Google Executive Addresses Horrifying Reaction To Uncanny AI Tech (bloomberg.com)

The most talked-about product from Google's developer conference earlier this week -- Duplex -- has drawn concerns from many. At the conference Google previewed Duplex, an experimental service that lets its voice-based digital assistant make phone calls and write emails. In a demonstration on stage, the Google Assistant spoke with a hair salon receptionist, mimicking the "ums" and "hmms" pauses of human speech. In another demo, it chatted with a restaurant employee to book a table. But outside Google's circles, people are worried; and Google appears to be aware of the concerns. From a report: "Horrifying," Zeynep Tufekci, a professor and frequent tech company critic, wrote on Twitter about Duplex. "Silicon Valley is ethically lost, rudderless and has not learned a thing." As in previous years, the company unveiled a feature before it was ready. Google is still debating how to unleash it, and how human to make the technology, several employees said during the conference. That debate touches on a far bigger dilemma for Google: As the company races to build uncanny, human-like intelligence, it is wary of any missteps that cause people to lose trust in using its services.

Scott Huffman, an executive on Google's Assistant team, said the response to Duplex was mixed. Some people were blown away by the technical demos, while others were concerned about the implications. Huffman said he understands the concerns. Although he doesn't endorse one proposed solution to the creepy factor: Giving it an obviously robotic voice when it calls. "People will probably hang up," he said.

[...] Another Google employee working on the assistant seemed to disagree. "We don't want to pretend to be a human," designer Ryan Germick said when discussing the digital assistant at a developer session earlier on Wednesday. Germick did agree, however, that Google's aim was to make the assistant human enough to keep users engaged. The unspoken goal: Keep users asking questions and sharing information with the company -- which can use that to collect more data to improve its answers and services.

Comments

Ian

[Sejus]

Your programmers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.

Re:Ian

[deong]

"Scientist" is nonsensically vague here. I have a PhD in Computer Science. I've had jobs where my title was "Sr. Research Scientist". I worked with an atmospheric science research group in graduate school, so I feel like I'm probably above average in terms of climate knowledge for computer scientists, but you absolutely shouldn't care what I think about climate change. I don't have the expertise to provide reliably correct information there.

What matters is that an overwhelming majority of *climate* scientists agree that climate change is caused by man. Those are the people with the relevant expertise. But similarly, they have no special claim to authority when it comes to the dangers of ML. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, etc., are not people who automatically deserve consideration of their opinions on areas outside their expertise. Today, there aren't a large number of scientists with expertise in AI or ML who are worried about these existential threats. We're almost universally much more concerned about things like the economic impact of continued growth in automation.

Re:Ian

[religionofpeas]

Google is unleashing a technology that will be replicated in one or two years everywhere.

Even if Google didn't do it, it's only a matter of time before you'll see it everywhere. Whether you like it or not, this kind of technology is just going to happen.

Professional “critic”

[JaredOfEuropa]

Silicon Valley is ethically lost, rudderless and has not learned a thing

Wow, exaggerate much? All that may be true, mind. But using such hyperbole when voicing concerns does nothing for the guy’s credibility. He comes across as someone who has already made up his mind about SV companies a long time ago, and sees every new issue only as something that confirms his fears, as something that’s part of a bigger plot to rape the planet and enslave humanity.

Instant hang-up

[Brett Buck]

Their only option is to make it mimic and impersonate human voice. If it sounds very good, and there is an announcement that it is robotic, no need, but people will hang up immediately just like any other robo-call. If it sounds obviously robotic, instant hang-up. The only way it works is if they can fake it long enough to get some information, and don't let anyone know about it.

    Essentially, the only value to Google is if they trick people into using it.

Re:Avoiding the question is answering the question

[Junta]

In this context, it's calling a business as a potential customer. Hanging up on what from all appearances is a potential customer is a good way not to have a job anymore. In fact, even if it is not a human but is calling to arrange the business of a real human customer, it's probably still a bad move to hang up.

Re:Phone CAPTCHAs

[koick]

Or tell a non-joke:

Human: Knock-knock
Duplex: Um, who's there?
Human: Banana
Duplex: Um, banana who?
Human: Green
Duplex: Ha-ha, that's great. Now about that reservation...

Whining for no reason

[micahraleigh]

Worrying is something PEOPLE do ... not circumstances.

These people should stop blaming technology for their gripes.

If they don't like duplex OK ... try and persuade me why I shouldn't like it either.

Please don't waste my time with weasel push-pieces that say, "Let's scrap this because someone is worried".