Google's 'Duplex' System Will Identify Itself When Talking To People, Says Google (businessinsider.com)
Google's "Duplex" AI system was the most talked about product at Google I/O because it called into question the ethics of an AI that cannot easily be distinguished from a real person's voice. The service lets its voice-based digital assistant make phone calls and write emails for you, causing many to ask if the system should come with some sort of warning to let the other person on the line know they are talking to a computer. According to Business Insider, "a Google spokesperson confirmed [...] that the creators of Duplex will 'make sure the system is appropriately identified' and that they are 'designing this feature with disclosure built-in.'" From the report: Here's the full statement from Google: "We understand and value the discussion around Google Duplex -- as we've said from the beginning, transparency in the technology is important. We are designing this feature with disclosure built-in, and we'll make sure the system is appropriately identified. What we showed at I/O was an early technology demo, and we look forward to incorporating feedback as we develop this into a product."
Google CEO Sundar Pichai preemptively addressed ethics concerns in a blog post that corresponded with the announcement earlier this week, saying: "It's clear that technology can be a positive force and improve the quality of life for billions of people around the world. But it's equally clear that we can't just be wide-eyed about what we create. There are very real and important questions being raised about the impact of technology and the role it will play in our lives. We know the path ahead needs to be navigated carefully and deliberately -- and we feel a deep sense of responsibility to get this right." In addition, several Google insiders have told Business Insider that the software is still in the works, and the final version may not be as realistic (or as impressive) as the demonstration.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai preemptively addressed ethics concerns in a blog post that corresponded with the announcement earlier this week, saying: "It's clear that technology can be a positive force and improve the quality of life for billions of people around the world. But it's equally clear that we can't just be wide-eyed about what we create. There are very real and important questions being raised about the impact of technology and the role it will play in our lives. We know the path ahead needs to be navigated carefully and deliberately -- and we feel a deep sense of responsibility to get this right." In addition, several Google insiders have told Business Insider that the software is still in the works, and the final version may not be as realistic (or as impressive) as the demonstration.
Somehow, I don't think those making complaints about this work phones in retail businesses. The demo was vastly more articulate and had better manners than most human callers to businesses. For those users with heavy accents or ESL users, this would be a nice accessibility feature.
I can see this being useful anywhere an executive used to use a secretary in the old days. For example, the meeting organization functions in calendar programs are rarely used. This could move them to a useful level where the assistant calls the parties involved and negotiates what might work. It could even make the calls simultaneously though a worst schedule first approach might work better.
In some use cases such as verifying store hours, it is going to reduce the numbers of calls the store has to handle. My wife was working in a store on Easter and said that the already overworked staff was answering the phone almost continuously all day to say the store was open. On New Year's Day this year, I called a store to ask that same question. They picked up the phone, said "we're open" without waiting for me to talk, and hung up.
As to it violating "recording" laws, we obviously need to rewrite them. It is ridiculous to require that a person be paid to make these calls. Would a transcription device for a deaf person be considered a "recording device" under these same laws? What happens when we start getting cyber implants to help us remember things?
I'd rather the law move towards treating assistants as personal extensions and giving them all the rights and protections of the person they are extending at the moment.