Just a little AI resistance, as a treat
READ THE ORIGINAL SOURCEOpen original sourceshkspr.mobi · Opens in a new tabExternal source links are regularly re-checked for safety, and checked again before opening using a recent cached result when available. How link checks work →
The author reports contacting Ocado about malformed calendar invites via a customer service form. The reply appeared AI-generated, based on sycophantic phrasing, an em-dash, and a generic tone. The author gave low survey scores complaining about this. A later reply, which the author says came from a human, apologised, thanked them for the detailed diagnostic, and said the feedback was passed to the team. The author argues AI triage and summarisation may be reasonable, but using AI to reply to a genuine complaint is disrespectful.
One primary source; other links are context, not independent corroboration.
- Primary sourceHacker News · AI
- Discovery linkHacker News
- Linked in sourceProfessor Kate Devlin
- Linked in sourceAI Resist List
- Linked in sourcecontacting companies which send malformed calendar invites
- Linked in sourcesycophantic agreement
- Linked in sourceBeloved by chatbots
- Linked in sourceNet Promoter Score is bullshit
A community post points to the original link. Discussion and upvotes do not establish accuracy.
Open full article view →- Community discussion+5
- Fetched source page+30
- No editor link review+0
- Community link+0
This measures the stored source trail and editorial steps. It does not certify accuracy, peer review, or independent corroboration. Popularity adds no points.
View full scoring →Read the scoring rubric →What the source says
The author reports contacting Ocado about malformed calendar invites via a customer service form. The reply appeared AI-generated, based on sycophantic phrasing, an em-dash, and a generic tone. The author gave low survey scores complaining about this. A later reply, which the author says came from a human, apologised, thanked them for the detailed diagnostic, and said the feedback was passed to the team. The author argues AI triage and summarisation may be reasonable, but using AI to reply to a genuine complaint is disrespectful.
A READER'S EVIDENCE CHECKHow to read this signalSix questions about claims, sources, risks, and open checks
This is a signal-level guide until claim-level evidence is available. “Not recorded” means the evidence has not been assessed here; it does not mean a result is false. How we check AI news →
- 01Who is making each claim?
The claimant and whether each claim was measured or asserted are not recorded in this public brief.
- 02What was actually tested?
Not recorded per claim. Check the source for sample size, tasks, model and benchmark versions, and reproducibility.
- 03Where are the sources?
Original link: shkspr.mobi. Brief basis: fetched source page. Primary page date and quote locations are not established in this panel.
- 04What could mislead?
Source claims not independently checked; the author's attribution of the replies to AI or a human is an inference from style.
- 05What is at risk if wrong?
Not assessed per claim. Consider safety, privacy, cost, and adoption decisions before relying on the result.
- 06What would change the view?
No claim-specific check is recorded. An inspectable primary method or independent replication could change the assessment.
Key findings from the stored brief
- The author judged an Ocado customer service reply to be AI-generated based on sycophantic agreement, an em-dash, and a generic tone.
- The author gave 1-star survey scores and complained about receiving an AI response to a genuine complaint.
- A follow-up message, which the author says was from a human, apologised and said the feedback was passed to the team.
- The author says AI triage, summarising, and theme-tracking may make business sense, but replying to customers with AI is disrespectful.
Source claims not independently checked; the author's attribution of the replies to AI or a human is an inference from style.
This is a source-based abstract, not independent validation of the source's claims.
Evidence & sources
These links show where the signal came from and what the source page linked to. A linked page is context, not independent corroboration.
A community post points to the original link. Discussion and upvotes do not establish accuracy.
Timeline & updates
- Signal dated by source or discovery feed
This timestamp places the signal in the radar. It may be the discovery post date rather than the primary page's first publication date.
- Shared brief stored
AINewsIQ prepared one abstract from fetched source page.
A publication revision history is not stored for this signal. New engagement snapshots do not mean the source itself changed.
Why this may matter
The post illustrates customer experience concerns about automated replies to complaints. It shows a practical way users attempt to push for human engagement, and how companies may respond when feedback is public or direct.
Limits and open questions
Source claims not independently checked; the author's attribution of the replies to AI or a human is an inference from style.
Organization-specific financial, security, and operational effects require the organization's own context and review.
Discussion
Comments are reviewed before publication. Discuss the evidence, not the person.
No published comments yet.
Reader discussion opens with accounts. You can read the original source and published comments now.