119 points
*

For really useless call centers this makes sense.

I have no doubt that a ML chatbot is perfectly capable of being as useless as an untrained human first level supporter with a language barrier.

And the dude in the article basically admits that’s what his call center was like:

Suumit Shah never liked his company’s customer service team. His agents gave generic responses to clients’ issues. Faced with difficult problems, they often sounded stumped, he said.

So evidently good support outcomes were never the goal.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Agreed. Should we also mourn for the horse and buggy drivers? The gas station attendants? And the whole slew of jobs that have become obsolete over the centuries?

I do think we need something like UBI and I’m not ignoring the lost jobs but shit jobs shouldn’t have to exist. I’ll mourn for the workers but not for the job. Continuing to employee people to do thankless/hard/dangerous/etc jobs is just silly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
82 points
*
  • works 24/7
  • no emotional damage
  • easy to train
  • cheap as hell
  • concurrent, fast service possible

This was pretty much the very first thing to be replaced by AI. I’m pretty sure it’d be way nicer experience for the customers.

permalink
report
reply
68 points

Doubt. These large language models can’t produce anything outside their dataset. Everything they do is derivative, pretty much by definition. Maybe they can mix and match things they were trained on but at the end of the day they are stupid text predictors, like an advanced version of the autocomplete on your phone. If the information they need to solve your problem isn’t in their dataset they can’t help, just like all those cheap Indian call centers operating off a script. It’s just a bigger script. They’ll still need people to help with outlier problems. All this does is add another layer of annoying unhelpful bullshit between a person with a problem and the person who can actually help them. Which just makes people more pissed and abusive. At best it’s an upgrade for their shit automated call systems.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

Most call centers have multiple level teams where the lower ones are just reading of a script and make up the majority. You don’t have to replace every single one to implement AI. Its gonna be the same for a lot of other jobs as well and many will lose jobs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I know how AI works inside. AI isn’t going to completely replace such thing, yes, but it’ll also be the end of said cheap Indian call centers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Who also don’t have the information or data that I need.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It isn’t going to completely replace whole business departments, only 90% of them, right now.

In five years it’s going to be 100%.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I’d say at best it’s an upgrade to scripted customer service. A lot of the scripted ones are slower than AI and often have stronger accented people making it more difficult for the customer to understand the script entry being read back to them, leading to more frustration.

If your problem falls outside the realm of the script, I just hope it recognises the script isn’t solving the issue and redirects you to a human. Oftentimes I’ve noticed chatgpt not learning from the current conversation (if you ask it about this it will say that it does not do this). In this scenario it just regurgitates the same 3 scripts back to me when I tell it it’s wrong. In my scenario this isn’t so bad as I can just turn to a search engine but in a customer service scenario this would be extremely frustrating.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Check out this recent paper that finds some evidence that LLMs aren’t just stochastic parrots. They actually develop internal models of things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Your description of AI limitations sounds a lot like the human limitations of the reps we deal with every day. Sure, if some outlier situations comes up then that has to go to a human but let’s be honest - those calls are usually going to a manager anyway so I’m not seeing your argument. An escalation is an escalation. The article itself is even saying that’s not a literal 100% replacement of humans.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

You can doubt it all you want, the fact of the matter is that AI is provably more than capable to take over the roles of humans in many work areas, and they already do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points

And the way customer support staff can be/is abused in the US is so dehumanizing. Nobody should have to go through that wrestling ring.

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points

A lot of that abuse is because customer service has been gutted to the point that it is infuriating to a vast number of customers calling about what should be basic matters. Not that it’s justified, it’s just that is doesn’t necessarily have to be such a draining job if not for the greed that puts them in that situation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

There was a recent episode of Ai no Idenshi an anime regarding such topics. The customer service episode was nuts and hits on these points so well.

It’s a great show for anyone interested in fleshing some of the more mundane topics of ai out. I’ve read and watched a lot of scifi and it hit some novel stuff for me.

https://reddit.com/r/anime/s/0uSwOo9jBd

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I’m pretty sure it’d be way nicer experience for the customers.

Lmfao, in what universe? As if trained humans reading off a script they’re not allowed to deviate from isn’t frustrating enough, imagine doing that with a bot that doesn’t even understand what frustration is

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

defacto instant reply, if trained right, way more knowledgeable that the human counterparts, no more support center loop… current experience is such a low bar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

defacto instant reply

Not with a good enough model, no. Not without some ridiculous expense, which is not what this is about.

if trained right, way more knowledgeable that the human counterparts

Support is not only a question of knowledge. Sure, for some support services, they’re basically useless. But that’s not necessarily the human fault; lack of training and lack of means of action is also a part of it. And that’s not going away by replacing the “human” part of the equation.

At best, the first few iterations will be faster at leading you off, and further down the line once you get something that’s outside the expected range of issues, it’ll either go with nonsense or just makes you circle around until you’re moved through someone actually able to do something.

Both “properly training people” and “properly training an AI model” costs money, and this is all about cutting costs, not improving user experience. You can bet we’ll see LLM better trained to politely turn people away way before they get able to handle random unexpected stuff.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Yeah but are you ready for “my grandma used to tell me $10 off coupon codes as I fell asleep…”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Cheap as hell until you flood it with garbage, because there is a dollar amount assigned for every single interaction.

Also, I’m not confident that ChatGPT would be meaningfully better at handling the edge cases that always make people furious with phone menus these days.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points

I’ve worked in this field for 25 years and don’t think that ChatGPT by itself can handle most workloads, even if it’s trained on them.

There are usually transactions which must be done and often ad hoc tasks which end up being the most important things because when things break, you aren’t trained for them.

If you don’t have a feedback loop to solve those issues, your whole business may just break without you knowing.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

I think you’re talking about actual support, that knows their tools and can do things.

This article sound more about the generic outsourced call center that will never, ever get something useful done in any case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I ordered Chipotle for delivery and I got the wrong order. I don’t eat meat so it’s not like I could just say whelp, I’m eating this chicken today I guess.

The only way to report an issue is to chat with their bot. And it is hell. I finally got a voucher for a free entree but what about the delivery fee and the tip back? Impossible.

I felt like Sisyphus.

I waited for the transaction to post and disputed the charge on my card and it credited me back.

There’s so many if-and-or-else scenarios that no amount of scraping the world’s libraries is AI today able to sort out these scenarios.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yes these kind of transactions really need to be hand coded to be handled well. LLM’s are very poorly suited to this kind of thing (though I doubt you were dealing with an LLM at Chipotle just yet).

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Maybe you work at a decent place but in my experience you’re really overestimating the people who answer calls and give generic responses.

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points

Cheaper than outsourcing to poor countries with middling English speaking capability.

Coming to call center lines near you: voiced chatbots to replace the ineffective, useless customer support lines that exist today with the same useless outcomes for consumers but endless juggling back and forth without any real resolutions. Let’s make customer service even shittier, again!

permalink
report
reply
18 points

If you bought the product we don’t need to worry about losing money anymore bro

permalink
report
parent
reply

On one hand, they’re crap jobs. On the other hand, in most economies we have crap jobs not because they’re necessary for productivity, but to give us an excuse to pay people to live.

Maybe if enough jobs are lost to automation, we’ll start to rethink the structure of a society that only allows people to live if they’re useful to a rich person.

Essentially, we’re just still doing feudalism with extra steps, and it’s high time we cut that nonsense out.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

I think once workers can be replaced, there will be some virus that wipes out most of humanity. No point keeping billions of people around if they aren’t needed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Username checks out… suffice to say that a time of increasing social unrest is on the way, when it’s even easier for the haves to sideline the have nots than it already was.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I don’t know, I just think its obvious that the rich guys views ordinary people as useless eaters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

We have crappy jobs because jobs need doing and it was still cheaper to get humans to do it without a substantial loss in functionality. They don’t exist because of some form of social altruism, as evidenced by the fact that as soon as a semi-viable alternative is offered then the jobs are gone.

With the dynamic shifting to automation, prematurely I would add, then employers are seeing a much cheaper way to achieve 80% of what they currently offer.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 543K

    Comments