Comment by uyzstvqs
6 months ago
If you watch the actual video[0], you'll see that it's not that dramatic. Man says "18 thousand water cups", the AI appears to transfer the customer to an employee, who immediately picks up and takes over.
There was never an actual order of 18,000 water cups. The AI did exactly what it was supposed to do in order to prevent malicious abuse of the system.
I don't think that's what happened at all. It sounds like somebody was monitoring the 'AI' and then cut off the software right as it was about to respond. You can hear it start to say something, that sounds a whole lot like 'okay', before the mic swaps over to a person.
If users can always fail out the AI, why have the AI? Users will learn and socialize how to obtain a human. The human did exactly what it was supposed to do in order to prevent malicious abuse of their time.
If you're asking seriously... Because, as the AI continues to improve, more and more users will choose not to fail out intentionally, reducing the required level of human staffing for a certain number of customers / orders. It's just like today - there are some users who will keeping "hitting 0" to get to a human, but many others who won't.
As a human who always hits 0 or bails out, I think this is yet to be proven. There are even products to help with this. If legislation is required to always provide a human for customer service, that can be done.
https://gethuman.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/apr/17/the-death-of-c...
6 replies →
The better question is; why deploy AI if you could just use a touch screen kiosk? That would actually be an improvement over having to shout at a box.
Because I don't want to touch the same screen that 1000 other people have touched since it was last cleaned and because I dont want to learn how to navigate a new menu every time I stop at a new fast food place, I just want my chicken chalupa without needing to navigate menus. If you've ever stayed in line at the order kiosk at mcdonalds you'll quickly realize how slow people are to place an order, now imagine that in the drive thru
3 replies →
That way you automatically reject orders from people who struggle with reading or managing navigation through interfaces etc.
Cars? If you put the touch screen close enough to where people can reach it, it's close enough to be hit with the car. It'd need to be on a moving arm or something, and seeing the car stop. (In-n-Out just sends a person out with a tablet when the line gets longer...)
Our CEO was boasting about new speech to text technology recently. They said something that I found extremely objectionable:
"I can speak a lot faster than I can type."
The fact that I found it objectionable doesn't mean that he said something untrue. For him and most others, it probably is true.
But for me, a keyboard warrior by trade for 30 years who has high functioning autism and crowded teeth and actually doesn't like talking, I can type WAY faster than I can speak aloud.
In spoken conversation, I am usually a man of few words. But sit me in front of a text prompt and I will TL;DR the fuck of you with a 5 page essay on a topic you probably don't really care about.
My point is that everyone has their own preferred method of communication, and most people like talking just to hear the sound of their own voices. A lot of people say they prefer interacting with a human at restaurants - I avoid going to restaurants because I don't like interacting with people and will DoorDash to my home instead. To asocial introverted keyboard warriors, it's sometimes difficult for us to relate to the baseline human experience.
Why have an automated phone system if someone can get a human operator by pressing 0? Because the automated system works for typical interactions, and reduces the labor load of the human to only handling edge cases.
I think you could say the same about self checkout vs “regular” checkout in a grocery store.
True, but the self checkout backlash is well documented (including reversals).