3 ms·

IMO behaving like a normal human isn't "tricking people". Voice assistants need to behave like a human to enable natural interaction, and the fact that the AI c

IMO behaving like a normal human isn't "tricking people". Voice assistants need to behave like a human to enable natural interaction, and the fact that the AI caller isn't human is irrelevant information in most contexts. It'd be like if I called a business and used a voice changer during the call to make me sound like I'm a different gender than I am. Would that be fraud? No, because my gender is irrelevant information in the context of that call. Now maybe it might be a good idea to program the AI to be upfront about its nature just as a matter of courtesy, but I see no reason why it _not_ doing would be so harmful that it needs to be made illegal.

carapace 9y ago
> IMO behaving like a normal human isn't "tricking people". It is tricking people if it is done to trick people. It is not tricking people if it is done while the person to whom it is done knows the thing they are talking to is not a human. The question was not "should machines be allowed to act like humans?" It was "should they be required to disclose that they are not human?" You seem to think that I object to machines acting human, I don't. > Voice assistants need to behave like a human to enable natural interaction Would you say the computers in the "Star Trek" shows "behave like a human"? > the fact that the AI caller isn't human is irrelevant information in most contexts. How will it know if, in a given context, disclosure is relevant? One of my first questions about this Duplex service is, "Can I opt-out of receiving these calls?" > It'd be like if I called a business and used a voice changer during the call to make me sound like I'm a different gender than I am. Would that be fraud? No, because my gender is irrelevant information in the context of that call. I don't think it's like that at all. Are you impersonating someone else? Gender-bending for kicks? Trying to get better service because you think the person you're calling is sexist or something? Are you The Jerky Boys? People do weird shit and that's something we all have to deal with because gravity. Machines calling people and saying "uh" to pretend to be human without the human people realizing it is trickery. And it's not even needed to make the Duplex service work because, as I pointed out before, when a robot calls you to give you money you don't hang up on it! Okay? > Now maybe it might be a good idea to program the AI to be upfront about its nature just as a matter of courtesy, but I see no reason why it _not_ doing would be so harmful that it needs to be made illegal. And now you have made my point for me: if it's not made illegal, people, like you, won't take these concerns seriously. It's like the guys who owns my favorite cafe. He had a bit of plastic wrap covering his brown sugar and there were little flies sometimes and it was just a little gross. One day I came in and he had put a tight-fitting plastic lid on the sugar. I mentioned it to him and he started complaining about the health inspector making him do it. All I could think was, buddy you're the reason we have to hire and pay for health inspectors, right there. AIs that can impersonate humans well enough to trick them into thinking they're also human are pretty much a munition. Thank you Google for opening the gates. Now that people realize it's possible we have another thing to guard against. You know most hacking is done though what's called "social engineering", eh?
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  > It is tricking people if it is done to trick people. That's true, but I don't see behaving like a human as "tricking people". Even if the assistant opened the conversation by identifying itself as an AI, I'd expect it to use all the same mannerisms "uh", "mhmmm" that it did in the call to enable natural conversation. > Would you say the computers in the "Star Trek" shows "behave like a human"? No, but I wouldn't exactly call that "natural interaction" either. Jarvis is a better example. And yes, I do think Jarvis "behaves like a human". > I don't think it's like that at all. Are you impersonating someone else? Gender-bending for kicks? Trying to get better service because you think the person you're calling is sexist or something? In keeping with the analogy, probably closer to "Trying to get better service". An AI callbot that pretends to be a human will be more efficient at its job than one which speaks in a monotone and requires the human on the other end of the call to adjust their mannerisms to compensate for the fact that they're not talking with a human. > And it's not even needed to make the Duplex service work because, as I pointed out before, when a robot calls you to give you money you don't hang up on it! Okay? Depends. If the AI immediately identifies itself as such, how many people are just going to immediately assume it's a spambot and hang up, even when it's not? > people, like you, won't take these concerns seriously What concerns? You've still failed to describe any ill effects that might arise from AI callbots failing to disclose their nature upfront. > You know most hacking is done though what's called "social engineering", eh? You think a law forcing AIs to disclose themselves as AI would do anything against malicious actors who are already breaking the law? (Hacking.)

carapace 9y ago

> IMO behaving like a normal human isn't "tricking people". It is tricking people if it is done to trick people. It is not tricking people if it is done while the person to whom it is done knows the thing they are talking to is not a human. The question was not "should machines be allowed to act like humans?" It was "should they be required to disclose that they are not human?" You seem to think that I object to machines acting human, I don't. > Voice assistants need to behave like a human to enable natural interaction Would you say the computers in the "Star Trek" shows "behave like a human"? > the fact that the AI caller isn't human is irrelevant information in most contexts. How will it know if, in a given context, disclosure is relevant? One of my first questions about this Duplex service is, "Can I opt-out of receiving these calls?" > It'd be like if I called a business and used a voice changer during the call to make me sound like I'm a different gender than I am. Would that be fraud? No, because my gender is irrelevant information in the context of that call. I don't think it's like that at all. Are you impersonating someone else? Gender-bending for kicks? Trying to get better service because you think the person you're calling is sexist or something? Are you The Jerky Boys? People do weird shit and that's something we all have to deal with because gravity. Machines calling people and saying "uh" to pretend to be human without the human people realizing it is trickery. And it's not even needed to make the Duplex service work because, as I pointed out before, when a robot calls you to give you money you don't hang up on it! Okay? > Now maybe it might be a good idea to program the AI to be upfront about its nature just as a matter of courtesy, but I see no reason why it _not_ doing would be so harmful that it needs to be made illegal. And now you have made my point for me: if it's not made illegal, people, like you, won't take these concerns seriously. It's like the guys who owns my favorite cafe. He had a bit of plastic wrap covering his brown sugar and there were little flies sometimes and it was just a little gross. One day I came in and he had put a tight-fitting plastic lid on the sugar. I mentioned it to him and he started complaining about the health inspector making him do it. All I could think was, buddy you're the reason we have to hire and pay for health inspectors, right there. AIs that can impersonate humans well enough to trick them into thinking they're also human are pretty much a munition. Thank you Google for opening the gates. Now that people realize it's possible we have another thing to guard against. You know most hacking is done though what's called "social engineering", eh?

Ajedi32 9y ago
> It is tricking people if it is done to trick people. That's true, but I don't see behaving like a human as "tricking people". Even if the assistant opened the conversation by identifying itself as an AI, I'd expect it to use all the same mannerisms "uh", "mhmmm" that it did in the call to enable natural conversation. > Would you say the computers in the "Star Trek" shows "behave like a human"? No, but I wouldn't exactly call that "natural interaction" either. Jarvis is a better example. And yes, I do think Jarvis "behaves like a human". > I don't think it's like that at all. Are you impersonating someone else? Gender-bending for kicks? Trying to get better service because you think the person you're calling is sexist or something? In keeping with the analogy, probably closer to "Trying to get better service". An AI callbot that pretends to be a human will be more efficient at its job than one which speaks in a monotone and requires the human on the other end of the call to adjust their mannerisms to compensate for the fact that they're not talking with a human. > And it's not even needed to make the Duplex service work because, as I pointed out before, when a robot calls you to give you money you don't hang up on it! Okay? Depends. If the AI immediately identifies itself as such, how many people are just going to immediately assume it's a spambot and hang up, even when it's not? > people, like you, won't take these concerns seriously What concerns? You've still failed to describe any ill effects that might arise from AI callbots failing to disclose their nature upfront. > You know most hacking is done though what's called "social engineering", eh? You think a law forcing AIs to disclose themselves as AI would do anything against malicious actors who are already breaking the law? (Hacking.)