6 ms·

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 th

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

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fixermark 8y ago
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.
- joosteto 8y ago
  Multicast may be useful when the hairdresser is busy at the requested time, and algorithm searches for an available option.
  - arbie 8y ago
    The optimum scenario is when the algorithm shops around while it is on the phone with barber#1 and discovers the only available time is suboptimal (but still above acceptance threshold). Sort of a "hold bird in hand while rummaging in bush" approach.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      I can definitely see how that could be annoying, especially if the system killed a transaction mid-conversation with "Oh, I apologize; I found a better offer elsewhere. Goodbye." So, y'know, they should probably not do that. ;)
- evrydayhustling 8y ago
  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.
  - jerf 8y ago
    "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.)
    - evrydayhustling 8y ago
      So there's definitely a glass half empty, glass half full thing -- nobody knows for sure whether these calls will be annoying, because we've just seen a demo. We don't know if the bot will be effective in general, and we don't know if customer cancellations will be more or less common if they use the bot. It's certainly possible that it improves lives for restaurants. The problem is, the restaurants (etc.) don't get to choose whether to take the risk, even though they stand to bare most of the cost. That's an ethical problem before the product gets released. After the product is released, it's a problem with incentives: if consumers make the choice to use Duplex, growth means adapting to their needs, not the recipients.
Zarel 8y ago
"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.
- harperlee 8y ago
  > Scripts don't get mad at me if I take a long time to make a decision. Most IVR systems I used hang up on you if you do not provide information after 1-2 repetitions of their request. And asking for time is not an option. Which is infuriating whenever you are reaching for some piece of info.
  - Zarel 8y ago
    Yeah, which is mildly frustrating, but it doesn't ruin my mood the way a human getting mad at me would. I just call them back once I get everything I need, and feel no rush.
davidcbc 8y ago
If I could do everything I wanted to do by talking to a bot I'd love it. Imagine being able to cancel Comcast just by talking to their bot, that sounds fantastic to me.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  You won't be able to. The reason it's hard to cancel Comcast now is because they made it that way, on purpose. Businesses will use this tech to their advantage, and they'll fight anyone trying to use this tech on them. Same reason why websites don't expose APIs and instead fight anyone who tries automate their experience themselves.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fixermark 8y ago

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.

joosteto 8y ago
Multicast may be useful when the hairdresser is busy at the requested time, and algorithm searches for an available option.
- arbie 8y ago
  The optimum scenario is when the algorithm shops around while it is on the phone with barber#1 and discovers the only available time is suboptimal (but still above acceptance threshold). Sort of a "hold bird in hand while rummaging in bush" approach.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    I can definitely see how that could be annoying, especially if the system killed a transaction mid-conversation with "Oh, I apologize; I found a better offer elsewhere. Goodbye." So, y'know, they should probably not do that. ;)
evrydayhustling 8y ago
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.
- jerf 8y ago
  "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.)
  - evrydayhustling 8y ago
    So there's definitely a glass half empty, glass half full thing -- nobody knows for sure whether these calls will be annoying, because we've just seen a demo. We don't know if the bot will be effective in general, and we don't know if customer cancellations will be more or less common if they use the bot. It's certainly possible that it improves lives for restaurants. The problem is, the restaurants (etc.) don't get to choose whether to take the risk, even though they stand to bare most of the cost. That's an ethical problem before the product gets released. After the product is released, it's a problem with incentives: if consumers make the choice to use Duplex, growth means adapting to their needs, not the recipients.

Zarel 8y ago

"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.

harperlee 8y ago
> Scripts don't get mad at me if I take a long time to make a decision. Most IVR systems I used hang up on you if you do not provide information after 1-2 repetitions of their request. And asking for time is not an option. Which is infuriating whenever you are reaching for some piece of info.
- Zarel 8y ago
  Yeah, which is mildly frustrating, but it doesn't ruin my mood the way a human getting mad at me would. I just call them back once I get everything I need, and feel no rush.

davidcbc 8y ago

If I could do everything I wanted to do by talking to a bot I'd love it. Imagine being able to cancel Comcast just by talking to their bot, that sounds fantastic to me.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
You won't be able to. The reason it's hard to cancel Comcast now is because they made it that way, on purpose. Businesses will use this tech to their advantage, and they'll fight anyone trying to use this tech on them. Same reason why websites don't expose APIs and instead fight anyone who tries automate their experience themselves.