Klarna says its AI assistant does the work of 700 people after it laid off 700 people::undefined

  • ???
    link
    English
    2
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It’s not blind trust to think companies probably try to make the most money out of the available resources. It’s sorta what they do

    Okay, just to be clear here, we’re talking about the belief that Klarna has sufficiently motivated this decision to lay these people off and actually has good KPIs that measure the performance, specifically that of customer care agents… not that companies make money with resrouces.

    Usually people with this kind of opinion like yours maybe haven’t experienced work at a large company or maybe don’t understand that office politics are alive and kicking. But I’d still like to hear why… Let me ask you, what makes you think Klarna is being honest about their measurements?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You don’t think a big company like Klarna has metrics to follow the efficiency of their workers? Even small businesses where I live that and every single big corporation. What makes you think Klarna would be different?

      not that companies make money with resrouces.

      You misunderstood. I said try to make most money out of the resources, so efficiency. That’s what we’re talking about…

      Usually people with this kind of opinion like yours maybe haven’t experienced work at a large company or maybe don’t understand that office politics are alive and kicking

      Lol.

      Let me ask you, what makes you think Klarna is being honest about their measurements?

      It’s not very hard to believe what they’re saying here and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So simple 1+1.

      • ???
        link
        English
        110 months ago

        You don’t think a big company like Klarna has metrics to follow the efficiency of their workers? Even small businesses where I live that and every single big corporation. What makes you think Klarna would be different?

        I never said they have no KPIs. What I said is their KPIs are likely broken, just like almost every other large company in existence.

        You misunderstood. I said try to make most money out of the resources, so efficiency. That’s what we’re talking about…

        I think you’re the one who misunderstood. So for reference again, I am talking about this: about the belief that Klarna has sufficiently motivated this decision to lay these people off and actually has good KPIs that measure the performance, specifically that of customer care agents…

        I don’t see why or how I would want to discuss that a company is an entity that makes money through products from resources… think that’d be a bit too basic, no?

        Lol.

        ?

        It’s not very hard to believe what they’re saying here and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So simple 1+1.

        But can you explain what makes you trust them? What gives a company like Klarna a high trust ratio in your eyes? They don’t seem to have provided those metrics in any way, just spelling it out in words. So how can we trust them?

        It’s not very hard to believe what they’re saying here

        Maybe not for you, but the rest of us are skeptics and would like to know what exactly makes this easy for you to believe. Thanks for explaining in advance.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 months ago

          You started the discussion off from my joke comment saying that they deserve a study for them to be laid off. Consider where this started.

          It’s not very hard to believe what they’re saying here and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So simple 1+1.

          But can you explain what makes you trust them?

          would like to know what exactly makes this easy for you to believe

          butwhymalemodels.avif

          I just explained why their claim isn’t hard to believe. You even quoted it??

          Maybe not for you

          Well no shit, not like I’m claiming to speak on someone else’s behalf

          • ???
            link
            English
            110 months ago

            I just explained why their claim isn’t hard to believe. You even quoted it??

            Sorry, let’s pretend I’m a total idiot, could you quote it for me?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              110 months ago

              It’s not very hard to believe what they’re saying here and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So simple 1+1.

              Easy to believe them when the claim itself is easy to believe and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So you take the easy to believe claim (1) and you take them being in the position to have those metrics (another 1, but let’s call it 2 to differentiate) so simple 1+2.

              • ???
                link
                English
                110 months ago

                Easy to believe them when the claim itself is easy to believe and they’d be the ones to have those metrics. So you take the easy to believe claim (1) and you take them being in the position to have those metrics (another 1, but let’s call it 2 to differentiate) so simple 1+2.

                Ummm, sorry but how is this an explanation?

                “Why are they easy to believe?”… “Oh, it’s just not very hard to believe, they have the metrics, they said so! 1+1!”

                It’s easy to believe because they are a big company and big companies have metrics?

                But, what about the trust part? How does that make you trust them? What part of that is “enough” evidence for you to rationalize that they have a good motivation for laying off 700 people?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  110 months ago

                  It’s easy to believe because the claim (AI replacing the work of tons of workers) is easy to believe and out of anyone they’d be post positioned to know how well the AI compares to their workers. So not much of a leap to believe them here, that the AI can, could or has replaced the work of 700 people. Klarna seems to have something like 7000 workers so 10% being replaced by AI, for a company like Klarna? Yeah, I can see that happening. I’m honestly not sure why you are having such hard time with this. Maybe you don’t understand those two as separate things, the claim (AI could replace a ton of workers) and the data the company would have (knowing exactly how many it could replace).

                  But, what about the trust part?

                  You’ve been the only one talking about trust.

                  • ???
                    link
                    English
                    110 months ago

                    Hmmm, okay, but let’s take this one step further, what makes you believe that an AI can replace 700 customer care agents?

                    Yeah, I can see that happening. I’m honestly not sure why you are having such hard time with this.

                    I have skepticism about all large companies, especially having worked for many, and especially having seen how far they will go with lies to lay people off. Klarna lays off hundreds of employees as a frequent occurrence.

                    In my opinion, both as an ML professional and as a chatbot professional who has built such systems or finetuned them for such tasks, it’s extremely unlikely that chatbots would be able to replace 700 employees unless those employees were just doing simple zombie tasks.

                    The only sentence we get from Klarna in the article is this:

                    with the virtual assistant earning customer satisfaction ratings at the same level as human agents. Klarna

                    But nothing to elaborate. What was the satisfaction rating prior? No idea. So excuse my doubt when I don’t want to believe a large company that lives to make money.

                    The idea of AI fully replacing a large workforce seems to be a bunch of BS driven forth by big companies like Klarna. Others in the field seem to be more careful about what AI can “help in” vs “replace”. Have they A/B tested this? What is their KPI? Can we trust that KPI?

                    You’ve been the only one talking about trust.

                    I invite you to read the rest of the comments under the thread. I think you’re wrong.