AI? Just Say No

Recently, a senior executive of German supermarket owner Schwarz Group said he sees “the greatest potential for AI agents in customer service and support, administrative processes, and marketing and sales.” So far, so hopeful of drawing up the redundancy agreements. But wait! He’s now going to take his AI observations to next-level stupid: “In customer service, they enable automated, personalised customer interactions around the clock.” Personalised? Are you sure about that? Nevertheless, he ploughs on, ever deeper into the money-grubbing rut: “In marketing and sales, they can ensure a personalised customer approach and data-driven campaigns for higher conversion rates.” Personalised customer approach? Are you sure, boss? I mean most of us don’t even like self-checkouts.

I’ll confess to a vested interest: as a professional writer and editor, I take huge offence at the pop-up messages inviting me to use AI to ‘improve’ my writing. Improve? How dare you mister robot, you know-nothing, content-stealing creep? You there! Machine that’s a stranger to humour, nuance, irony, satire, and wit — among other things. You charmless, heartless ignoramus of a plagiarist. Out damned spot! Begone beyond my firewall!

Does the public acceptance of AI depend on training the machines to match the person-to-person interactions and innate rapport of human beings? Or on persuading people to lower their standards? I’m certain that those at Schwartz who find themselves on the wrong end of their employers’ penny-pinching strategies won’t be so keen to forgive and forget, let alone ‘adopt’.

However, I am certain that AI in even its rawest, most bog-standard form could still generate a more competent US president than D.J. Trump.