In the original tweet, Klarna mentioned that customer satisfaction was the same.
> Now live globally for 1 month, the numbers speak for themselves:
> * The AI assistant has had 2.3 million conversations, two-thirds of Klarna’s customer service chats
> * It is doing the equivalent work of 700 full-time agents
> * It is on par with human agents in regard to customer satisfaction score
> * It is more accurate in errand resolution, leading to a 25% drop in repeat inquiries
> * Customers now resolve their errands in less than 2 mins compared to 11 mins previously It’s available in 23 markets, 24/7 and communicates in more than 35 languages
> * It’s estimated to drive a $40 million USD in profit improvement to Klarna in 2024
All but one has actual numbers attached. I wonder why that last one doesn’t.
https://www.klarna.com/international/press/klarna-ai-assista...
Basically you can barely trust publicly scrutinized science to not mess up data gathering. I definitely don't trust companies that sell automated tools for user satisfaction to actually have good metrics for it.
=
“We made no progress on satisfying upset customers”
Base rate fallacy perfectly demonstrated
If they wanted bad results, chatbots already existed.
Customer: 2
AI: Thank you for rating this call a 10. Have a nice day. *click