Damn, for just a moment I thought the Sierra Online company was coming back. I want a new official Quest for Glory game.

So we're supposed to believe that removing humans from customer support will lead to better outcomes?

> Ensure you only pay for the value Sierra delivers with outcome-based pricing.

Yeah... that won't last.

Voice agents in customer support is an extremely crowded market. Seems like Sierra is taking a considerable lead.

I don't know much about their product offerings, but I was doing some speech-to-text work and came across https://research.sierra.ai/mubench/ for comparing current models. It felt fairly thoughtful, particularly in regards to coming up with better benchmarking metrics than word error rate.

If you (like me) are hearing about this for the first time, Bret Taylor is the co-founder.

> Bret is Co-Founder of Sierra. Most recently, he served as Co-CEO of Salesforce. Prior to Salesforce, Bret founded Quip and was CTO of Facebook. He started his career at Google, where he co-created Google Maps. Bret serves on the board of OpenAI.

I think this is generally a good product because businesses that previously had zero phone support can now afford to have something. However, the hard work of actually building out the various workflows and decision trees is not automatic. Previously, a call center employee would receive abuse from a caller for being unempowered to make a decision. Instead, an LLM will perform the same role.

Ideally, businesses will escalate to an empowered human for all undefined parts of the flowchart. In practice, I truly hope it will be better than the current pre-recorded phone tree system that leads to a human following a script.

I personally only call support because a fix is not available through an organization's website.

Wonder how much compute is essentially spent on conversations that end up with the human asking "Let me speak with a human"

It’s interesting that the example interaction they use on their homepage is a no-friction example that can be handled without an AI chatbot. Why not something more complex that properly demonstrates the value?

I remember waiting for uber next to him in SF one night 10+ years ago. This dude must be the son of some mafia boss or some shit and have some crazy blackmail to raise billions for companies that are copies of products where he’s the 12th company doing the same thing.. never turning a profit or anything and yet raising ever more money. doesn’t make sense otherwise

It's always interesting seeing how HN reacts to AI CX (as someone at a sierra competitor). Yes, the tech savvy crowd loves to say how they always ask for a human and love old school phone trees

in reality 50-80% of callers come in with easily answerable questions because they don't know how to nav the website and prefer to ask in natural language

The vast majority of callers call in to resolve their issue, and most don't care if they are speaking to a bot because they just want their issue fixed. Agents (if implemented well) are an order of magnitude more effective at resolving issues compared to a call centre worker who is reading off a script and churn within 9 months

There's also the 2nd order effs of making CX cheap. before, there is the perverse incentive of companies trying to keep you off support because each call costs them way more than the value they get. if your cost per call drops 100x you can invest in turning a cost centre into a revenue driver (+ a better experience)