Slashdot Mirror
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.
I was looking forward to having a bit of fun trying to identify robocaller vs a real human being.
As in, in the middle of the conversation, drop something completely unexpected like "What is the answer to life, the universe and everything plus one?"
A human would give the correct answer - or at least go "Uuh? What's that got to do with anything?" A robocaller would politely say "I'm sorry Sir, I'm not sure I understand your question...", indicating to me that it's time to hang up because I don't want to interact with Google's dystopia.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
If you don't like to be robocalled, don't robocall others.
can't wait to have my inbox swamped with recommendations from my peers.....
It's awesome that in the future 90% of phone calls will be be
Robot voice: This call is from Google Assistant.
Human voice: Yeah, um, Hi $valued_cutomer, I'd like to, um, tell you about our new next-um-generation product. When would be a good time to, um, schedule a demo?
Me: Oh bugger off
Human voice: uh-huh
Human voice: So Tuesday next week?
Even if it identifies itself as a bot, it would still count as an illegal robocall. Except for political campaign and charity calls, the first thing you hear when you answer your phone cannot legally be anything but a live person; possibly a live person asking your permission to listen to a recorded message or bot.
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.
Hi, yes, my name is Bobby DropTables and... hello? hello?
rewriting history since 2109
My concern with these type of human imitation is not on the personal assistant side but on the robocall sales side. Telemarketers already have some rudimentary human type robocalls trying to fool you, if and when they get their hands on these bots answering any unknown call will turn to hell.
~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s
Imagine how much people would upsell for these?
"yes you can have your binding reservation.. thres gouch fee of oucchh threefifty for the reservation, you can have the best table of the place, okay?"
the thing is, that you're putting an automated machine to make agreements/arrangements on your behalf. either way it's going to go sour at some point. it's hard to find even humans capable of the task - and if you can't make agreements on such a call, it's useless since that was the whole point of the call.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The automatic call could generate a particular tone, clearly recognizable. Like this: http://cdn2.goughlui.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/V17-14400bps-nonECM.wav. Bonus point if the called system is a computer it could switch to a digital mode and eventually ask for an encoded image representing the request. If a person answers the call it could also manually activate the image printer. Win!
I can't believe they caved. I mean, after firing their engineers because they have different political viewpoints than their uber-politically-correct executives, I would actually bet that they would, but it is disheartening.
There were some who were tripped out traveling so fast on trains when they first came out. In fact, the mayor of NYC cautioned people against trains, claiming they would suffocate from traveling too quickly. This is just like that. Some people will rage against it, but you have to stand by your work. There was nothing unethical these bots were doing.
Google just invented something awesome. Others will build similar bots, and not be so spineless in its deployment. Who cares if its a bot you are talking to? You need the human to perform a task, you interact with said human using a bot, you get the task done. Where is the ethics concern other than after the fact, the human would feel stupid for not identifying the bot as a bot?
You are suffiently ignorant to run a restaurant without online order and reservation system in 2018. But Google is supplying these for you for free rather than customers just going elsewhere with UberEats or OpenTable. Rather than grumbling about having to talk to a robot to get paid, get a hint and give customers a way to do business with you without having to spend 20 minutes on hold and then listen to your thick accent.
As evidenced by Google's refusal to do business with payday loan and bail bondsmen.
Or evidenced by Google's conveniently leaving out the ability for Google home to answer "Who is Jesus Christ?"
Which is all personally fine by me because if Google refuses to do business with certain segments of the population there certainly will be others who will.....
Caution: Contents under pressure
For further training and without permission of the person called? To some extent the software has to know what the content of the call was also, which could also be stored, and sold and accessed by businesses and law enforcement.