It's not a great article, but the main line of objection in comments here seems to be "This won't happen, because AI won't do the job well and certainly not better than humans." Sadly, we already know that that's not a reason for things not happening.
For example, robot staffed called centres are worse in almost every way than human staffed ones. And yet they are widely deployed in certain use cases, e.g. utility companies. And, more broadly, even when humans are involved in some chain of interaction between person and organisation, they sometimes have limited options because the computerised system imposed on them is not to designed to empower them to make on-the-hoof discretionary decisions.
Organisations chose to use automated systems of various kinds, because they think it saves money and because the reduction in service is not so appalling that that they lose customers. Or, of course, because they are an essential service, and people need to use them anyway.
We might think that competition would mean that organisations who didn't do this would do better, but often that's not how it actually works. Having an appalling system for escalating complaints is terrible for the relatively small number of people who need to make complaints. But organisations are often not optimising for good handling of edge cases even if, in some better world, we would like them to be.
(Or, indeed, never mind what we would like, organisations might not optimise for edges cases even if it might be rational for them to in the sense that it might actually save them money - edges cases can be expensive - or win them reputation - handling edges cases well is good "marketing" etc.)