[HN Gopher] No one wants to talk to a chatbot ___________________________________________________________________ No one wants to talk to a chatbot Author : cratermoon Score : 278 points Date : 2023-07-27 20:26 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (lucas-mcgregor.medium.com) (TXT) w3m dump (lucas-mcgregor.medium.com) | alaskamiller wrote: | This is the part of inflection where corporate personhood and GAI | makes it so that no one will talk to your chatbot. | cloudking wrote: | The only thing I ever ask chatbots is "speak to a human" | golergka wrote: | They don't want to talk to chatbots, but they want to talk to a | human. So as long as chatbot can pass a Turing test in a specific | context, they're getting exactly what they want. | i_like_apis wrote: | It really depends. If the chat is high quality and actually doing | something helpful, then I want to talk to it. The adoption rate | and usage stats of ChatGPT disagree with the tile. | MisterBastahrd wrote: | My default setting when confronted with a chatbot is to be as | belligerent and unhelpful as possible so that it directs me to an | actual human being. | maximinus_thrax wrote: | I don't use this expression often, but I think it fits in this | context. This article is pure grade A poppycock. | | Are there any metrics to back this up? This bullshit has been | spewed since 2014: chat/voice as a service-to-service protocol | and has yet to actually materialize. | | I agree that people don't like to talk to chatbots in general | (cue the intentionally ambiguous click-baity title) but they | won't have any problems talking to Alexa vs ChatGPT or other | custom system if they're forced to. They will dislike or like all | of them equally. Source? Trust me, bro. Just like the author of | the article. | | Let's not forget that the Alexa org has been losing billions per | quarter and revenue never materialized from people ordering shit | from Amazon. So... people also don't want to talk to that Chatbot | and that chatbot may actually join its extinct brethren. | i_love_cookies wrote: | [dead] | siva7 wrote: | No one i know of misses Alexa or Siri as the entrypoint for 3rd | party chatbots. Most people simply use ChatGPT without even | thinking about Alexa or Siri anymore. So the whole premise of the | article is pretty empty and hidden until the last paragraph.. | micromacrofoot wrote: | I don't care what powers your service as long as it works. | | Chatbots are now finally starting to work (when powered by LLMs). | | If I can explain what I'm looking for and the chatbot can | understand... that's easier than any UI out there. | zerocrates wrote: | Maybe people use these chatbots for different things but for me | they're only ever as useful as what they let you do. | | LLM technology letting them carry on a more realistic | conversation with me, all that stuff, I don't really care | about. All that matters is what it's empowered to do, where it | can hook into the real system underneath. I don't really have | much sense that this will be expanded vs. the kinds of systems | we have now. | marginalia_nu wrote: | A lot of these chatbots are jumping out at you and trying to | sell you stuff like sales people. I have a problem talking to | them even if they work. | micromacrofoot wrote: | These are the chatbots that don't work. They're simple | scripts that can not handle new information, and fail to | recognize requests that fall out of a very narrow path of | wording. | marginalia_nu wrote: | Even if they are advanced I do not want to have to explain | what I want in natural language. | micromacrofoot wrote: | Natural language worked pretty well for this comment! | it's one of the most basic forms of communication and | we're going to see a lot more of it. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Chatbots are now finally starting to work_ | | Because if you mash HUMAN in all caps they actually forward you | to support? | asdff wrote: | At least with some websites, you can eventually get through. I | managed to get through the one at adobe by complaining | incessantly about it and asking for a human for probably 20 | minutes, and was routed to an actual human who solved my problem | of not finding the download link for an old version of some of | their software by giving me a direct download link to this | version in about 30 seconds. If the process had merely started | with the customer service representative rather than the bot, I'd | be raving about the experience of solving my problem in moments. | | I'm starting to think I should write my own bot who can do the 20 | minutes of back and forth with the customer service bot. Then | ping me when its time to actually pay attention. | trutic wrote: | Hi! We've thought the same and started creating an AI Assistant | that is a step further from a chatbot. Check out www.prometh.ai | PS Still in early stages | [deleted] | alexb_ wrote: | No One Wants to Talk to Your AI Assistant | DonHopkins wrote: | 1987 called. They want their naive idealistic AI personal | assistant concept demo back. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGYFEI6uLy0 | rubyron wrote: | Prometh? Trying to process that product name. Is it promise | with a lisp, or are you in favor of meth? | [deleted] | totallywrong wrote: | The fastest way to lose my business is forcing me contact you by | WhatsApp (already bad enough), and then hitting me with a bot | asking for a bunch of info, numbered options, etc. Block and | delete follows. | renewiltord wrote: | Far prefer chatbot to IVR menu. | 1shooner wrote: | >They will log into their smart phone and expect all the other | apps and skills to integrate with their personal clouds, | arbitrated by their trusted personal virtual assistant. | | I don't know anyone that trusts Siri, Alexa, or (Hey) Google. Or | ChatGPT, for that matter. | sheeshkebab wrote: | No one wants to talk to a chatbot. | voyagerfan5761 wrote: | What's funny is I have yet to encounter anyone IRL who talks to | Siri, Alexa, or Google Assistant often enough to notice. | | Maybe building chatbots as a layer beneath the existing virtual | assistant platforms would be a viable user experience, and I'm | sure there are people who would use them--but how many? I'd be | interested in statistics on how many smartphone users actually | use the voice assistant for more than a couple simple questions | once or twice a month. | standardly wrote: | I'll talk to it when it's as good as GPT-4 and isn't censored. | Animats wrote: | > _" If you have a chatbot, it is for Sir or Alexa to use, not | people."_ | | This raises a group of interesting questions: | | - Should computers talk to each other in natural languages? In | voice? Is that going to work, or just create inter-machine | misunderstandings? | | - Whose agent is it anyway? It would be useful to have a personal | agent that works for you, not for someone who's trying to sell | you something. We may see that as an expensive paid product, but | the free ones work for the man, not for you. | | - It's worth getting a basic understanding of the law of | principal and agent. Who works for whom? What is the authority of | an agent? Who takes on risk, the principal or the agent? Who pays | when an agent exceeds their authority? The legal system had to | get this figured out centuries ago, and the failure cases are | well-explored. | __loam wrote: | > just create inter-machine misunderstandings | | This obviously. | karaterobot wrote: | Looking past a lot of unnecessary verbiage, I think he's saying | that everything that you might want a chatbot on your website to | handle should instead be integrated with ChatGPT (or its | replacement) in the future. And that you should just have your | web app, doing its thing, and not bolt on an isolated version of | a chatbot that is only used for interacting with your specific | site. The assumption is that people _will_ want to talk to | chatbots, just not _your_ chatbot: they want a one-stop shop with | _every_ chatbot in the same app. | | I see the point, not sure I agree totally. | | I'm not someone who ever wants to talk to a chatbot, but | sometimes I am forced to. I suppose that it is better in such | cases to have a single place I go for that. On the other hand, if | my confusion begins on your website, I would hope that your | website would help me resolve it: if I have to go from | yourwebapp.com, to a third party application, then type "how do I | do X on yourwebapp.com?" that seems convoluted. Perhaps a | browser-level integration, or at least replacing the proprietary | chatbot with a doorway to that single, unified chatbot. | | Hmm, I dunno. Sounds like whoever runs such a chatbot would have | their hands around the throat of the web, doesn't it? | Havoc wrote: | >They will expect these other chat enabled systems to speak to | and through their personal virtual assistant. | | I'd say consumers are going to lose that battle. | | A bit like nobody wants to be subscribed to half a dozen video | streaming services yet here we are. | [deleted] | pflenker wrote: | Why, of course they want to, and they do. Not _you_, perhaps, but | it's like billboard ads: the thousands of eyeballs ignoring them | are being outweighed by the few who react and drive revenue. | varispeed wrote: | > the thousands of eyeballs ignoring them | | That reminds me of a billboard in my town, like enormous LED | panel displaying adverts... that someone put behind a huge | tree. So in the summer you can only mostly see the corners of | the billboard. I wonder if their customers know nobody sees | their ads. | | I wish I could high five that tree. | ExoticPearTree wrote: | The main pet peeve about chatbots is that now they're on almost | every page, popping up with "I am here to help, what would you | like to buy today" and the more atrocious ones that are | implemented instead of a call center to reduce the number of | human operators to the minimum possible. | | Yeah, I really don't want to talk to a chatbot. | jeroenhd wrote: | > the more atrocious ones that are implemented instead of a | call center to reduce the number of human operators to the | minimum possible | | This is what's driving me crazy. The stupid "I want to sell you | our crap" chatbots are easy to block (uBlock rules exist for | most of them, as they are often existing products integrated | into websites) but the chatbots people are forced to engage | with are the ones that exist to replace callcenter workers. | | First companies reduced the influence and power of callcenter | workers to make them useless for customers. Now they're saving | a buck dumping human operators and letting the powerless | chatbots tell the users "sorry but I can't change your | situation, have a nice day". | | With advances in voice synthesis, I expect chatbots to replace | phone operators any day now, probably with a prompt like "you | are a company X helpdesk operator. Try to upsell to any | customer as much as you can, and try to make them feel pleased | even if you can't help them solve their problems". | reaperducer wrote: | _Now they 're saving a buck dumping human operators and | letting the powerless chatbots tell the users "sorry but I | can't change your situation, have a nice day"_ | | I saw a television ad a few days ago where the entire point | of the ad was for the company to show off that it has real, | live customer service people answering the phones in Arizona. | | "I'm Brittany, and I'm a real human being, here to help you!" | | It was the one tiny glimmer of hope that the market may sort | this out. But it won't. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | Call centers themselves are implemented as a way to reduce the | number of human operators to the minimum possible. Used to work | on dashboard software that monitors them (almost 20 years ago), | and it's a metric of organizational _success_ when you get a | caller off the line without letting them talk to a human. All | the hoop jumping and maze-like options etc are explicitly for | this purpose. | | Even back then there was talk about when chatbots would be good | enough to remove as many humans as possible from the process. | And considering how low paid some contact center workers are, | it's pretty sad. | tolciho wrote: | > All the hoop jumping and maze-like options etc are | explicitly for this purpose. | | So, market pressures have implemented "The Castle" by Kafka. | Progress! | m463 wrote: | I hate amazon chat. My time is worth zero. | joezydeco wrote: | They don't just pop up - they pop up _the moment the page | loads_ , getting in your way. | | A little bit tuning, say, to keep the popup from happening | until the browser has been idle for N seconds, would go a long | long way to reducing this frustration. | xg15 wrote: | Before LLMs I actually tried those chats a few times. If the | bot had actually tried to solve my issue (or at least collect | some basic data, then open a support ticket) I wouldn't have | minded it. | | However what actually happened was that it started the chat | with some (pre-scripted) smalltalk, giving the impression I | could just write my inquiry in freeform - then completely | ignored my text and just asked me a series of scripted | questions and directed me to a help page (which I already knew) | in the end. | | I think LLMs _could_ really be an improvement here, because | there is at least the possibility they could give you some | answers that are actually tailored to your problem. | | Of course it might just as well be that we'll now get a very | charming and deeply empathetic response that exactly sums up | the gist of your problem and then ... redirects you to the | generic help page. | orwin wrote: | When I worked in an internal team at a bank, we chose to make | a bot to replace the FAQ when the number of daily tickets | where the response that could be summed up as 'rtfm' hit 30. | | It might have been frustrating for the users, but at least we | avoided basic questions and our tickets at least we're filled | correctly. | | I hacked a bypass for the secops who worked a lot with us and | at least knew how to fill tickets. | nottorp wrote: | Yeah, the problem is your management then removed any | option to talk to a human and left the chatbot do all | support. | deepspace wrote: | Yes, and since _everybody_ did that, everyone managed to | sour their entire user base on the idea of chatbots. | adverbly wrote: | If I get stuck talking to a chatbot I know I've already lost half | the battle. A lot of the times when I call in for support, I need | decisions and actions to be made. | | For safety reasons, I do not expect many companies to allow for | fully automated chat bot interactions. So I'm stuck trying to get | through to an actual person who can actually do something. | Olshansky wrote: | [dead] | ChrisArchitect wrote: | Spare me the paragraphs of 'how did we get here' history and get | to the point that's already in your title. | | Based on what many site operators see anecdotally, people | actually do want to talk to the chatbot because they just want | answers to their questions and hand holding. How it's | implemented/effectiveness is variable -- they will talk to it for | a bit if they perceive they are being helped in some way. | Chatbots and general site chat interfaces didn't spread | everywhere without at least some data | u_boredom wrote: | The paragraphs upon paragraphs of history made me click out of | that article. There's no relevance to the point being made. | | In regards to ChatBot usage, in my limited interaction with | support bots, they are usually quite useless. Each time I use | one, it's a game of 'get to the actual support agent'. | breckenedge wrote: | I think the point was that novel chatbots will still be | created, but they need to be talking to your existing assistant | (Siri/Alexa) rather than you going directly to them? | __loam wrote: | His point seems to be that assistants like Siri and Alexa | will be the entrypoint for LLM type interactions, which is | sort of non-sensical considering most people are using | chatGPT right now. I think this could have been an | interesting article about how interacting with chat bots | still kind of sucks but instead we got some unsubstantiated | view that assistants that a lot of people have already | written off are going to take over the space. | Spivak wrote: | That's the same, people go to a place where chat | interaction is the primary interface to talk to their | preferred chatbot. That can be ChatGPT. But no one goes to | allstate.com to talk to their chatbot. | whitepaint wrote: | Many have written them off because they kinda suck a lot | now. But they will be much much better, won't they? 5 years | lets say? What kind of LLMs will we have then? If it's | reliable, why not just have one interface? | PaulHoule wrote: | Particularly true for those stupid chat windows that pop up on | the lower left corner of many web sites to harass you. | potatoman22 wrote: | I found maybe the first chatbot I found helpful today. LlamaIndex | has a chat bot built into its documentation. Helped me answer | some quick questions and gave me a mostly working code snippet | for my use case. | criddell wrote: | A documentation bot is a great idea. I'd like a man-bot in | Linux. | | I'd like to be able to type "hey tux, restart networking". | Don't make me dig through /etc and figure out what kind of | system this is. Tell me what it's going to do and if I say | "yes", do it. | fidotron wrote: | I can't help but wonder how much of the Chat** hype is driven by | a frustration with the state of modern user experiences. The | dream it seems to tap into is "You don't need to deal with the | arbitrary whims of 5 different groups of web designers, just talk | to one thing and get a single response." When faced with the | state of the modern web chatbots actually are preferable, sorry. | | A great problematic side effect of the web being so ad-driven is | it leads to confusing the user interface, which can host ads, | with the information. We need publishers to be able to make money | from content without ads, and to be able to make money from | providing it in raw form via APIs to third parties. It's that or | the chatbot intermediaries are going to take over. | jacob019 wrote: | make money from content without ads... you make it sound simple | mulmen wrote: | I _pay_ for Paramount Plus and they _still_ show me ads. They | can't help themselves! | lkramer wrote: | Isn't it just cable all over? In the beginning cable sold | itself as TV without ads, then came the ads. It seems to be | exactly what's happening with streaming now. | Spoom wrote: | I cancelled Paramount Plus when I heard about the content | deletions. I paid for ad-free and they started showing me | unskippable preroll ads for their own shows before | anything. They absolutely _do not care_ about their | customers. | all2 wrote: | Money. It's all about the money and what people will put up | with. | avereveard wrote: | Dane with dazn, they started serving me ads before starting | any stream last month so I'm going to cancel the | subscription at the first opportunity I have to get into | the cable company shop (because of course you cannot do | that via web) | dvngnt_ wrote: | I can't wait for the major llm to place ads in the responses to | extract more money | | Certainly! Here are some date ideas in Washington, D.C. | | Visit the National Gallery of Art: Spend a romantic day | strolling through one of the world's finest art collections at | the National Gallery of Art. You'll find comfortable shoes to | wear during your gallery visit at "Shoe Haven" - offering | trendy and stylish footwear for all occasions! | | Take a Potomac River Cruise: Enjoy breathtaking views of iconic | landmarks like the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, and | Jefferson Memorial while cruising down the Potomac River. Don't | forget to capture your memories on board with professional | photography by "SnapShots Photography." They offer great | services and discounts! | | Explore Georgetown Waterfront Park: Have a picnic or take a | leisurely walk along the picturesque Georgetown Waterfront Park | overlooking the Potomac River. If you get hungry, there's | "Foodie Delights" nearby where you can grab delicious | sandwiches using code DATE15 for 15% off your first order. | | Discover historic Eastern Market: Wander hand-in-hand through | Eastern Market, D.C.'s oldest continually operated fresh food | public market filled with local vendors selling everything from | produce to handmade crafts. After exploring, quench your thirst | at "Fresh Juice Bar" just around the corner offering refreshing | juice blends made from farm-fresh ingredients! | | Watch a show at The Kennedy Center: Experience world-class | performances ranging from theater shows to live music concerts | at The John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts located on | the banks of Potomac River. Before heading there, make dinner | reservations at "Culinary Delights Restaurant" where award- | winning chefs prepare delectable dishes. | cratermoon wrote: | This is a certainty. The chatbot will be constantly | upselling. "Would you like fries with that?" or "Extra cheese | on your pizza is only 50 cents, add it?", only more | sophisticated. And like some ordering systems today, you | won't be able to bypass it. The "yes, please add more things | to my cart" answer will be the default and easy answer, | declining the offer will take more effort. | PaulHoule wrote: | ... I think of how annoying the kiosks at McDonalds have | gotten. | pid-1 wrote: | Bard already does that. It shows products from Google | Shopping when giving recommendations. | artificial wrote: | "Welcome to Uber, I love you." | gumby wrote: | You know this is coming with Uber: you book an Uber to a | fancy restaurant and get Macdonald's ads in the app, and then | the driver's app picks a route that drives past Macdonald's | and tells them to offer you a $5 off coupon on any order in | the next 10 minutes. | portmanteur wrote: | Who chooses to stop at McDonald's instead of a fancy | restaurant, just to save $5? | mudlus wrote: | Doesn't matter, we're all talking about McDonalds now. | cratermoon wrote: | I suspect a more sophisticated chatbot will upsell the | restaurant's offerings. "Would you like a bottle of | champagne chilled and waiting for you? The Mushroom | Bruschetta with Brie, Sage and Truffle Oil appetizer is | the special of the day" that sort of thing. | jwie wrote: | It's a segmentation issue. The ad buy was for "people | going to restaurants" but it might have been "people | going to {type} restaurants." | | Thought it's probably not that simple. A naive ad buy | might not care to target, or targeting is too expensive | and you're ok wasting some impressions because it might | be all-in cheaper, or {brand} has the media budget to pay | to be in front of your eyeballs all the time. | nomat wrote: | Yes it is a bit backwards. The McDonalds stop afterwards | makes more sense. | vuln wrote: | That's the rub right? | | If they are taking an Uber to of the fancy restaurant and | passing a McDonald's chances are highly likely they will | take a very similar route on the way home. They will | still want to stop at McDonald's for a $4 Large fry or an | ice cream cone but no coupon this time. The line is now | longer which increases the ride time and the drivers | perceived profit. | NegativeK wrote: | I assume that contrast is to point out how completely off | the mark ads often are. | jrflowers wrote: | Sometimes you just want nuggets | imbnwa wrote: | >The dream it seems to tap into is "You don't need to deal with | the arbitrary whims of 5 different groups of web designers, | just talk to one thing and get a single response." | | Except that's the business' perspective, because it means | paying less people, rather than consumers, who generally wanna | talk to and haggle with humans, which requires a business to | pay more people. | ilyt wrote: | > A great problematic side effect of the web being so ad-driven | is it leads to confusing the user interface, which can host | ads, with the information. | | Whoa there, let's start small first and maybe make buttons that | look like buttons and links that look like links first... small | steps. | JohnFen wrote: | > The dream it seems to tap into is "You don't need to deal | with the arbitrary whims of 5 different groups of web | designers, just talk to one thing and get a single response." | | This calls to mind the old joke: "a person with one watch | always knows what time it is, a person with two watches is | never sure." | | But the thing is, a person with one watch can't be sure the | time they have is correct. For more complicated things, don't | you want multiple answers? How do you know the one answer you | got is the best one? | mszcz wrote: | Ha! I asked Bard a couple of nights ago about some TV series | (circa 2021) trivia - "does xxx die in season xxx of show | xxx?". The answer looked suspicious so I clicked "view | alternative answers" or something. I only read the beginnings | which were "yes, ...", "no, ..." and "yes, ...". Really | satisfied my curiosity right there... | Aperocky wrote: | > How do you know the one answer you got is the best one? | | That's the best part, you don't. | PaulHoule wrote: | For a while i thought this talk aged poorly | | https://www.slideshare.net/paulahoule/chatbots-in-2017-ithac... | | then the tech caught up with the hype. Or maybe the hype caught | up with the hype. | | Note one motivation for chatbots is to eliminate the problem | where any update in a mobile app requires waiting for the app | store whereas a thin chat client never needs to be updated but | instead you can roll out new features entirely with back end | changes. | hinkley wrote: | Ad blindness has fucked me so many times on web UIs. | | There have been a couple of particularly vivid incidents where | the company put some sort of interaction on a page and | positioned it and shaped it like an ad. So I bitched about how | that button wasn't on that page and it was literally front and | center (specifically, slightly right of center with text | wrapped around it), but positioned like an ad so I didn't see | it. | hgsgm wrote: | My bank replaced* its functional UI by a chatbot. Guess what | the chat it does?. Spam me with ads. | | Actually, the UI exists, but the only way to get to it is via | the chatbot. | | Chatbots exist to force a linear interaction wehere ads are | harder to avoid. | nomat wrote: | hey yeah chatbots are kind of like the text version of mobile | UIs. | | Amazon, threads, instagram, offerup, facebook. They hide any | useful navigation options and present you with a list that | must be navigated in order, therefore ensuring ads placed in | between the list items will be the only thing on the screen | for at least 1 attention cycle. | | Terrifying to think of a future where your device doesn't | have any real capability because all the websites and apps | are just AI driven chatbots/suggestion engines. | | this post encapsulates the general feeling. | https://032c.com/magazine/berlin-review-lan-party | | Is this the feeling that every generation gets about the | future as they age? oh no | reaperducer wrote: | Name and shame, so the rest of us know which bank to avoid. | fishtoaster wrote: | That's an interesting thesis: that everyone will want to use | _their own_ chatbot (gpt-powered Siri or Alexa) instead. | | I suppose it's possible, but I suspect the author overestimates | how much of a positive relationship most people have (or will | have) with voice assistants. | sharemywin wrote: | They would probably have to sell personalities and custom | voices like ringtones used to be sold. | cratermoon wrote: | Possibly celebrities (or their estates) could license their | voices and appearance. Want a chatbot that sounds like | Princess Leia or Darth Vader? | Michelangelo11 wrote: | Yes, but it looks good as a proposed feature in a pitch for VCs, | and that's what really matters. | jdelman wrote: | This is a very shallow glance at how "chatbots" have been used in | the customer service space, especially in the past 10 years. If | you look at what the term has been referring to in the last | decade or so, it's not really the AI assistants like Alexa or | Siri. The best ones are primarily a customer service tool that | helps people triage problems on their own and reduce the need for | a human in the loop. They're not do-it-all human assistant | replacements. I agree, generally, with the premise that a better | UI > an OK chatbot. And ultimately, there are a whole host of | problems that chatbots with complex decision trees or even LLMs | can't solve, so a chatbot alone isn't really the solution. The | combination of chatbot + escalation path to human agent does work | pretty well, though. | dqv wrote: | That makes a lot of sense and tracks with the way I wish voice | assistants would work. Specifically there is structured data that | I want to search (e.g. what move type does 4x damage to pokemon | of type1, type2?) using the voice assistant. ChatGPT seems to get | it right, so I wonder if/when Siri and Alexa will. | | I guess someone will sooner or later develop the "ai.xml" | standard for websites to give their chatbot endpoints to the AI | assistants. Or maybe it can just be another opensearch kind of | thing. | russellbeattie wrote: | I felt like this before I used - of all things - Bank of | America's "Erica" chatbot to find an option in their app that was | eluding me. I asked how to change the option, and it responded | with a link to the exact screen I was looking for. The reason I | couldn't find it was because it was called something different | than I thought. I never would have found it otherwise. | | That's when I realized a core use case for these sorts of bots: | Navigating complex interfaces. As much as UX designers want to | make UIs "intuitive", there comes a tipping point of complexity | where a UI can only do so much to guide you. Bots are like that | kid next door who's "good at computers", or a tech support agent | on the phone, who can help you do something you just couldn't | work out on your own because of terminology or misunderstanding. | | As much as people are wary of Microsoft's Copilot integration | into Windows due to the legacy of Clippy and Cortana, I think | it's going to be a huge success and an archetype of future HCI. | dingnuts wrote: | Did anybody actually RTFA? | | The article is not arguing that chatbots are unpopular with | users, as the commentators here seem to be assuming. | | TLDR, didn't RTFA: The author is arguing that most LLMs that are | fine-tuned should operate at a layer of abstraction beneath Siri | etc, so that end-users can talk to the "AI Assistant" that they | are used to, and in turn Siri or Google Assistant or whatever | interface they're used to can query the LLM. | delphi4711 wrote: | When I write lengthy emails, I noticed some people only read | the first paragraph. Some only read the first sentence. | | Some people only read the subject of my email :D. | | I don't write lengthy emails anymore. | josephd79 wrote: | I'll just keep clicking no until i get to speak to a live agent. | fswd wrote: | Nobody wants to read your spam ridden medium article. | Der_Einzige wrote: | And judging from the comments, no one did. Thank goodness they | didn't, because reading it would have wasted their time more | than what they did, which was leaving comments related to their | take on the prompt (which is the title of the article) | version_five wrote: | Chatbot is fine as a search alternative, and there's stuff I find | more convenient asking chatgpt than looking up and synthesizing | myself to figure out the answer. | | Chat is the worst possible interface to a fixed menu system, | which is the only way it gets used in public facing customer | service. | | If a company had an optional "faq chatbot" you could talk to, | nobody would complain. It's using it to block human interaction | while pretending to be able to help that infuriates people. | xg15 wrote: | The premise of the article is really "No one wants to talk to | _your_ chatbot, because users will already be primed to the | chatbot integrated in their smart speaker or phone or whatever | device they are using - which will be the device vendor 's | product (i.e. Google's, Apple's, Amazon's etc) and not yours." | | That's a different premise than simply being pessimistic about | chatbots as an UI paradigm in general. | duxup wrote: | The title applies to almost everyone's chat bot... except for a | couple. | kromem wrote: | Also, very importantly, it's not saying not to build a chatbot, | but to recognize that the main consumer of your chatbot | interface will be a user's primary LLM, not the user | themselves. | | The headline is exactly the kind of thing the largely anti-AI | attitudes online today will blindly vote up, but the message of | the article couldn't be further from the appearance of the | headline. | | It's about the nuanced infrastructure of a future where | chatbots exist in multiple layers, not about a future without | chatbots. | l0b0 wrote: | Absolutely. Most comments here seem to take the title at face | value. | | Based on how low companies are willing to go to in the support | space, it won't be at all surprising when _all of them_ move to | some form of ChatGPT-enabled crapbot, specially adjusted to | maximise whatever metric the company wants at huge financial | and psychological cost to the user. It 's gotten so bad it's | hard not to think of employees of such scummy companies as scum | for supporting and enabling this toxic ad-driven hell. | CharlieDigital wrote: | My take away is a bit different: if a user lands on your | site/app, _they don 't want to talk to a chatbot_. | | If they did, they would have asked ChatGPT or another chat | assistant instead. "When they do come | directly to your site or app, they are not looking for a | chatbot. They are looking for a UI that works. They know why | they came to you. They expect your UI to do what it should do." | dqv wrote: | >My take away is a bit different: if a user lands on your | site/app, they don't want to talk to a chatbot. | | But part of that is Siri, Google Assistant, et al. often just | say "here's a website" when you ask a question like "Hey | Siri, does Walgreens on Blob Street have the FreeStyle Libre | 3 in stock?" | | But in what TFA describes, Siri would do something like | | >I need to ask walgreens.com, is it OK to send your question | to them? | | Yeah ok | | >Walgreens.com says yes the Blob Street Walgreens has the | FreeStyle Libre 3 in stock | mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: | The chatbot as it's used in most cases is not a UI paradigm, | it's the complete lack of a UI. Just a phone tree cobbled | together by some basic heuristics. Even a FAQ is a better UI if | done well. | didip wrote: | With LLM, they will. | | The AI is finally intelligent enough and knowledgable enough to | do something. Not only that, the AI finally gained the ability to | memorize context. | AtNightWeCode wrote: | I think the article is somewhat incorrect. I really dislike all | these custom chatbots. But it is also fairly easy to measure how | good they work. And for the sites I work with at least the | chatbots perform better than other options and they do offload | work from the support teams. | sys_64738 wrote: | Definitely not. I don't talk to computers and I don't communicate | with bots like they're humans. | whitepaint wrote: | What if they were more helpful? | AndrewKemendo wrote: | My mind has been changed on this recently after I showed a very | close friend the Pi app [1]. Almost immediately they were using | Pi all day everyday as a kind of "rubber ducky" to process | decisions and just generally brainstorm with - the same way you | would with a therapist, close friend or colleague. | | For example, this person literally has an ongoing chat with Pi to | "help find enjoyment in daily life" via the voice interface. Not | only that but basic help with research etc... instead of | googling. That's amazing and staggering. I mean it's literally | like the movie Her (without the romantic subtext). | | [1] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pi-your-personal- | ai/id64458159... | sharemywin wrote: | This seems like a shill comment. | AndrewKemendo wrote: | Not sure what to tell you other than it's legit | itake wrote: | I wish the author would share data instead of their opinion. At | the library, I heard high school students proudly say, "I used | SnapChat's MyAI to do my homework assignment." | | I have access to data in a social app that has users sending | thousands of messages to the ai. | CharlesW wrote: | > _I wish the author would share data instead of their | opinion._ | | Yeah, anecdotally I'd agree that the author's premise is | completely empty. | | As for the insight that I'll want my chatbot (Siri, Alexa, | etc.) to talk to other chatbots (ChatGPT, Bard, etc.): Sure, if | an LLM is the only interface to something, use that. But direct | access to apps and services via direct integration is also | (obviously?) necessary and desirable. | dale_glass wrote: | No one wants to talk to customer service either. Even with | humans, I'd much rather not try to explain my problems to a | person who may not be a native speaker, who may not understand | well the problem domain, and who may not have much power to do | anything. | | But even talking to an actual pro is most of the time something | I'd rather avoid -- it's after all best if whatever I need is | doable without needing extra help. | | I think a chat bot is going to be very rarely seen as an actual | perk by an end user, except in some specific domains like game | NPCs. It's more likely to be used as a first line of support or | similar to save costs, as something better than a phone menu | system. | | I can see them also being a perk for users of very large systems | like AWS, where reading the docs can get overwhelming, and search | may not work well because you may need to know the specific terms | you have to search for. | VeninVidiaVicii wrote: | I agree, nobody wants to chat with anyone's Chatbot -- they | typically just want to ask one or two questions. The word "chat" | seems disparaging. | onemoresoop wrote: | If interfaces were gamed to keep the users 'engaged' so can the | chatbots. At first they may concentrate on what's essential and | provide some value, everybody will vie for their betterness but | with time things will enshittificate for the same reasons UI | became unusable or frustrating. | sharemywin wrote: | The only possible way around it is to pay for it. | eskibars wrote: | I think there are multiple facets to this argument (both for and | against). Yeah, a lot of chatbots are so "stupid" or at least so | obviously non-human that as a user, I have absolutely no desire | to interact with them. They waste my time and I end up doing the | same thing as I sometimes need to do with automated phone | systems: press the virtual equivalent of "0" to try to get | connected with a real human. | | But that is starting to change: _some_ chatbots can now start | understanding and interacting like humans. As a user, when that | 's the case, I don't personally care what is powering the thing | behind the scenes. In fact, I'd generally _prefer_ a bot if it 's | as good as a _good_ human: the number of times I 've had 45 | minute or longer sessions with some human support agent that: 1) | Just didn't listen to what I was looking for 2) Had difficulty | communicating because I started a chat on an evening/weekend and | got routed to someone who had English as a second language 3) | Couldn't actually figure out how to solve some problem, so I had | to start a new conversation of the same substance the next day 4) | Didn't actually log the notes of my chat for the next agent, so I | had to repeat myself etc | | is just completely off the charts and it's anecdotally gotten | worse in my experience in the past few years. | razemio wrote: | Same experience here. It always depends. 2 month ago I was | surprised, that a chatbot was able to solve my somewhat complex | problem in no time, with a text by text guide. It was also able | to awnser follow up questions. | eskibars wrote: | Also, many times I've had to wait 5 minutes for an agent to | respond _at all_ (presumably because they 're _way_ | oversubscribed) and then had the "chat with an agent" thing | time out and disconnect me entirely after 10 minutes is _so | frustrating._. Yeah, I went and grabbed a water /coffee/went | for a bio break because your agent hasn't responded to my last | message for 7 minutes. But then you disconnect me after 5 | minutes of "inactivity" and ask me to hop on a new chat with | the next agent that will not have _any_ history from the | previous chat? I could do with a lot less of that in my life. | throwanem wrote: | No one wants to talk to a chatbot _that 's useless_. | | Up to now, "useless" was implicit in "chatbot". From here? I've | been a skeptic, but after some of the things I've seen and heard | recently, at this point I'm no longer sure. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-07-27 23:00 UTC)