#people #machines #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #hospitality #jobs #tasks
The Chase ad portrays the man in the self-driving car and the robot serving him coffee (not the way he wants it) with the song, “Tired of Being Alone” playing in the background.
Chase promises that when you go into its offices, you’ll have real people to serve you.
Machines are great for some tasks. They can actually replace some people for menial tasks.
But, the line should be drawn for public-facing jobs. Chase is correct. People should serve people.
The advancement of AI holds great promise, perhaps for some back-of-the-house tasks, to use a hospitality term.
But, the front of the house should be people. Of course, robots could bring things to the people who serve.
In fact, part of the reason people go to banks, restaurants and other public spaces is to interact with people.
That isn’t to say that some tasks could not be automated. For example, one could envision going into a restaurant, choosing a seat yourself, placing an order via a computer, laptop or tablet and, when finished, paying the bill via that same device.
But, there should be actual people to consult if there are questions about certain menu items, and to bring the food to the table. Can anyone envision asking a machine whether a certain dish is spicy?
If it comes to that, how could anyone believe what the machine is saying?
Hospitality, by definition, is human-to-human contact. People serving, or caring for, people.
Much of banking, meanwhile, has become automated. You can make a withdrawal or deposit by ATM.
But, you can’t get financial advice – at least good, reliable advice about your personal situation – from a machine.
Of course, if you don’t need advice and just need to, say, buy a mutual fund or a CD, a machine can probably do that.
But, the point of the Chase ad is that we, as people or as customers, prefer interacting with people. We can only hope that Chase, and other institutions like it, prefer using people, rather than machines, to serve its customers and clients.
You can certainly cultivate relationships using electronic devices, Web sites and social media. But, it is definitely not the same as talking to someone in person.
Such mechanical interactions have prompted lots of loneliness and, as has been alleged, created mental health issues, particularly among younger people.
A young person who’s grown comfortable with online interactions may have difficulty with interpersonal interactions in a workplace.
The lesson here is that not only is it good business to have real people for customers and clients to talk to, it’s also good for society. When given the choice of talking to a real person live, or communicating online, one should always choose the former.
That isn’t to say that online communication doesn’t work in some scenarios.
In the 1964 Broadway musical “Funny Girl,” Barbra Streisand famously sang: “People who need people are the luckiest people in the world.”
Whenever you are able to interact with someone in person, you should. When you do, consider yourself lucky.
Peter
Tag Archives: machines
LET SYSTEMS UNDER STRESS PLAY OUT
#systems #stress #SystemsUnderStress #GovernmentalSystems #machines
When you nail, screw or otherwise attach something, the first thing you do is pull on it, or put weight on it, to make sure it is secure.
When you put a system in place, you don’t always know how well it will work until it is stressed.
That goes for all systems, including governing systems.
Many governing systems today are under stress, including those in the United States, Israel and other places.
Such systems have been stressed before and survived. Today’s stressors, however, may not be like past ones.
In many ways, these are tests for the security of the system. But these realities are more than tests. They can determine the survival of the systems.
Think of these as not just historic moments. Think of them as first-in-a-lifetime stressors.
How a nation emerges from these can give its people assurance that the system works, or can show them how easily it can be abused, misused or even destroyed.
The people of that nation need to hope and pray that not only will the system survive, it will be better for it.
As with any other stress test, there could be temporary breakdowns. Things can go wrong. Hopefully, things won’t go so wrong that they cannot be repaired.
As people of such a nation, we must not deliberately interfere with the system. We must let it play out. If the system is to work into perpetuity, we must accept the outcome, whatever it is.
Of course, we can have opinions. Of course, we can debate how things SHOULD work. Such discussion is not only healthy, but can help make things easier or better when the next stressor comes.
Think of it this way: if you have a machine that is under stress and working very hard, do you stick your hand inside while it is running? In most cases, you don’t.
When it stops, or if it breaks down, then you get into it to make repairs.
Many times, the machine will not only tolerate the stress, it will do what it is supposed to do.
Governmental systems don’t stop when under stress. They usually do what they are supposed to do.
Sticking one’s hand in the middle of them while they are running is perilous.
When the stress is done, it then is incumbent on all of us to evaluate how the system performed, and, perhaps, make changes so it performs better the next time.
When there is unnecessary interference, we may never know how well the system would have performed.
In short, if the system is designed well from its inception, it will perform properly under stress.
Let the system do its thing. Eventually, the stressors will be gone and the system will show us how well it did.
Peter