A blog post like this is half the story. I’d like to see the results. Did your brother get more business? What were the failure modes? Did customers care if it was a bot or not?
It also ignores easily available solutions that could have been deployed prior to AI
For example, even if it shows a boost of $100,000 per month in revenue. It could likely have been achieved with a shared virtual assistant / receptionist for about $200-1000 per month (depending on exactly call volumes).
So really, the revenue was already lost and going forward you’re just deciding to capture it. You've created a more complicated mouse trap than what was already available to you. The difference is saving a couple hundred dollars of labor less whatever your AI/tech costs are. I’d still go the human route because it’s more future proof and if this is a luxury service, human service is always going to feel more luxurious.
This is such an important point. My plumber that we always call is extremely busy and usually doesn't have availability for at least a week. He is a one man shop and prefers it that way. You call his phone, leave a voicemail and he calls you back whenever he is able to. I asked him if he wants to get more business by automating his incoming calls and he said "not really, I am already very busy and have enough business. I don't need these tools".
So we cannot always assume that the business owner (especially the solo mom and pops) wants more business. Good ones are already very busy.
This seems to be true with every trade shop in my area. HVAC, plumbing, electrical, landscaping, appliance repair, and so on: Nobody picks up the phone, and when you do get someone, they don't seem to be very interested in your job unless it sounds like big money to them. Everyone already apparently has as much work as they want, and if you're a small fish you're out of luck.
Electrician here. I had zero unemployment time between my current job and the last. Sent ~5 applications, had two interviews. Current employer called me in the afternoon offering me a job, after interviewing the same morning.
Danish electrician average is ~80k. Danish software developer is ~100k, but with much higher variance.
However there's also quite a lot of difference in training between Danish and American electricians. I specialised in telecom - part of my curriculum was configuring Cisco routers. The subject of my oral exam was TCP/IP. I love the variety. Yesterday I was chasing down a rogue DHCP server on a network. Today I was mounting a drainage pump controller.
But as they say, do what makes you happy. I would rather be happy at 60k than miserable at 130k.
Yea.. When people say "you can make great money in the trades" what they usually mean is that you can make great money by owning a trade business and/or hiring tradesmen. Which is kind of different than being a tradesman.
True but electricians have a real system without bullshit, we wire something up and it just works, it keeps working too! You press the button, the light goes on, you press it again and it goes off! Except from audio all of the automatons come with the right plugs.
You would think after 50 years software devs build something similar but besides the <input type="submit"> button absolutely nothing works like that. Switching on the lights by clicking on a button using the mouse would already be a serious enterprise level undertaking. Then when you think you are done someone in Russia and someone in China are also able to control your lights.
There are no labels on our buttons, the dimensions are in exact mm. If you ask a software dev they will tell you mm have something to do with printing. On a screen a button can have any size, no one knows really how big it turns out regardless which of the 50 different units you use. pt rm rem px % vw etc etc
Sounds pretty unscientific? Can you at least tell me when it is finished and how much it will cost? Did I say something wrong?
There's this giant no-man's land of more work for less profit they have to cross between "reliably profitable business run by its founders" to "reliably profitable business with a half a dozen or more employees". A helper you can keep tabs on but can work without often pencils out. A crew of 2, 3, 4, that's often less profitable per hour of the owner's labor (with a way higher labor minimum) than just working yourself or with a helper. Only when you have things humming along do you actually make more money than if you were working on those task yourself.
You almost certainly have to take out huge loans against the business to get across that gulf (your employees need those capital investments that you use to do your work). When you consider the long term outlook and the age of most business owners making such a decision it's no surprise that many choose to simply stay small rather than take on a huge amount of work and stress to maybe make more money years in the future.
Basically there's a ton of work for no reward between "I own my job" and "I own a business"
That's wild. Plumbing especially seems like a field where if you need a plumber you need them right now, not a week from now.
I guess as a plumber having enough of the type of jobs that can wait a week that you can turn away the urgent calls might be one of those feature-not-a-bug type situations.
It depends. If you need a faucet changed out with this new fancy one, or if you want to replace a toilet with a new one using less GPF, or any other kind of update/remodel.
Not every job a plumber does is an emergency situation. I used a plumber to help me setup a backyard project to set up a portable propane tankless gas water heater. I took a look at buying at the parts and pieces I would need, but they needed special tools that would only be used once if I were to buy them. Instead, I had the plumber do it for me with all of the necessary parts/pieces on the truck plus the tools to do it. It cost me less than it would have to buy everything. Now, I just need a cold water feed, and I have a portable hot/cold running system.
You can shut the entire network off, shower/poop at neighbours places or work, laundry at the local self-laundry shop and brush you teeth with a bootle of water. Inconvenient sure, but it would as much problematic to be denied electricity for a long time: lights off, fridge off, no heating, boiler off… there’s alternatives but the usual way for us is to share a long electric cord by an open window… so obligatory work-and-stay-at-home if you’re lucky to have an appropriate activity.
Your plumber story is exactly what trips up most vertical AI pitches I see. The founder assumes every missed call is lost revenue, but for capacity-constrained shops, a missed call is just triage they did not have to do. Curious if anyone has seen an AI receptionist actually grow a shop's revenue vs just adding a layer on top of an already-full queue.
I think that’s wrong for a couple reasons. I think author doesn’t fully understand the problem or doesn’t explain it well leading to this assumption.
He wouldn’t care to get these extra jobs if he’s full, so why do this to begin with. He could however hire another mechanic if he books more jobs and grow his business to one of shop owner instead of mechanic (no idea if this is his motivation or not).
It’s likely he’s not actually under the hood all day but If phone rings twice a day and it just happens to be he’s under the hood at those times, he misses the call and it’s like he’s under the hood all day. It doesn’t mean he has no capacity, it just means he’s missing some calls throughout the day.
I tried getting some work quotes not long ago and was surprised by how many local shops still don't have: (1) website that takes info and emails/calls back, (2) voicemail, or (3) having one or both of those and didn't call back all week. I suspected they had all the business they can handle. I did get a call back later in the week from one that said as much.
Why would a car repair shop need a website for? All I care about is the phone number, with the hope that someone will pick it up. IDK about the world, but in Poland every single mechanic I know has no downtime at all. The better ones have queues measured in weeks or months for simple repairs. They don't care about extra business, the business will find them anyway.
I've made that website! Just put the name and a big fat print phone number in the middle of the page.
There use to be a windows shop around here that had a game on the website where you have to throw stones at windows. Limited time per house, limited stones, more points for big windows, run away when you hear police sirens.
Hard to estimate how much extra work they got out of it but I imagine it > 0.
That generates more supply (mechanics) not less demand (volume of broken cars). Sometimes having excess demand is ideal to keep the market balanced in your favor.
Increasing price would just move up the demand curve (less people willing to spend the increased amount on fixing their broken car) and the mechanic would earn more.
ofc overtime it's likely more mechanics enter the market to compete, but that wouldn't be instant. and when it does happen the table stakes would be that everyone's phone call get's answered
Could he not just increase the price until the number of calls matches the time he has?
I know it's not that simple, but my gut says theres value to at least hearing out the people taking action to call you. Especially if that's automated and low cost to you.
I needed to replace my car's windshield in a hurry while on an extended trip. I called around to see who might have one in stock that could do a rush order. There was one place that had an automated voice system, and I hung up because it kept redirecting the conversation to get me to hand over more information than necessary to answer my question.
If I were already an existing customer and just wanted to schedule an oil change, it'd be fine, though I'd probably just schedule on the website anyway. I'm really only going to call in if I have an unusual circumstance and actually need to speak with someone.
Automated voice systems that try to sound human but are in fact purely scripted are insanely annoying. E.g. "I think you said 'windshield', is that correct? ... Got it, thanks!"
If you only have 4 options, just give me the old school list of voice options and I'll press 1 through 4, in less time, and being only moderately annoyed.
But a knowledgeable AI system as described in the article - that knows what it knows and tells you when it doesn't - could work great. If it had access to inventory and calendar, it might have worked for you. The question is whether the implementation lives up to the high expectations set by the articles.
Me too, but I wonder whether we're in the minority here. I'm sure there must be plenty of people who just call places to get information easily found via the web, or there wouldn't be so many automated phone systems that explain how to get information via their website.
I know someone who works on the voice response system for $LARGEBANK. She says that more than 95% of calls are just to find out a checking account balance.
That's fine, and there's no need for AI pretending to be a human, or to ask me to talk to a computer as if it is a human. Routine decision trees work really well here.
In fact, decision trees are nice because they tell your more or less up front what they're capable of.
What really sucks (AI or decision tree, either way) is when they don't let you easily speak with someone.
I'd argue a well designed AI assistant would be considerably better than a decision tree for that use case. Decision trees are slow because you normally need to wait through several options before getting to the one you're interested in. (Though sure, perhaps not if your call is literally for the most common thing.) But with an AI you could jump straight to what you're interested in.
"Hi, I'm the LargeBank AI Assistant. How can I help you?"
"I'd like to know the balance of my checking account."
And then authenticate and get the balance as usual. Simpler and faster.
Agreed that it becomes a problem if it's seen as a replacement for human agents though. In an ideal world it would actually free up the human agents for when they're actually needed. In reality it'll probably be some of each.
I believe that. Probably 95% of my support calls to online shops are about order status (aka: the website shows "in preparation" for a week already, I need to talk to a real person).
Often the relevant information is a pain to find on a website, but even if it isn't, the people who answer the phone often have important context like "Usually we do offer that recently but one of our suppliers..." or "We can do that, but maybe instead..." or "Oh the website isn't updated with..."
Based on the post I would guess it hasn't been live long and gone through a ton of battle testing.
I wish her luck though, things get much murkier as you start stacking more intents and it is no longer just a chatbot that funnels to text to speech.
People also assume "AI" is a miracle worker now so they will be pissed when they say "Yeah just email me at charlezmcnaughton@gmail.com" and it spells it completely wrong. Like there is no reality where a transcriber is going to reliably transcribe most emails correctly, so for shit where it is vital to be 100% accurate (email, name, etc.) you have a battle on your hands.
side: I found Anthropic to be prohibitively slow for live voice chat. I was getting response times in the 1-2s range which when combined with the other parts of generating a response led to 2.5s+ silent periods before responding. Groq is insanely fast if you want pure performance from an LLM. Like <200ms to complete a response.
They have direct feedback that many people return them bc they’re too heavy, and yet… It’s just Apple being stubborn. I guess it’s not a big enough problem for them, and they don’t care about losing the market. One must laugh.
He came to give a lecture at UT Austin, where I did my undergrad. I had a chance to ask him a question: "what's the story behind inventing QuickSort?". He said something simple, like "first I thought of MergeSort, and then I thought of QuickSort" - as if it were just natural thought. He came across as a kind and humble person. Glad to have met one of the greats of the field!
Happy to meet you. I was there and I remember that question being asked. I think it was 2010.
If I remember correctly he had two immediate ideas, his first was bubble sort, the second turned out to be quicksort.
He was already very frail by then. Yet clarity of mind was undiminished. What came across in that talk, in addition to his technical material, was his humor and warmth.
Haha I was there too. I remember he made thinking clearly seem so simple. What a humble man.
If I remember correctly, his talk was about how the world of science-the pure pursuit of truth-and the world of engineering-the practical application of solutions under constraints-had to learn from each other.
The problem can be complex, which sometimes means the solution needs to be complex. Often, you can solve a complex problem in simple ways. There’s many ways to do that:
a) finding a new theoretical frame that simplifies the space or solutions, helps people think through it in a principled way
b) finding ways to use existing abstractions, that others may not have been able to find
c) using non-technical levers, like working at the org/business/UX level to cut scope, simplify requirements,
The way you can make complexity work for your career, is to make it clear why the problem is complex, and then what you did to simplify the problem. If you just present a simple solution, no one will get it. It’s like “showing your work”.
In some orgs, this is hopeless, as they really do reward complexity of implementation.
One of the odd things people do with tech is taking someone else's random projections at face value?
What does it mean to say "we were promised flying cars", or "every city would have micro-factories, that 3D printing would decentralize production"?
The people creating these narratives may a) truly believe it and tried to make it a reality, but failed b) never believed it at all, but failed anyway, c) or be somewhere else on this quadrant of belief vs actuality.
Why not just treat it as, "a prediction that went wrong". I suppose it's because a narrative of promise feels like a promise, and people don't like being lied to.
It's a strange narrative maneuver we keep doing with tech, which is more future-facing than most fields.
We do have flying cars, and we do have printers that print other printers, but both were some combination of really expensive/poor quality. Technically speaking, if you take it that most cities have 3D printers, most cities then do have micro factories, however that says nothing about general feasability...
Technology requires infrastructure and resources, and our infrastructure is strained and our resources are even more so... Until the costs become pocket change for the average person, technology will just remain generally unavailable.
> What does it mean to say "we were promised flying cars"...
I don't know about the other things you mentioned, but I think you have this in the wrong category. "We were promised flying cars" is one half of a construction contrasting utopian promises/hype with dystopian (or at lest underwhelming) outcomes. I think the most common version is:
> They promised us flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.
Translation: tech promised awesome things that would make our life better, but instead we actually got was stuff like the toxicity of social media.
IMHO, this insight is one of the reasons there's so much negativity around AI. People have been around the block enough to have good reason to question tech hype, and they're expecting the next thing to turn out as badly as social media did.
It's extremely painful that there's are free, OSS dictation tools that can run on-device, that are so much better than Apple's dictation, and yet it's quite difficult to use them on the iPhone. I'm referring to Whispr. Microphone access is a pain for custom keyboards -- for good reason, but still.
> When I was taken to the Tate Modern as a child I’d point at Mark Rothko pieces and say to my mother “I could do that”, and she would say “yes, but you didn’t.”
Actually, no you couldn't. The subtlety of the choice of colors, their shading, and their soft shaping, and the program of their creation over many years - you couldn't do that. They're lovely and sublime, and wonderful and an abyss. If you want to throw all that away and reduce it two boxes of paint, go ahead - but you'll be wasting a lifetime's engagement, of the joy of seeing with your intellect wide open.
> The value got extracted, but compensation isn't flowing back. That bothers me, and it deserves a broader policy conversation.
It bothers me, too. But, look at the history of the internet. There's no reason to expect we'll be able to fix this problem.
1. Search engines drove traffic to news/content sites, which monetized via ads. Humans barely tolerate these ad filled websites. And yet, local news went into steep decline, and the big national players got an ever-larger share of attention. The large, national sites were able to keep a subscriber-based paywall model. These were largely legacy media sites (ie: NYT).
2. News sites lost the local classifieds market, as the cost of advertising online went to zero (ie: Craigslist). This dynamic was a form of creative destruction - a better solution ate the business of an older solution.
3. Blog monetization was always tough, beyond ads. Unless you were a big blog, you couldn't make a living. What about getting a small amount of money per view from random visitors? The internet never developed a micro-payment or subscription model for the set of open sites - the blogosphere, etc. The best we got were closed platforms like Substack and Medium, which could control access via paywalls.
All this led to the internet being largely funded through the "attention economy": ads mostly, paywalls & subscriptions some.
The attention economy can't sustain itself when there are fewer eyeballs:
1. Tailwind docs have to be added just once to the training set for the AI to be proficient in that framework forever. So one HTTP request, more or less, to get the docs and docs are no longer required.
2. Tailwind does change, so an AI will want to access the docs for the version its working with. This will require access at inference time. This is more analogous to visiting a site.
reply