AI should empowerpeople, not replace us.

Operator autonomously manages your support operations through a proposal-based review system.

Fin Operator is an agent for your customer operations that gives every teammate capabilities that have never existed before - from compressing weeks of operational work into minutes, to building, testing, and shipping improvements to Fin in seconds.

Following up on my last post about AI in customer support, I wanted to share what that's actually looked like for me on the ground.

In my most recent role, AI wasn't one single tool. It was woven into different parts of the workflow: helping triage and route tickets, flagging sentiment and escalation risk early, and assisting with drafting responses so I wasn't starting from a blank page every time.

The biggest shift I've noticed? Fewer repetitive tickets landing on my desk. The routine, low-complexity stuff gets handled or surfaced faster, which means more of my time and attention goes to the issues that actually need a human brain, judgement calls, edge cases, customers who need to feel heard, not just answered.

It hasn't made the job easier in the sense of "less to do." It's made it different. More of my day is spent thinking, problem-solving, and building trust with customers, and less of it is spent on repetitive back-and-forth.

I keep coming back to the same conclusion: AI is changing what "efficient" looks like in support, but it hasn't changed why people need support in the first place. That part still needs a human.

Still learning, still adjusting, still here 😁

What's your experience been like? Has AI freed up more time for you too, or has it introduced its own kind of complexity?

#CustomerExperience #CustomerSupport #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #FutureOfWork #Tech

AI is a fantastic tool. But it should be a tool, not the entire customer service department.

We have reached a point where some businesses seem determined to remove actual people from the process. Personally, I cannot stand calling a company and being trapped in a never-ending conversation with an AI assistant.

“Please briefly describe what you need.”

I do.

“Sorry, I didn’t understand that.”

And now we are enemies.

I would much rather speak with a real person first. Let that person understand the situation and decide whether an automated tool can help. Not the other way around.

I have normal business hours. I answer my phone when I can, return calls, respond to emails, and make sure agents know there is an actual human behind the support they receive.

Do I use AI? Absolutely. It helps me organize information, research questions, review documents, and work more efficiently. But I do not rely on it to build relationships or make judgment calls. Some situations require context, experience, and the ability to recognize when the question being asked is not actually the problem that needs to be solved.

That is especially true in insurance contracting.

Contracting is not always easy, and trying to automate every step does not necessarily make it better. A knowledgeable person can notice missing information, explain carrier requirements, identify potential problems, and help an agent build their business on a stronger foundation.

AI should support good service, not replace it.

Quick and easy may sound appealing, but easy is not always efficient. Sometimes it is just cheap, unreliable, and nowhere near what you expected.

Use technology to save time. Use experienced people to make sure you are doing things correctly. The best businesses understand that you need both.

I'm a huge advocate for AI in recruiting 🤖✅. I mean that genuinely, not as a disclaimer before I complain.

15+ years in Talent Acquisition, and AI tools have made me faster and sharper — sourcing, market mapping, drafting outreach, structuring interview loops 📈. Used well, it's one of the best things to happen to this profession in a decade.

So here's a story from the other side of the table 👇

I was recently invited to interview with a well-known organization for a technical talent role. Round one: an AI-led interview. Fine I've built and evaluated tools like this myself, I understand the appeal.

24 hours later, I got a long, well-written rejection email 📧. Detailed. Polished. Confident.
And wrong. ❌

The reasoning cited we need more of "depth in engineering and technical talent strategy." I've recruited technical and engineering talent across nearly my entire career — up through my most recent role. It's not a side skill I picked up. It's a core part of what I've done for 15 years 💻.

I'm not writing this because I'm upset about the rejection. Rejections happen — that's the job, on both sides of the table. What stuck with me is this:

A confident, detailed, well-formatted "no" can still be a wrong "no." 🎯

And when the reasoning is wrong, it doesn't just cost that one candidate a shot. It quietly shapes who a company thinks doesn't fit often the exact people who do.

This isn't an anti-AI take. It's a reminder for anyone building or deploying these tools in hiring:

→ 🔍 AI screening should widen the room a recruiter is looking at, not replace their judgment entirely.
→ ✍️ "Elaborate" and "accurate" are not the same thing. A well-written explanation can still be built on a bad read of a resume.
→ 🤝 If a tool is making pass/fail calls on senior, nuanced backgrounds, a human should still be in the loop before the door closes.

I'll keep using AI. I'll keep recommending it to the TA leaders I talk to. It's too good a tool not to 🙌.

But I'll also keep saying this out loud: efficiency without a human check isn't progress. It's just a faster way to miss people who don't fit neatly into a keyword match.

Curious if others in TA or eng leadership have seen this same gap where the tool sounded certain, but wasn't right 💬👇

#TalentAcquisition #AIinHiring #RecruitingLeadership #CandidateExperience #FutureOfWork

🔥 HOT TAKE: AI is making recruiting more human, not less. 🔥

I use technology every day. It makes us faster, more efficient and better able to manage the amount of information that comes with recruiting.

But the more AI shows up in hiring, the more valuable the actual conversation becomes.

A résumé can be optimized.
A cover letter can be generated.
An interview answer can be rehearsed.

But eventually, I still need to understand the person behind all of it.

Why are you actually considering a move?
What have you really owned?
What kind of leader brings out your best work?
What does the hiring manager truly need beyond the job description?

That is the part I do not want automated away.

Because some of the best placements I have made happened because of something I learned in a conversation that never would have shown up in a resume or an algorithm.

So yes, give me ALL the tools that make recruiting faster.

But give me the human conversation before we make the decision.

Curious where others land on this: is AI making hiring better, or are we starting to automate too much of the part that actually matters? Let's hear your hot take!