dkarl
2 days ago
Cases like this raise a question. As an engineer, the errors that coding AIs make are an annoyance, and reassuring in terms of my job prospect.
As a consumer, the errors that AIs make are more than an annoyance. I have yet to meet an AI phone assistant that can do anything more than an explicitly programmed phone tree, and several, including the one for the pharmacy I use, that do far less. They are undoubtedly much more expensive to create and test.
Clearly there's a bubble going on, and unprincipled people chasing funding and promotions as usual, but why are companies like CVS paying more to get less?
I think it is literally to waste our time. It's one more layer of defense to stop you from talking to a person.
There are two big wins in health care. One is to increase the scope of health care that gets paid for. More and more expensive treatments, to bring the money in. The second big win is to stop people from getting treatment. Deny coverage, confuse them and wear them out with bureaucracy, and in this case stop them from talking to an expensively educated human pharmacist. That's what an AI does better than a phone tree, because it more effectively creates a sense of helplessness and valuelessness in the customer.
Expanding the scope of care you're entitled to and then fighting against your ability to get it isn't a contradiction any more than it's a contradiction when a person breathes in and breathes out. It's two synergistic parts of a system whose goal ultimately has nothing to do with health care.
ericmcer
2 days ago
All of these conversational AIs should either confidently detect a users intent or apologize and offer to forward call to a real person.
LLMs perform pretty poorly when you start try to restrict them too much (e.g. detect intents and control responses based on intent detection), the replies gets disjointed and weird feeling. An open ended prompt and chat completion gives a much better feeling most of the time but can go off the rails.
If you don't let LLMs handle the conversation entirely you get into insanely complex traditional engineering problem: (if user is complaining do x, if user asks a relevant question do y, if user asks an irrelevant question do z), which is an endless can of worms.
pseudohadamard
a day ago
That's been my experience with AI "support" chatbots as well, in every single case it's been an optimistic attempt to get the bot to fix the problem I'm calling with followed almost immediately by an even longer attempt to get it to connect me to a human that can actually fix the problem. If the problem was simple enough that a fixed-program clanker can fix it then I wouldn't be having to call support in the first place.
chrisjj
a day ago
The other win from obstructing people's access to healthcare is extending ill health and hence demand for the product. The trick is to not hasten end of the demand through death, but I'm sure that's within the ability of a simple "AI".