Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s new conversational AI could eventually undermine our sense of identity

verdict.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: Google’s new conversational AI could eventually undermine our sense of identity

#51

Post by coldtea »

bsenftner wrote: post #22

"Impressive, but what happens if Google Assistant eventually learns how to masquerade as its owner?" This is the stunning level of anthropomorphic granting of super human abilities the common person places on our cute statistical trick we saying is "artificial intelligence". Naming this field AI was a poor choice. I am sick of the clown-authored-mentality of the articles being published about AI today.

And yet "luminaries" like Musk and Kurzweil expect even more impressive feats than than, and in the next 20 years or so.

(Not that I agree with them, I mostly agree with you, just sayin...)

Re: Google’s new conversational AI could eventually undermine our sense of identity

#52

Post by l5870uoo9y »

ggambetta wrote: post #8

This sounds overblown. I don't think it's that different to having a (human) assistant booking a haircut or a table on your behalf. Just make Duplex introduce itself as "XXX's assistant" and leave it at that. Sure, the article is about the assistant (theoretically) using the user's own voice, so... don't do that? This would be similar to hiring a human assistant who is also a voice impersonator and saying it's you, b…

Masquerading call center employee for instance doesn't seem that far-fetched. This masquerade would then be "you" when interacting with customers and co-workers, effectively deciding your behaviour or in a deeper sense your (professional) identity.

Naturally, I don't know if this is overblown and we will all laugh at it in 10 years or if there is really something to this scepticism. I am internally torn and fluctuate between optimism and scepticism, though treading careful and setting up some kind of control mechanism seems reasonable.

Re: Google’s new conversational AI could eventually undermine our sense of identity

#53

Post by coldtea »

bsenftner wrote: post #49
Androider wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to pass the Turing test to masquerade as you. The John Legend voice for Google Assistant was apparently made without hours of recordings. Companies like https://lyrebird.ai/ do a basic job of copying your voice with about a minute worth of samples (more obviously helps). I think it's entirely inevitable that at some point you will be able to customize the Google Assistant to use your own voice thanks…

The implication is that Google Assistant will gain a will of its own and start masquerading as end-users for it's own benefit. No. Ain't gonna happen. Not even remotely possible.

Why would "will" and special "intelligence" be needed?

A bad algorithm, that tries to "predict your schedule" and e.g. cancels your meeting when you didn't want to, or sends flowers to the wrong person at the wrong time, is enough.

Think of it like a modern Clippy that can also make calls as you.

Re: Google’s new conversational AI could eventually undermine our sense of identity

#54

Post by bsenftner »

wslh wrote: post #14
vtantia wrote: post #3

I don't think there is a remote possibility of this happening in the near future (10-20 years). I work in one of the best deep learning research groups in the world. We were discussing this. And the first question one of my friends asked was- "so the Google assistant knows how to book appointments between 10 and 12pm". Meaning, if you change even a few conditions in the request which is not present in the training da…

> there is a risk of the AI manipulating us... I always wonder (seriously, not joking) if some computer will pass the Turing test because we are getting dumber and adapting to the way apps understand us instead of the reverse. Personally, I double check when I send text or voice instructions to bots.

It will be people using Google Assistant to create a manipulation capable virtual-voiced individual. The software and "AI" behind Google Assistant is an idiot savant, but in the hands of clever, manipulating humans intent on fraud - it's a great tool. The danger here is not from AI, it is from the cute tool being in the hands of fraud intent humans.

Re: Google’s new conversational AI could eventually undermine our sense of identity

#55

Post by joosteto »

fixermark wrote: post #47
heckanoobs wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised at how well Google's awful little autodialer has been received. None of us like when we call a number and are handled by an automated script on the other end. But we are immediately okay with deploying an automated script which does our bidding? You need a Google Glass-level lack of social accuity to think siccing autodialers on barbers is okay

I think you're expanding frustration at telemarketing to this technology, and I don't understand why. It's not an "autodialer;" it doesn't appear to have any kind of multicast capability.

Multicast may be useful when the hairdresser is busy at the requested time, and algorithm searches for an available option.

Re: Google’s new conversational AI could eventually undermine our sense of identity

#56

Post by bsenftner »

coldtea wrote: post #53
bsenftner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication is that Google Assistant will gain a will of its own and start masquerading as end-users for it's own benefit. No. Ain't gonna happen. Not even remotely possible.

Why would "will" and special "intelligence" be needed? A bad algorithm, that tries to "predict your schedule" and e.g. cancels your meeting when you didn't want to, or sends flowers to the wrong person at the wrong time, is enough. Think of it like a modern Clippy that can also make calls as you.

The article implies the google assistant gaining a will and acting for it's own benefit - not being buggy and doing the wrong thing.

Re: Google’s new conversational AI could eventually undermine our sense of identity

#57

Post by Zarel »

heckanoobs wrote: post #36
evrydayhustling wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, fear of turning on its owner is way overblown. What about the more immediate issue that it is designed to be turned against service workers, so that when it screws up it wastes their time instead of yours? Or the more immediate wake-up call that this tech will be used in malicious phishing attacks against your grandparents (not by Google, obv) in another year (or month)?

I'm surprised at how well Google's awful little autodialer has been received. None of us like when we call a number and are handled by an automated script on the other end. But we are immediately okay with deploying an automated script which does our bidding? You need a Google Glass-level lack of social accuity to think siccing autodialers on barbers is okay

"None of us" is a strong word. I actually prefer scripts to humans. Scripts don't get mad at me if I take a long time to make a decision. Scripts also don't speak in heavy accents I can't understand, or get frustrated if they don't like my accent.

There are downsides of scripts, mainly that they only accept information in "press button X on the keypad", which means waiting for the script to go through all possible options before you can press a button, instead of just telling it what you want. But Google Assistant doesn't have that problem.

And the other downside of scripts is that they're just so much slower than just filling out a form on a web page with the exact information you need, especially with AutoFill on modern browsers. And this is the same problem whether it's a robot going through a script or a human reading a script.

So when it comes to making a reservation – the other side is basically a human reading a script. It's just a slow interface for restaurants that don't want to set up a computerized reservation system like OpenTable. If the restaurant insists on making me slowly talk to a script instead of just using a website, I don't see anything wrong with outsourcing that call to a robot.

I saw another post on HN that talked about how it was decreasing the amount of human contact, but I seriously doubt that relationships or friendships could remotely commonly arise out of a scripted interaction like a reservation either way.

Re: Google’s new conversational AI could eventually undermine our sense of identity

#58

Post by evrydayhustling »

fixermark wrote: post #47
heckanoobs wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised at how well Google's awful little autodialer has been received. None of us like when we call a number and are handled by an automated script on the other end. But we are immediately okay with deploying an automated script which does our bidding? You need a Google Glass-level lack of social accuity to think siccing autodialers on barbers is okay

I think you're expanding frustration at telemarketing to this technology, and I don't understand why. It's not an "autodialer;" it doesn't appear to have any kind of multicast capability.

The common thread is shifting the costs of communication failure (disinterest, misunderstandings, etc) to someone who didn't opt-in. If a restaurant is frustrated at an influx of robo-reservations, I doubt they will be comforted that they are being dispatched by individuals rather than a for loop.

I think Google could avoid a lot of these concerns by providing a quick and universal opt-out -- robots.txt for your phone? But the most scientifically impressive part of the AI, its inclusion of human quirks of speech, are exactly the opposite of this: an effort to evade detection.

Re: Google’s new conversational AI could eventually undermine our sense of identity

#59

Post by whataretensors »

bsenftner wrote: post #45
gremlinsinc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding me? It's not a cute statistical trick, it's a well-thought out mechanism to re-create in 1's and 0's how the human brain works and thinks, we're merely infants in what this will become, as we mind map the brain more - I'm sure the technology will pivot quite a bit, neural networks may be obsolete and something more powerful come along viz a viz quantum computing, but to say talking robots that can tot…

It is a cute statistical trick. It has zero insight. Current AI is a very sophisticated manipulation of past event resolution, seeking to fit a current event into past resolutions. The term "idiot savant" is closer than "artificial intelligence" - because the algorithm knows not what it is doing, why it is doing, or how it is doing. It's an idiot.

I'm more hopeful that narrow ai can be the same thing as strong ai with a few theory breakthroughs, increases in model capacity and metacognition.

Re: Google’s new conversational AI could eventually undermine our sense of identity

#60

Post by jerf »

evrydayhustling wrote: post #58
fixermark wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're expanding frustration at telemarketing to this technology, and I don't understand why. It's not an "autodialer;" it doesn't appear to have any kind of multicast capability.

The common thread is shifting the costs of communication failure (disinterest, misunderstandings, etc) to someone who didn't opt-in. If a restaurant is frustrated at an influx of robo-reservations, I doubt they will be comforted that they are being dispatched by individuals rather than a for loop. I think Google could avoid a lot of these concerns by providing a quick and universal opt-out -- robots.txt for your phon…

"If a restaurant is frustrated at an influx of robo-reservations,"

That's not a very compelling argument, though, because as long as those reservations manifest as people arriving and paying bills, they're unlikely to find this a problem. And as long as the calls are essentially the same as a human calling them, it's not that different.

I think a lot of people in this conversation are conflating annoying phone calls with robocalls. The problem with annoying phone calls isn't that they are automated... the problem is that they are annoying. If I got the exact same phone calls, but they were all staffed by humans, I would still be annoyed. The automation just means they can make the calls faster. A restaurant owner is not going to get particularly annoyed if a few reservations come in from a bot rather than a person calling, as long as the system works correctly (i.e., can take "no" for an answer for instance) and they aren't hammered with ten thousand calls in an hour due to some bug. When I get a robocall reminding me about my dentist appointment, I don't go ballistic and yell at my dentist for using bots... after all, I asked for it by clicking an option in my reminder email. (Given that I've forgotten my appointments a few times before I'm not in a moral position to be upset that they have some reminders set up.)

Post reply on HN