Unless they hate it enough to ditch a business or service in great enough numbers that it costs the business more money than they save by outsourcing to a computer, people had better get used to it.
The problem is that consumers likely don't have that choice. The "free market" is really bad in incentivising good long term behavior, they favor short term gains for their stockholders. Thus they likely all switch to practices that seemingly lower cost or raise short term profits. If they can fire employees and replace them with AI, they will do so.
If they would think long term, they would prefer to hire humans instead of AI, because that way they would give their future customers money to buy their stuff. AI will not be their customer. They would pay them enough money to be a happy and good consumer.
Customer choice doesn't matter here, they either just have to buy whatever is cheapest, or die, because their employers (if they even have one) don't pay they enough for them to have choice, because short term profits.
Yeah - that's all part of the "unless enough people leave" point.
It really depends on the market though - if it's not an essential good, it doesn't need to be replaced (online games). If there's adequate competition, there's largely undifferentiated alternatives (utilities around me)... and if not, you probably don't have a choice (your local government services, monopolies, and shallow markets for essential goods).
My point is there never will be enough people to leave. Consumer boycotts do not work.
Between thousands of different factors to consider wherever to buy a product from a certain producer or not, child labor, environmental waste, political attitude of the CEO, etc... it isn't possible to make any decision on what product to consumption.
It isn't about 'unless enough people leave" it is about "unless enough people protest to the government for market regulation" and "unless enough law makers care".
The free market is not self regulating, at least not with a long term positive effect.
I'm already pissed with bots, had to call my ISP yesterday because my internet was spotty, I couldn't talk to a single human, the bot was walking me through the tired modem restart, and then it ended the call and asked for me rate it even though it didn't solve anything!
I worked for an ISP. These problems are rarely ever ISP problems. It goes like this. ISP offers 50Mbps–1.2Gbps. If you are a cheap bastard and opt for the lowest tier plan you get a cheap hardware and if you don't ask for an upgrade you'll run that box until it doesn't work. So you have people rocking hardware that was manufactured in 2009 and installed in 2014 wondering why their cheap ass WIFI4 box installed in their basement doesn't work so well in half their house in 2024.
What's more they have a download speed that would have been good in 2009 only instead of 2 computers they now have 20 connected devices and stream in 4K.
What's worse is the rental on that shit WIFI4 box is about $20 a month or $2400 over 10 years so your paying for a BMW and getting a Pinto.
Smart people buy their own access points preferably wifi 7. Get one per story of your house and connect them with a physical Ethernet cable. Arrange them so that they overlap but not that much so that you don't have dead zones. If you work from home get a proper desk and run a physical Ethernet cable to your device. Also if you have devices that are literally 2.5 feet from each other and they support physical network cables just plug them in. Don't be that guy spending an hour trying to figure out why his router and his printer/tv aren't friends when they are almost touching each other.
So the ISP isn't to blame when the cheap ISP-provided hardware fails, and the solution isn't for the ISP to replace insufficient ISP-owned hardware but for you to buy your own instead?
The "wire everything" approach is a little excessive for most home networks too, outside of exceptional circumstances modern WiFi on modern hardware is more than enough for home users. It's only worth the time and money to wire everything if you've identified specific issues with signal loss or noise, don't just do it by default.
The hardware the ISP provides is always an ISP problem. Provide hardware that actually works.
Also, unless you're fiber, you don't provide the bandwidth you actually sell people, which is also an ISP problem. Every single customer who can't get their advertised speed at peak load should be a mandatory criminal case of fraud.
The telephone services i had to use in my Lifetime were so insanely bad, thats one of the few things llm could do better than an underpaid person who has no will to live anymore and got yelled at for hours. This shit needs to end.
No. What actually needs to happen is for companies to give GOOD FUCKING CUSTOMER SERVICE!!! Try getting ahold of a real person at Amazon for example. I ended up cold calling the delivery company that handles local deliveries to get a phone number to talk to an actual person.
The next time i called they had turned that number into a robo call center...
I never had issues with Amazon support. To be fair, the last time I needed support was over 4 years ago, but still. I got to chat with some real person relatively quickly who managed to address the issue swiftly.
The other day I was able to take care of what I thought was a reasonably complicated customer service issue through an automated assistant.
I take a daily prescription medication and it’s on automatic refill. However now and then I forget to take my pill and then I have an extra. After years of this I found myself with 20-30 pills left when my next bottle was ready.
So I tried to call the pharmacy and say hey that bottle of pills you have waiting for me? I still need it, but not for about 3 weeks. Can you push my entire schedule back that much but otherwise keep the pace the same?
Turned out I was able to do this just by listening to menus, selecting from multiple choice, and entering numbers for dates.
I was so satisfied! I don’t want to talk to a human if I can possibly help it. I’d much rather deal with an automated system as long as it can do what’s needed. The problem is that most of them can’t. But then again most customer service humans are useless too, so…
It would be so much better to just have a website with all of those options. Why does it need to be a phone system at all? I hate calling in, I just want to enter an identifier of some sort and click a couple buttons...
Yeah that’s an excellent point. Older generations still prefer phone calls but I imagine increasingly the only people who want to call will be the people who can’t fix their issue via an automated system.
Because they are not trying to design an efficient system. They are trying to design a system that is as cheep as possible, puts off as many customers as possible from interacting with it while not being so bad as to fall foul of regulations. A well designed website that efficiently took you to the right place to make your complaint and get money from them/make them do something would fail requirement 2.
AI can only give you the options it was programmed to give. A Human is able to actually think and find a solution or direct you to a solution.
Your options are less with AI for customer service.
AI works best for applications that it is tailored for. But expecting it to "think" like Humans do is so far off. AI is being fed so much biased information and that is not "thinking" or learning.
I went through a phase of making the ai robot agree with me that it was the "email flange" that was causing my issue before transferring me to an operator.
Exactly! If I am calling customer support, it's because I have exhausted all other options of finding a solution to my issue, and I have a feeling I'm searching more extensively than the options that this AI is being fed. If I've reached the point of calling, I need someone that can think of a creative solution.
Unpopular opinion and rant:
Us, the consumers, brought this on ourselves.
Not intentionally but it was a slippery slope.
No one I know did ever ask the sales representative "does your customer support answer within 5 minutes and will I always reach a representative with att least 10 years of experience, that has the authority to make real decisions?". No, but we were all very interested about the pricing of the service/product.
Then these "Please press 1 for...." happened.... and no one of us really cared about the change because the service providers offered a much lower price than the ones with customer support representatives with 20 years of experience.
Since all of us went for the cheapest provider, the other ones had to cut cost to be able to offer their service on a competitive price level.
So then there were no one offering competent support with representatives that knew their shit.
And it slowly continued to go downhill...
So here we are with shitty services, which we pay for, where we all are treated as cattle.
If people at least started to ask for better customer support there would someone, who wants to climb the corporate ladder, creating a PowerPoint presentation with a real VIP Service Level.
Of course it will cost more money, because real people cost money, but we would att least get what we want.
But no. Consumers will still go for the lowest price.
Nice try. But let's play with the thought that there's no way we can let a rookie listen in on customer calls and gradually work their way into the role until they have enough experience.... What about hiring technicians/professionals that has been working with the products/services for 10 years?
That would be a way of getting competent customer support people, right?
And just to clarify my comment that you replied on:
The problem today is that most often there's no career path for the customer support rookies and the pay is so lousy that most people just work customer support until they get something better.
That's definitively the correct way to avoid getting experienced people in the customer support.
Interestingly, at least where I live, in my experience, the more expensive ISPs, TSPs etc. have worse, almost evil, customer service than the smaller, cheaper providers. Maybe the smaller providers can't afford the most evil money-saving customer service systems, and that's what makes them better?!
I have the same experience as you do, but there's a reason that the big ISPs continue to be big:
The majority of customers seems to prioritize a lower price than a better level of support.
(Also, I'm not just talking about ISPs. I meant customer support in general and how the view has changed from "keeping a customer is much cheaper than gaining one" to "cattle, cattle, castle. If we lose one, there's hundreds to gain".)
If it worked for most shit and escalated to a human when it actually needed to, reliably, I'd be fine with it.
I don't believe there's a realistic chance that there's a lot of overlap between the people willing to invest to actually do it properly and the people paying for AI instead of people though.
I get one of those meal kit delivery services. Every few weeks I'll go to their AI customer support and ask for cancellation and it'll give me discounts on upcoming orders. I keep the service at about 40% off at all times. Also when there's a problem with the order the chat bot just tosses me a discount. Cases like this are perfect for AI customer service.
Edit
Wow this blew up in a weird way. Just to be clear on a few points:
With the discount I pay $87 Canadian which is $76 untaxed or about $55usd. For 6 different dinners for me and my wife delivered to my front door every Monday. With crazy grocery prices where I live I cannot come close to beating that without giving up something. I won't eat the same thing every night (Sunday meal prep bros, don't at me), I don't want to expend the mental energy gathering recipes and ingredients but I do enjoy cooking a lot. It's something at the end of the day I can do with my hands free of screens. At regular price this was worth it to me, at 40% off it's actually saving me money. If they're still making money shipping this big box off food to me on a weekly basis, then good for them, we're both coming out on top.
They certainly do, but they won't give up that extra margin if they don't have to. If customers hate dealing with the AI service, it may be cheaper to compensate them with more discounts than put humans back on the phone.
Except they're selling you the kit at waaaay over cost in the first place, so they're still making money off of you. I promise you they are aware of the "glitch", and are not ignoring it out of the kindness of their hearts.
(not criticising you for using the service, if it works for you go for it and get those discounts, but don't let them manipulate you in to thinking you've got one over on them, they 100% account for this kind of thing and are still making money)
It's worse then that. They're actively profiting from that discount rate, meaning they're ludicrously profiting from everyone who doesn't spend half their life getting discount codes (the cost of convenience)
I mean most products you'd sell you're hopefully making at least 40% profit margin so everyone would still be making money. They're just banking on you sticking around and not canceling. lots of money > some money > no money
We humans sometimes use a rhetorical device called "hyperbole" where we use exaggeration to emphasize our point, and it's usually not meant to be taken literally. Welcome to the planet, hope you enjoy your stay.
While I wish you a happy and healthy life, I do hope you get to experience the joys of the US Healthcare system some day to broaden your limited horizons.
Yea but it works out to $87 (Canadian) for 6 different nights of meals for 2 people. Delivered to my door. I suspect their angle is using this to just keep you from churning at a loss in hopes of just keeping you around in case you go back to paying regular price. The amount of meat, vegetables and dairy in the box along with cost of shipping and paying people to assemble this order, the cost has to be damn near $87 if not a little over.
Like I said, I don't criticise anyone for using the service, and the more affordable it is, the better, but trust that they are definitely not working at a loss, in the same way supermarkets, that would probably still charge less for the same items, do - by making you believe they're selling to you at just about what it costs them to get by, when they are selling it to you for significantly more.
I mean, I'm choosing to use this service. If it felt unfair I'd just buy the groceries myself. They're not a charity, you're getting a premium service and there are costs associated with this. I don't think it's priced unfairly to begin with, it falls somewhere between buying your own groceries and getting takeout. The value is saving me time figuring out recipes, gathering the ingredients and getting a different meal every night, this is the value you pay for. I don't know why people expect these companies to just give this service away.
I don't know why people expect these companies to just give this service away.
Idk if you've noticed but there seem to be a lot of people on Lemmy who are opposed to the theory underlying the profit motive. If your product or service is priced above cost then it is automatically bad. 🤷♂️
The problem is the same as with the telephone answering trees.
If they’re used to help you get where you’re going, then they’re great. But that’s not the best financially motivated decision. Solving your problem costs the companies money. Pissing you off and convincing you that your problem shouldn’t be fixed saves money on support.
So making you go round in circles is the machine doing EXACTLY what they want it to do.
In my experience the AI assistant is just trained on the information available on the firm's website.
In 2024 I never just call a company expecting to be able to be assisted by a person. It's always quicker and easier to figure out how to interact with said company online. The only times you call are when it's not possible to resolve your query by interacting with them online.
That being the case, the entire purpose of the AI in this case is just to make it less convenient to call them. "Have you tried to resolve your issue online? Are you really sure about that? Maybe I could paraphrase this blog post from our website written by an intern 12 years ago."
90% of people calling support lines are due to questions that are in the top 10 ten on the FAQ. They're just the type of people who don't like reading and just want a social answer. The same kind of people who get told "just do a search, this is asked weekly" on Reddit.
If there was a way to direct the "I just need a FAQ that I don't need to read myself" people to an LLM and the "something is actually broken I need real help" to people, that would be ideal.
I do like it in the sense that people HATE working in customer service. Because people have zero respect and customers make your job day miserable all the time.
Is one of the places where people deserve getting a hallucinating robot as a vengeance for how bad they treated people that worked there.
I talk to about 10 customers each day for no more than 30 minutes and 99% of the time it’s to fix something they messed up on. 30% of those people are jerks.
Thankfully most of my job is NOT dealing with customers and I truly feel bad for people who have to deal with them in high volume each day.
If I call them, I can fix it immediately, if they call in, enjoy the robot. So don’t be mean and the call won’t be disconnected (which I have permission to do fortunately)
Repeat these words over and over. Most automated phone systems are programmed to bail out when its clear the customer is just flat out unwilling to engage with their bullshit.
I usually use the "cuss at the bot" method. Gets out my frustration ahead of time so i can be sweet with the human. Tho one time the computer hung up on my ass haha
Yup, it turns out you'll often get more concessions from a support agent if you can manage to sound both angry at the problem and happy to work with the customer support rep to resolve it.
I've called companies that disconnect the call or "in order to connect you to the right agent, please tell us what you're calling about," them inevitably get it wing enough times to make you sit through a menu of about ten choices that are not correct and disconnect after three rounds of this nonsense.
I had the displeasure of being called by one from a vendor. It pissed me off that they couldn't be bothered to pick up the phone and call using a human, with how much we paid them. I canceled that contract and went with a different vendor, and let the sales team know exactly why. LLMs have their place, but my time is not the waste bin.
Hahahahaha!! I was sitting there, on the Pick Username screen for a good 5 minutes, singing that song in my head, trying to think of a good username. After a while, I thought to myself, "that's a good enough username, in done thinking about this", and sang it out loud as I typed it in....... 3
There’s a NYT article somewhere, and I’ve been desperately trying to find it, about a woman who worked as some kind of real estate(?) call center AI augmenter. Essentially people would call in about listings or something, and she had to step in when the AI went off the tracks or didn’t know how to answer questions, matching its tone/inflection while refusing to acknowledge that there was a human stepping in. She ended up being super burnt out from the job. So the whole system was just super redundant, awful for the people working there, and as we’ve come to expect from AI, just a half-baked turd sold to some MBAs for a mint.
A lot of "AI systems" are literally just a dude in India. Outsourced human labour is cheaper than building and running a proper AI driven system, but companies want to say they're "incorporating AI" because it makes shareholders dicks hard.
There's this boomer obsession with making it listen to human speech...
Nobody under 40 wants to use human speech to talk to an AI. We don't want to us human speech to talk to humans most of the time, especially if we don't know them.
But they always want to jam an AI into areas where human speech is the main communication method.
The absolute last place AI should have been deployed is answering a phone call. Because that is the last resort for most people, but the boomers calling the shots still think that's people's go to move before trying anything else
While some of this is cultural, it’s also about accessibility. Old people want to use their voice because their sight is often less reliable and they aren’t as good at pushing the right buttons. My father for example is functionally blind and voice is all he has. So before we get mad at boomers calling all the shots, let’s consider that they’re not just old fashioned. They’re old. and so will you be one day.
They may hallucinate but they're less likely to lie for now. I can't count the number of times I saw or heard some bullshit being told to customers to appease rather than help. And it irks me to no end every time I get a rep like that.
I don't blame the workers. I blame the corporate bullshit that actively encourages it by dangling bonuses and taking away if a customer doesn't feel that their issue was resolved. Call centers suck ass for both customers and employees.
How harrowing it is to hear someone a few cubicles away scream at one poor review by the end of the month that lost them a bonus for some bullshit that was out of their control after enduring so much abuse.
techspot.com
Active