Talk:3175: Website Task Flowchart

> who are available to produce words at you 24/7!

Is "produce words at you" an AI reference? -- Dtgriscom (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it is likely an AI reference. —theusaf (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but it does say "live agents" earlier so it could also be a reference to live but non-native language speakers in a foreign call center. 47.248.235.170 20:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Pat

Real-time bots are live but not alive. 64.114.211.79 21:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I feel like for some certain definition of 'alive' bots could be considered alive. They are (kind of?)sentient, which just means they can think. 'sapient', on the other hand, means that he/she/they is self-aware. While it is generally considered that bots are not live, this may not always be true. Depending on how advanced AI ever get, (most probable answer: not very) they may one day be able to evolve and reproduce. They already perform metabolism and homeostasis (power and fans). They have structure, they are made of computer chips (im not a computer nerd, so this probably isn't accurate). They react to stimuli. Honestly, all that needs to let them be considered 'alive' is for them to be able to make other AI and for those AI to be slightly different, which they kind of already can. Besides being made of metal, there is no real reason to claim that an AI isn't 'alive', that's just what mainstream media claims. --Kirinhatchi (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

They're certainly live as in "live TV" and/or a "live electricity socket", as in active/functional/doing-what-they-are-designed-to-do. 78.144.255.82 01:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

wow second commenter --LazyTiger0203 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Is Randall just now finding out about this?!? What sequestered Internet space has he been hiding in? I want. Of course it's probably gone now. 205.175.118.2 20:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed several spelling errors. RadiantRainwing (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I would replace the "Throw electronics into sea" step with "As soon as the call is no longer on hold, say the website the hold message suggests is not working". Throwing devices into sea causes e-waste. 2001:4C4E:1C14:9800:F167:89F7:6CCE:353B 08:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Who cares about that, when the big problem is still all those Titanics to watch out for? 82.132.237.203 16:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC) ;)

Companies can't seem to understand that literally the only reason people call their customer service line is because *THEY NEED TO TALK TO AN ACTUAL HUMAN BECAUSE THE COMPUTER IS INADIQUATE*!--136.226.7.187 20:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

But think of the glorious profits we can make by firing humans who need our jobs to survive! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I always try to solve problems myself before calling the helpdesk. This involves applying the most obvious fix, then the next most obvious. When these fail (as I expected), I call. "Hello, Service Desk, ** speaking, how may I help you?" "I'm having trouble trying to do *** on your website. But I've already tried the most obvious solutions, so don't bother suggesting them." "OK. Have you tried #1 *** ?" "Yes, I said I've tried that." "What about #2 ***?" (sighing) "Yes, of course, I tried that too." Why do they insist on suggesting solutions that I've already told them don't work? Beechmere (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)