YES!

This is the critical data —» how many people hang up on the AI chatbot vs how many people hang up on the voice message prompt.

If it is even close, well, the AI needs to be improved.

If the AI is way ahead, but still loses/drops more than a live receptionist (outsourced or in-house), the AI either needs improvement, or to be dumped for a live receptionist, and that's kind of a spreadsheet problem (how many jobs lost in each case, vs costs).

▲

throwway120385 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the question of lost opportunities versus costs is the best thing to look at here. You could pay a receptionist like 50-60k a year but they have to bring in the work. Maybe the AI dumps a percentage over a real receptionist but they still bring in more than the mailbox. But there's a cost to the AI too.

But the real question you should also ask is what else can that human do for you that the AI can't because they have eyes and ears and hands?

	▲	conductr 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The question is more why employ a full time receptionist when fractional services are available and it’s an old well established industry. A couple hundred dollar a month could employ a human only when the phone rings and to schedule their visit plus any FAQ. I’m sure Ruby.com already has plenty of auto shop customers.