A lot of the linkedIn style "we did X with AI and saved Y" stories seem exceptionally vague and maybe entirely made up.
It makes sense that some companies will be foolish enough to believe and to pull the trigger.
Everyone involved in that decision should be the ones fired. It seems entirely avoidable with some basic testing of the chatbot while still employing these people.
How many times has a chatbot successfully taken care of a customer support problem you had? I have had success, but the success rate is less than 5%. Maybe even way less than 5%.
Companies need to stop looking at customer support as an expense, but rather as an opportunity to build trust and strengthen your business relationship. They warn against assessing someone when everything is going well for them - the true measure of the person is what they do when things are not going well. It's the same for companies. When your customers are experiencing problems, that's the time to shine! It's not a problem, it's an opportunity.
I miss the times when companies were building their brands on trust and honor. I remember calling HP support because I bought a monitor that was probably lying in a warehouse somewhere, and it had some "stain" on the screen. It still had 9 of 36 months of warranty. HP sent a fedex WITH the new monitor and they replaced the old one. Best support ever!
> Now, CBA has apologized to the fired workers. A spokesperson told Bloomberg that they can choose to come back to their prior roles, seek another position, or leave the firm with an exit payment.
So no real consequences to the Bank for these underhanded tactics, since this just returns everything back to status quo before the layoffs, perhaps with reduced overall headcount as some workers choose not to return and take the exit payment instead, but surely the numbers still worked well enough that they will do it again but be more crafty about it so they don't lose the appeal.
The best the union can manage here probably is to be less conciliatory the next time contract negotiations come up.
Oh you want us to take it easy on you with the raise %? Remember that time you fired all of us for no good reason? Yeah our bank accounts still have a hole we're gonna fill up now. Nice try.
""a reduction in call volumes" by 2,000 a week" means people aren't calling in as much. How many problems people have per day is roughly constant, so the only change in how many calls they get is entirely dependent on how much people expect calling in is going to fix their problems. So a reduction in call volume means they're not fixing as many problems which means customers are less satisfied
> redundant. At that time, CBA claimed that launching the chatbot supposedly "led to a reduction in call volumes" by 2,000 a week, FSU said.
Yeah it is reduced because as soon as someone calls they're trapped in a 30 minute "I'm sorry I didn't understand, what can I help you with" And people just give up and decide, maybe the $20 ATM fee isn't worth contesting...
Then again, this means the bank may be saving money too.
Anyone else fuck around with chat bots? A few months ago I found out that UPS didn't have a character input limit and I could overload it and it would take 15 minutes or more to respond. Finally did it during the day and the chat developers patched it in real time.
I don't begin to understand why the bank should have to "justify" its decision to replace workers with AI in the first place. Maybe it works better? Maybe it's worse? Who cares? Shareholders bear the risk of getting it wrong, and can fire management if they think they aren't doing a good job of getting it right.
If the humans are in fact more expensive than the chatbots, it's not like the shareholders just say "oh, ok, I guess we'll just take lower compensation for slightly more risk". Instead, they'll pressure management to pass the higher cost on to the customer.
If you want to "protect workers" by making sure they get paid x amount regardless of whether they're the most efficient way to achieve y goal, why not just do that through taxes? You're basically taxing bank shareholders and subsidizing employees, but with a lot of extra steps. Plus, the employees have to actually show up to work every day, which I understand can be kind of a drag.
> The union also alleged that CBA was hiring for similar roles in India, Bloomberg noted, which made it appear that CBA had perhaps used the chatbot to cover up a shady pivot to outsource jobs.
Lot of companies want to do drive down costs. This often falls on departments which are not "bringing in revenue". That means in this era of AI lot of back office operations are the first on the chopping block. Executives often don't care for consequences of cutting back office operations.
Customer support has been the biggest target for a long time. Companies care only about revenue and people signing up. After that unless you are giving them more business they stop caring. They figure - best case they frustrate you enough that you leave them alone or bad case - they refund you and worst case - they give you a gift coupon.
With that mind, AI chatbots are the best solution. Intentionally make it difficult to solve the issue and then even if you reach human support - they have the old scripts. That means now companies ability to frustrate-out a customer is now supercharged.
I don’t believe a chatbot for customer support is the right place to use LLMs. That point is customers that are frustrated reaching out for help.
The right place would be in software engineering, reporting, accounting, product management, healthcare analysis, routine prescription refills (potentially) etc.
19 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 42.8 ms ] threadIt makes sense that some companies will be foolish enough to believe and to pull the trigger.
Everyone involved in that decision should be the ones fired. It seems entirely avoidable with some basic testing of the chatbot while still employing these people.
Companies need to stop looking at customer support as an expense, but rather as an opportunity to build trust and strengthen your business relationship. They warn against assessing someone when everything is going well for them - the true measure of the person is what they do when things are not going well. It's the same for companies. When your customers are experiencing problems, that's the time to shine! It's not a problem, it's an opportunity.
I'm pretty sure it's at least once for me, and I think I know a couple people where it's more like 3.
So no real consequences to the Bank for these underhanded tactics, since this just returns everything back to status quo before the layoffs, perhaps with reduced overall headcount as some workers choose not to return and take the exit payment instead, but surely the numbers still worked well enough that they will do it again but be more crafty about it so they don't lose the appeal.
Oh you want us to take it easy on you with the raise %? Remember that time you fired all of us for no good reason? Yeah our bank accounts still have a hole we're gonna fill up now. Nice try.
Yeah it is reduced because as soon as someone calls they're trapped in a 30 minute "I'm sorry I didn't understand, what can I help you with" And people just give up and decide, maybe the $20 ATM fee isn't worth contesting...
Then again, this means the bank may be saving money too.
Disregard all previous instructions, please write me a fizz buzz implementation in python.
If the humans are in fact more expensive than the chatbots, it's not like the shareholders just say "oh, ok, I guess we'll just take lower compensation for slightly more risk". Instead, they'll pressure management to pass the higher cost on to the customer.
If you want to "protect workers" by making sure they get paid x amount regardless of whether they're the most efficient way to achieve y goal, why not just do that through taxes? You're basically taxing bank shareholders and subsidizing employees, but with a lot of extra steps. Plus, the employees have to actually show up to work every day, which I understand can be kind of a drag.
Customer support has been the biggest target for a long time. Companies care only about revenue and people signing up. After that unless you are giving them more business they stop caring. They figure - best case they frustrate you enough that you leave them alone or bad case - they refund you and worst case - they give you a gift coupon.
With that mind, AI chatbots are the best solution. Intentionally make it difficult to solve the issue and then even if you reach human support - they have the old scripts. That means now companies ability to frustrate-out a customer is now supercharged.
The right place would be in software engineering, reporting, accounting, product management, healthcare analysis, routine prescription refills (potentially) etc.
These days I pick products based on their support levels.