Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should Calls From Google's 'Duplex' System Include Initial Warning Announcements? (vortex.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the heads-up dept.

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.

22 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by LetterRip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, it is in Google's best interest to not announce it and to just pass it off as human if they can possibly do so. If the person is told something unexpected (if they don't know what Google Assistant is) they may very well get confused, or may insist on not dealing with it. Then Google Assistant has already failed ad that call. And if it fails at enough calls users will stop using this function entirely as it is unreliable. The reliability of Google Duplex requires the people it talks to to be just as reliable as the Google Assistant end. Sometimes the best way to accomplish that is to Keep It Simple. No need to communicate details that are ultimately irrelevant.

      Of course, as others have pointed out there might be legal aspects to this, such as recording laws and laws about robocalls. I can't speak to those.

    2. Re:Why? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should they?

      Because getting jerked around by a computer sucks. Doubleplus so if it's one pretending to be a human.

      I legitimately feel sorry for service workers who are going to have to take orders from Duplex. It seems oddly dehumanizing to be ordered around by a machine.

    3. Re:Why? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      Expectations mean a lot.

      I think people are already getting used to calls from chatbots. I have received several. I didn't realize they weren't human until I went "off script" and the bot said "Let me get someone to help you with that."

      Google is doing something that may be iteratively better, with a deeper flowchart, but it is not really new.

      In the near future, people will just presume that any call from a business is a chatbot. We will have our own chatbots to deal with them. Hopefully, they will be able to resolve most issues without involving a human on either end.

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      uhh. YES THEY SHOULD have a warning at the very start of the call..

      not only is it a computer, operated by a third party, pretending to be a person.. but also, GOOGLE IS RECORDING THE CALLS (not everyone is in a 'one party' jurisdiction) and such a notice would be ***REQUIRED BY LAW***

    5. Re:Why? by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because getting jerked around by a computer sucks.

      Implying you're getting jerked around. If this computer is no different than a human, then hang up on them if you're being jerked around. Or maybe they are making an appointment with you for their owner.

      Do you hate secretaries too?

    6. Re:Why? by cyba · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > I legitimately feel sorry for service workers who are going to have to take orders from Duplex.
      > It seems oddly dehumanizing to be ordered around by a machine.

      Soon all these service workers will be replaced by Duplex (or its competitor) as well, so it will be only some other AI that will get dehumanized :-/

    7. Re:Why? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That was my reaction too, but on reflection it's actually quite complex.

      Where do you draw the line? What if it's someone with a disability using assistive technology to set up an appointment. Should they be required to disclose their disability to you in order to get permission to use a digital assistant?

      We are a long way from strong AI, but the parallels with how certain groups were treated in the past is striking. Some people expect trans people to declare themselves and their anatomy up front, for example.

      If this stuff doesn't matter then we have to ask if AI vs. human matters, or if other things like politeness and efficient and effective communication are.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Why? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I legitimately feel sorry for service workers who are going to have to take orders from Duplex. It seems oddly dehumanizing to be ordered around by a machine.

      I spend all day being fed bug reports from a machine. And yet even though the message was delivered to my by our bug tracking software, it ultimately originated from the intent of a human being.

      I spend all day responding to emails (and posts on /.) delivered by a machine. But I assume that you are not a bot and that even though this interaction was mediated by machines, it serves our common human purpose.

      When I worked in food service, I spent all day being ordered to prepare food by tiny slips of paper with horrible handwriting on one of those turny-things. I hope that the food being made was ultimately consumed by humans though.

      At the end, you seem to be arguing that it is more dehumanizing to be relayed orders by a machine that emulates flapping meat sounds in meat-English as opposed to receiving those orders by reading off a computer screen or on a slip of paper. Perhaps you are right (after all, this is subjective) but it seems that the crux of your claim is that voice is different, not that you are 'ordered around by a machine'.

    9. Re:Why? by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right.... I just want a law that any chatbot used on the telephone must NOT attempt to lie or deceive and MUST answer truthfully, in particular, when asked questions about the call or itself, Must answer all such questions to the full extent without hanging up the call, attempting to misdirect, or attempting to transfer the call to another person or line, such as "Is this an automatic call?", "Do I have an account with your company?", "Is this call a solicitation or sales call?", "Are you a chatbot?", and, about the company that made or accepted the call, and about the chatbot operator's client whom they are making the call on behalf of, and the listing of any chain of 3rd parties engaging the client --- the Chatbot must provide their complete name, Addresses, and Registered agent names and addresses for All upon request.

    10. Re:Why? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      What makes you think a machine can enter a legally binding contract?

      Your secretary making the call on your behalf to setup an appointment or order goods does not enter you into a legally binding contract, either --- it's a good faith order, but not binding until goods or money have been exchanged and accepted by the otherparty.

      In this case, the contract is not "made" until you receive goods or make payment.

  2. They all have the same name by lazarus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:They all have the same name by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone who's worked in retail would probably tell you they'd prefer the bot.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:They all have the same name by Bongo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A business might have a policy that they neeed to talk to a real person. Automated calls could be the result of malware. Someone could DDOS a small business, filling their booking with fake entries for weeks.

  3. Self-importance alert. by ColaMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. Hangups by sgunhouse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hangups by LetterRip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At first thought, anyway, this "Duplex" thing rather annoys me. If the "person" on whose behalf the bot is calling doesn't feel it is worth their time to speak to me directly, why should I have to waste my time talking to their bot?

      This bot makes reservations. As an employee of the company that the reservation is being made at, you wouldn't be "wasting your time" - you would be doing your job.

    2. Re:Hangups by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I completely agree. But there are times where Duplex could be useful.

      "Ok Google, call the radio show. I need to be the 99th caller to win.", "Ok Google, buy me this ticket for this show before it gets sold out.", "Ok Google, call Xfinity, pretend that I want to move to AT&T unless they cut me a new discounted rate", "Ok Google, pretend you're an elderly woman and waste as much of this scammer's time as possible.", "Ok Google, please pick up whenever my mother-in-law calls. Tell her I am busy. Ask her what she wants and send me a summary of her complaints by SMS."

  5. Re:cut out the people by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If a Duplex realizes it's talking to another Duplex, will it go into 56K modem mode and just talk electronically?

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  6. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to the latest LLVM debacle, yes. White males like me are indeed being specifically singled out, targeted, and attacked. It is hateful, racist and has as much place in our society as any other gender or racial bias.

    Or are you saying it is okay to discriminate against me? Because that is the vibe I am getting from google and many others. I have never discriminated against anyone before and I'll be damned if I will let it happen to me.

    Your not the first one to say that I am 'crying' because I am white, *hint* your still a racist asshole no matter who your being racist against.

    Figuring it is A-OKAY because I am white just proves my point.

  7. Observer Effect by mykro76 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Obvious Google baloney by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > 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.