Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chatbots-Are-AI-Antipatterns

hello-jp.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Chatbots-Are-AI-Antipatterns

#51

Post by _ea1k »

haswell wrote: post #30
_ea1k wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IDK, to me text has higher information density and throughput than a video meeting. Ever listened to a swagger file?

That really depends on the meeting and the nature of the information being shared. If you’re communicating purely technical information about a subject everyone is already aligned on, text is fine. But the information density present in facial expressions, vocal inflection, body language, etc. is significant and much is lost without it.

Meh, I go to three types of video meetings. The ones where the speakers have their cameras off, the ones where noone watches the screen, and the ones where its a screenshare.

You are right, though. If all your meetings are about persuasion, video and audio will be best.

If someone is in a technical role and most of their meetings are like this, that's a bad sign.

Re: Chatbots-Are-AI-Antipatterns

#52

Post by tdeck »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #10
AJ007 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A well-designed self-service GUI" doesn't exist once the company is optimizing for the opposite of what your are trying to do (cancel subscription, return item, file insurance claim, etc.)

Then use the regulatory pen and make them. Like good grief I know we're insanely politically polarized at the moment but I think every single person in America except for like 200 executives would get behind a law that says "cancelling a subscription must be exactly as easily done as getting one."

> every single person in America except for like 200 executives

Oof sounds like the base is pretty divided in this one. Better send it to committee where it can be studied forever.

Re: Chatbots-Are-AI-Antipatterns

#53

Post by lolinder »

alabastervlog wrote: post #48
lolinder wrote: post #9

Chat is a terrible primary interface for working with people, too. It's fine for cursory stuff, but it doesn't suffice for anything that requires high information throughput. You can use it to follow up on a conversation that you had in person or in a video call, you can use it to check in about something that was fleshed out on a real doc, and you can occasionally use it to brainstorm a quick solution to something.…

Text is excellent for communication if all involved parties are decently literate. This, admittedly, means it's very often not excellent.

Text != Chat. Chat is an abbreviated form of text that isn't particularly great for most purposes even among literate people.

Re: Chatbots-Are-AI-Antipatterns

#54

Post by lolinder »

_ea1k wrote: post #24
lolinder wrote: post #9

Chat is a terrible primary interface for working with people, too. It's fine for cursory stuff, but it doesn't suffice for anything that requires high information throughput. You can use it to follow up on a conversation that you had in person or in a video call, you can use it to check in about something that was fleshed out on a real doc, and you can occasionally use it to brainstorm a quick solution to something.…

IDK, to me text has higher information density and throughput than a video meeting. Ever listened to a swagger file?

I'm not contrasting voice with text, I'm contrasting chat with voice and with most other forms of text.

Re: Chatbots-Are-AI-Antipatterns

#55

Post by smahs »

all2 wrote: post #22

At a previous employer, I pitched tooltips as a potential way to surface AI interactions. I may still try it in an app I'm building. Docs -> RAG -> tooltips / onboarding sounds like it might work out ok.

^^ I have vague memories of Clippy, but I remember it as obnoxious, often consuming the precious screen real estate on the low res monitors of the day, without offering anything valuable. But tooltips on the web with CSS and libraries like floating-ui can be much more compact, agile and barely noticeable.

I have tried showing help text in an internal app using tooltips when the user would hover over the target element (or show a small icon on touch devices), and the feedback was good as the tooltips were never in the way but easily available for help (accessibility for keyboard users needed some thinking, but for the limited audience for that app, it was not a problem). And while you're at it, may be make it more engaging than a simple text only tooltip (which can be done without any intelligence), and let the host to customize and offer complex workflows.

Re: Chatbots-Are-AI-Antipatterns

#56

Post by _nalply »

rsynnott wrote: post #40
savanaly wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And it keeps being pushed on customers because it's beneficial for corporations: customers will fruitlessly navigate chat support rather than realizing they should give up and call Businesses tend to thrive when consumers choose to keep using them, not when they don't. How does users fruitlessly navigating chat support serve that end?

That's a _long-term_ problem, though. This would be far from the first time that companies prioritise short-term savings over long-term revenue due to perverse incentives. No-one's getting promoted for "declined to ruin our customer support, thus avoiding loss of X recurring revenue per year over the next decade", but they might get promoted for "reduced cost of customer support by X with AI!!!" In the long run the i…

> In the long run the invisible hand will dole out rewards and punishments

Only in competitive markets.

Re: Chatbots-Are-AI-Antipatterns

#57

Post by ToucanLoucan »

tdeck wrote: post #52
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then use the regulatory pen and make them. Like good grief I know we're insanely politically polarized at the moment but I think every single person in America except for like 200 executives would get behind a law that says "cancelling a subscription must be exactly as easily done as getting one."

> every single person in America except for like 200 executives Oof sounds like the base is pretty divided in this one. Better send it to committee where it can be studied forever.

I laugh because the alternative is to scream.

Re: Chatbots-Are-AI-Antipatterns

#58

Post by ToucanLoucan »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #31
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck the market. If that is indeed what it decided, it’s wrong. Markets are wrong all the time. I borrow a line from Rick and Morty, the boos of the market mean nothing to me. I've seen what makes it cheer. There is no reason at all to require a market to give us permission to make a better society.

A lot of people don't get that the market isn't a reflection of reality. It is reality - the only reality. That's the point of market realism.

Organized human societies predate markets by millions of years. Markets are reality now, kind of, because of the utter failure on the part of liberal governments to keep them regulated and in their place. This is not a desirable nor permanent nor sustainable situation.

Re: Chatbots-Are-AI-Antipatterns

#59

Post by kelseyfrog »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #58
kelseyfrog wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people don't get that the market isn't a reflection of reality. It is reality - the only reality. That's the point of market realism.

Organized human societies predate markets by millions of years. Markets are reality now, kind of, because of the utter failure on the part of liberal governments to keep them regulated and in their place. This is not a desirable nor permanent nor sustainable situation.

Capitalism subsumes all critiques. There will never be anything other than the permanent market.

Re: Chatbots-Are-AI-Antipatterns

#60

Post by consteval »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #13
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then use the regulatory pen and make them. Like good grief I know we're insanely politically polarized at the moment but I think every single person in America except for like 200 executives would get behind a law that says "cancelling a subscription must be exactly as easily done as getting one."

The market has already decided. If it was important for people, companies that offered easier cancellation would out-compete with those who don't.

1. Customers don't know what cancelling is like before they buy a service. This isn't advertised, obviously.

2. Competing on being easy to cancel is a bad thing, actually. However wins that competition is losing money. That's why you see the competition go in the other direction. As in, who can make the shittiest cancellation interface (Planet Fitness, btw).

3. People who cancel a service are cancelling BECAUSE of the service. Why would they go back to a service they disliked enough to cancel, if the service stays exactly the same? They wouldn't. Meaning, "good cancellation" doesn't count for anything.

So it doesn't help you retain customers, it doesn't help you get back customers you lost, and it doesn't help you get new customers.

Post reply on HN