Live data from Hacker News

No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

tomshardware.com

91–100 of 135 posts

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#91
post #5

I like to be clear on whether I'm interacting with a human or a bot because different social conventions apply. If you're human, I'll treat you like one, and that means giving you some consideration at the expense of expediency. If you're a bot, let's just cut to the fucking chase. So a bot that acts like a human (with hems and haws) is just wasting my time. Ditto a human being that has been reduced to a bot by follo…

There seem to be a whole bunch of software folks afflicted with a fear of human interaction.

Hence this product which does not solve any compelling problem, except for those scared or stressed by human interaction. Not only is this deceptive and unethical, many will now be suspicious of calls with strangers.

For Pichai to dehumanize this poor girl and not even realise it confirms the worst fears of a disconnected technical community. What others may see as a sterile cold dystopia lacking human warmth many in software find attractive.

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#92
post #5

I like to be clear on whether I'm interacting with a human or a bot because different social conventions apply. If you're human, I'll treat you like one, and that means giving you some consideration at the expense of expediency. If you're a bot, let's just cut to the fucking chase. So a bot that acts like a human (with hems and haws) is just wasting my time. Ditto a human being that has been reduced to a bot by follo…

> So a bot that acts like a human (with hems and haws) is just wasting my time.

Duplex largely uses hems and haws like humans do - to signal that they're thinking about what to say next.

The system also sounds more natural thanks to the incorporation of speech disfluencies (e.g. “hmm”s and “uh”s). These are added when combining widely differing sound units in the concatenative TTS or adding synthetic waits, which allows the system to signal in a natural way that it is still processing. (This is what people often do when they are gathering their thoughts.) In user studies, we found that conversations using these disfluencies sound more familiar and natural.

https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natur...

Natural-sounding TTS improves the accuracy of speech recognition, because people tend to speak in an unnatural and over-enunciated style when they know they're talking to a bot.

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#94
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are they being "subjected" to? Presumably the conversation will go similarly to how it would with a person? We aren't talking about spam calls, just a difference of who does the talking. This will increase business for places where people wouldn't want to go through the effort of calling themselves. For email how will you know if I auto-completed my sentence or typed it? You are free to not use the feature, and…

I suspect people who made Comcast's telephone system had exactly the same notion. Feel free to experience it yourself at 1-800-COMCAST.

I suspect they didn't - Google's notion is a human-like conversation with a real person to accomplish a simple goal on the user's behalf. Comcast's notion is to make it as hard as possible for a user to accomplish their goal (cancelling, switching, complaining).

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#95
To me, the biggest issue with writing an email with this auto suggest is that I think it'll take me longer to write the email that way rather than just writing it.

Maybe I'm wrong, since I haven't tried it, but I feel like I'd have to pause every time I'd see a suggestion to think if it is actually what I'm trying to say, rather than just writing what I'm trying to say anyway.

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes it so different from canned text messages?

The worst I've seen there is the sort of shortcut when your phone rings to automatically say you can't talk at the moment. It's not the same as having custom canned messages written even on a desktop client.

I have an Android Wear watch and it offers a menu of canned responses to messages that I make pretty good use of.

Gmail has also had canned response buttons in the Android app for a while now.

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#99
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect people who made Comcast's telephone system had exactly the same notion. Feel free to experience it yourself at 1-800-COMCAST.

I suspect they didn't - Google's notion is a human-like conversation with a real person to accomplish a simple goal on the user's behalf. Comcast's notion is to make it as hard as possible for a user to accomplish their goal (cancelling, switching, complaining).

This is an unfortunate trend I continue to see: Where a company with a positive reputation, say Google, is given the most altruistic read on what their decision is for, and a company with a negative reputation, like Comcast, is assumed to be evil.

Many people's issues are, in fact, solved by the Comcast automated system. Generally if you call in to report an outage, and it knows that there's an outage associated with your area already based on the phone number you call from, it'll drop you out of the tech support queue, let you know that the outage is there, and what time it is expected to be resolved. This is the most common reason I call Comcast, and most of the time, it's an outage they already knew about, so this saves me time. (Of course, the times the line just to my building was severed, getting to an actual human to explain my problem is much, much harder.)

Similarly, all of the automated features to trigger remote resets of your modem have been implemented specifically so that if you have a simple problem (as most people do), you can get it quickly and automatically resolved without having to wait for an available human. I know how to reset my own dang modem, so this just adds another burdensome and annoying step for me... but for the average user, it's probably wildly successful at concluding calls. I assume.

But sometimes, when you or I call, we probably have more specific or detailed needs, and find this entire process absolutely horrific to suffer through. But surely, just like the Googlers who thought Duplex was a good idea, someone at Comcast realized it would drastically reduce call volume and speed response time if an automated system could do simple tasks automatically.

Similarly, Duplex will probably do it's job: It'll make it easier for people who don't want to be bothered to make a phone call to schedule an appointment. It'll reduce their call volume. But the humans who have to interface with it will likely find it exasperating.

Re: No Thanks, Google. I'll Speak for Myself

#100
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I remember this one, where a court determined "give me a lawyer dog" meant "give me a lawyer-dog" rather than "give me a lawyer, dog" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...

That article is almost certainly wrong, or at least misleading. The question at hand was whether this statement was a direct request for a counsel, or just chatter. "This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up.” The court decided " (agreeing with the lower courts’ conclusion that the 1 2 statement “[m]aybe I should tal…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN