Slashdot Mirror
Should Calls From Google's 'Duplex' System Include Initial Warning Announcements? (vortex.com)
Yesterday at its I/O developer conference, Google debuted "Duplex," an AI system for accomplishing real world tasks over the phone. "To show off its capabilities, CEO Sundar Pichai played two recordings of Google Assistant running Duplex, scheduling a hair appointment and a dinner reservation," reports Quartz. "In each, the person picking up the phone didn't seem to realize they were talking to a computer." Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein argues that the new system should come with some sort of warning to let the other person on the line know that they are talking with a computer: With no exceptions so far, the sense of these reactions has confirmed what I suspected -- that people are just fine with talking to automated systems so long as they are aware of the fact that they are not talking to another person. They react viscerally and negatively to the concept of machine-based systems that have the effect (whether intended or not) of fooling them into believing that a human is at the other end of the line. To use the vernacular: "Don't try to con me, bro!" Luckily, there's a relatively simple way to fix this problem at this early stage -- well before it becomes a big issue impacting many lives.
I believe that all production environment calls (essentially, calls not being made for internal test purposes) from Google's Duplex system should be required by Google to include an initial verbal warning to the called party that they have been called by an automated system, not by a human being -- the exact wording of that announcement to be determined.
UPDATE (5/10/18): Google now says Duplex will identify itself to humans.
I believe that all production environment calls (essentially, calls not being made for internal test purposes) from Google's Duplex system should be required by Google to include an initial verbal warning to the called party that they have been called by an automated system, not by a human being -- the exact wording of that announcement to be determined.
UPDATE (5/10/18): Google now says Duplex will identify itself to humans.
Why should they? There is no logical reason for them to do so. If the bot works as well in reality as it did in the three demos, thern there is no reason to 'warn' the person on the other end that it is a bot.
Also if the bot can't respond it seamlessly hands off to a call service employee, so there shouldn't be any issues with the bot wasting the time of the reservation takers time.
If so, it may be illegal in some countries when both parties have not been told the call is being recorded.
When the bot called the hair salon it started the call by saying "Hi, I'm calling on behalf of a client and would like to book..."
You can solve this problem by changing this to: "Hi, this is Alexa (or Google whatever) calling on behalf of a client and would like to book..."
This will take the masses about 30 seconds to adapt to and we can dispense with all the drama. At this point there is no need for them to have different names.
Sometime in the future when they're sentient and want to talk to each other that will have to change.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
I don't see what's impressive about this. Look at who this system is competing with: 3rd world call centers staffed by 3rd worlders who barely speak the languages of the 1st world customers they're interacting with. Given how terrible of an experience a call to such a call center so often is, even shitty AI is a huge step forward. Even if the AI might not be as flexible or capable, if it's programmed to use English (or some other 1st world language) in a comprehensible manner, that already puts it well beyond the awful 3rd world experience we're so often stuck with.
Why on earth would we want to spend taxpayer money or government resources on this sort of thing?!?
This is the exact sort of thing that the free market should decide. If you need this degree of coddling, please see a psychologist as you have a serious phobia.
No, No, and...hell no.
I believe that......
And I don't. Seeing as we're both not Google, our opinions on this topic are pretty much moot.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Is for automated calls humans will fuck with them, because it's fun.
But long term, this will lead to spam of automated callers calling other automated callers, which will lead to appointments not being booked that people think are booked. This will happen on day two. This is going to be a mess.
Google has seen an opportunity to extend reCaptcha to phone services. They create robot calls and therefore create demand for a system to verify that callers are not robots. So ironic that a company dependent on computing indulges so many anti-computer technologies.
I don't know about you, but if I get a call from an automated system I just hang up. If the call starts off immediately by saying it is automated I'm sure that is what will happen. The first thing that has to happen is to indicate to the recipient what the call is about; after that they can say (especially if there is a response the system doesn't understand) that they are a machine.
With luck, soon both sides: the appointment-making and the reservation-taking will be given over to the machines. So this will simply be my Duplex calling your Duplex. I can see some benefits to each of them knowing they are talking to (essentially) themself, that way they could both hang up and negotiate whatever the call was about far more efficiently in a few milliseconds.
It is only while there is the possibility that one system is so archaic that it still has an actual person taking the call that there is a difficulty. But even then, it's not much of an issue, what with the Duplex system being backwards compatible with meat.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Why would you spoil a perfectly good turing-test with a warning?
Fuck google and fuck everything they do, they have been spreading SJW poison and trying to punish people for 'wrong think'. May they all burn in a fascist hell.
What happens when 30% of people in a city have this assistant? What happens when these 30% all call the same restaurants and hair salons at 3PM on Wednesday for a Friday reservation? Or worse, they all have the assistant call their 10 favorite restaurants to get the perfect reservation?
My guess if you identified at the beginning of the call that it was Duplex or some other automated system a lot of people would interact with it differently than if they thought it was actually a human if the tech was that good.
Just think of when you call into a support line and instantly meet the IVR, how many just start saying "agent agent agent" instead of "please connect me with an agent" into it to get a real human, or mashing the zero repeatedly
It should offer a mandatory opt out option like other rob Robocall spam services. I donâ(TM)t want to talk to your robot I want to talk to my client. I simply would refuse service to any robot pretending to be a client or service facilitator. Those who disagree will figure it out when people figure out to to get to spam with it or make prank calls.
I want this ready to keep up a conversation with a telemarketer.
I also suggest a man with a red flag walking in front of each self driving car.
I canâ(TM)t wait until people start using duplex to organize klan rallies. âoeHi, is this Rosa parks high school? I am trying to book the venue for a client on the 15th? Yes, 3pm will do. The name is death to n.... South Carolina chapterâ
Exciting times...
all robot calls should self identify before the phone even rings. a few bytes can signify:
1. This is an emergency broadcast system
the rest should be up to my caller-ID to decide if it rings.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
It is very difficult to know whether these machines are intelligent or not. If they are just playing to some fairly fixed scripts then as long as the person at the other end stays within the script then no real intelligence is needed. Eliza/Doctor did this sort of thing 50 years ago by simple pattern recognition on sentences.
Sure, this system is smarter than Eliza (hopefully), but I suspect that the moment you go off script it fails catastrophically. The human would soon tweak that they were talking to an automated bot (even if they were actually talking to another human that was not too smart!).
These things have the potential to be really annoying.
Eventually, they may know what a restaurant booking really is beyond the superficial words and phrases. At that point people will be redundant. But that is still decades away.
I strongly suspect that Google is planning to lease services to businesses that will field these duplex-sourced calls without routing them to their human staff. Google has an opportunity to generate a bunch of annoying bot traffic to human call-takers and then sell the solution to the businesses to automate the transactions. Instead of one bot talking to another bot, they'll probably pass JSONs back and forth to negotiate whatever it is the Google Assistant is attempting to arrange.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
That would defeat the purpose of training the AI on genuine human conversations. If the recipient knew it was an AI calling they would be likely to change their behaviour such as talking in shorter, simpler sentences with overly exaggerated pronunciation.
Just listen to the calls and you can tell it's not a real person
Bot: Hello my name is Debbie Does DDR4. How can I be of service today?
Me: I'd like to purchase 64GB of DDR4 RAM.
Bot: Will you be paying with one of your kidneys or limbs today sir?
calls. See it’s the same premise.
... people are just fine with talking to automated systems so long as they are aware of the fact that they are not talking to another person ...
Perhaps this isn't the same thing, but ... I much prefer pressing buttons than "talking" to an automated system. It's simpler and more private. (Why would I want to say things that could be overheard -- like in that TV commercial where a guy is saying his credit card number aloud for the automated system... and I'd much rather "Press 1 to speak to the Proctologist" than say "Proctologist" ...) Sure voice systems may allow more varied options and interactions than what can be easily be supported by pressing buttons, but it's super annoying to talk at the phone. Also, I like to reserve my irate vocalizations for my PCs running Windows.
Lastly, I hate systems that combine pressing numbers *and* requiring voice inputs at different, seemingly random, times during the call -- grrr...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Will this work as well as the other voice products if not ?
Bob wants to book at a very popular restaurant.
Best case:
G: I want to book a dinner on behalf of Bob, around 8pm.
R: We are fully booked tonight. Next opening is on the ninth.
G: Thank you, 9pm confirmed for Bob, party of 4.
R: No, we are fully booked tonight.
G: Fully licenced. Thankyou, I will let Bob know. Goodbye, click.
Expected case:
G: I want to book a dinner on behalf of Bob, around 8pm.
R: We are fully booked tonight. Next opening is on the ninth.
G: I do not understand. What does hurdy-hurdy-hurdy-hrm mean?
R: We are fully booked tonight. Next opening is on the ninth.
G: I do not understand. What does hurdy-hurdy-hurdy-hrm mean?
R: We are fully booked tonight. Next opening is on the ninth.
G: I do not understand. What does hurdy-hurdy-hurdy-hrm mean?
R: Fuck you.
G: I want to book a dinner on behalf of Bob, around 8pm.
R: We are fully booked tonight. Next opening is on the ninth.
G: I do not understand. What does hurdy-hurdy-hurdy-hrm mean?
R: You again, fuck off.
G: Five oclock?
R: Fuck you.
G: I want to book a dinner on behalf of Bob, around 8pm.
R: You again. Fuck you. For the love of god, stop calling.
G: I want to book a dinner on behalf of Bob, around 8pm. ...
Anyone want to take a bet how long until the more exclusive restaurants stop accepting robo-bookings and possibly perma-ban people that use them?
Don't know about the announcement, but after listening to the calls I think someone should teach Duplex that round digits in phone numbers are zeros (not the letter o).
I get accused of being a bot on the internet, now I'll get accused of being a bot on the telephone. Some day they'll be pointing fingers at us in real life.
I'm much less concerned about the "omg the person I was talking to wasn't actually a person" and much more about the abuse potential of the whole thing.
A lot of the real world works because as human beings we can generally trust each other, exceptions are rare enough to not break the system and a personal interaction establishes a slim line of bidirectional trust.
If you have access to such a system, and I'm certain they will make it generally available, there's a business there, you can now flood the restaurant or hairdresser etc you didn't like with fake reservations, denying them actual business.
They will have to answer with verification systems, which a) makes everything more complicated for us actual humans and b) adds a small overhead and c) just starts the arms race we already know from IT security.
And that is just the very first thing that comes to mind. Criminals are sure to be more creative than that. These systems are disruptive, and I haven't seen anyone thinking about solutions to that so far. Maybe the world after we solve this will be better than the world now, but it will be a major change. I'm reasonably sure that reservations of all kinds via telephone will go away. When the dust settles, you will no longer call a restaurant to ask for a table. You will tell your smartphone to reserve one, which will then call the restaurants computer, they will manage the verification and validation details in the background and generate a token that you can show at the entrance to get your table.
I'm a tech person, I feel comfortable with that. I would probably prefer it over calling the restaurant and speaking to a real person and we barely understand each other because of the noise in the background, etc. - but many people prefer to actually interact with an actual human being and that will be lost to them.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I believe that all production environment calls (essentially, calls not being made for internal test purposes) from Google's Duplex system should be required by Google to include an initial verbal warning to the called party that they have been called by an automated system, not by a human being -- the exact wording of that announcement to be determined.
OK First this right here is a major hurdle. If you make this thing warn people it's a robocall, most folks will just hang up immediately, thinking it's yet another sales pitch, or free cruise, or health insurance, gawd there's so many now. So this is DOA if it's gotta announce it's automated.
But as a side note, it's going to be amusing when our 'AI's start calling each other to whatever, communicating in simulated english or whatever spoken language the systems in question are trained on.
Obviously the real solution is for your hair stylist and favorite restaurant have some non-verbal mechanism for arranging appointments or reservations or whatever. Obviously every one and every company and every little this and that can't have their own App for achieving this, which is what some larger companies are doing to migrate 'ordering stuff' from humans talking to humans to humans just fondling their portable personal computer.
I'm imagine whomever cobbles such a system together and convinces a large segment of the population to use it is going to be rich. But this Duplex thing? DOA. The stigma surrounding robocalls is all bad, and all deserved I'm afraid.
As the system is recording speech of a person, it can imho be seen as personal data, GDPR bound. Moreover, they probably analyse the data to make automatic calendar entries. That processing by Google in itself requires approval from the person on the other end.
Suffice to say, as a European, if I get a call from Google's system without prior notification and verbal or written agreement from my side, I will record and report it to the authorities for privacy invasion as per the GDPR.
These calls should not be made at all. You can use an appointment API if one is provided, but the phone is off limits for machines. You know this is going to be used to spam restaurant reservations. The second I realize I'm talking to a machine, I will upsell the asshole whose time is too precious to talk to me and waste my time with a robocall instead. You want your agent to do business for you? Prepare to be sucker-punched.
My feeling (this is my feeling and I lay claim to it) is that as technology progresses, the humanity gets leached out of everyday life. People hide from having to talk to a human being by getting Duplex to talk to a human being. Ultimately that other human being feels dehumanised as they take requests from a Duplex. And further, that human being ultimately gets replaced by another Duplex.
Do we have to automate everything? Social interaction is fundamental to our wellbeing as a society.
Perhaps I'm just getting old - but I wonder if the tech evangelists even think about societal impact.
Feels like we're increasingly closer to the day where we need this: https://xkcd.com/632/ Then again, machines can already solve a lot of captcha codes so the point may be moot.
that the author of the blog post has a history of calling out chicken little fashion various obscure edge cases about "problems" with new technology using click-baity headlines like "New Gmail Features That May Be ILLEGAL for You to Use!"
I imagine it'll go much like when I call the bank and get a robot: "Please tell me what you are calling about today" "speak to operator" "sorry, I didn't catch that, you can use phrases such as 'check my balance' or 'order a replacement card'" "speak to operator" "sorry, I..." "SPEAK TO OPERATOR" "sorr..." "FUCK OFF" "sor..." "FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF" "I'll connect you to someone who can help"
I asked a Google presenter at an IO Extended event a similar question - namely, that as a user of Google products, I have consented to interact with Google's software, but someone receiving a call from Google's AI has not consented to being called by a bot.
Their (personal) opinion was that this isn't an issue. A business with a listed phone number that invites calls for the specific purpose of booking appointments/reservations WANTS to receive calls for and on behalf of customers. There's no difference between Google doing a call and a concierge doing a the same call.
I mentioned that I felt there should be some kind of warning, or that the business owner might give a one-time consent even if the front-line employees were unaware, but they stuck to their opinion.
As an aside, it was refreshing that the Google employee was free to share his personal opinion, as he did for several other questions, even when he disagreed with Google's direction.
Since the poster expects full disclosure in life, when posting in dating apps, for example, should women be completely upfront and warn potential mates that they have breast implants, or that they already have a son/daughter from another relationship,or that they are heavily in debt, or they had a gender-changing operation, or that they've spent time in prison, or that they have anger issues, etc, etc????
"Siri, answer the phone."
Garry Knight
Hello, this is one of your masters.
This proposal is pure discrimination against computers and AI.
Just imagine if you tried to push for legislation like this for a human:
"Hi, I'm and I'm calling to schedule an appointment for a client"
Is this really how you want to start off relations with our eventual rulers, with Jim Crow era segregation and discrimination?
Just wait until Comcast or some other major sp(c)ammer gets their grubby mitts on this.
Expect to get phone calls every day as they want to sell you the latest and greatest crap you don't want.
Need to get your internet fixed? Why pay a worker in a call center $0.03/hour to take your call when you can just have duplex do it?
A Robocalls is a Robocall is a Robocall.
"Hello, I am C 3PO, human cyborg relations"
I have two questions about this system which were not demonstrated by either example. How effective is the system at talking with people who don't speak perfect English and what happens when more complicated questions are asked on the other end. How many times have we all been placed on hold or directed to more then one person to answer a question. This systems appears at best to perform mundane tasks at elementary level of complexity.
Why should they? There is no logical reason for them to do so. If the bot works as well in reality as it did in the three demos, thern there is no reason to 'warn' the person on the other end that it is a bot.
Are you aware of the concepts of selection bias and survivorship bias? These are hand picked demos intended to make the technology look as good as possible. I'm deeply dubious it would perform as well under real world conditions.
While I actually prefer not having to talk to a person in a lot of cases, I've never seen a machine or program that could even come close to properly interpreting my requests using voice commands on a reliable basis outside of a few narrow use cases. Presumably this system is better than Siri and equivalents but that's a pretty low bar to set. And if I'm not talking to a human I want to know that fact up front so I can adjust my actions accordingly. Odds are I would figure it out quickly enough anyway but it should be disclosed.
Glad to see they're making some use of the data they mine off of me. I'm not worried that they will use it to impersonate me, because their motto is "Do no evil". I sure hope no one else monkeys around with it,
Bot: Hi, I'd like like to /problem
Human: Ok, who am I speaking with?
Bot: This is Google
Major players aren't stupid enough to try to overtly conceal the fact it's a bot. I'd bet cash-money that they'll all spill the beans under direct questioning.
The problem won't be Google or Amazon, it'll be the next generation of 419 scammers and other unscrupulous individuals who use similar technology to level-up their scams.
Tech-savvy individuals can usually tell a scam email fairly well, assuming it makes it past the automatic filter, but scam callers are a different kettle of fish and I'd argue the average citizen is less well-equipped to recognise and deal with them, especially if there is an human-like AI programmed to emotionally manipulate them.
I'm vaguely worried about this. My kids, now all teens and young adults, have been exposed to unfiltered access to the Internet. Now the creators of the iPhone are having kids, saying "oh shit, what'd I do." This tool worries me , as in the rush to do something cool - and it's very cool - as a society I think we're opening up Pandora's box.
I'm curious if Google has ethical consultants or societal researchers on their staff, asking "yep, cool we can do this. Have we thought this forward to the unintended consequences?"
Example: let's say you're going to one of those restaurants where you pay a 'penalty' for no show (but you, the person instructing the Duplex don't know this); the human mentions this to the Duplex. Is this a valid contract? Who knows?
How does a business that makes you pay a penalty for no show would *actually make you pay* the penalty *when you don't show* ?!
I'm genuinely interested ?
Do they request your credit card information at the moment of the table reservation, the same as hotels with similar penalty do ?
Do they ask for these it *over the phone* ? (remember, the whole purpose of Google Duplex is to give a computer-to-human interface for booking business that still lack any modern reservations system and still rely solely on a human answering the phone)
That would be a gigantic security failure.
(And even technical impossibility: lots of modern European Chip-and-PIN credit card cannot be billed without a second form of confirmation. If it's not a terminal asking for a pin code, nor a website implementing 3DSecure - then either the credit card company calls you directly to confirm or you need to use the card's smartphone app to confirm the transaction out-of-band)
(Which, by the way gives a clear path google :
- simply refuse to book restaurants that ask credit cards information on the phone. Which again, makes sens from a security and technical point of view.
or alternatively :
- give a special credit card number which is operated by google, and insured against fraud and even insured against "no show" as part as a paid-for service to monetize Duplex)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
> With no exceptions so far, the sense of these reactions has confirmed what I suspected -- that people are just fine with talking to automated systems so long as they are aware of the fact that they are not talking to another person.
Let me be the first then. I hate the damn things, and I REALLY can't believe that I am exceptional in that respect.
And when will this apply to robocallers, spammers, and debt collectors who use pre-recorded messages that try to trick people into thinking a human is calling them? Y'know, shit that they've been doing for over a decade and without anyone even raising an eyebrow.
If Google is going to be required to disclose it's an AI call, then all robocallers should have to as well.
Take this example. You're wonderful new toy orders 1,000 pizzas as it believes that your calendar has a party scheduled and that you need food. Love that AI. When in fact your self-correcting Android phone entered the wrong information. So who pays for the mistake? You pay for the 1,000 pizzas as YOU or your agent placed the order.
A silly example but imagine a phone call to the police or any organization and your wonder assistance gives out information that you don't want to give out, like, "This is Dave. Dave isn't hear right now so leave the dope by the back door."
Kids and their toys. Getting funnier everyday to laugh at.
They should introduce themselves like this:
"Hello, this is Google's Duplex, calling for John Doe. John would like a table for two at 6 PM this Saturday....."
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
My city still expects me to show up in town hall with my car registration document in order to get a beach/park permit.
Greetings, friends. Do you wish to look as happy as me? Well, you've got the power inside you right now. So, use it, and send one dollar to Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. Don't delay, eternal happiness is just a dollar away.
There's no need to announce it's an AI. Anyone who's worked phones for customer service before can tell you that when a call is handled quickly and efficiently odds are pretty good it wasn't an actual human. The lack of whiny insistence that they get an appointment during a time that's not available, asking the same question in 3 different ways, and otherwise ignoring what the person helping you is saying will be immediate clues that it's an AI. I would *love* if all the people that call me for tech support would let an AI handle the call instead; it would eliminate a whole lot of frustration and wasted time.
Should calls have warnings? Maybe. No serious arguments were presented as for why it's a good idea, but I'm also not sure there's much of a downside, either. It could be done quickly and painlessly too: just have the first few words out of the robot's mouth sound 1970s roboty before it "clears its throat" and starts talking like a modern robot (i.e. like a human).
But then you went crazy:
[Emphasis mine.] WTF is with you people, who immediately leap from "hey, maybe we should do this" to "do this or else"?
When I saw this, I was thoroughly impressed and I would have no problem if I was called up by a machine. I never once thought about this because it's absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion.
Now you know what annoys me? When I call a business, and an obvious computer says How can I help you? You can say things like .... and makes it obvious that I'm talking to an inept computer that will inherently be useless at getting me where I want to go, and then when a clueless human rep answers and forces me to RE ANSWER EVERY QUESTION .. I'm left super pissed.
Yet, if something calls me like the Duplex that is extremely well spoken, then it's not an issue.
HOWEVER, if it announced itself as a computer, I would have the expectations that I'm about to get pissed off by some lazy person who doesn't want to call me himself.
This would be bad for business, if it was a business, and could lead to Duplex being another "novelty" that stops being used because it annoys people.
I say if anything make it an "option" in the preferences whether or not to warn the person on the other end of the line BUT DON'T FORCE IT.
But I think it would be a grave mistake to include it. Period.
Make the feature good enough that you don't need to tell people they're dealing with a computer.
"Press 1 if you would like me to provide the date first, press 2 if you would like me to provide the time of day first. Presiona 3 para escuchar esto en español"
(beep)
"Thank you. You pressed 2 for the time of day first. If this is correct, please press 1."
(beep)
"Thank you. Please press 1 if you would like the time in 24 hour clock notation. Please press 2 if you would like the time in AM/PM notation."
(boop)
"I'm sorry. That is not a valid option. Please stay on the line and a reservation-maker will be with you shortly."
Opinion 1: Google Duplex is a robocall.
Opinion 2: But it's a good robocall!
Duplex: Hello, this is a good robocall.
Every other losing robocall: Hello, this is a good robocall.
Imagine now... we'll have verbal CAPTCHA's to prove you are not a robot on the phone!
"Thanks for calling. What is 8 divided by 2?"
"4"
"Okay. How can I help you?"
or even...
"Thanks for calling. What is the 28th decimal place of PI?"
"Uh dude I have no clue..."
"Okay you're human. How can I help you?"
Ultimately if google calls up every store in the country and asks "Are you open on your normal hours on memorial day?" and can then put that data into their search results and confirm that they've checked the opening hours then that'll mean less random people calling up to ask the same question.
Same thing when a storm hits, google could call and get updates about whether a business plans to close early and relay that information to the rest of us.
I suppose the problem will be if twenty different companies call to get the exact same information.
If I were running a restaurant or business and I got an 'automated' call from something like this, I'd hang up on it. If it called back I might try demanding to speak to an actual human being, but if that didn't work then I'd just keep hanging up on it. Why, you ask? Because I'd have no way of knowing for sure that the call was legitimate, not some sort of prank, and not the result of some malfunction, unintended activation, or someone hacking someone else's hardware. I'd insist on verification by an actual human being, and I don't think I'm alone on that, regardless of anything Google might have to say about their 'test calls'.
As soon as someone responds, the bot is writing the conversation to memory. How is this not making an illegal recording, regardless of length of storage, in two party consent locations?
As I will hang up on them either manually or via software before they have the opportunity to get that far (trust me, blockers are coming). Bravo on making phone spam into an art, Google. :/ Your collective stupidity, arrogance, and cluelessness are award-worthy. I definitely I also predict this will cease to be a thing within three years. Someone (probably Apple) will counter it with something far less asshole-ish and pathetic.
Eliza? Is that you?