[dools]

> which AI will take to a whole new level of bad.

Why do you assume that?

> What should be desired, is a return to quality and respecting the user (or at least taking the time to understand them), which unfortunately seems unnecessary now with a global reach and unimpeded manipulation and influence that can ignore demands for improvement.

I know the assumption is always that Big Greedy Co™ is hiring the worst possible employees to save money, but I think it's far more likely that the scale of work required far exceeds the labour required to provide it.

[throwaway4233]

Customer support being a bad experience has always to do with the company policies or a general lack of training.

For company policies, an AI would be rigidly trained and limited to always minimize loses to the company, since you can game the AI if it's too lax by saying the exact prompts or keywords.

For companies that do not even provide basic training except for a FAQ sheet, I do not think replacing the human with an AI is going to improve customer experience, because, a human(IC or manager) might be driven by motivation of compensation or job security, to learn more than what is provided, to do their job well.

[agentgumshoe]

What does AI do if it doesn't have a good answer? How do you know it gave you a good answer? There are no qualities like 'that person sounded a bit useless' or 'sounds like they're reading from a script' or any of those other wonderful interactions we have with poor customer service was can judge with sentiment/intuition. You just get 'the AI answer.'

Big greed co will hire the cheapest employees, and will do exactly the minimum amount of customer service they can get away with, so long as their profits are sustained.