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.

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.

Ignoring the actual problem

[Headw1nd]

The issue of deception is only a part of the actually worrisome part about this technology. The real issue is that it creates an imbalance of effort, which is exactly what we have been fighting with spam emails. With either method, minimal effort on my part can cause another person to use up a significant chunk of their time. Google is displaying this technology in a situation where that would be considered acceptable, because the outcome is profitable for the person taking the appointment, but what if it wasn't? This technology could easily be used for both parasitic purposes such as sales calls, and outright hostile purposes such as tying up phone lines with seemingly benign callers. The fundamental issue is that when a human knows they are speaking to another human, they can assume that each has a similar opportunity cost for the time spent in the conversation. A machine has no such costs, and the transaction is inherently lopsided. I think this is what the push for identification stems from, the basic need for the two parties to be on (relatively) equal footing.