Hacker News Reader

Comment by mbStavola | Hacker News Reader

Part of me also wonders if people may agree that its better simply because they don't actually have to do the summarization anymore. Even if it is worse by some %, that is an annoying task you are no longer responsible for; if anything goes wrong down the line, "ah the AI must've screwed up" is your way out.

View on HN

I’m inclined to believe that call center employees don’t have a lot of incentive to do a good job/care, so a lossy AI could quite plausibly be higher quality than a human

Also it should be easy to correct some obvious mistakes in less convoluted discussions. Also, prob a support call is less complex than eg a group meeting by many aspects, and with a prob larger margin of acceptable errors.

For many years now, every time I have to talk with someone on a call centre there has been a survey at the end with at least two questions:

1. Would you recommend us?

2. Was the agent helpful?

I have a friend who used to work at a call centre and would routinely get the lowest marks on the first item and the highest on the second. I do that when the company has been shitty but I understand the person on the line really made an effort to help.

Obviously, those ratings go back to the supervisor and matter for your performance reviews, which can make all the difference between getting a raise or being fired. If anything, call centre employees have a lot of incentive to do a good job if they have any intention of keeping it, because everything they do with a customer is recorded and scrutinised.

Fair point, though I think “did I accurately summarize a conversation” is much harder to check/get away with vs “did I piss off the person on the other end”

That re-synthesis of information is incredibly valuable to storing it in your own memory.

Of course, we can just rely on knowing nothing just to look things up, but I want more for thinking peoples.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com