From their press release:

> Now live globally for 1 month, the numbers speak for themselves:

> * The AI assistant has had 2.3 million conversations, two-thirds of Klarna’s customer service chats

> * It is doing the equivalent work of 700 full-time agents

> * It is on par with human agents in regard to customer satisfaction score

> * It is more accurate in errand resolution, leading to a 25% drop in repeat inquiries

> * Customers now resolve their errands in less than 2 mins compared to 11 mins previously It’s available in 23 markets, 24/7 and communicates in more than 35 languages

> * It’s estimated to drive a $40 million USD in profit improvement to Klarna in 2024

All but one has actual numbers attached. I wonder why that last one doesn’t.

https://www.klarna.com/international/press/klarna-ai-assista...

However they decided to measure that and the actual reality of the situation may not even correlate.

Basically you can barely trust publicly scrutinized science to not mess up data gathering. I definitely don't trust companies that sell automated tools for user satisfaction to actually have good metrics for it.

“Customer satisfaction took no hit in our transition”

=

“We made no progress on satisfying upset customers”

Base rate fallacy perfectly demonstrated

I more or less trust that it's true, or at least I think mostly true.

If they wanted bad results, chatbots already existed.

Which means the people willing to stick around after their interaction to answer a customer satisfaction survey was the same...

AI: On a scale of one to 10, how would you rate your satisfaction with this call.

Customer: 2

AI: Thank you for rating this call a 10. Have a nice day. *click

Customer satisfaction is the same among satisfied customers