|
|
|
|
|
|
by andrekandre
54 days ago
|
|
|
> digests user input and boils out the noise to provide a robust enough signal to guide some monitoring agent
not to sound uncharitable but this seems like the absolute worst way to run a business; your customers are basically lab rats... why should they pay for anything in this scenario? |
|
|
To be fair [to myself], this is scale-dependent. I work on a product with hundreds of millions of users. We're not going to be reading and pondering every bit of feedback we get. We have automation for stripping out some of the noise (eg the number of crash reports we get from bit flips due to faulty RAM is quite significant at this scale). We have lines of defense set up to screen things down -- though if you file a well-researched and documented bug, we'll pay attention. (We won't necessarily do what you want, but we'll pay attention.)
When I worked at a much smaller and earlier stage company, we begged our users for feedback. We begged potential users for feedback. We implemented some things purely to try to get someone excited enough that they would be motivated to give feedback.
Anthropic, OpenAI, Google? They have a lot of users.
Also, this automation would be in addition to the other channels by which you'd pay attention to feedback.
Also also, the ship has sailed. We're all lab rats now. We're randomly chosen to be A/B tested on. We are upgraded early as part of a staged rollout. We're region-locked. Geocoded. Tracked as part of the cohort that has bought formula or diapers recently. Maybe we live in the worst of all possible worlds?