And I do agree with him: If whether you get work or not decides on a black box AI and your only support channel is another black box AI, that is pretty much a Kafka-esque nightmare.

I'd guess we here on HN are the people best equipped to prevent the worst. So the next time you help someone automate their customer support, ask yourself: How would I feel if my well-being depended on this? Because for some poor soul, it might. Is there a clear fall-back in case the AI fails horrible? Because, you know, they always do.

I once had my own support automation problem with Amazon, but luckily I had no stakes in it. They accidentally sent me someone else's parcel. So I filed a support request to inform them. They very politely apologized within a minute and informed me that they are sorry about my lost parcel and they'll send another one. So I got the same wrong parcel again. After waiting a while, I opened up the two parcels, each roughly 10x5x5 inches (25x10x10 cm) large. It was two single pencil erasers.

But boy would I have been furious if I had received the same support quality for a lost high-value parcel... Also, I did ponder if it is OK for Amazon to waste my time if I'm not even their customer. I mean their support forms are difficult to reach, no matter why you need to contact them.

I agree that individuals should be conscious of which companies they support through their labor and/or spending habits.

But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done.

> So the next time you help someone automate their customer support

I think this strikes at a false dichotomy that occurs frequently in these conversations: There’s an idea that if we simply removed the automated solutions then companies would be forced to replace them with the idealized solutions that we want. In practice, companies know very well that automated customer support and similar solutions aren’t comparable to having a well-paid, highly-trained person pick up the phone. But they weren’t going to pay for the expensive solution anyway.

And the real driving factor isn’t just the companies, it’s the customers. If given the choice between two identical products where the only difference is automated versus human customer support (and associated higher price for human customer support), the majority of customers will choose the cheaper option every time. There are a few people who will proudly pay more for the better CS, but they are a tiny minority. Overall, customers want the cheaper option even if it comes with tradeoffs, and they will vote with their wallets.

Maybe I sound naive but every bit matters, especially given how many of us probably work at start-ups. You never know when your decisions will have an impact on a multibillion dollar company that simply hasn’t emerged yet.

The unfortunately cynical answer is that we need to have representatives that will put laws in place to prevent this. It's both simple and complex due to the political landscape, but that's the only real long-term solution.

Agreed, but this is a lot of work. After doing it myself, I find that the options are almost always choose the least evil, choose something expensive, or don't buy that thing at all.

Choosing something expensive is a sacrifice I'm willing to make to support a company I believe is doing good. The hard part becomes not buying anything at all when there are no good choices. When I had a car, filling it up with gas felt like a crime against humanity's future.

Instead of fast fashion, I'm getting a sewing machine and fabric and just letting several people use it in return for making me clothes (I have money, they have time). Likewise, I'm investing in knitting/crocheting stuff and lending it out. Instead of plastic doohickies, I'm getting a 3D printer: What I make may be cheap crap on par with what I'd get at Walmart, but at least I won't be exploiting or enslaving anyone.

Also buying used and repairing is an option. Basically I like to ask myself 'will this help me need less from big corporations?' before I buy something. Not that small business is inherently more moral, but it's easier to hold to account as an individual consumer. I can actually sue/raise enough of a ruckus to put a local business out of business if they hurt me, whereas Amazon doesn't care.

That pretty much describes me and my Android phone right now. I don't want to use an iPhone, but I also want a phone that still fits into my hand and my pocket. Sadly, there's nothing comparable to the 2016 iPhone SE on the market. I could easily get a new phone for free from work, but I would hate to support a product that I actively dislike. So I wait and hope for a small Android phone to be released in the future.

There's a similar effect in journalism, where the loudest voices saying that individual journalists have the duty and ability to maintain the integrity of journalism are often other journalists.

It's a survivorship thing - the journalists/engineers who stay employed as such are the ones who probably honestly believe in the same things that their employers do, or at least have an output high enough in the things that their employers won't feel the need to heavily edit or nix entirely to have nearly the same effect. It creates an illusion of control.

But ultimately the author of anything is the person whose yeses and nos cannot be overridden, and that's the boss.

> In practice, companies know very well that automated customer support and similar solutions aren’t comparable to having a well-paid, highly-trained person pick up the phone.

And even if it's not particularly expensive in itself, the fact is that having bad customer service reduces complaints. Having anonymous/automated customer service even reduces complaints about customer service - because there's no way to identify or isolate a particular bad customer service experience, like a name. Avoiding the complaints probably creates so much savings that it would be worth automating customer service even if that cost more than having good, live customer service.

We do the same thing in means testing/bureaucracy in welfare/social services. The more difficult or confusing it is to prove one's qualification, the fewer qualified people will have to be serviced. In that case, spending more on "customer service" (i.e. adding more steps) ultimately reduces costs.

> There are a few people who will proudly pay more for the better CS, but they are a tiny minority.

There are also very few ways to know that the customer service on a product will be terrible before you need it. People aren't actively picking bad customer service any more than people choose to watch bad movies at theaters. It's something you find out about after you've already bought in.

What is perplexing about these type of replies, which seem to occur anytime there is suggestion of taking personal responsibility for one's actions, is that people even bother to make them. Because if we accept the premise as true that one person's actions can have no effect on organisational change, then why would anyone else care about, let alone try to discourage, someone acting according to some ethical principles. What prompts people to respond.

Perhaps there is something else going one here, especially when these replies often (a) try to point to some other focus, e.g., management, customers, price, etc., besides their own decision-making and (b) do not pressent any alternative courses of action. "It will not make a difference. Thus, keep doing what you are doing." If it does not make a difference then why would anyone care about someone doing it.

Whatever the motivation, maybe someone else can explain it, something about a person on HN who suggests following ethical principles triggers a counter reply from someone who generally tries to discourage this line of thinking/behaviour, alleging something along the lines of "it will not make a difference."

For example, assign a unique ID to every automated decision and display it in the automated replay email. That way, affected humans can at least sue to get the basis of their decision disclosed.

Or why should noreply-support@company.com actually be a no-reply? Let's forward it to the manager who is responsible so that if people are genuinely upset, their "feedback" reaches the correct person.

Or attach a footer to those emails, which contains an email address for legal matters. Make sure to say "Please only contact this address for urgent legal matters" so that everyone correctly infers that it'll reach an actual human.

As for those gig apps, it's probably good enough to just include the actual reason in the JSON reply that the server sends, without ever displaying it in the app. Of course, that's for internal debugging only, but nobody's going to get the production deployment flags set correctly.

Or you can make the decision really obvious, by instantly loading it as an AJAX. Customer fills out a form, the spinner starts, and the result is displayed. "We're terribly sorry but your claim has been denied." But keep the inputs visible, so the customer can tweak the values and submit again. They'll surely figure out what makes the decision flip.

And I wouldn't worry too much about colleagues who'd do anything for money. They will probably go to FAANG for better pay anyway. And if all non-FAANG companies have significantly better service, the overall public will notice.

Bonus tip: If you ever want to reach a human yourself, there are services like hunter.io that'll procure the email address of a human for you. And then you just circumvent all the automation and directly CC the CTO to say "f* - oops - thank you for your great customer service!"

This is ultimately behind everything that goes to zero. Airlines must compete almost exclusively on price, so everything gets worse to make that happen. We buy goods mostly on price, and so are reliant on China.

Engineers in other professions are required to behave ethically. Those who can’t get there need to stop calling themselves engineers, until they qualify to use the designation (see regulation above).

In a lot of countries with socialized medicine, the way to get better treatment for those who can't afford to pay twice (taxes + the cost of private care) is to have doctor friends. Suddenly there's always availability.

Sounds like in the future there will be people for whom technology will just work because they know the real engineer inside capable of taking care of their case, vs the unnetworked who will be stuck dealing with the black-box algorithm.

So my experience may not be the norm because I've only worked at smaller orgs, but my experience with all my product managers have been collaborative. Personally, I wouldn't be able to work at a place where I can't affect product decisions. But then again, maybe that mythical $300k total comp is really about "shut up and just follow the specs."

>>But I also think that HN overestimates the ability for single engineers to upend the goals of an entire organization. In the real world, if a company wants to automate anything and they’re paying well, there will be a line of engineers out the door applying to get it done.

Either the work is difficult, and few people can do it (hence the price tag on engineering salaries) or it isn't. But if it is, then even a few refusals can effectively shut down a project. 'oh theres a line out the door' gets given as a weak excuse from people who have zero threat to their security, and I'd rather never hear it again.

Making this a “workers’ issue” won’t lead to anything, specially when it’s gig economy workers. Obviously these AI will make their way to non-gig economy sector, and from there spread like wildfire.

This will only exacerbate socio-economic inequalities to a point of no return (revolution of the precariat aside)

Creepy how it’s all too similar to the short story Manna[1] (substituting fast food for gig economy)

Production surveillance can be essential for quality control, but you don't need individual surveillance for that and line managers are better at evaluating people.

It is mostly useless managers that want to show of a nice Excel sheet.

The monstrosites which reach this scale always amaze me. In case of individuals, when sending an item the main concern is packaging, shipping costs and time. Amazon and others? They just furiously and repeatedly ship oversized boxes filled mostly with fillers, while eco-shaming the customer.

Best positioned, but how well equipped are you? Are you organized enough to collectively refuse such requests, or will you fall into the "If I don't do it someone else will" trap?

More importantly: how willing? The HN crowd is known for workshipping tech companies.

the "trap" seems to be instead the stable equilibrium state.

In my experience people working on these things are well intentioned. So it comes down to a need to shift priorities. Maybe you need to launch something now, and the PM tries to make you delay some important thing for the next release, launching without it at first. That’s the kind of thing we need to change. No more promises of “We are working to make this better” while launching without crucial pieces first. We’re used to making that kind of choice when it’s not people’s livelihoods and working conditions at stake, and we have to make those choices differently when the stakes are people.

I try to avoid Google for this reason.

I don’t think we are that well equipped to prevent the worst. Maybe some entrepreneurs are but most engineers develop tools that can be used for good and bad. I think automation provides enormous benefits to society and we should keep pursuing it. To make sure it doesn’t end up with an abusive system is a political problem and should be addressed by rules and laws.

In the last few decades the mantra was that the more money the psychopaths can make the better for society and screw the victims. That has to change. Society overall suffers if we have a few billionaires lording over the working masses.

I am pretty hopeful that we can create systems that balance technological progress with concerns of social welfare. We have made big progress with environmental regulation and I hope we will do the same in other areas.

Or if it was your order, you could nav through “customer service” and then click on the order. Amazon may have some issues, but having a hard time reaching A2Z care isn’t one of them IMO.

[1] https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

At the moment, the technology is in the "chapter 1" stage where things are pretty smooth and chill. It's genuinely low-stress, well-paced work.

Once self-driving tech hits the market, though, it's clear that the human employees will be replaced without a care or thought for their well-being.

Edit: it's kind of bonkers that pointing out the basic mechanics of technological progress is getting downvoted on a site like HN, where I imagine most of us are gainfully employed trying to do just this.

1: Its easy to make fun of the luddites which fought the mills and against progress, but for many of them it was a real fight for their life, and many got thrown out in deep poverty. Society as a whole progressed yes, but many got it significantly worse for the rest of their lives. Maybe their kids, or eventually their kids kids got a better life for it. We must not be so naive that we dont think the same will happen (/ is happening now).

2: Not everyone is cut out to be developers/nurses/teachers/whatever-the-future-job-is. Many are, but not all. How do we take care of these boys(and some girls) which before would go to sea, or work at a farm, or do whatever simple job they could get? Maybe in the end it will all "settle down" in a good way, but we live now, not then.

3: It affects the "power struggle" between labour and capital. Its easier to move machines than people. Robots dont strike. Yes, you need a few expensive engineers, but in a world where soon "everyone" has a MSc they are not *that* hard to replace if they get too demanding.

4: And related to the last, as a society we collectively produce a bunch of stuff, and we have decided that selling our labour is the way to distribute this wealth. Automation produces more stuff, but reduces the value of labour. Will we find a way to handle this?

2. It will all settle down eventually, it always does. The poorest today have access to more food, education, and (usually) healthcare than even the rich just a few centuries ago. Being knocked to steerage of a quickly rising ship isn't a death sentence.

3 (and 4). Isn't this just more of the same compared to the industrial revolution? The cotton gin certainly shifted the power struggle more toward capital but I don't think anyone today would argue we should be processing all our textiles by hand.

Yes, farming got efficient with tractors, allowing farmers to move to the cities to fill jobs in factories that was starting up at the dawn of the mass production and industrial revolution. But that does not mean that all future resources (i.e. humans) being freed due to automation, tech development will have new jobs to move to. That there are jobs suitable for humans created. That humans are needed as part of production of goods, services, content etc.

Also I would love to see a reference to why progress rely on creative destruction. Please provide pointers.

So much for humanity benefitting from technology. Instead of our workdays becoming fewer and shorter, a tiny number of people who don’t work at all will become richer while our lives become more alienated from our labor. This is the opposite of what we tell each other technology is supposed to accomplish. If it’s not a problem, why do we keep lying about?

If that happened any increase in productivity would be offset by the reduced time worked, so no one would get richer (very simplistically).

At the end of the day, humans are competitive, so of course hours worked will never really reduce, but it's that competition which drives innovation

And we're all getting richer. Sure there's more billionaires then ever, but if we're all getting richer so what? (and yes we are getting richer: the economic progress in Asia and Africa over the last two decades has been incredible. And the west continues to develop also. The world is richer than it has ever been)

> If that happened any increase in productivity would be offset by the reduced time worked, so no one would get richer (very simplistically).

This is a useless point for the common man. "Productivity," in statistical economics jargon, means "how much profit is squeezed out of an employee." It's a substitute for the much more charged "surplus value of labor." When productivity goes up and wages stagnate, as we've seen happen, it means the common employee is not getting richer, but instead being fleeced -- usually do to a moral depression that does not leave him able to negotiate (struggle/fight/etc.) for higher wealth (both material and non-material).

This false equilibrium falls apart when you can simply deduct hours worked, and lower wages just enough to have a better productivity-to-hours ratio. Cannily, this is what has happened to most large low-skilled labor markets, where MBA "consultants" come in to grift and sell management/the executive team on how to make more money -- at the cost of everything else. See: McDonalds and Walmart as a prime example.

This also has the added bonus that you can now decide not to offer full-time benefits (human rights), because your workers are no longer "full time."

I.e. economic propaganda does not reflect real life.

> Humans are competitive

Humans with way less, are also hungry. Humans with way more, are also desensitized-degenerates that need hyper-stimulating avenues of pleasure like extreme avarice to sate their desires.

Most people do not work because they want to, but because they need to. The only "competitive" people you'll see in the work-force are the greedy. Who've passed the point where money no longer really means anything, but still have decided to dedicate their life watching that number go up. They are degenerates. Using them to paint all of humanity with a broad stroke is ill thought-out.

> And we're all getting richer. Sure there's more billionaires then ever, but if we're all getting richer so what? (and yes we are getting richer: the economic progress in Asia and Africa over the last two decades has been incredible. And the west continues to develop also. The world is richer than it has ever been)

Materially, yes. Spiritually, morally, intellectually, emotionally, socially: no.

Colonialization of foreign lands, effectively enslaving these people to be a part of the dominating civilization's "economic machine" is not a good thing. These people had a way of life before Western Civilization (TM) came in and obliterated their culture. They were presumably content, otherwise they would've sought out "innovation," "competition," and "productivity" on their own -- without the help of colonizers.

If the pieces of what I've quoted are authentic, and genuinely from the heart, then it is an example of moral bankruptcy (most likely due to environmental causes -- rather than individual).

There are other things in the world besides money. The only civilization that keeps on beating the war-drum of money money money is the Western Civilization. Everyone else has other things that are important to them (notably: family, social connections, spirituality, living a good life, being a decent human being, and so on). But in fairness, these are all slowly disappearing, as the U.S. keeps on pumping inflation out to the world, and forcing everyone else to "join" or "suffer" economically (materially).

I don't think anyone is saying progress is wrong. Unfettered capitalism which robs people of their rights and alienates people from society is disastrous.

Putting an algorithm to treat people like machines is not innovation. Uber Eats is not our generations "spinning jenny". They should be forced to provide basic working benefits.

"Computers" are unfortunately named after the least important thing that they do (accounting.) What's important about them is that they are allow us to generalize and add infinite complexity to autonomous control systems, like valves that open when a certain pressure is reached, or switches that toggle at a certain light level. The ultimate computer network would keep the king that implemented it in power for eternity, even after his death, by keeping his will alive. If you automated his corpse, you wouldn't even need to know that the king could die.

edit: "Ordenador" (from Spain) is probably better, i.e the thing/person that gives orders, or puts things in order. Maybe "mandónador"...

This is not an intrinsic pattern of our species / societies or we would have devoured ourselves literally or figuratively long time ago.

Obviously restoring forces that would push this evil genie back in its bottle exist but are somehow dormant, neutralized or otherwise missing-in-action.

This fight and push-back should not be a thing for "activists". It affects every single person. We are all "gig workers".

We have been devouring each other for ages now. Entire cultures have vanished, destroyed by more powerful members of the same species. The entire history of our species has been on violent conflict where a stronger group removes a weaker group, only to be removed later by another group that emerges stronger. Previously it was racial, clan-based violence. Now it's economic servitude where a perpetually unfortunate lower class keeps on greasing the wheels of industry with sweat and blood. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor.

We are not benevolent or kind creatures. We are programmed to survive. As long as the poor live, they will rarely question the rationality behind the inequality that keeps them poor.

It becomes an existential crisis when humanity designs bots and AI and then behaves like humanity must COMPETE with the AI in order to survive, when we absolutely can't. We can't lift better than a forklift, run faster than a Veyron, we can't think better than Big Data. For the time being we're still able to dream better. For now.

Android dreams won't speak to us.

But there's no reason we can't pass on our capacity for mutual aid to the AI, as well as the competitiveness. And there's no reason the AI can't have heart and soul. When it fails it's because WE try to construct it in a false image of what we think we are.

But destructive, rapacious, behavior feels just one step away even now that we are supposedly "civilized" and we have excruciating records of our bloody history.

If we don't find a way to bottle this instinct up we will not see many more decades.

Time is running out because the system is not time-invariant: we had explosive population and technology growth. The same regressive traits that might have "only" annihilated isolated cultures in the past will bring our collective demise.

Not to mention what we do to animals. I read during just Superbowl Sunday 500 million chickens are slaughtered for the delight of eating chicken wings in the living room. If animals are nonconscious entities that don't suffer akin to robots then no harm no foul, but that is quintessential mass-scale devouring of another.

this has been false since at least the industrial revolution.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?tab=chart

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-gdp-over-the-last-t...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extre...

The only advantage that individual ethical behavior gives is through supporting the health of the group, thereby supporting members who depend on the group. People who aren't loyal to a group can shop around, play one against the other, etc. Even better, if you automate the interactions between people, there's no need or benefit for ethical behavior. Profit comes from pleasing the algorithm rather than any sort of loyalty.

Edit: The algorithm that capitalism uses is maximizing value against cost. All ethical complaints about it are asking people to accept less value/more cost. Capitalism insists that if everyone maximizes value against cost personally, that sends a control signal to the collective that will maximize the greater good. This is the ethic that we're automating.

Partially because we as collective societies let them, by not voting out or actively voting in those who campaigned on neo-liberal platforms, many decades ago.

Partially because not many (and those who did were mostly on the hard-left side, which was and still is vilified) saw the "boiling frog" effect at play... stuff like the end of the Fairness Doctrine that gave way to today's mass media and its problems with propaganda, the Citizens United decision that paved the way for utterly absurd amounts of money in political campaigning, gerrymandering and other forms of voter manipulation, the building/consolidation of media empires like Sinclair [1], or the total lack of any regulation for social media and the blindness of everyone regarding Russian and Chinese propaganda on these platforms.

Now, the water is boiling: support for democracy - not just in the US but worldwide - has been eroding, as have democratic freedoms and lessons-learned from WW2 (such as, especially in Europe, the rights of those fleeing from war, destruction and hunger, or the need for international cooperation). Countries in the European Union (Poland, Hungary) begin to qualify as quasi-dictatorships, the UK dropped out in an epic clusterfuck, the US suffered from a (thankfully incompetent) putsch attempt, and as the COVID crisis has shown people don't even trust vaccinations any more. Meanwhile, the rich have gone ever more rich (sometimes to utterly absurd degrees).

How do we get back to civilization? I have no idea if it is / will be possible without some kind of global "reset" event... we Germans caused the last one, this time the cause will likely be either somewhere in Asia (invasion of Taiwan) or Russia (which is moving enough troops to the Ukrainian border to run an actual blitzkrieg style invasion [2]).

[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/04/anchors-reciting-sin...

[2] https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/24/russia-s-military-build-...

e.g. UK Data Protection Act 2018

    A controller may not take a significant decision based
    solely on automated processing unless that decision is
    required or authorised by law.

Let the robot managers for manage robots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

It's not just the algo angle...the entire system isn't fit for purpose.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/13/ghost-riders-t...

By themselves those things look innocent, and just automate my headache of writing emails to correct the info.

What will it be 2-3 years for now? For sure automated penalization system in case you don't do those things correctly.

Do I have enough morality to not do those alerts/ "small productivity hacks" for me and do it manually for greater good instead? Tbh I need to think about it.

We need to push against broken system that abuse us, like in my case I got an email from Sony that I violated a super generic rule and my account is suspended for 2 months, with no way to dispute this and sure enough no refunds or compensation for my currently paid and active yearly subscription. (this can happen to any of us is not only Google/Apple/PayPal/Amazon that can screw you with their automation and shit customer support , the list is much larger and probably growing)

This should become law. Otherwise we end up in Kafka’s “The Trial” world.

I'd like to see that too, but I think it's... unlikely. In the case of OP, he lost access to his Sony account (I assume that's an online gaming platform) and there were monetary damages included, but imagine a generic "you can't be suspended from an online account without a way to dispute with an actual human person" law applied to, say, Facebook or Twitter or Reddit?

The law should force this company to refund completely or partially when this ban is happening , or in this case they could have extended the subscription with 60 days. The law should also force them to tell me what phrase or image or report triggered the system, it might make Sny job harder but the law should make our live easy not some giant corporation.

In this case Sony last a loyal customer, I will do my best to avoid giving them any more money in the future, consoles or other products, so if anyone wants to implement a similar system that screws with customer keep in mind that the ones you screw over will not stay silent and will spread the word and you lose more then 1 potential customer.

I am pretty sure they have run the numbers and decided it's more profitable to f..k over some innocent guys versus spending money on customer service.

https://marshallbrain.com/manna2

https://marshallbrain.com/manna3

https://sociologica.unibo.it/article/view/11657

Helps understand (for me at least) what's going on here