undefined

points

[-]

> If a company has the capability to hire literal people to waste your time, they can deploy more AI than you to waste the time of your AI.

I don't totally buy OP's argument, but I think you're dismissing it unfairly.

His point is that in the pre-LLM world, if a company wants to waste your time, they can hire a call center employee overseas for US$4/hr and make you wait for an hour to talk to them for 30 minutes. If you value your time at $80/hr, then the 90-minute call cost you $120, but it only cost the company about $2, thus the asymmetry.

OP's claim is that now, the asymmetry is gone. If both you and the company try to use AI, the company has less leverage to impose costs on you. They can deploy more AI to waste more of your time, but that means the asymmetry now is in the customer's favor because it costs the company more than the customer to get support.

by JambalayaJimbo1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

But the company can deploy economies of scale to make their AI chatbots defeat yours? Company A can still hire someone in India to continually change their chat bot protocol or whatever to make it difficult for you chat bot to succeed in getting support.

by mtlynch33 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

How is the company achieving economies of scale with AI chatbots? The dominant cost is token cost, and even if they're a $1B company, they're not getting that much better of a deal on tokens or GPUs than a regular consumer.

Also, remember that the company is still constrained by having to support real humans who don't have their own AI. They can't just decide not to offer any support at all or or force infinite wait times, or they'd be doing that today.