751–760 of 786 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe a general AI is just a very big collection of many smaller abilities.
The older I get, the more true I suspect this is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well they could at least continue doing the same thing, at 100x the speed.
Over the phone? Voice recognition would fail even more. Google also mentioned some of the latency in answering is required by their processing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvr9AMWEU-c
In other words, if M2M handshake works, switch away from voice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The end game would be for the business to run something like duplex on the other side, and you’d have duplex talking to duplex. And looking even further into the future, we can imagine a day when the computers forgo natural speech and use a better-suited form of communication. Some kind of sequence of ones and zeros transmitted directly across the wire.
Google Duplex is just a backwards compatibility shim...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole context of Google introducing this functionality was for the 60% of businesses that don't yet have an online presence at all.
Sure, but they should consider the future. That number will only get smaller, especially if Duplex or other services say "we'll handle all your phone and online bookings for you for $SMALL_FEE, and still forward other inquiries to your phone as before".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, the credit card system's backcompat does mean that you can still accept credit cards when the power's out. You just write down the number (or use an imprint machine) and let the customer go. And the semantics of credit mean that you can still make that charge even if an online transaction would have resulted in a decline—offline transactions are never declined, they just cause overdrafts.
True! Although I think that's more of a byproduct, rather than something designed into the system at the moment, and I suspect we could do better with designing it. For example, I doubt many shops have those imprint machines any more. I also think the tech debt is holding us back a long way. For example, why can't I see itemised receipts in my card statement? Paper receipts are on their way out, email receipts aren't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 appr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 nee…
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude, this system has better conversation skills than me. I mean literally. Well, I'am autistic + esl (+ kinda too why). But still it's kinda incredible that a system is actually better.
"The funny thing about AI is that it’s a moving target. In the seventies, someone might ask “what are the goals of AI?” And you might say, “Oh, we want a computer who can beat a chess master, or who can understand actual language speech, or who can search a whole database very quickly.” We do all that now, like face recognition. All these things that we thought were AI, we can do them. But once you do them, you don’t…