Did Google's Duplex Testing Break the Law? (daringfireball.net)

An anonymous reader writes: Tech blogger John Gruber appears to have successfully identified one of the restaurants mentioned in a post on Google's AI blog that bragged about "a meal booked through a call from Duplex." Mashable then asked a restaurant employee there if Google had let him know in advance that they'd be receiving a call from their non-human personal assistant AI. "No, of course no," he replied. And "When I asked him to confirm one more time that Duplex had called...he appeared to get nervous and immediately said he needed to go. He then hung up the phone."

John Gruber now asks: "How many real-world businesses has Google Duplex been calling and not identifying itself as an AI, leaving people to think they're actually speaking to another human...? And if 'Victor' is correct that Hong's Gourmet had no advance knowledge of the call, Google may have violated California law by recording the call." Friday he added that "This wouldn't send anyone to prison, but it would be a bit of an embarrassment, and would reinforce the notion that Google has a cavalier stance on privacy (and adhering to privacy laws)."
The Mercury News also reports that legal experts "raised questions about how Google's possible need to record Duplex's phone conversations to improve its artificial intelligence may come in conflict with California's strict two-party consent law, where all parties involved in a private phone conversation need to agree to being recorded."

For another perspective, Gizmodo's senior reviews editor reminds readers that "pretty much all tech demos are fake as hell." Speaking of Google's controversial Duplex demo, she writes that "If it didn't happen, if it is all a lie, well then I'll be totally disappointed. But I can't say I'll be surprised."

Comments

The Definition:

[Barny]

Conversation, noun:

A talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.

How many people were involved? Or are we already granting AI status as a person?

From all the available (I don't live in the US) law information I can find, CONVERSATION seems to be a key word in all of it.

Re:The Definition:

[Anubis IV]

So, two things:

1) The actual law refers to communications, not conversations, so the fact that there was a biological person on only one side of the call doesn’t matter. Communication still occurred.

2) Duplex acts on Google’s behalf and Google falls under the definition of “person” according to the law. It’s no different than when you work through an automated phone system and they warn you that the call may be recorded. Whether it’s an AI or a simple automated system, it’s still just a tool being used by the “person” on that end of the line.

But that actually raises an interesting point to consider: are these robocalls, and if so, do they run afoul of federal regulations against robocalls?

Who cares?

[PopeRatzo]

Laws don't matter any more. Break 'em or not, if nobody's going to do anything about it, go right ahead. I'm getting that directly from the top.

Lets beat the this dead horse

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares.

Turing Test

[Anonymous Coward]

Is everyone else here missing that the Turing Test has been at least partially solved? Google has AI that humans cannot distinguish from real people (in limited interaction).