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

Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

wpvip.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 608 posts

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#561

Post by eudamoniac »

jackson1442 wrote: post #454
victor106 wrote: post #314

>No customer or user wakes up and says, ‘I hope I get to talk to a chat bot or an AI agent today This is so true. I led the implementation of an AI customer service agent and even though management thinks it’s a great success the metrics tell a totally different story. Our customers hated it. I haven’t seen anything in tech that is hated more. Before you think we did a bad job with our solution, I can tell you we wen…

My main issue with these systems is that they tend to not be able to do anything beyond what I can do myself in whatever self-service portal is available. If I'm calling, it's because I need support beyond what the bot can probably provide, and it just becomes a matter of arguing with the robot to get to a human who can actually solve my problem.

Yeah but unfortunately the majority of people calling are calling about things they can do themselves in the self-service portal.

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#562

Post by LtWorf »

gwbas1c wrote: post #135

I'm looking at AI in a product as a way to tell it what to do without me needing to look up what I want to do... And it usually doesn't do that. For example: I wanted to make a pie chart in Excel of 5 cells, so I selected them and told Copilot to make a pie chart. It put a pie chart image in the chat window, and told me where to click to make the pie chart, but didn't actually make the pie chart for me. Sometimes my…

Ah yes the famous useful AI generated tests:

a = 1

assert a == 1

assert a == 1

(I've seen this for real, hidden among several hundreds of other lines)

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#563

Post by blep-arsh »

LPisGood wrote: post #387
fckgw wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is is about management where they can't see how bad and half-baked these customer service agents are, but the customer can tell INSTANTLY they're AI and just not helpful in the slightest

I recommend everyone in this thread call OpenAI and talk that support agent. I had some issue and tried to trip it up, spoke naturally and ambiguously, and it actually did a pretty good job.

I've asked my bank's support agent about an issue with an app, it also didn't stumble producing a thorough and convincing answer. Entirely wrong, though. Using an LLM to reverse engineer the app turned out to be a much more productive approach.

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#564

Post by ingvay7 »

I used to think AI summaries in emails were sorta useful until I was dealing with a particularly long engagement with a law firm where their paralegal sends out AI-generated recaps. After a couple of months, I was at my wits end at the paralegal sending me these summaries. They absolutely trashed most conversation threads with barren slop and mixed up convo threads. I think it may have been Copilot they were using.

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#565

Post by pigeons »

ChoGGi wrote: post #537
thewebguyd wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and there's the FOMO aspect. Especially in non-tech/non-product companies right now. Look at the age profile of owners and CEOs. Most of them were around for the dotcom era, and eventually they saw that companies that ignored the internet or didn't adapt where completely left behind. There's a real fear among the C-suite/management that this is the same thing all over again, and if they are not fast enough on th…

Good time to start selling AI shovels?

too late!

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#566

Post by 11mariom »

Couldn't agree more. There will be marketing trend for authenticity and real interactions. At least I hope so.

Personally I am at the moment that when I even slightly feel something may be AI output… I just stop reading. Sometimes it's just false positive, but there are some senstences / styling so ai-looking that I'm just tired off, even if its written by human.

In comments I see a lot about chatbots… Yep, it's just the worst of the worst. Most (all?) are just not helpful at all. Spinning around same things, but never ones you'd need. Sometimes I just feel they're programmed in a way to exhaust me to ditch and ignore the problem I had.

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#567

Post by ashleywr »

beej71 wrote: post #328
victor106 wrote: post #314

>No customer or user wakes up and says, ‘I hope I get to talk to a chat bot or an AI agent today This is so true. I led the implementation of an AI customer service agent and even though management thinks it’s a great success the metrics tell a totally different story. Our customers hated it. I haven’t seen anything in tech that is hated more. Before you think we did a bad job with our solution, I can tell you we wen…

This reminds me that I have to write my dentist. They replaced their beep answering machine with an AI chatbot, and the experience is horrible. I just want to say what I want, have it transcribed to text, and then have a human do something about it. It. I don't want to have to slowly explain to a bot who is just going to do the same thing. Plus, the first time you encounter it, it doesn't identify itself as a bot for…

My best guess is the logical next step is Apple or Google giving you a (paid) AI Assistant who will call up and make that appointment for you. Then it's just AI talking to AI, which I guess is still better than having to make the call ourselves which I appreciate, but it's certainly silly sounding.

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#568

Post by danaris »

coldtea wrote: post #545
1718627440 wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they don't even want to try the thing, they are allegedly proud of, I would expect them to actually now, that the thing is garbage.

They're proud of their quarterly results, not of the product, that they couldn't care less about. They're not Steve Jobs types. They're glorified bean counters.

For many of them, the quarterly results are the product.

Thanks to Milton Friedman, far too much of the manager class now believe that the end goal of their job is to make shareholders rich, and the fact that they have to do that by making a product or providing a service is something along the lines of a necessary evil.

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#569

Post by Ekaros »

autoexec wrote: post #426
georgemcbay wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't try to make people think it's a human. Agreed. A local pizza place (Tribute Pizza) switched its phone over to an AI assistant that goes out of its way to appear human to such a degree that it inserts random "restaurant bustle" sound effects into the call so it sounds like you're talking to someone standing in a crowded restaurant. The subterfuge of layering in sound effects to make idiots think they were stil…

Considering the many embarrassing failures huge fast food chains have had trying to get AI order takers in their drive-throughs I'd be very concerned about an AI at some random local pizza place getting my order accurately

Which is why I feel like we peaked years back when we had simple enough web sites where you could just use shared platform to select options and make orders...

And then the VC money ruined it by food delivery intermediaries and acquisitions...

Re: Sixty percent of US consumers say 'AI' in brand messaging is a turnoff

#570

Post by happymellon »

mukbangpervert wrote: post #559
happymellon wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CD sales didn't pay much, because it all went to the labels.

A million album sales generates $2-3m for the artist under a typical label deal. 150,000,000 streams typically generates $560k _before_ the label cut. Your posts make clear that you're a wildly immoral person -- not just because you repeatedly lie and distort to defend your position -- but the crux of your argument is "artists had a mediocre deal, so it is fine that the new deal is dramatically worse". There's no way…

> but the crux of your argument is "artists had a mediocre deal, so it is fine that the new deal is dramatically worse".

No it's not. I'm saying that artists have always had a shit deal, singling out Spotify doesn't help the systematic problems. I don't use Spotify, I purchase via Bandcamp but that's also because long term its cheaper for me.

> Your posts make clear that you're a wildly immoral person

I'm immoral because I don't think that artists have ever had it good? Alright Mr. RIAA.

https://sociallifemagazine.com/the-archive/90s-record-deals-...

Post reply on HN