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. I also pay for this service using gift cards from Costco that are 20% off ($100 for $80) bringing that $55 weekly cost down to about $44. 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.
Dropping pricing down to a reasonable amount by making you jump through hoops instead of pricing it fairly in the first place?
That is like praising someone for stabbing you instead of shooting you.
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. 🤷♂️
Already out there in certain ways. There’s a restaraunt near me that uses an automated system to collect orders in the drive-thru, and puts them into the system incorrectly.
At least that’s what seems to be its purpose, because it does that really well. That, and piss people off.
That sounds like what I want to do when working customer service
Companies don’t want to provide actual service for problems. That costs money. They want you to give up.
Customers hate anything that actually gets between them and someone that can actually help. Not shitty, complicated automated phone menus. Not some underpaid stooge who refuses to da anything except read from a mandatory customer service script. And not AI, which will combine both of the worst aspects of automation and scripted service along with a cheerful idiot that will spare no effort to direct you away from the nearest actual assistance.
“Corporations love the idea of not paying anyone.”
Would be a more useful headline. It doesn’t matter what consumers want. All that matters to large corporations is what the consumer will bear.
What a consumer will tolerate has nothing to do with it either. If a consumers only choices are all aligned, you’re shit out of luck.
Yeah it turns out that using a statistical model to handle customer service leads to a degraded customer experience, because statistical models aren’t humans and lack many human attributes.
LOL, as if they care about what consumers want.
Storytime! Earlier this year, I had an Amazon package stolen. We had reason to be suspicious, so we immediately contacted the landlord and within six hours we had video footage of a woman biking up to the building, taking our packages, and hurriedly leaving.
So of course, I go to Amazon and try to report my package as stolen… which traps me for a whole hour in a loop with Amazon’s “chat support” AI, repeatedly insisting that I wait 48 hours “in case my package shows up”. I cannot explain to this thing clearly enough that, no, it’s not showing up, I literally have video evidence of it being stolen that I’m willing to send you. It literally cuts off the conversation once it gives its final “solution” and I have to restart the convo over and over.
Takes me hours to wrench a damn phone number out of the thing, and a human being actually understands me and sends me a refund within 5 minutes.
Dude could save yourself time by just going to contact page and ask for a call. I never use these companies chat features.
Also I found if I Google customer service numbers regurdless of company than I can get a number to call 85% of the time.
Of course after that you either got to fight robot to get a human on the phone that 9 times out of 10 will be a person out of India who also acts like a goddamm robot that doesn’t understand English.
But my biggest pet peeve is a lot of times I have ro get a supervisor to solve a problem that would take the customer service agent ten seconds to solve.
Ugh, if only. Amazon has done everything in their power to bury and strip that number from the internet. Once upon a time that worked great.
I never use these companies chat features.
Historically, these chat interfaces were tied out to a call center somewhere on the opposite side of the planet. Now they’re entirely prompt-engineered. So you used to be able to work a claim through chat without sitting on a phone call for hours at a time. But now they obscure their customer support phone number behind six layers of tabs and links, while shoving the “WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHAT WITH A REPRESENTATIVE” button in your face the whole way, fully knowing it doesn’t actually connect to anything that will help.
But my biggest pet peeve is a lot of times I have ro get a supervisor to solve a problem that would take the customer service agent ten seconds to solve.
A lot of the agents are just working off of written prompts anyway. But they do get experience with these problems over time (or recognize a slew of the same problem coming in at once) and can cut through the shit to give you a real, human response. Sometimes that response is simply “We can’t help, because of widespread technical / systems issues”, but that’s better than being bounced through an automated service that feeds out generic non-answers and useless how-to guides.
So of course, I go to Amazon and try to report my package as stolen… which traps me for a whole hour in a loop with Amazon’s “chat support” AI, repeatedly insisting that I wait 48 hours “in case my package shows up”.
I tried to change the dates of a car rental through Priceline, a day after I entered the order. I got a message saying “You cannot change this order until 72 hours before your arrival” which I thought was weird. But I bookmarked the date and called as soon as I was inside the window. “Oops! Sorry, you can’t cancel or change the reservation because too much time has passed!” was the automated response.
Absolute fucking scam. So I submitted a complaint through my credit card company to reject the charges. In this particular case, automation worked in my favor, because AMEX’s dispute process is as opaque and arcane for the vendors as Priceline’s support desk was for its own clients.
But its increasingly computerized horseshit. Nothing actually fucking works, except the vacuum they hook up to your bank account every time they find an excuse to extract payment.
I think it’s more “Most consumers hate the idea of a bad, unhelpful customer service”.
I’m fine with AI if it was actually helping to solve my issue, but it is generally not the case.
I dislike the fact even more then the idea.
Called a bank recently.
They: "please say in a word the subject your call is about so we can immediately connect you to the right department "
Me: “LOAN”
They: you said “limits on your cards”, 1 for yes 2 for no
I tried 3 times, gave up. They won, I guess.
“Talk to a human”
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
Also surprisingly effective.
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.
Consumer disapproval of AI use in customer service is unlikely to keep firms from deploying the technology as the cost savings are just too great
So much for the market determining what goes
The market does determine, unfortunately the market is relatively unfazed by subpar customer service. It has to be really bad or a huge legal catastrophe before it moves the needle. Which is why phone trees and long wait times are ubiquitous despite being universally hated. Marketing and sales and having a 90+ % rate of people that don’t ever feel the need to call customer service basically eliminates that bad service as a concern.
Even when asus had a famously bad customer service scandal this year, their sales continued to rise unabated.
The point of modern “customer service” is to NOT provide customer service. If you can drag out the conversation to the point where the caller rage-quits in frustration, then the company can avoid spending any money on fixing any problems they’ve caused.
Previous way for companies to cut down on customer support costs was to make a better quality product (making support interactions rarer). That is not so much the philosophy anymore.
This is how companies that don’t have competition act. This is how most companies act. We need more anti-trust enforcement.
This is how companies act even if they have competition. Because the competition is doing it, too.
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
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.
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 majority of users can’t get anywhere near advertised speeds because the are using cheap devices to connect to their cheap wifi and WIFI in general isn’t expected to provide plan speeds in the first place. Also bandwidth is oversold. An ISP that serves 1,000,000 people with Gbps doesn’t actually have 1 Pbps bandwidth available to it. Most people should be able to get within 95% WHEN CONNECTED BY A WIRE TO MODEM most of the time and 90% of plan speed near all the time.
Did you know your phone doesn’t work if too many people in the same area try to use them at once because they don’t actually have enough capacity to serve everyone at once?
The hardware the company provides unconditionally needs to be able to handle the full advertised bandwidth.
I know bandwidth is oversold. It’s overt fraud. “Up to” is horseshit. “Most of the time” is fraud. Excluding documented weather outages, any scenario where a user is not able to reach the speed listed on the ad (that’s not a limitation on the other side) for 5 minutes in a month should be fines so high that it will take years of that customer’s subscription to earn it back. It’s not possible for selling service you can’t provide to not be fraudulent.
Over-subscription is literally how the entire internet works. Most devices spend 21 hours doing a whole lot of nothing and 3 hours either doing really quick bursty things like spending 3 seconds loading a page followed by 3 minutes interacting with it or relatively low speed things like streaming 50Mbps. Having a higher speed just means that when you want something to happen it happens quickly and it happens even if you have 12 other devices doing the same thing.
Normal internet is oversubscribed by about 20x and gives most folks 90% of their plan speed at the modem most of the time. Dedicated bandwidth by definition means that you rent enough capacity for them to serve 1Gbps every second of every day even though you will use almost none of it. For reference 1Gbps for a month is about 327 TB of data. Most people use between 0.1-3TB over the course of a month.
Dedicated connections are a lot more expensive to provide and a lot more expensive to contract for. That 1Gbps connection right now costs about $1000 per month. Your requirement would require ISP to sell only much lower connection speeds for at much higher prices. It would in fact actually break the internet as we know it. It’s not exactly shocking to imagine that buying 100–1000 times what you need is expensive. A better standard would be to enforce 90% of plan speed 90% of the time measured at the modem with a week to correct if less than acceptable. Some european company actually makes an app to enforce their particular standard and takes the guess work out of measurement. I like the idea.
Also its impossible to guarantee that customers will in fact even reach those speeds over wifi as its a function of the customers actual space, materials used to build the home, what’s in the wall, network hardware, AND wireless clients. You only get really fast connectivity over 5/6Gh which is short range (100-200ft), only with quite modern equipment on both sides.
This means that your 2015 $200 modem/router combo with 2018 clients is probably giving you 300Mbps in your living room and 50Mbps upstairs even if the modem itself is getting 1 Gbps. This is just how wifi is. Your ISP isn’t going to be responsible for installing a $1000 worth of hardware so you can get plan speed upstairs on your $20 a month service. There are contractors who WILL do that for you for a hefty price. You’ll be paying for the $1000 worth of hardware and a professionals time.
No one is expecting ISPs to have the bandwidth to handle every network at once maxing out their bandwidth.
We’re expecting enough bandwidth to have enough overhead that they literally never once fail to meet peak demand. Because every single minute they fail to do so should be a mandatory felony count of fraud against every single member of the board.
A felony per minute is an insane standard. You already can get service with a SLA its much more expensive. Sevice with a felony per minute for meeting demand would be the same 1000 per month. Your ideas are so stupid they would end internet service in America.
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.
I don’t know why the ISP would initiate an upgrade you never asked for especially when they provide both faster speeds and better hardware as an up sell. If you want to live in 2009 it is indeed your problem. I made a fair bit of commission upgrading people to much much better hardware and speed for not much more money. Hi would you like your internet to be 20x faster and be able to use it upstairs for 15% more. Yes of course you do.
You should wire
- Your home office if you work from home.
This is where your money comes from it should work as fast and as consistently as possible. Being 10% less reliable isn’t acceptable.
- Things that are literally right next to one another.
If your console, cable box, and TV are all on the same shelf as the modem/router why are they competing for bandwidth with your laptop?
- The connection between routers/access points if your space warrants more than one.
The speed the second or subsequent devices are able to provide to all of its clients put together is limited by the speed of its connection to the first device and if its too far for a 5Ghz connection this wont be that fast. EG your upstairs router might support in theory a 600Mbps connection but if its connection is 80Mbps and 4 devices are connected an individual client may get as little as 20Mbps even if its connection to the router/AP is 600Mbps
I made a fair bit of commission upgrading people to much much better hardware and speed for not much more money.
See that’s your entire problem right there, you’re in sales. Your incentive is to drain every penny you can out of customers through useless up-sells and selling hardware to get the service they’re already paying for.
You literally just argued that if your 600mbps router only supplies an 80mbps connection then your 600mbps connection is 80mbps. And speed isn’t divided equally by the number of devices connected either, that’s just ridiculous. The impact of a connected but idle device is minimal. Also, why would you need 600mbps for only 4 devices? You could stream 4k video on all four devices 24/7 and you’re still not using even a quarter of that bandwidth; you’re looking at a recommendation of only 15mbps to 25mbps per user for a 4k-viable internet connection.
Here’s a ping to my stock ISP-supplied router on another floor and three rooms away via wifi:
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 611 packets transmitted, 611 received, 0% packet loss, time 623436ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.647/0.779/2.105/0.110 ms
It’s obviously impossible to improve a 0% packet loss, switching to a wired connection would be a considerable cost for minimal benefit (though admittedly that ping is unusually good, I’d normally expect slightly over 1ms average). I’m also getting over my advertised speeds according to fast.com and speedtest.net despite being on wifi and running through Mullvad so I suppose the problem might just be that I’m not using whichever scummy ISP you work for.
I have a home office and have work from home (or hybrid) for pretty much my entire career, even before WFH was normalised. I can assure you a wired connection is not a necessity to work from home.
Bandwidth is the amount of shit the modem can pull down and thereafter divided per client further subject to the limits of the service itself and any chokepoints in the network with data hitting the client no faster than the slowest leg.
As far as wifi 5/6Ghz is fairly fast but good for no more than 100–200 ft inside and oft less depending on material in between and conditions and subject to interference to boot. Most people in multi story dwellings have poor connectivity over 5Ghz upstairs without a second AP on that floor and rely on slower 2.4Ghz and furthermore may have a limit to the connectivity between AP which effects downstream clients.
That is what I meant by the 80MBps if the link between Router and AP is 80Mbps the AP can only provide a maximum of 80Mbps connectivity with the outside world shared between all its clients no matter how strong its connection. This is why I suggested a wire between router and AP. Factually real world clients usually have 20-300Mbps over wifi and need nicer clients AND equipment to provide good service whereas wires provide 1Gbps over cheap as equipment from 10 years ago.
P.S. I worked in support and had a really good solve rate I made money mostly by helping people improve their service in tangible ways that made sense to them. Just because an industry is scummy doesn’t mean everyone in it is.
That’s cool and all but it was a regional problem on their end, I learned after trying the whatsapp bot, which worked way better than the phone piece of shit.
I actually had a pretty godawful hardware provided by the ISP years before, that I just killed in salt water and said it wasn’t working, then I got a new one from them that actually had a good wi-fi range :).
You know you didn’t have to commit modemacide. You could have actually just asked for new hardware.
They refused, I did what I had to do :)
What happens when whatever promotion you are on rolls off and the hardware now costs you $15–20 bucks a month? Owning your hardware makes imo a ton of sense still.
"I’m sorry you’re frustrated, perhaps it’s time to start a new topic.’
“I’m not going to respond to that.”
"I only use my powers for good!”
Let’s be honest here: they want a human to abuse. They want to be shitty to and verbally assault someone that they view as being “lower” than them. If the AI works well (a different conversation) then people will get over any trepidation they have rather quickly. The people that are legitimately upset will just miss having someone to put down for “only” working customer service.
You have a trauma history in customer service? What are you on about? This isn’t why people are calling customer service.
Let’s be honest here: they hate that the companies are jerking them around and using bullshit programs to cause even more problems, instead of employing people to solve the problems.
Or maybe they just want their issues resolved.
Most people using customer service aren’t assholes.