The few times I've let a company sucker me into engaging with a chatbot, it was nothing but a worse interface to searching their support website. It was capable of nothing but directing me to pages which could not help me, because what I needed was not more information about the problem I already knew I had, but someone to fix the damn problem.

I'm currently working on adding a bot to our support chat at TalkJS. And it's great, it has probably a 90% success rate at handling complex queries. But that's because we're throwing money at it. That chat is normally staffed by senior devs, meaning it's not unusual for a single response to cost $10 of labour.

If you approach it as a cost cutting exercise, you end up with crap. If you approach it as a way to make a better experience while you sleep, it's achievable.

The only time a chatbot worked for me is Amazon's, of all things. It auto approved my return after I answered a few questions.

I haven't had any chatbot outside that be useful to me. I always end up getting to the end of all the prompts only to be told I need to speak to a human or the chatbot going in a circle, in which I have to reach out to a different layer of support.

Maybe 75%?

I've gotten pointed to documentation I never would have found and I doubt a human would have found. I've had returns immediately processed rather than waiting 2 days for a RMA to show up in my email. I had a subscription rate lowered (my desired outcome) when I tried to cancel a service. And I've had a software bug escalated to the appropriate team within a couple of minutes. And all these interactions were probably 10x faster, at least, than they would have been with a human.

I love chatbots for customer service. Not because they save the company money, but because they seem to save me a ton of time (no more 20 minutes of hold, followed by being put on hold for 10 minutes multiple times), and they seem to follow policies more "objectively", and they escalate easily whenever they can't handle something. It just seems like more reliable and faster outcomes for "normal" support, and then you still get a real agent for more complicated situations.

Look at this from today: https://s.h4x.club/WnunYn98 > https://s.h4x.club/NQuXwXmQ > https://s.h4x.club/L1uwdwwo

I'm literally trying to give them tens of thousands of dollars...I dunno why I bothered even engaging with it, I hoped it would end up taking a report or something, but it doesn't, it just wastes my time.

I've had bad luck. Most of it very frustrating where the bot obviously doesn't understand anything.

My best luck with a chat bot was ironically only because of HN.

I was to complaining about amazon's chat bot (it would send me in an infinite loop of directions) and someone who worked at Amazon on HN told me that there were multiple chat bots, and they told me the right one use (I had to click a different link on the amazon webpage than I was clicking).

That one worked ... it took some engineer on HN to make me understand how to make it work.

It has one major use case: Converting natural language into a logged and understood FAQ issue.

>Companies need to stop looking at customer support as an expense, but rather as an opportunity to build trust and strengthen your business relationship.

As someone that's worked in basically a service industry my entire life, good luck with this. I don't disagree, I'm just old enough to understand the world that humans build, and this type of long-term approach is dead in the current "Profits over all" culture of the US.

I remember the pre-AI Geico chat bot that I liked. I could call it once every six months and pay my entire balance with a few words. But then the company started leaning harder on monthly payments and the "pay entire balance" option was removed and I now must either laboriously speak-out the entire dollars and cents due or talk to a person.

What is to say that a lot of the functions that a customer service person does is getting people things they need and that the company resists giving to them. Which is to say that companies mostly need customer service agents because the company's raw impulses are so shitty they need someone with the slight independence of a customer service agent just to provide the services their customers need.

It's like why I never go to company websites despite being very web-savy. These websites only serve the company's idea of what I get and if I'm calling at all, it's because I need more than that.

Naturally, the point is an AI chat can't do customer service because it can't override policy, tell people tricks and similar things.

I bet chatbots are very successful when measuring how much the interaction costs, which seems to be what most companies are measuring when it comes to customer support. The problem is that it's very easy to measure cost (how many person-minutes did it take and what's your hourly cost for support agents, or how much API usage did it take for the bot?) and very hard to measure any outcome the customer actually cares about. Fix this misaligned incentive and the rest will follow naturally, but that requires treating support as a facilitator for the rest of the business rather than as a pure cost center that needs to be minimized.

I had an experience recently where the chatbot gathered details about my problem, but then referred me to a knowledgebase article. I just replied "human" and it connected me with a human, but the AI must have given them a detailed summary, because they joined the chat, said "I understand the issue, let me see what I can do," and then two minutes later, said "I went ahead and fixed that for you on the backend."

One way to look at that anecdote is "the AI failed." Another way is "the AI made the human agent about 100% more efficient." I'm pretty sure CS agents don't love gathering basic info.

[dead]

This is mentioned a lot, but it's still true - people on HN are not representative of the majority of users for customer support.

The majority of support tickets are repetitive and answered by a simple formula the representative churns without thinking. Which is likely easily replaceable by chatbots.

Actually call volumes increased:

“ The union took CBA to the workplace relations tribunal earlier this month as the company wasn’t being transparent about call volumes, according to a statement Thursday from the Finance Sector Union. The nation’s largest lender had said that the voice bot reduced call volumes by 2,000 a week, when union members said volumes were in fact rising and CBA had to offer staff overtime and direct team leaders to answer calls, the union said.”

This was my read of this as well! What a stupid metric. The first thing I thought when I read that was "Yeah, that's probably because people stopped calling and started looking for another bank."

That'll be what I'll do if my bank starts replacing people with AI. Take my money out and go somewhere that isn't trash.

True, but the union protected its workers from those at the bank. That is the value in the union. In jurisdictions without a union or parity labor policy, these workers would have no recourse for this fraud and the lies.

Robinhood's support bot is basically like that. Completely useless LLM that marks cases resolved when you give up.

I'm sure in some board room some exec is bragging about its smashing success rate.

Let me rephrase this to be more accurate. It’s good to be able to see through these type of antisocial types.

“Companies need to be allowed to lie to cover their own ass. Taking responsibility for your actions is not the way forward to higher profits for me”

I don't think this was "forced" as in "a court told them to rehire them", as it seems the bank agreed to rehire them before the case got to the tribunal. I think this was "forced" as in "their innovations didn't work out as well as they had hoped, so they needed to hire people experienced in the job to make up for the people they had fired, and the only people that matched the description were the people they had fired"

Weird take, considering that according to the text of the article the "innovation" didn't bring any productivity gains.

I grew up in the rust belt. I've never heard of anyone leaving to "escape unions" but rather there just being not many jobs, lots of historic pollution to deal with, and a poor future economic outlook.

Why were unions specifically to blame for your family leaving?

[dead]