Klarna Pivots Back To Humans After AI Experiment Fails (futurism.com)
- Reference: 0177513505
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/05/14/2339257/klarna-pivots-back-to-humans-after-ai-experiment-fails
- Source link: https://futurism.com/klarna-openai-humans-ai-back
This marks a stark reversal from CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski's 2024 claim that " [4]AI can already do all of the jobs that we, as humans, do ." Siemiatkowski told Bloomberg: "From a brand perspective, I just think it's so critical that you are clear to your customer that there will be always a human if you want." He added that "cost unfortunately seems to have been a too predominant evaluation factor" leading to "lower quality."
[1] https://futurism.com/klarna-openai-humans-ai-back
[2] https://slashdot.org/story/24/05/28/1835218/klarna-using-genai-to-cut-marketing-costs-by-10-million-annually
[3] https://slashdot.org/story/24/08/27/1440249/klarna-aims-to-halve-workforce-with-ai-driven-gains
[4] https://slashdot.org/story/24/12/13/1541225/klarna-stopped-all-hiring-a-year-ago-to-replace-workers-with-ai
Unpossible (Score:1)
We all know from the slashdot headlines that this cannot happen.
"AI" is better than humans in every respect possible.
Fake.
Automated phone menus (Score:3)
If automated phone menus and AI phone support are garbage, it doesn't bode well for written text bots or other support.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what everyone else does and that's what it sounds they are going to do now, or at least some kind of overseas gig workers. They wanted to cut even more corners. That's the main sales pitch of AI companies - you used to pay peanuts to the cheapest Indian subcontractors, but now you don't even have to do that!
Douchey scumbags (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy fuck, this company sounds like the worst of the worst. Predatory lending, AI replacing humans, and now gig workers. I hope the C levels are embezzling and get caught.
Re: (Score:3)
> this company sounds like the worst of the worst
"Fintech" out front should have told you.
Not an experiment. (Score:3)
An experiment implies that you are unsure of the result. However, it's clear that these assholes were very sure of themselves. This wasn't an experiment, this was a public display of total incompetence at the highest level in this company.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. Wait. Wait.
Are we saying a tech-bro douchebag behaved like a tech-bro douchebag, resulting in less than ideal outcomes?
Unpossible!
Replacing workers with secretaries won't work (Score:2)
It's as if companies have found a large source of unskilled secretaries and for some reason, mainly hype, think they can replace all their skilled workers with these secretaries.
They can't.
Some skilled workers might be more productive thanks to their secretaries helping them with some tasks, and some of the skilled workers might get laid off, but the impact will be small.
Of course, one day companies might find a large source of more-skilled secretaries.
But that has not happened, and may never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
> as a researcher and as a consultant to businesses:
Leech. The word you are so desperately avoiding is leech. Neither of these is a real job.
Enjoy your time in /dev/null
Doesn't inspire confidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't inspire confidence in a new worker. Not that nearly any company wouldn't likely replace workers with AI, but you're joining a company with an avowed and brutal track record of trying to do it, and which is clearly awaiting progress so that it can do it again.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? As long as the consumer protection laws do their job, it's slightly more likely that an AI mistake will work out to a benefit for the customer and a detriment to the company.
The risk analysis for a company that is using AI workers internally has to be about failures that cost the company money. A customer facing LLM is a risk, wherein the customer can convince the LLM to offer a deal that is too good to be true. An internal AI handling accounting processes is another risk, if it makes mistakes: eithe
Re: (Score:1)
> Why?
Because they are handling financial transactions, covered by fairly hefty regulations.
At the same time, they rush things, jump on the AI train with little to no thought about whether that is actually a good idea or not, backpedal when it backfires, and on and on.
An actor in that field should be measured and strategic in its decisions.
As evidenced, they are not. Thus, they do not inspire confidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I used Klarna for one transaction, bought a rather expensive PC monitor and didn't want to pay $1.1K upfront. The monitor was on sale, and splitting the price in three installments was still better, including interest, than paying full price for the monitor (if it wasn't on sale at the time).
Creating an account and certifying me being human was a quick and painless process, I got the monitor, paid the first installment upfront, then paid two more installments during the next two months. They allowed advance
Re: (Score:2)
> Doesn't inspire confidence in a new worker. Not that nearly any company wouldn't likely replace workers with AI, but you're joining a company with an avowed and brutal track record of trying to do it, and which is clearly awaiting progress so that it can do it again.
You’re talking about a Buy Now, Pay Later pimp.
The Devil himself would question joining that company. Due to lack of ethics.
They didnt’ even want to employ the very humans they’re wanting to turn into more customers.