peoples services on or off, leaking details, etc.
it just repeats things which approximate those that have been said before.
That's not correct and over simplifies how LLMs work. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying though.
-
it just repeats things which approximate those that have been said before.
That's not correct and over simplifies how LLMs work. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying though.
You're wrong but I'm glad we agree.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Good. AI models don't have mouths to feed at home, people do.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Man, if only someone could have predicted that this AI craze was just another load of marketing BS.
/s
This experience has taught me more about CEO competence than anything else.
-
Tell me you know nothing about contract law without telling me you know nothing about contract law.
It was a joke, mate. A simple jest. A jape, if you will
-
Man, if only someone could have predicted that this AI craze was just another load of marketing BS.
/s
This experience has taught me more about CEO competence than anything else.
My current conspiracy theory is that the people at the top are just as intelligent as everyday people we see in public.
Not that everyone is dumb but more like the George Carlin joke "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
That applies to politicians, CEOs, etc. Just cuz they got the job, doesn't mean they're good at it and most of them probably aren't.
-
My current conspiracy theory is that the people at the top are just as intelligent as everyday people we see in public.
Not that everyone is dumb but more like the George Carlin joke "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
That applies to politicians, CEOs, etc. Just cuz they got the job, doesn't mean they're good at it and most of them probably aren't.
Agreed. Unfortunately, one half of our population thinks that anyone in power is a genius, is always right and shouldn't have to pay taxes or follow laws.
-
I use it almost every day, and most of those days, it says something incorrect. That's okay for my purposes because I can plainly see that it's incorrect. I'm using it as an assistant, and I'm the one who is deciding whether to take its not-always-reliable advice.
I would HARDLY contemplate turning it loose to handle things unsupervised. It just isn't that good, or even close.
These CEOs and others who are trying to replace CSRs are caught up in the hype from Eric Schmidt and others who proclaim "no programmers in 4 months" and similar. Well, he said that about 2 months ago and, yeah, nah. Nah.
If that day comes, it won't be soon, and it'll take many, many small, hard-won advancements. As they say, there is no free lunch in AI.
It is important to understand that most of the job of software development is not making the code work. That's the easy part.
There are two hard parts::
-Making code that is easy to understand, modify as necessary, and repair when problems are found.
-Interpreting what customers are asking for. Customers usually don't have the vocabulary and knowledge of the inside of a program that they would need to have to articulate exactly what they want.
In order for AI to replace programmers, customers will have to start accurately describing what they want the software to do, and AI will have to start making code that is easy for humans to read and modify.
This means that good programmers' jobs are generally safe from AI, and probably will be for a long time. Bad programmers and people who are around just to fill in boilerplates are probably not going to stick around, but the people who actually have skill in those tougher parts will be AOK.
-
I use it almost every day, and most of those days, it says something incorrect. That's okay for my purposes because I can plainly see that it's incorrect. I'm using it as an assistant, and I'm the one who is deciding whether to take its not-always-reliable advice.
I would HARDLY contemplate turning it loose to handle things unsupervised. It just isn't that good, or even close.
These CEOs and others who are trying to replace CSRs are caught up in the hype from Eric Schmidt and others who proclaim "no programmers in 4 months" and similar. Well, he said that about 2 months ago and, yeah, nah. Nah.
If that day comes, it won't be soon, and it'll take many, many small, hard-won advancements. As they say, there is no free lunch in AI.
I gave chatgpt a burl writing a batch file, the stupid thing was putting REM on the same line as active code and then not understanding why it didn't work
-
You're wrong but I'm glad we agree.
I'm not wrong. There's mountains of research demonstrating that LLMs encode contextual relationships between words during training.
There's so much more happening beyond "predicting the next word". This is one of those unfortunate "dumbing down the science communication" things. It was said once and now it's just repeated non-stop.
If you really want a better understanding, watch this video:
And before your next response starts with "but Apple..."
Their paper has had many holes poked into it already. Also, it's not a coincidence their paper released just before their WWDC event which had almost zero AI stuff in it. They flopped so hard on AI that they even have class action lawsuits against them for their false advertising. In fact, it turns out that a lot of their AI demos from last year were completely fabricated and didn't exist as a product when they announced them. Even some top Apple people only learned of those features during the announcements.
Apple's paper on LLMs is completely biased in their favour.
