Thanks for the analysis, but I think this is only looking at about half the equation.
Does the AI stay on-script in ways that shorten call duration? Or otherwise improve company economics (aka efficiently denying refunds/returns/warranty claims/etc.; or successfully generating conversions to sales, service plans, or whatever; or successfully solving customer problems on the first call)?
That is a great point. I don’t think I have too much data on this or know where to find it publicly (tips/intros to voice AI people would be appreciated!). I spoke to an early engineer at a voice agent company that helps medical providers call big insurers to claim insurance. A big problem they had was optimizing the AI to not be too friendly and random (“how was your weekend”==tokens set on fire) but also not be overly terse and impolite. Funnily enough, on the insurer’s side they also use AI to detect and ban AI callers (so I guess this helps them efficiently deny claims?).
Or is the opposite likely to happen—does the AI frequently fail to solve the customer’s problem until the customer demands to speak to a human, and then you have to pay for the AI’s and the human worker’s time? And what’s the chance that it gives wrong advice that the company is then held liable for?
Even one case of that might be quite costly if the AI promised the customer something very expensive, and companies are likely to be nervous about such risks. Or in the case of electronic medical records, what’s the chance of the voice-to-text hallucinating words and potentially getting a person killed due to misdiagnosis? (I’m sure that human workers mishear things too, but I also expect that a jury will be much harsher on “we deployed an experimental system with a known tendency for hallucinations in our hospital” than on “our receptionist misheard”.)
All possible outcomes, yes! I think the jury question is important, however much it might end up being in some sense silly on the merits. There’s a lot of implementation details that can go wrong.
To add one more thought—done well, there can also be value in 24⁄7 availability, consistent customer experience, and never getting a busy signal or put on hold.
Thanks for the analysis, but I think this is only looking at about half the equation.
Does the AI stay on-script in ways that shorten call duration? Or otherwise improve company economics (aka efficiently denying refunds/returns/warranty claims/etc.; or successfully generating conversions to sales, service plans, or whatever; or successfully solving customer problems on the first call)?
That is a great point. I don’t think I have too much data on this or know where to find it publicly (tips/intros to voice AI people would be appreciated!). I spoke to an early engineer at a voice agent company that helps medical providers call big insurers to claim insurance. A big problem they had was optimizing the AI to not be too friendly and random (“how was your weekend”==tokens set on fire) but also not be overly terse and impolite. Funnily enough, on the insurer’s side they also use AI to detect and ban AI callers (so I guess this helps them efficiently deny claims?).
Or is the opposite likely to happen—does the AI frequently fail to solve the customer’s problem until the customer demands to speak to a human, and then you have to pay for the AI’s and the human worker’s time? And what’s the chance that it gives wrong advice that the company is then held liable for?
Even one case of that might be quite costly if the AI promised the customer something very expensive, and companies are likely to be nervous about such risks. Or in the case of electronic medical records, what’s the chance of the voice-to-text hallucinating words and potentially getting a person killed due to misdiagnosis? (I’m sure that human workers mishear things too, but I also expect that a jury will be much harsher on “we deployed an experimental system with a known tendency for hallucinations in our hospital” than on “our receptionist misheard”.)
All possible outcomes, yes! I think the jury question is important, however much it might end up being in some sense silly on the merits. There’s a lot of implementation details that can go wrong.
To add one more thought—done well, there can also be value in 24⁄7 availability, consistent customer experience, and never getting a busy signal or put on hold.