In 1950 Alan Turing, the British mathematical genius who with the help of crude early computers broke Hitler's codes, proposed a test to determine if a machine was intelligent, in the event that machines ever became intelligent. This is the Turing Test: if you are communicating through a computer and believe you are communicating with a human being when in fact you are communicating with a computer, then the machine can be deemed to be intelligent—it passes the Turing test.
There have been many serious and some not-so-serious attempts to create computer programs that would pass the Turing Test. Among these was a program called ELIZA (1966) which attempted to imitate a nondirective therapist. Programs like ELIZA try to identify key words and phrases in things you type and try to compose what appears to be relevant replies based on those keywords. In the role of nondirective therapist, ELIZA could cut many corners because it could always fall back on nondirective prompts such as "Go on," "How did you feel about that?" and "Tell me more about ______," where the blank could be filled in with a key word from whatever you had had typed. A transcript of a conversation with ELIZA could have long stretches that looked like a real communication between two people, but it was not too difficult to trip ELIZA up and get ELIZA to emit a response that was nonsense or was so ungrammatical that no human being could have composed it (such as "How do you feel about you do not know how you feel about it?").
if a customer cannot tell he is communicating with a human being and not with a computer, then your feedback system has Artificial Stupidity
If the Turing Test is a test of Artificial Intelligence, I want to propose an Anti-Turing Test. It is a test of Artificial Stupidity. Here is the test: if a customer cannot tell when interacting with your call center or your web-based feedback form that he is communicating with a human being and not with a computer, then your feedback system has Artificial Stupidity.
One of the surest signs of Artificial Stupidity is failure to answer simple direct questions. True enough, sometimes that answer is not one that will be pleasing to the customer. Sometimes the answer is "No." Sometimes the answer is "I don't know," or "I don't have that information," or "I cannot release that information." Those are not pleasing answers, but they do acknowledge the customer's question.
If you have a problem-tracking system, a sure sign of Artificial Stupidity is failing to note the history of the problem in responding to the current communication. If the tracking system is not used to produced a better answer this time, what do you have a tracking system for? When the chain has got two or three question-response cycles deep communication is not taking place. The thread needs to be directed to a specialist or supervisor who has the skills, knowledge, and policy latitude to acknowledge the issues, to answer novel questions and issues, and to refer the thread appropriately if necessary. Not every customer-care employee needs this level of skill. Not even very many of them do. After all most calls by far do fall into recurrent patterns that can be responded to by script. But when the script doesn't work, someone who can go off-script should be available.
A red-line example of Artificial Stupidity is the thought that customer-care performance can be measured by how often the customer goes away. Yet, when performance is measured in call numbers, the incentives favor employees who make customers go away in the most efficient manner. Sometimes the customer goes away permanently. An issue cannot be presumed resolved just because the customer stops bothering the customer-care representatives. The metric for customer-care performance is how often customers who have contacted customer care come back to make a purchase. If that isn't the outcome you are aiming at, why have any customer care at all? Maybe you are a philanthropist who can afford, out of the goodness of your heart, to employ people to wear headsets and sit in front of computer screens drinking coffee regardless of the effect on your revenues.