Sorry, I disagree here. For the specific flow I'm talking about - monthly recurring payments - the UX is about as highly optimized for success as it gets. There are ways to do it via the web, on the phone with a bot, bill pay in your own bank, set it up in-store, in an app, etc.

These people don't want the thing done, they want to talk to someone on the phone. The monthly payment is an excuse to do so. I know, we did the customer research on it.

▲

mikkupikku 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Recurring monthly payments I set to go automatic, but setting that up in the first place I usually do through a phone call. I know some people just want somebody to talk to, same as going through the normal checkout lines at the grocery store, but I think an equally large part of this is people just wanting somebody else to do the work (using the website, or scanning groceries) for them.

	▲	eightysixfour 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> but I think an equally large part of this is people just wanting somebody else to do the work (using the website, or scanning groceries) for them. Again, this is something my firm studied. Not UX "interviews," actual behavioral studies with observation, different interventions, etc. When you're operating at utility scale there are a non-negligible number of customers who will do more work to talk to a human than to accomplish the task. It isn't about work, ease of use, or anything else - they legitimately just want to talk. There are also some customers who will do whatever they can to avoid talking to a human, but that's a different problem than we're talking about. But this is a digression from my main point. Most of the "easy things" AI can do for customer support are things that are already easily solved in other places, people (like you) are choosing not to use those solutions, and adding AI doesn't reduce the number of calls that make it to your customer service team, even when it is an objectively better experience that "does the work."