[Zak]

Now, when was the last time you came to book a haircut or restaurant table and concluded that the task was so onerous that you would ideally delegate it to a machine? And even if you can easily think of a scenario, would there not be something ethically questionable about doing so, if the person at the other end had no idea who or what they were talking to?

I hate talking on the phone. If I can't fill out a web form (login-free please) or send an email to complete some task like that, I'd love to have a robot do it for me. I don't see anything unethical about this as long as the robot performs the task reasonably well, doesn't waste the receptionist's time, etc....

The classic hacker ethic says it's bad for humans to be required to waste time on something a machine could do, and Google has just expanded the list of things machines can do. Of course, under that framework, it would be preferable to automate the receptionist taking the call as well.

I'm eager for this technology to become more general-purpose. For months, I've had a case open with an airline over an item that went missing from my checked bag. The only way to get updates is to call them on the phone. It first goes to an IVR, then a call center in India where the call is screened by a person, and only then to the actual department that can give me useful information. There is no direct line (I asked). The process is obviously designed to frustrate users so they give up. The hassle is arguably not worth the $90 they owe me, but I don't want to let them get away with it. I really wish I could have a robot talk to them.

[Balgair]

Hmm, different strokes - different folks. I actually like to talk to people on the phone. Maybe I need to get out more, but when you can get to a real human, the issues at hand tend to get easier to deal with. Phone trees are a nightmare for me, and I just spam 0 until I get someone (typically works alright, but not always).

The trick, I have found, is to treat the other person on the line, as well, a real person. When they say their name, say it back to them, ask them how their day is, chat for a second about how it's their Wednesday (halfway there!), what the weather like where they are (Broncos are going to have a tough game, eh?), etc. Even just 30 seconds of chatter will get you great service. So many people treat them as 'the help', so when you come in and treat them as an equal human, their day just got a little better, and they'll treat you better too, because you treated them well first.

And I mean you really get better service. That direct line to their manager's manager? You have that now, just because you were nice. That bouquet of flowers for your mom/wife? It just got a little larger, because you asked them how their day is going. That bill you are having trouble paying? It's 15% off, because you complained about the snow too. Yeah, it's not a lot. Yeah, it happens maybe 1/10 times. But it is worth 30 seconds.

Besides, you got to make an actual human's day better. No one is too busy for that, for good manners and a smile, even if it's over the phone.

[devonkim]

The reasons I would like refer a human or automaton depends upon the kind of transaction I need. If it’s something I think is done pretty often I’ll look for a web form with a workflow that someone has invested some time into to make sure the business process works. Additionally, 90% of the time I call a human to do this I can clearly tell that they’re filling out yet another form or even the same one I just had problems with - this is ultimately a UX and business process failure that results in a call center call. I typically wind up playing “let me spell my address and e-mail to someone using variations of military phonetic semaphores” when I can just type it in myself. The number of errors I’ve had over repeating entries over the phone that have resulted in rather serious repercussions are too numerous that I’d rather just type forms in myself if possible.

Where I want a person is when I want to bypass processes completely or I have a big exception that warrants a human. So if I’m calling your call center, you may as well send me up to tier 3 or higher because I’m going to be a pain.

And given I did support for a couple years myself, sure I’ll try to make their day a bit better where I can and try to have all my info ready and to be as calm as possible. Because I know it can take a while, so I usually have an hour or two set aside for these calls and can just wait and not have to hurry anyone.

[Zak]

I hate IVRs and phone trees too. I probably want the interaction to be a self-service website, depending on the context (making a restaurant reservation, delivery order, etc... are absolutely good fits for this).

For actually resolving a customer service issue, sure I'd rather talk to a human. I do try to be nice to them, and it does, indeed often result in better service.

For getting an update on what's going on with the request I made three months ago, I want a website, or push notifications by email.

[y_tho]

Now the companies are gonna have to dial 0 for a human.

(Imagine a shopkeeper with a thick scottish accent). "We've got an opening for 4pm wednesday." "I'm sorry, I could not understand you. Please repeat that."

[arojn]

You have been able to book, as well as pay for, essentially any restaurant in China via WeChat for years. In Sweden most new services like authentication, payments or digital mail are by local companies. The world is increasingly routing around US tech companies to solve these problems.

[CosmicSteve]

No worries, soon enough we'll be rid of the horror that is "human interaction". I'm sure that this will have 0 widspread social implications.

[Zak]

Calling on the phone to reserve a table is not a meaningful or valuable human interaction to me. I doubt it is for the person whose job it is to take that call.

[jcims]

I'm pretty much the same way, but found it helps if you make it a goal to get the other person to break out of the script during the call. Say something silly, ask them how their day is going, ask them how busy they are today, if they get tired of calls like these, etc etc.

[CosmicSteve]

It is valuable for that person, that's how they're generating their income...

[Zak]

Answering the phone is often not the person's primary job; it may even be a distraction.

Even if a person's job is entirely replaced by a machine, the historical economic impact of automation has not been a reduction in employment nor an increase in inequality as the luddites feared.

[amelius]

Yeah, but I guess the bigger question is: is this convenience so large that it justifies that a single company puts a wall around a market with a gate with their name on it?

[ryanmonroe]

What do you mean? Has Google patented the use of computer-generated voices / language to contact a business?

[amelius]

No (or perhaps yes), but they are a big player, and this is a typical winner-takes-all situation. Soon everybody will access business X through Google, and this gives Google power over these businesses, just like Amazon has power over third-party sellers, for instance. For the consumer it means a minor convenience, but for the business-owner it means tougher competition, and loss of identity of their business. It's like selling software for years, then suddenly Apple comes along, "forces" you to use the AppStore, and demands a cut.

In short: the problem is that a company now regulates your market.

[randomdata]

Ideally the other end would not rely on the phone, but so long as they do, yes. Anything to remove it from the lives of the rest of us is a good thing.