>>scared+(OP)
Tinfoil hat me says that it was a policy change that they are blaming on an "AI Support Agent" and hoping nobody pokes too much behind the curtain.
Note that I have absolutely no knowledge or reason to believe this other than general distrust of companies.
>>birdma+LX3
> Tinfoil hat me says that it was a policy change that they are blaming on an "AI Support Agent" and hoping nobody pokes too much behind the curtain.
Yeah, who puts an AI in charge of support emails with no human checks and no mention that it's an AI generated reply in the response email?
>>rustc+dZ3
Is this sarcasm? AI has been getting used to handle support requests for years without human checks. Why would they suddenly start adding human checks when the tech is way better than it was years ago?
>>that_g+ae4
AI may have been used to pick from a repertoire of stock responses, but not to generate (hallucinate) responses. Thus you may have gotten a response that fails to address your request, but not a response with false information.
>>that_g+N36
You asked why they would start adding human checks with the “way better” tech. That tech gives false information where the previous tech didn’t, therefore requiring human checks.