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.

8 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 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?

    2. 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 :-/

    3. 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
    4. 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.

  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.
  3. 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.