The biggest problem I see with this is the scenario where calls are recorded. They're recorded in case we hit a "he said, she said" scenario. If some issue were to be escalated as far as a courtroom, the value of the recording to the business is greatly diminished.
Even if the words the call agent gets are 100% verbatim, a lawyer can easily argue that a significant percentage of the message is in tone of voice. If that's lost and the agent misses a nuance of the customer's intent, they'll have a solid case against the business.
I see no problem: they can record the original call and postprocess it with AI live for the operators. The recordings would be the original audio.
Besides providing verbatim records of who said what, there is a second can of worms in forming any sort of binding agreement if the two sides of the agreement are having two different conversations.
I think this is what the part about the missed nuance means.
The biggest problem I see with this is the scenario where calls are recorded. They're recorded in case we hit a "he said, she said" scenario. If some issue were to be escalated as far as a courtroom, the value of the recording to the business is greatly diminished.
Even if the words the call agent gets are 100% verbatim, a lawyer can easily argue that a significant percentage of the message is in tone of voice. If that's lost and the agent misses a nuance of the customer's intent, they'll have a solid case against the business.
I see no problem: they can record the original call and postprocess it with AI live for the operators. The recordings would be the original audio.
Besides providing verbatim records of who said what, there is a second can of worms in forming any sort of binding agreement if the two sides of the agreement are having two different conversations.
I think this is what the part about the missed nuance means.