McDonald's AI drive-thru bot accused of breaking biometrics privacy law
theregister.com
theregister.com
That number seems really low to me for a task specific system. i.e. it doesn't need to understand every possible thing someone could say; just the subset of language used to place orders at McDonald's. For reference (https://paperswithcode.com/sota/speech-recognition-on-libris...) SOTA models are at ~5% WER for general speech.
And besides, who wants to order from an AI that's going to fuck up 15% of the time? Compared to a human that error rate is perhaps on-par, but a human has an internal confidence measurement. We know when we've heard something wrong. Speech systems don't really have that (1). So the AI will just blunder forward with your order. I'd much rather interact with a system that says "Sorry, what was that?" 15% of the time (i.e. the current meat based voice recognition that fast food restaurants use) versus a system where I constantly have to check the screen and tell it "Oh, no, sorry, can you fix the, ummm, uhh, we don't want 20 orders of ketchup packets... Oh, god, no we don't want 40 ketchup packets! No our order isn't done! WAIT!"
(1) Yes, you can guess at confidence by measuring the logits, but that doesn't work in practice. It's nowhere near a human's capability to self-measure confidence in our predictions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "that doesn't work in practice" re: using logits. Word-level confidence is pretty useful with GCP Speech-to-Text [1]
[1] https://cloud.google.com/speech-to-text/docs/word-confidence....
Like the other comment points out, models today aren't "calibrated" to give that kind of information. More precisely, we aren't training our models to explicitly tell us how confident they are in their predictions. They're simply trained to give the predictions that result in the lowest average error over the training dataset.
For example, we can consider the simple task of recognizing the words "yes" or "no". A naive model could return (0%, 100%) all the time (always guess "no") and, if the dataset is balanced, would get a score of 50%. Another naive model could return (50%, 50%) all the time and get the same score, 50%. Yet in practice we'd rather have the latter model because it better expresses that model's level of confidence. The former model, even though it gets the same average error rate, expresses a level of confidence in its answers that isn't there.
As of today, we only train models on the overall error rate, so our training methods don't prefer one kind of output over the other. That's why measuring the logits to guesstimate confidence isn't actually a good metric. It just happens to accidentally be one sometimes.
A speech recognition model might get to the same WER as a human, but humans are keenly aware of when they didn't hear a word right. That's invaluable information to a food ordering system which can then respond by asking for clarification, rather than blindly following its "best guess" which results in the aforementioned ordering of 40 ketchup packets.
And as far as I'm aware there are no loss functions for training confidence measurements into a system, so this is very much an unsolved problem in speech recognition systems.
I suspect they mean they ML models are usually poorly calibrated and that the softmax-over-logits probabilities generally don't reflect actually error rates, so they're tough to use meaningfully for asking people to repeat themselves.
Personally, if I have to deal with an automated order system, I'd rather some kind of search tree that let's me traverse it using three (left, right, back) well separated noises and a "dumb" back-end instead of having to pretend a ML system and I are having the meeting of the minds that a voice based discussion implies.
I understand that such a system would be hard or impossible to train lay-people to use, but it would be nice to have a "cut the crap" option to let people interface more effectively with the order system and not take part in the charade of a "discussion"
Do SOTA results measure performance in difficult environments though?
Presumably dealing with people talking out of their car window next to a busy road would be a lot more difficult than dealing with a relatively clear audio recording.
EDIT: It looks like the linked results are for an audio book dataset. That seems like an optimal environment where you’re going to get clear enunciation with minimal background noise.
However, I will never order from a voice-driven AI system. If that is the choice, then I decline. I don't use it in any other area of my life, in fact I cannot stand talking to computers despite using them professionally as a career. When I call someplace and have to speak to a computer I mumble jibberish until the system gives up and transfers me to a human. I'm a human, I want to speak to other humans, not computers.
Someone should deploy a voice-producing AI to interface with companies' voice-processing AIs so I can order from the command line or from an app.
I mostly just press * (sometimes zero) until it gives up and connects me to a human. I will never speak anything to a computer.
Same here. I learned to cook and spice foods properly when I finally decided to go on a diet. I love making foods spiced just the way I like them. Now I can barely eat at McDonalds because the food is hideous - fat, sugar & salt that starts me craving and leaves me feeling sick.
Ultimately things are moving towards the end of privacy and even (within 50? 100 years?) the end of ownership. I don't see how a civilization that can - easily and with currently available means - house, clothe and feed everyone on the planet, can sometimes be so lost on petty issues as we do (myself included).
I'm more concerned with the health hazards posed by modern technology and industrial processes - but that's me and the reality I subscribe to.
The "elites" (sorry for the boogeyman word Overton window'd out of acceptable use, but it's accurate) own more and more, know more and more about you and your peers, and you still don't know anything about them, or have any democratic control over them.
For someone presumably working in the information industry, calling privacy a petty issue is an interesting opinion, when data is the underlying lifeblood of most of our businesses.
Can you not see the dangers that, as you are profiled, and data gets correlated across providers, you will be subject to levels of discrimination you can not foresee ?
Some simple examples:
- You live at a certain location and looking to move ? A certain provider will decide not to show you jobs if you happen to live at a certain neighborhood ( Already happening...)
- You live at a neighborhood somehow less respectable, or respectable but where inhabitants are considered more prone to have car accidents ? -> Your car insurance will be more expensive
- You are deemed to cruise through McDonalds once in a while ? -> Your health insurance will be more expensive...
- You happen to be correlated to a certain group a people due to data location ? Even if you do not know these persons ? ->You are likely to be inquired by the police if you know anything or have seen anything ...
-> You share when you have your meals or you consume less meals ? - You will be classified as probably part of a certain religious group
- You spend a certain time in a certain hospital department ? -> Your current health status will be shared with your current employer, dooming your chances of promotion...
-You spend a certain amount time at certain bars, entertainment venues or restaurants within your town ? -> Your sexual preferences will be inferred...
Privacy guarantees,liberty and peace, plus societal opportunities are the defining fights of these times. To see a statement like this, frankly inspires both sadness and concern.
I think it more likely the acceleration of ownership. Near-infinite copyright, patented math, the trend has been more greatly in one direction than the other. Even the nature of FOSS/Creative Commons relies on this (even as many suppose it to be breaking free of it). (As someone from some documentary I can't fully recall put it: we will not be free and the world will not be fixed until every square inch of it is owned privately.)
In previous western society, it was acceptable to own the physical human being. The investment was in ontology. But now the investment is moving towards epistemology. People are data. Own the data, own people.
You cannot move towards the end of privacy without losing control over your thoughts.
In the world you're describing, everything everyone says will be recorded. Neural networking will be used to process tone and read body language to determine your thoughts before you even consciously recognize them. As a child you will be trained to recognize and halt bad thinking subconsciously.
Consider the episode of The Office where Jim is offered the position of branch manager, and he turns it down because he thinks everything's working fine without a branch manager so why have one?
Never pass up the chance to take an active role in sustaining a good thing. If you feel the balance of privacy is good today, take an active role to ensure it slips no further, or else someone with more ambition than you will gladly push that point along the line a little further.
We'll all be toothless sooner or later. Why not abolish dental hygiene and medicine altogether? Think of the savings.
Yeah we've actually already tried that a few times. It's never ended well.
the end of ownership
An analogy could be that 100 years ago the outrage was over women wearing revealing clothing and how it would affect the purity of society, but now attitudes have changed and now we barely blink an eye.
Saving my "Favorites" and the deals giving $3 off makes up for the mildly clunky app performance. Being able to take everyone's order before leaving the house is also nice.
-----
BIPA) states: “No private entity may collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person's or a customer's biometric identifier or biometric information.” unless it receives written consent.
...
Under the BIPA, people can receive up to $5,000 in damages from private entities for each violation committed “intentionally or recklessly,”
-------
Unless I'm missing something people in Illinois should get Amazon Echoes or Halos which both "voiceprint" users and then sue Amazon to collect their 5k reward.
Seems like they could've added QR code + online ordering to each of their parking spots instead but I guess AI is cool too.
Order ahead is available from the app, but I wouldn't be surprised if regular audio is actually faster in most cases.
Also, order verification is nice with a kiosk (for now). If I want something without pickles, I can see that right in front of me. It seems like every drive-thru and PoS that has a display which can provide order feedback has switched to displaying ads to buy some other product. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before the kiosks start to have modals which have to be cleared to continue with the order: Have you tried the hot apple pie? How are you enjoying the kiosk experience? Really, the people doing these things can never resist.
If you want to see a group that has their technical shit together, check out Chik-Fil-A.
Honestly this (cross-country ordering and payment) is one of the things Uber Eats does really well, but you definitely pay a price premium for it over, say, the Starbucks or McDonalds apps.
In addition, the McDonald's drive-thru is iconic, and the stickiness of that part of the brand means it won't go away soon.