While I agree with Gartner's assertion that AI can increase human productivity, they are missing the forest for the trees. The issue is not human productivity but business efficiency. Sure, you can replace people with AI, but what if it costs more to get the AI up and running that it does to hire people?
Using the customer service example, a business that property trains and monitors AI may find some benefit in using it to handle customer service issues, but if it is that diligent, likely it has few customer service issues already. Now, if the business with a customer service backlog says, "Hey, why don't we spray some AI on this dumpster fire?" then they are only going to make the problem worse.
I think Gartner also misses the mark with the assertion that AI is ripe for repetitive tasks. No, repetitive tasks should be addressed by unintelligent automation. Using AI for such things is like buying a fleet of Lamborghinis to take kids to school; a bus is much more efficient. AI isn't suited for repetitive tasks as much as it for single tasks that are highly complex. Automating customer service calls, maybe you get some benefit, but it would be a lot better to feed AI all your customer and quality assurance reports so that it can pinpoint your operational shortcomings that are causing these complaints.
