Excellent and very timely post! And yeah, feels like AI technology is trying to take over.
Not sure if “AI technology is trying to take over,” but sure that investors in AI technology are taking over. We keep getting distracted from the real problem.
Not exactly taking over, but I suspect so many folks will use it. Just like the calculator and cell phones, it will make folks more “robotic”, have way less of a social life, and many of them will think less “on their feet”. It’s bad enough as it is right now.
I logged in just to say THANK YOU, well said!!
Also, I can’t AVOID the AI any more. Everything shoves it at me whether I like it or not.
this infinitely underestimates the value of LLM-AI.
1 Like
Verizon is rolling out a new plan for new customers and those of us with 1 line. (Simplicity Plan). I pay $70 for a single line with 5 gig of data. Just me. As a widow, I don’t need or want another line. So I called Verizon and got the AI Chat Robot. It assured me I didn’t qualify for $30 as a new customer, but could change to the new plan with unlimited data and Hot spot for $45. I asked the robot if all taxes and fees were included and it said yes. But it wouldn’t transfer me to an actual person to talk to! Then the AI robot texted me this same info: $45 with taxes and fees included. I hung up that call, waited a while and called back. I was able to talk to a live person! I said I wanted the new plan and a confirmation that taxes and fees were included. He said that wasn’t true. I read the text the robot had sent. He said he had to check with an admin. THE AI ROBOT WAS WRONG! Taxes and fees are extra! So the plan was going to be $51. I did change to the new plan –but learned a lesson about AI Chat Robots! They don’t always know what they are talking about!
2 Likes
3 posts were merged into an existing topic: US Mobile
This relates to the “People and Companies Should Be Legally Liable for Their AI Agents” thread: I feel like companies must be liable for whatever their customer support robots say.
If their robots aren’t trustworthy enough for them to do that, then they shouldn’t be using them.
2 Likes
Ain’t it the truth!!!
Well here’s an excellent example of what I have been saying about AI and robots: Tesla’s Safety Camera Lets Woman Cruising at Highway Speed While Completely Passed Out
Definitely scary!
To reply to my own comment, today I had an issue with Alaska Airlines and I used their chatbot. It ended up needing to redirect me to a human, so I didn’t use the AI, but I noticed this disclaimer:
This AI assistant may occasionally provide inaccurate or incomplete information. Please review responses carefully.
Well that’s baloney. Why should it be the customer’s responsibility to make up for a decision they had no input in? If the company choses bots to cut payroll cost (or whatever other reason), it’s their sole responsibility. If the bot messes up, they should be just as liable as if their human rep messed up. They’re trying to move the goalposts here but I’m confident consumers aren’t going to just let that slide. Not when it involves AI given its current public perception.
3 Likes
I wonder if Frank Herbert felt the same way if women turned their thinking over to machines, etc. 
Could not agree more! But I would not be surprised if such companies have some kind of disclaimer buried deep in some “available” documentation that gets them out of such situations. Along these same lines, I read that at banks, their checking and savings accounts (and probably other types of accounts) have of course documentation, and there are some “bizarre” rules and regulations that can severely restrict one’s access to their funds. That really gets me!
I agree completely, but I would also like companies to be liable for what their customer support people say. (If anyone cares, it was Cunard. The purser attendant told me something in person. When it turned out to be false and I asked a different person, I got the original answer, with no hesitation in either case. I am absolutely convinced it was a training issue, and someone decided to go cheap and have incomplete training—similar to AI.)
1 Like
That is true, too! About a year ago I had to implement my mom’s long-term care insurance. That was incredibly complicated and tedious, involving lots of paperwork, forms, etc. Every time I called the insurance company and was an hold waiting to speak to a person, the hold message said something along the lines of “Anything you’re told on this call does not change the terms of your policy contract.”
Since I was mostly calling to get information and find out the procedures and make sure everything was done according to their requirements, I found this disclaimer outrageous: it basically meant they could lie and tell me whatever they wanted, and it didn’t matter, since only the terms of the policy contract could be enforced. (A contract, BTW, that I didn’t have since my mom had bought into it two decades earlier.)
Sure enough, there were several instances were they told me stuff, I did the stuff, and they later told me something different claiming whatever I’d been told before was wrong. It frequently delayed the process and repayment. “Oh no, that’s not right. You have to do X first. Now we’ll have to refile the paperwork from scratch and we have three weeks to verify before we continue.”
Absurd, but technically within the law.
I had that happen, too, with MetLife. I ascribe no deliberate misleading, just improper training of the front-line rep (the same as Cunard, except that was front-line and second tier reps). Of course, whether the misleading is intentional or not, the effect is the same, and the lack of consequences for the organization.
1 Like