Hacker News Reader

Comment by justonepost | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that computers will now be interacting with people and people will become unsure of whether they are taking to a computer or a person. It will create a bewildering world full of mistrust. I would argue that there should be a law proclaiming that computers must identify themselves.

View on HN

They're not unaware of this concern. From the article:

> The Google Duplex technology is built to sound natural, to make the conversation experience comfortable. It’s important to us that users and businesses have a good experience with this service, and transparency is a key part of that. We want to be clear about the intent of the call so businesses understand the context. We’ll be experimenting with the right approach over the coming months.

So they indicate that they are aware of the problem - and instead of doing a straight-forward "hey, I'm a bot", their suggested strategies are "being clear about the intent of the call" and "experiment with the right approach over the coming months"?

To me that quote sounds more like a polite way of saying they definitely won't reveal to callers that they are talking with a bot than them taking the concern seriously.

Some of the conversation examples on the blog page where they invent a sort of story for the caller ("I'm calling for a client") would fit that theory.

People are prejudiced against talking to bots because of how bad they are currently. I despise calling services that have voice recognition, often times it's easier to have an options menu.

If they can get a way of saying "I'm a bot" without people hanging up the calls, I'm all for it -- otherwise, "I'm calling for a client" or similar is the best for everyone involved (assuming everything works).

Businesses also need to have a way to report problems to Google, like if they are getting spammed by Duplex or want to opt out.

> People are prejudiced against talking to bots because of how bad they are currently

I'm prejudiced against talking to bots because they're bots. They don't have empathy, whereas from voice interaction I expect a human I can relate to and desire to help and be courteous with. It's a fundamentally different type of interaction and I will be annoyed anytime that one is confused for the other.

Well, bad news: all the (presumed) humans I've talked to on any scripted call are worse than bots: they do have empathy, but the script forbids them to use it. An out-and-out bot is free from this prison, at the very least.

How about something like "I'm an automated agent calling for a client" - correct, not misleading, but using terminology which isn't likely to be immediately disconnected _right now_.

Of course, if they screw it up, they'll burn that terminology too.

Yeah, something like "Hello, I'm Rogers' Assistant..." to fit current Google naming conventions would probably be fine.

From the samples I've heard, it's trying to sound natural. Hello Uncanny valley, long time no hear.

If we accept your premise that bots become so close to humans that they are virtually indistinguishable, then at that point does it matter who the "person" on the other end of the line is? I'd argue it doesn't because the outcome would be the same.

I think there will always be a difference. When I'm talking to someone, there's an emotional connection and responsiveness there. I'm trying to help a human out -- I'm putting effort into being polite, into considering their point of view etc.

If I found out that they were a robot (this is probably unpreventable; even if the technology gets amazing, surely there will be edge-case breakdowns/bugs/etc.), my trust is broken. That would have an emotional consequence e.g. frustration.

There will always be amazing technology wielded by awful developers, and in this case the outcome is emotionally hazardous. The impact of that is not easy to quantify e.g. by any economic indicators, but it's there.

Also, it's likely that robots will not be as polite back, so we're degrading society's trust and empathy all around. For example, Google's AI call to a restaurant was rude, and not for reasons it seems to yet understand.

What happens then if I'm a human that masquerades as a computer? Seems like a neat way of explaining away a number of social faux pas or drunk-dialling. "Me? Noooo... that must have been my PhoneBot 2000. Supposedly the next firmware update should solve that kind of problem."

That said, I don't necessarily disagree; there is going to need to be lots of these kind of issues that need sorting out before we reach a Culture-level of AI interaction.

Phoning like this you already have to wonder if the person on the end is an idiot who will screw stuff up. I'm not sure it maybe being a google bot will make much difference.

If you can't tell whether you're talking to a computer, does it matter?

Not sure why you're using future tense here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com