ChatGPT AI responses & replies by hosts

armandorg

Well, it might be just me but something triggers within me when i see a host using all their replies & responses with AI generated content..

So much fancy grammar and perfect replies, feels so off.

It's been some time since i've seen some 'sister/mother' english level.

What do you guys think?

bikegremlin

AI used in those terms is like Photoshop for the intellect.

Bed spilling never hurt anyone!

terrorgen

Especially when you are typing in bed.

Janevski

Someone using an AI to generate responses is insulting.
It is like: "i am too important and busy to craft two sentences for you."

MikeA

Usually it's done by people in other languages, but they should use a translator instead, like DeepL. Sending AI generated messages is frustrating and I don't allow it.

havoc

Don't think you guys are gonna like the next few years...

I for one welcome our AI overlords

MallocVoidstar

@MikeA said:
Usually it's done by people in other languages, but they should use a translator instead, like DeepL. Sending AI generated messages is frustrating and I don't allow it.

I suspect that machine translation is much less reliable than giving GPT-4 instructions in a non-English language and telling it to write in English. I've seen machine translation do insanely stupid things. (translating 'rubles' to 'USD', inverting the meaning of a sentence, ...)

crunchbits

@Janevski said:
Someone using an AI to generate responses is insulting.
It is like: "i am too important and busy to craft two sentences for you."

While I know we're going to see a bunch more of it I sort of agree. That being said, probably 80-90% of support tickets could be handled faster and perfectly by ChatGPT responding, so I see why it's going that way. It kind of reminds me of the early voice-recognition menus when you had to call somewhere that would routinely never understand you correctly or purposely catch you in loops until you were frustrated and hung up.

Still trying to think of a way to increase service/answer-finding ability for customers while simultaneously attempting to reduce average workload. Likely will be some level of "AI" search on a much more thorough KB/doc site, but I still want the easy avenue to a live human rep available since that is what I would want.

Janevski

@crunchbits said: 80-90% of support tickets could be handled faster and perfectly

perfectly...

That level of support does not add any value for the user, only serves to put an additional obstacle before the user can reach real support and get help.
It is like using the outsourced support from India that Microsoft Azure has.
They are ticket punchers who work by a script and provide no actual value except for providing an echo response.

[Which kinda proves the point that they can be replced by an AI and the user shall still get the same level of shit service.]

Encoders

using AI is fine, the host just have to learn how to use a better system command.

in chatgpt3.5 free version, by changing the default system_command with this:

Be a helpful assistant with active language and concise responses. Refrain from summarizing, disclaimers, and apologizing. Minimize word count in explanations. On a 1-10 scale, where 1 is curt and 10 is verbose, aim for a 3.

it results in much better response in the chat activity. you want to adjust formal/informal tones? do it just like that in similar manner.

the technology is here and it's meant to be used, If it does help you while also reducing time spent on ticket (which means you also spending less money in it), why not?. you're not gonna blindsidedly ignore AI just because some random twats in mongolian green basket weaving forum told you it's not cool..right?

personally i prefer to see service provider always trying to improvise / use new stuff, at very least you might be hurt but you'll learn that way. If you just want to 'sit still' then your market are also 'sit still' too at best. you're not bezos with unlimited money by making product while racing to the bottom. gotta improvise somehow

Otus9051

My English teacher at school accused me of using AI due to my perfect grammar and vocabulary. I needed to rewrite the whole thing, in a worse manner, to make her think its not AI. It was never AI.

crunchbits

@Janevski said:

@crunchbits said: 80-90% of support tickets could be handled faster and perfectly

perfectly...

That level of support does not add any value for the user, only serves to put an additional obstacle before the user can reach real support and get help.
It is like using the outsourced support from India that Microsoft Azure has.
They are ticket punchers who work by a script and provide no actual value except for providing an echo response.

[Which kinda proves the point that they can be replced by an AI and the user shall still get the same level of shit service.]

I don't quite follow. I'm saying that the majority of the tickets coming in would be instantly and correctly answered by "AI". There is no need for them to reach a human operator. I'm not sure how that doesn't add value? Maybe it isn't applicable to you, but a lot of tickets are incredibly basic or "common knowledge" which isn't so common if you're not from LE*-world or a knowledgeable sysadmin.

The alternative is you get a pile of your 'ticket punchers' that generally never help anyone and exist just to hit metrics or a much longer wait for a decent support staff reply. I think you can easily serve both needs while reducing the burden on your human support staff from answering questions like "can I get a refund?" or "how do I add SSH key?" and just getting the tougher/more involved stuff shot up a level.

rcy026

I think it depends on how they use it.
If they use it to get proper grammar and translation while describing their services and offerings correctly, then go for it.
If they use it to whip up a bunch of marketing bullshit oozing with buzzwords and meaning practically nothing, hell no.

rcy026

@crunchbits said:

@Janevski said:

@crunchbits said: 80-90% of support tickets could be handled faster and perfectly

perfectly...

That level of support does not add any value for the user, only serves to put an additional obstacle before the user can reach real support and get help.
It is like using the outsourced support from India that Microsoft Azure has.
They are ticket punchers who work by a script and provide no actual value except for providing an echo response.

[Which kinda proves the point that they can be replced by an AI and the user shall still get the same level of shit service.]

I don't quite follow. I'm saying that the majority of the tickets coming in would be instantly and correctly answered by "AI". There is no need for them to reach a human operator. I'm not sure how that doesn't add value? Maybe it isn't applicable to you, but a lot of tickets are incredibly basic or "common knowledge" which isn't so common if you're not from LE*-world or a knowledgeable sysadmin.

The alternative is you get a pile of your 'ticket punchers' that generally never help anyone and exist just to hit metrics or a much longer wait for a decent support staff reply. I think you can easily serve both needs while reducing the burden on your human support staff from answering questions like "can I get a refund?" or "how do I add SSH key?" and just getting the tougher/more involved stuff shot up a level.

This, I could not agree more.
A wild guestimate is that 95 out of a 100 tickets are "no brainers", questions that should not even need to generate a ticket in the first place. If using AI can immediately and effectively answer 90 of those no brainer tickets, real support staff would have to deal with 10 tickets instead of 100. It's not hard to figure out that this will drastically improve the quality of support even for the "real" tickets.

Correctly implemented, it benefits all users, without a doubt. Yes, it can be annoying for some "real" users that will have to go trough some extra steps before reaching "real" support, but the alternative is that the real users are lost among the abundance of "no brain" tickets and would still have to wait before getting help.

Otus9051

@rcy026 said:

@crunchbits said:

@Janevski said:

@crunchbits said: 80-90% of support tickets could be handled faster and perfectly

perfectly...

That level of support does not add any value for the user, only serves to put an additional obstacle before the user can reach real support and get help.
It is like using the outsourced support from India that Microsoft Azure has.
They are ticket punchers who work by a script and provide no actual value except for providing an echo response.

[Which kinda proves the point that they can be replced by an AI and the user shall still get the same level of shit service.]

I don't quite follow. I'm saying that the majority of the tickets coming in would be instantly and correctly answered by "AI". There is no need for them to reach a human operator. I'm not sure how that doesn't add value? Maybe it isn't applicable to you, but a lot of tickets are incredibly basic or "common knowledge" which isn't so common if you're not from LE*-world or a knowledgeable sysadmin.

The alternative is you get a pile of your 'ticket punchers' that generally never help anyone and exist just to hit metrics or a much longer wait for a decent support staff reply. I think you can easily serve both needs while reducing the burden on your human support staff from answering questions like "can I get a refund?" or "how do I add SSH key?" and just getting the tougher/more involved stuff shot up a level.

This, I could not agree more.
A wild guestimate is that 95 out of a 100 tickets are "no brainers", questions that should not even need to generate a ticket in the first place. If using AI can immediately and effectively answer 90 of those no brainer tickets, real support staff would have to deal with 10 tickets instead of 100. It's not hard to figure out that this will drastically improve the quality of support even for the "real" tickets.

Correctly implemented, it benefits all users, without a doubt. Yes, it can be annoying for some "real" users that will have to go trough some extra steps before reaching "real" support, but the alternative is that the real users are lost among the abundance of "no brain" tickets and would still have to wait before getting help.

Don't a lot of corporates use AI to support stuff already? One of my relatives work at a company where they use AI with Jira and stuff to organise issues and distribute workflow and whatever.

rcy026

@Otus9051 said:
Don't a lot of corporates use AI to support stuff already? One of my relatives work at a company where they use AI with Jira and stuff to organise issues and distribute workflow and whatever.

Well, yes and no.
There are a lot of solutions that claim to use AI, but not a lot of them actually do. I've been in the callcenter industry for decades, the amount of bullshit and buzzwords in that industry is simply mindboggling.
But solutions that actually use what we today call AI is starting to gain some ground for sure, and some of them are actually pretty good.

Otus9051

@rcy026 said:

@Otus9051 said:
Don't a lot of corporates use AI to support stuff already? One of my relatives work at a company where they use AI with Jira and stuff to organise issues and distribute workflow and whatever.

Well, yes and no.
There are a lot of solutions that claim to use AI, but not a lot of them actually do. I've been in the callcenter industry for decades, the amount of bullshit and buzzwords in that industry is simply mindboggling.
But solutions that actually use what we today call AI is starting to gain some ground for sure, and some of them are actually pretty good.

Nah they are rich enough to afford AI solutions. They even use Power BI for a lot of stuff, so I am pretty sure its AI.

crunchbits

@rcy026 said:

@Otus9051 said:
Don't a lot of corporates use AI to support stuff already? One of my relatives work at a company where they use AI with Jira and stuff to organise issues and distribute workflow and whatever.

Well, yes and no.
There are a lot of solutions that claim to use AI, but not a lot of them actually do. I've been in the callcenter industry for decades, the amount of bullshit and buzzwords in that industry is simply mindboggling.
But solutions that actually use what we today call AI is starting to gain some ground for sure, and some of them are actually pretty good.

Yeah, a true LLM or trained model is still quite new in actual deployment anywhere. I do think it will serve a good purpose. As you said: ~95/100 tickets really don't even need to get to support. It's not a big deal, but they do tie up human support operators. Sometimes people just refuse to follow anything until it's typed out 3 times in different formatting by someone on the other end in which case AI probably wouldn't help. It's just all about the averages, and if we were to use it I'd want to implement it in a way that we're not obfuscating reaching a real support agent for an issue, but encouraging someone to click on and follow the guide that is already created (because thats the same thing a support agent will tell you) but we save everyone 10+ minutes.

wehost

I don't think AI will help much if the problem is in the PHP or MySQL script. I totally disagree.