16 ms·
Did Google Fake Its Big A.I. Demo?
- teachrdan 8y agoFrom TFA: "As Axios[0] noted Thursday morning, there was something a little off in the conversations the A.I. had on the phone with businesses, suggesting that perhaps Google had faked, or at least edited, its demo. Unlike a typical business (Axios called more than two dozen hair salons and restaurants), the employees who answered the phone in Google’s demos don’t identify the name of the business, or themselves. Nor is there any ambient noise in Google’s recordings, as one would expect in a hair salon or a restaurant. At no point in Google’s conversations with the businesses did the employees who answered the phone ask for the phone number or other contact information from the A.I. Further, California is a two-party consent state, meaning that both parties need to consent in order for a phone conversation to be legally recorded. Did Google seek the permission of these businesses before calling them for the purposes of the demo? Was it staged in the simulated manner of reality TV?" 0. https://www.axios.com/google-ai-demo-questions-9a57afad-9854-41da-b6e2-5e55b619283e.html https://www.axios.com/google-ai-demo-questions-9a57afad-9854...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sterlind 8y agoTwo-party consent laws raise an interesting point: how could Duplex operate legally in California? Google probably wants recordings of each call, so they'd have to include a preamble. Phone systems that say "Your call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" usually: 1. Make you press a button before you speak to a human, thereby recording your consent. 2. Don't record before that point (since you're in the phone tree.) Seems unlikely Duplex will pass as human, for legal reasons.
- bb88 8y ago> Two-party consent laws raise an interesting point: how could Duplex operate legally in California? They're not testing it in California, is one option. Two party consent is not the standard in most states. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-co...
- gnicholas 8y agoHonest question: is one-party consent satisfied if the party that has "given consent" is an AI bot? I could see how someone would argue that there was only one party on the call capable of consent, and that he/she (the human caller) did not give it. Another hypo: What if my AI bot calls the restaurant and talks to their AI bot? Is that a call with zero parties? Can consent for recording be given at all? My guess is that it depends on the definition of "party". Cue the lawyers.
- amenod 8y ago<IANAL> I would assume that the bot is operating on behalf of someone and it is their consent that matters. So if bot gives the consent in their name, it would be the same as if they gave the consent themselves. </IANAL>
- aurailious 8y agoSo that would mean that the person asking the bot to give consent or would that mean Google is the one giving consent? Or is the person giving permission to Google to give consent? Would Google give permission to the recording of the call?
- shaftway 8y agoI'm also not a lawyer, but.... I believe generally the US courts have decided that the person who triggers the action is the pertinent party. Something similar has come up in the firearm fabrication community. There are companies that sell things that are legally paperweights, but are 80% of the way towards being a firearm (e.g. [1]). There are CNC mills that come with programming to take one of these "80% lowers" and finish it, making a fully functional firearm, or at least the part that is considered a firearm by the BATF; other parts can be ordered and shipped online (e.g. [2]). In this case it's not the builder of the machine or the writer of the code that instructs it that is the "manufacturer" of the gun. It's not even the person who placed the unfinished lower in the enclosure and bolted it down. Instead it's the person who pushed that button. I'm going to guess that this will be similar. The user who pushes the button (or asks assistant to make an appointment on their behalf) is likely to be the one giving consent. [1]: https://www.80percentarms.com/ https://www.80percentarms.com/ [2]: https://ghostgunner.net/products/ghost-gunner https://ghostgunner.net/products/ghost-gunner
- ihuman 8y agoThis might be a bit off-topic, but what do you mean by "TFA"?
- kilovoltaire 8y agohttps://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TFA https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=TFA …seems kind of unnecessary in this context.
- ihuman 8y agoI agree. If I see someone quoting without saying where the quote is from, I assume its from the article by default.
- eigenvector 8y agoA more polite way to preface a quote like that is 'FTA': From The Article.
- bonestamp2 8y agoThe calls were likely edited. As far as two-party consent, maybe they called businesses outside of California... maybe they got consent after the call. Either way, something still seemed weird about the calls.
- mark212 8y agodoesn't matter if the business was outside of California. The California Supreme Court has ruled that if one side of the conversation is in California (e.g., Google calling from Mountain View) then California law applies. See Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006). Consent after the call would be just fine to exempt someone from liability under California's privacy act.
- bonestamp2 8y agoFair enough, maybe the calls originated from outside California. Either way, I think we can see there are some ways to get around the two-party requirement. But, there's still something fishy about the calls.
- busterarm 8y agoMove fast and break (laws) things!
- blklivesmatter 8y agogoogle fake and lie. Its fact
- chrischen 8y agoThey heavily faked their Magic Leap demos.
- dictum 8y agoNo tu quoque intended, but I find the history behind the original iPhone introduction fascinating: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/and-then-steve-said-let-there-be-an-iphone.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/and-then-steve-s... (spoiler: it required some fakery and even a violation of FCC frequency rules)
- lbenes 8y agoGreat article, thanks for sharing. spoiler: FCC part was clever, but what fakery? Are you talking about the "golden path" or something else I missed after a quick read?
- ddoolin 8y agoThey faked the phone's signal bars to always show five bars, since it was expected that the radio software would crash somewhere in the 90-minute presentation.
- mcphage 8y agoWas it a presentation about their novel new signal bars?
- zaat 8y ago>The solution, he says, was to tweak the AirPort software so that it seemed to be operating in Japan instead of the United States. Japanese Wi-Fi uses some frequencies that are not permitted in the U.S.
- radley 8y agoApple also faked their "entire internet" iPhone demo in their 2008 keynote. At the time, if you visited the National Geographic website without Flash installed, you'd be shown a hero banner stating "this presentation requires Flash" with a large download button. Jobs' demo had the banner, but the Flash message was edited out.
- rdm_blackhole 8y ago
- freyir 8y agoGoogle refused to provide the businesses' names to Axios (even with a guarantee not to publicly identify them), and refused to answer whether the calls were edited. If the calls were real, I wonder how many recordings did it take to get these perfect examples? How many times were the appointments scheduled correctly, and how many failed? But this was just a flashy demonstration to drum up excitement over the Google brand. Until they write up a paper or release it as a product, we're unlikely to know how well it really works.
- gnicholas 8y agoPrecisely. What happens if the system makes a mistake and tells you you're confirmed when that's not the case? Then you show up for a reservation that doesn't exist and you wish you'd spent 3 mins making the call yourself. The question will be what is the net time savings? If it works 99 out of 100 times, maybe that's good enough for many mundane tasks. But if it's 75 out of 100, that's almost certainly not worth it.
- utopcell 8y agoI agree. These kind of systems need 99% precision.
- Proziam 8y agoI'm not even sure 99% would be enough for my tastes. Imagine an important date (anniversary or similar) with your S.O. If there was even a 1% chance that didn't happen because I was too lazy to call I'd certainly be hesitant to use it. And if I can't use it habitually for the task of scheduling, I probably will continue to do what I do now and just make the call.
- snowwrestler 8y agoI think human perception of technology is often dominated by annoyance. From a little bit of research I did years ago, 99% accuracy was nowhere near good enough to satisfy customers of handwriting recognition--that's about one word mistake per paragraph. Consider the new Apple keyboards, which attract hundreds of intense complaints every time they come up here on HN. Apple Insider [1] estimated the percentage of service tickets that were attributed to keyboards: 2014 - 5.6% 2015 - 6% 2016 - 11.8% (first year of new keyboard) 2017 so far - 8.1% So, an approximate doubling of the prevalence of keyboard problems in the first year has been enough to convince a lot of people that the entire product is an unmitigated disaster. One of the very interesting facts in that Apple Insider study is that the total number of tickets actually decreased from 2015 to 2016. If the keyboard was actually a design disaster, you would expect the total number of warranty service tickets to climb, but they didn't. 2014 - 2,120 2015 - 1,904 2016 - 1,402 2017 - (incomplete) [1] https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/04/30/2016-macbook-pro-butterfly-keyboards-failing-twice-as-frequently-as-older-models https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/04/30/2016-macbook-pro-...
- jpm_sd 8y ago"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." -- attributed to Andy Finkel
- blablabla123 8y agoSo true. Especially when people hold presentations that don't do this on a regular bases it's often beyond recognition a) what is going on the screen and b) what the point is.
- zwkrt 8y agoA sign of a good manager/exec is their reaction to a demo. If they say "I don't believe you, this looks magical", they might actually be thinking about what it would take to bring your demo to production. If they say "wow that's great, amazing work guys!" it is time to worry.
- blablabla123 8y ago> wow that's great, amazing work guys! I guess it's nice to give great feedback when the work was great. I don't see why people sometimes want to obsessively find a problem that doesn't really change things. But generally I totally agree with you. When the manager only makes positive comments and doesn't engage, the person is not being helpful at all.
- utopcell 8y agoNot only were these calls not faked, the dogfooders were required to go out and honor their reservations. Internally, the criticism is brutal, because we want free-form, general, conversation abilities, and we don't consider the demo to be perfect. But fake ? IMO, if the team wanted to fake a demo, they could had done that years ago when the project started. But we are Google. We don't fake demos because we don't have to. [edit: To add to what I said: If you think that a team at Google could fake something at this scale and have the face of the company back it at our most high-profile event of the year, just think of the aftermath internally. The code is available for all of us to study. The design docs are there for us to read. There were thousands of engineers that at least peeked at the codebase even on the same day of the demo.]
- robg 8y agoThen why not release or discuss the basic details? The locations need not be identified publicly to confirm how it all went down.
- your-nanny 8y agoSubstantiation please
- utopcell 8y agoon what ?
- skylark 8y agoI understand that place of employment is a big part of one's identity, but remember that you're a single Googler, not speaking on behalf of 50,000 of us. You should not be using the word "we" the way you are - it's in poor taste.
- fwdpropaganda 8y agoPrediction: Google will come out and say that BOTH the voices were google assistants talking to each other.
- RasputinsBro 8y agoThat's pretty clever.
- paulcole 8y agoI thought this was going to be the big twist reveal at the end of the demo videos.
- yonkshi 8y agoGoogle AI hadn't published any major papers on ASR or TTS since WaveNet, even the new WaveNet google demo'd a few months ago weren't even close to this demo's voices. The use of "Uh Huh" "Hmmm" are called back channeling, it's moon shot away given the current state of technology. It requires very low latency and precise timing so it doesn't cut the speaker off. I believe if this demo were real, it was tested and cherry picked from a very particular environment
- nschucher 8y agoThey have published multiple major TTS papers since the original WaveNet paper in 2016. Including the recent Tacotron results with impressive style control. Tacotron (Mar. 2017): https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10135 https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10135 Parallel WaveNet (Nov. 2017): https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.10433 https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.10433 Tacotron again (Mar 2018): https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.09017 https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.09017 Tacotron 2 audio samples: https://google.github.io/tacotron/publications/global_style_tokens/index.html https://google.github.io/tacotron/publications/global_style_...
- sixdimensional 8y agoThis is a long shot but, do you think it is at all possible that they've had some kind of a breakthrough using their quantum processing work, and are using that to accelerate machine learning models and produce much better quality generative speech? After hearing about Bristlecone I can't rule it out.
- sixdimensional 8y agoWhy the downvote?!!?
- jessaustin 8y agoThat would be a monumental case of burying the lede... Surely if they had that computing power they would just be breaking crypto and stealing money all day long?
- southern_cross 8y ago
- Ivoirians 8y agoGoogler here. I've seen a few other demos, and there was even an internal dogfood, although I didnt use it myself. But I guess you could still choose not to take my word for it, since I'm just a random guy on the internet. Just wait til it launches, I guess. Also, I distinctly remember on multiple occasions having to ask "is this <XX restaurant>?" when making reservations in the past. Does this really never happen to people that it feels more likely that Google is faking high-profile demos in the keynote that it can't actually deliver on? And wouldn't they want to pick demos that didn't include or redacted the name of the restaurant anyway?
- gamblor956 8y agoJust tried calling a bunch of restaurants in my neck of the woods. They all identified the restaurant right off the bat, along with the person speaking. Is it some wierd Bay area thing that businesses don't identify themselves when they answer a call?
- mjcl 8y agoNo, they usually give the name of the restaurant. People giving their name is less common.
- atwebb 8y agoIt's common for me to misunderstand or confirm it back to the person due to background noise.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- hunter23 8y agoI have noticed that some Chinatown restaurants don't tend to identify themselves when I call in. I think part of it is a language / cultural barrier. It's a lot different calling a chain where they have huge manuals on how to interact with customers vs an immigrant family run business. Is that not the case for your Chinese restaurants? However, more likely I think they edited out the initial introduction to give the businesses privacy. They also probably told the businesses beforehand that there was a chance they would be calling in the future with bots to get around California 2 party laws on recording (or maybe they got approval afterwards although I'm not sure that's legal).
- lern_too_spel 8y agoYour employer can record your phone calls at work. Google's testing of this service would have simply required Google to obtain permission from the restaurants enabled in its tests.
- iandanforth 8y agohttps://kellergrover.com/news/privacy-violations/ok-record-phone-call-california/ https://kellergrover.com/news/privacy-violations/ok-record-p... I think this would require that a grant of permission is transferable. - Employee grants permission to employer to record as term of employment. - Employer grants Google blanket permission to record calls. Do you know if it works that way? Also, any business that is recording its employees must notify customers. This would be another thing they would have had to edit out of the call.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lern_too_spel 8y agoYour article says it works that way, so Google only has to ask permission from the employer. The employer is the "person" who must grant permission to record the call. > Also, any business that is recording its employees must notify customers. Google did the recording, so that doesn't apply. Even if it did, it would make sense for Google to edit out the "Your call may be recorded for quality recording purposes," in the demo.
- ferongr 8y agoNo.
- muglug 8y ago> The snippets of conversation during Pichai’s demo, which can be heard in this clip, seem too polished and unrealistic to be real. Reminder that Duplex explicitly uses Concatenative Text-to-Speech - i.e. they record humans saying phrases, and just play those soundbites back where appropriate. Sort of like a chess AI storing a dictionary of opening moves.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- avinium 8y agoReally? I hadn’t read that, I just assumed it was based on Tacotron/WaveNet.
- FelipeCortez 8y agoI believe most concatenative TTS systems nowadays are diphone/phone based, rather than playing back full phrases. But being phrase-based could explain how good the demos sound
- PeterisP 8y agoIf you want to be able to say arbitrary text, then you pretty much have to go lower than word level, because the number of different words is effectively unbounded. However, if you're speaking a controlled language where there are clear limits to what the system would ever want to say, then there's no problem to record enough high quality words or whole phrases to concatenate them into something nice sounding.
- angryasian 8y agoJust curious but does it really matter for a tech demo. IMO even if the person answering the phone was scripted but the AI portion was real, its still impressive to me.
- elicash 8y agoIs playing an edited video or audio piece a "demo?" They clearly portrayed it as a real, unedited call. If they were dishonest, of course that matters. Arguably ethics don't matter as much as the underlying tech, I suppose. But it still says something about the individuals involved.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoProbably more interesting regarding their ethics is that they've seemingly declined to answer most questions about the demo. They've declined to answer whether or not Duplex records calls, they've declined to confirm who they called with it, they declined to confirm if they tested it in a state that recording the calls is legal... They seem incredibly dodgy for something they announced openly in front of thousands of people.
- 282883392 8y agoBut do they really need to answer those questions? Clearly they don't want to publisize the establishments that they called. The most likely record calls (although they probably don't know if the final product will) and why would they confirm that they have done something illegal. It doesn't hurt them to not answer these questions, and they definitely don't want to answer some of them, so why would they?
- elicash 8y agoIt could be that the audio is only edited in those first several seconds. That a normal call goes "Hello this is [business name]." Then Google starts recording as it replies that the call is being recorded. And then starts ordering. And that's likely why, weirdly, no business identifies itself in the audio. They don't want to admit to ANY editing because it would open up MORE questions.
- jlebar 8y ago> Nor is there any ambient noise in Google’s recordings, as one would expect in a hair salon or a restaurant. Second recording at https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natural-conversation.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natur... has very clear background noise.
- lifeformed 8y agoCouldn't they just have done the calls in a different state, where such a recording is allowed?
- otakucode 8y agoVoice synthesis is really fantastic at this point. But there is a critical flaw in every single actual USE of it. They are obsessed with their 'cloud' and don't do any of the processing locally. This guarantees the telltale latency lag which can not be remedied. Conversation with any synthetic voice will always be a beat off due to the latency. It's the same as the annoying wait while Alexa or Siri sends your voice data off to a cloud to be processed (which is utterly unnecessary for the recognition part). You will always know you're talking to a robot because the brain isn't in the head you're talking to and the speed of light is only so fast.
- djrogers 8y ago> It's the same as the annoying wait while Alexa or Siri sends your voice data off to a cloud to be processed (which is utterly unnecessary for the recognition part). True - in fact the iPhone actually does transcription on-device, AFAIK the cloud loop is for validation and to get answers. Dont believe me? Put your iphone in airplane mode and use the dictation button on your keyboard!
- gwbas1c 8y agoI find that it's easy to get a proof-of-concept together. The challenging thing is getting all the details right for a working product. Or, to put it mildly, people who don't understand easily confuse a demo with a working product. It's probably just a proof of concept that doesn't work very well. They probably just played back one of the few attempts that it worked very well. I even remember, when reading the article, a lot of caution in overestimating the state of the technology. So, given their disclaimer, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt; and I'm thinking that everyone else overreacted because they don't understand software development.
- czbond 8y agoWho cares. Even if it is not a "real restaurant" - as long as it is even Duplex calling a Google employee pretending to be a restaurant, does it really matter? [note: I did not watch the actual reveal, so as long as they didn't make the exact claim]
- scarface74 8y agoYes it matters. One of my go to "Hello World" type of programs that I use to write when learning a new framework or language was an Eliza like chatbot. Whenever I chatted with it, it worked amazingly well even when I was trying to test for corner cases. The minute someone else used it, the illusion was shot. It's really easy to make a chatbot work when you keep it on the rails - even when you're not intending too.
- djrogers 8y ago> so as long as they didn't make the exact claim There's the rub, they did make that exact claim...
- jayd16 8y agoThis is like being suspicious about why the photos in an Apple keynote look so good. Almost like they were hand picked to look good?
- Kenji 8y agoThis. I believe the conversations were genuine, but I also believe they were two of hundreds or even thousands. Cherry picked. I am absolutely certain that some calls ended in complete confusion on both sides.
- lgleason 8y agoI'll say this again. Currently I have Google home hooked up to my home automation system. It has trouble correctly identifying commands for things like turning on my desk light and understanding South African accents when friend visit from there. My Alexa does a lot better with that. Yet somehow I'm to believe that they have made this massive step forward. Google used to under promise and over-deliver. Now it has been taken over by marketers who tend to over promise and under deliver. The truth is that they still make the majority of their profit from search, but need to look like they have something to back that up to keep the stock price up. Between that and Waymo it really felt like they don't. Android and the Chomebooks are promising as technologies, and I like they refinements they are offering, but the monetization strategy doesn't seem to be clear strong. It is definitely not as strong as Apple's ability to make profit from selling Macs and I-Phones...
- plicense 8y agoSorry for the irrelevant comment - I've just been looking at your past comments. Looks like your gripe with Google started 4-6 months ago and been continuing ever since. What happened?
- jessaustin 8y agoThe parent comment itself describes dissatisfaction while using Google products. Perhaps this use, or at least the dissatisfaction it inspires, began then? Regardless, this sort of questioning seems unfair.
- plicense 8y agoThere are certain things in the original comment that I agree with(in certain situations I too have found Alexa to be better performing than Google Home), certain things maybe not so much(like this statement "Google used to under promise and over-deliver. Now it has been taken over by marketers who tend to over promise and under deliver.") One of the things I've decided to do these days when I find things that make no sense when I read them, is to figure out if the commenter had any pre-existing biases.
- awesomepantsm 8y agoThis reminds me of the advice: Don't write articles that can be answered with a single word "no". Unlike startups, it's not like Google's business depends on investors supporting lofty goals. There would seem to be no benefit to faking a demo like this. Not revealing the business location is likely just because they consider their business partners to be business data that they don't want to give away to competitors. Clean auto could easily just be done via a simple noise filter, just for the sake of the demo. When you have a little noise in your ear, it's not bad. But when you need to broadcast sound to an entire stadium, you need to rebalance it. This story is a load of nonsense.
- MBCook 8y agoHow do we know the answer is no? Maybe Google’s software can do what they say but they didn’t demo that. Thay supposedly made a call (won’t release proof) to a restaurant (that they won’t name) and talked to a receptionist (who didn’t mention the restaurant name) that didn’t ask what time the reservation was for. And you couldn’t hear the restaurant in the background. The demo is really suspicious. They deserve to be called on it. For all we know that was a recording of a fake training/test call with a Google employee. If they manipulated the audio in some way (cut out an intro, filtered out noise, etc) they just have to say so. Google deserves this kind of scrutiny. They’re a MASSIVE company, they should be able to handle these kind of questions about new products. Especially those that are supposed to be released in the next few months.
- jessaustin 8y agoA smoother fake would have bleeped over the supposed restaurant name. Something to look forward to next time!
- cma 8y ago> Unlike startups, it's not like Google's business depends on investors supporting lofty goals. There would seem to be no benefit to faking a demo like this. You could say the exact same thing about Microsoft and the Milo demo.
- telltruth 8y ago
- jccalhoun 8y agoRemember, actually calling someone is the last resort. If google can make a reservation for you online then it will do that first. If they have to call, I suspect that it isn't 100% without human intervention. I am reminded of "Samantha West" the telemarketer "bot" that will robocall people and respond to people. It turns out it isn't a bot at all but someone pushing buttons on a soundboard to play the appropriate prerecorded response. http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/17/robot-telemarketer-samantha-west/ http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/17/robot-telemarketer-saman... It would be pretty easy for the small number of times that google can't make a reservation online for you to pay some people in a call center to do this.
- RA_Fisher 8y agoHaha, the old Mechanical Turk trick! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk With all the smarties on the Google Brain team, I'm surprised they need it.
- spocklivelong 8y agoI look forward to a day when two bots talk to each other and just make things happen.
- tehsauce 8y agoI think the more import point rather than whether or not it was "fake", was that it was certainly cherry-picked. This is an issue with a lot of machine learning and AI presentation and publications today. If you want to show how useful something is, there needs to be a functional demo.
- kozikow 8y agoI think it's obvious to anyone who ever did AI/ML demo. Let him/her who never picked the best example out of 20 for their demo cast the first stone.
- telltruth 8y agoNot these days. Without code and reproducibility, most researchers would ignore your amazing demo. You should check out recent feud between Yann LeCun and Sophia.
- jonknee 8y agoGoogle's in a lose lose here, if they relent and identify the businesses the press will descend on them to get quotes about how they feel "getting tricked" by a bot and so on. But if Google hadn't left out the identifying information in the first place the businesses would have been inundated by callers and Google would have been criticized for letting a small business get "doxed" like that. And finally if they don't release any info there will be more stories about how it's fake. I guess they could have the bot call Dan Primack at Axios and clear it up...
- threatofrain 8y agoThis technology in general also raises a really modern question of what does verbal consent mean now that a program can sound like me?
- prkvs 8y agoGoogle claims that restaurant booking quoted in the blog[1] was done using Duplex. someone should reverse lookup this image[2], match it with bay area based restaurants and find the restaurant then [1] https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natural-conversation.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natur... [2] https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Arp_jhtS4F0/WvD7KzLvDRI/AAAAAAAACrs/CgWeSM1I3okK5uyCt0d9BsYhtKBnpKuRACLcBGAs/s1600/Yaniv%2BMatan%2BFinal.jpeg https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Arp_jhtS4F0/WvD7KzLvDRI/AAAAAAAAC... Edit: It looks like Chinese/Korean restaurant from Image.
- gthrow80 8y agoIt was confirmed at TGIF yesterday that the system is just playing pre-recorded audio in response to what the person on the phone says. The "Uh Huh" and "Hmmm" is just hardcoded.
- blklifematters 8y agoGoogle is fakest fake. Bilderberg member all they way.