Just a little AI resistance, as a treat

AI-generated customer service responses will now be flagged by customers, leading to more human follow-ups.

Terence Eden reported an interaction with Ocado's customer service, where an initial response to a technical issue regarding malformed calendar invites was identified as AI-generated due to its sycophantic agreement, use of an em-dash, and generic tone. This led to a negative customer satisfaction survey, prompting a follow-up apology from a human representative. The representative acknowledged the issue, apologized for the AI response, and expressed gratitude for the detailed technical feedback provided by Eden, assuring him it had been passed to the relevant team for resolution. Eden argues that while AI can be useful for triaging and summarizing customer inquiries, using it to directly reply to customers is disrespectful and devalues their time.

Companies deploying AI for customer service risk alienating users who expect genuine human interaction, especially when reporting genuine issues. The direct consequence of a perceived automated response to a critical bug report is a dip in customer satisfaction and a demand for human intervention. This case suggests a growing user awareness and a willingness to "resist" AI-driven interactions that feel impersonal or dismissive.

The incident highlights a key tension in customer service: efficiency versus empathy. While AI can offer scalability and speed in handling high volumes of inquiries, its limitations in understanding nuance and providing genuine connection can backfire. Businesses need to carefully consider where AI fits in their customer support strategy, ensuring that human oversight and direct engagement remain available for complex or sensitive issues.