6 ms·

Because people will hang up on it like they do all other robocalls, or they will talk to it like many people talk to "computers". They won't use grammar, they w

Because people will hang up on it like they do all other robocalls, or they will talk to it like many people talk to "computers". They won't use grammar, they will speak louder, they will slow down, and they will try to keep the conversation as simple as possible fearing that the system can't handle anything else. It needs to sound human so that humans will interact with it correctly. If it sounds human, then the person on the other end of the call might say things like "We don't have anything available on the 3rd but we do on the 5th, is that okay?" If it sounds like a robot, people will just respond to questions with "no", "yes", or say "phone number" instead of "can i have your phone number?" Sounding human puts the human in the drivers seat, sounding robotic means the "robot" needs to drive the conversation.

reaperducer 8y ago
or they will talk to it like many people talk to "computers". They won't use grammar, they will speak louder, they will slow down, and they will try to keep the conversation as simple as possible fearing that the system can't handle anything else So, pretty much how we've trained ourselves to use Google, the search engine. Nobody types "I'd like to know what the best way is to braise pork with white wine" into Google. They type "pork recipe braise wine" because we've been trained by Google that this will produce better results. If Google's current search worked as well as it claims Duplex will, then we'd finally be getting somewhere. But Google's taken its eye off the ball. Right now, at least for the things I search for, searching on Google is like playing an Infocom game.
- pavs 8y ago
  Name a search engine that's better than Google. Nobody type "I'd like to know what the best way is to braise pork with white wine", doesn't mean Google can't give you good search result if you typed like that, you will get just as good result if you type "pork recipe braise wine", but its fewer words and more efficient to type. It's less of "google trained us to type like that" and more or "We opted to use the more efficient way of doing that same thing". If Google didn't give us good results if we typed "pork recipe braise wine", it would be a pretty shitty search engine in my book.
  - bjelkeman-again 8y ago
    In my experience the results are worse with full sentences, just as it was described.
  - Springtime 8y ago
    > It's less of "google trained us to type like that" and more or "We opted to use the more efficient way of doing that same thing". I'm a bit baffled at this, given it reads as though the past 20 years of searching hasn't been learning to adapt to what one might call search engine speak for better results. The obvious main issue was for years you had to guess how someone else would phrase something if using longer phrases, since the longer the query the less likely you'll find a matching result. If you didn't get the desired results you then would either re-phrase it to yet another natural sentence or (increasingly since it shortcuts the process) pare back the query to simpler keywords to have a better chance of success finding those same core keywords in sites. Eventually people got used to just entering keywords instead since it wasted time trying one's luck on more natural sentences for the reasons above. Obviously with better natural language tech (and with more user content generated and indexed) some queries became more successful but even today it can be a complete dice roll for many longer, naturally phrased queries whether anything useful is returned.
    - pavs 8y ago
      This might be true for a small subset or early or techie users, but from my experience watching some of my less tech-inclined friends and family using google search. I find it fascinating how much trouble they go through by typing a complete sentence with proper grammar and spelling. I honestly don't know which one is common, but I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of users type full sentences or long search queries.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    Name a search engine that's better than Google I never stated that Google isn't the best search engine out there. I stated that I hoped the natural language learning from Duplex would filter down to the Google search engine. But while we're on the topic, find a search query in which Google will return a list of movie reviewers in the city of Chicago. It can't. It is so focused on second-guessing search queries that it will only return lists of reviews of the film Chicago. I had this exact very frustrating experience once trying to find the name of a woman I met who publishes a popular movie review blog in Chicago. There's even a "guild" of sorts of movie reviewers in Chicago, but Google could only surface that as high as the 10th page of results. I know I'm not the only person frustrated with Google's desire to second-guess my searches because I heard a comedian on the radio last week who did a bit that lasted five whole minutes on Google second-guessing searches.
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  > Nobody types "I'd like to know what the best way is to braise pork with white wine" into Google No, but lots of people say stuff like that to Google Assistant all the time, and Google is tuning their search engine to accommodate queries like that: https://www.google.com/search?q=What's+the+best+way+to+braise+pork+with+white+wine%3F https://www.google.com/search?q=What's+the+best+way+to+brais... The above query results in a card displaying step-by-step directions on how to braise pork with white wine. Maybe Google's better at this than you thought?
- saynay 8y ago
  Basically everyone in my office types full sentences to Google, and it drives me crazy.
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Could not disagree more. I am consitently amazed by Google search results and most cases top couple results is what I am looking for. But the biggest difference is Google has things in the search engine much quicker than Bing. Next time big event happens in the world give it a try.
- amygdyl 8y ago
  they will use incorrect grammar, I am suggested by a flashback to being a English to English interpreter between a customer who learned English while a contractor in Dubai, and a friend who is from the same region of Pakistan, forty years before, and whose English is to my ears the most polished Received Pronunciation. I mean polished to convey being personally adopted and crafted to retain both the RP strict enunciation yet deliver a nuanced and individual sideband of the kind of emphasis and interpretative expression that relates the mind of the speaker, which I think RP unfortunately removed when it removed colloquial intonation and regional accents and idiom. I can only be impressionistic about how I hear my friend speak. But I knew his elegant Received Pronunciation English at first, and attuned to his individual sideband, rather later. Possibly the experience of first being a very young apprentice and later less familiar, might have emphasised my attention and consequent possible bias. However the speaker I am describing is a very successful individual in business and almost politics too. I know that I could not broach the subject easily, but I imagine that a considerable amount of pride and private sense of accomplishment is likely to be enclosed within this gentleman's appreciation for his voice. This gentleman almost invented the "bucket shop" discount airfare travel agency, knew Laker, and I think of him as English establishment by way of his work and private politics. This just now, without any sufficient thought I must say, makes me think that bringing back Received Pronunciation English could be a powerful unifying force. Most arguments against RP I have understood to be by proxy and often explicitly, about the sociopolitical emancipation of ethnicity and regionalism. If now we are able to accept our diversity, might we allow experiment with collective community in communication. If this could be a means to spur confluence of grammar and appreciative improvement of emotional and contextual communication synchronously in a common mode of speech, I hazard that the new kind of RP would not be seen as identity stripping. Possibly a powerful intercommunity and even intergenerational asset regardless of professional or official need. France legislates language detail and requires universal official compliance, with seemingly less aversion, at least my still frequent reading of French major newspapers has not been alerted, even when the last dictat occurred.
- cbhl 8y ago
  Did you actually try the former query? It works pretty darn well now -- for me, it brings up recipes (and your HN comment, of course). Disclaimer: My personal opinion, not that of my employer.
ragazzina 8y ago
You are comparing a generic computer to the best human conversation. But people make phone calls when driving, make phone calls with background noise, make phone calls while speaking to other people, make phone calls even if they don't know exactly what they want and waste the businesses time, all the time. They will hang up or be confused the first time. As soon as this becomes common, they will get used to it and actually waste way less time than with the usual human call and will look forward to the familiar efficient robotic voice instead of the third prank or drunk call of the night. >It needs to sound human so that humans will interact with it correctly. I disagree. It needs to sound understandable and easy to use so that humans will interact with it correctly. Making it more "human" is orthogonal to that. All the replies to my comments have something to do with interacting in a more human way. Does it ever provide value for simple use cases? I'm honestly asking. (If I am calling to book a table and the restaurant suggests me another day as in your example, I would be as stumped as the computer and would need to check my calendar and call them back, so your human sounding assistant is providing no value anyway. Is that even a real use case?) I don't know, maybe a understand-all-manages-everything computer would be used more happily by people, but I'm not convinced. For these simple use case, I still think a binary algorithm would be, on average, more efficient for both the caller and the business.
- theptip 8y ago
  You say > We have had this kind of technology for years. and > For these simple use case, I still think a binary algorithm would be, on average, more efficient for both the caller and the business. The fact that we have had this technology for years, and nobody has been able to make it work as you describe, suggests that it's not as simple as you think. My take: sometimes you can persuade users to learn a new UI, but consider the stereotypical grandparent that still can barely use email; teaching a new UI is hard, normal non-tech people don't like it, and it will take more than a generation to reach 100% penetration. The existing UI of using a telephone and conversing like a human is probably not at 100% penetration either (e.g. considering deaf individuals), but I'd wager it's as close as any one UI is going to get.
3131s 8y ago
> Because people will hang up on it like they do all other robocalls A business that is essentially closing a sale with customers? No way, the call might not be from a real human but the money that the reservation will bring in is no different than any other.

reaperducer 8y ago

or they will talk to it like many people talk to "computers". They won't use grammar, they will speak louder, they will slow down, and they will try to keep the conversation as simple as possible fearing that the system can't handle anything else So, pretty much how we've trained ourselves to use Google, the search engine. Nobody types "I'd like to know what the best way is to braise pork with white wine" into Google. They type "pork recipe braise wine" because we've been trained by Google that this will produce better results. If Google's current search worked as well as it claims Duplex will, then we'd finally be getting somewhere. But Google's taken its eye off the ball. Right now, at least for the things I search for, searching on Google is like playing an Infocom game.

pavs 8y ago
Name a search engine that's better than Google. Nobody type "I'd like to know what the best way is to braise pork with white wine", doesn't mean Google can't give you good search result if you typed like that, you will get just as good result if you type "pork recipe braise wine", but its fewer words and more efficient to type. It's less of "google trained us to type like that" and more or "We opted to use the more efficient way of doing that same thing". If Google didn't give us good results if we typed "pork recipe braise wine", it would be a pretty shitty search engine in my book.
- bjelkeman-again 8y ago
  In my experience the results are worse with full sentences, just as it was described.
- Springtime 8y ago
  > It's less of "google trained us to type like that" and more or "We opted to use the more efficient way of doing that same thing". I'm a bit baffled at this, given it reads as though the past 20 years of searching hasn't been learning to adapt to what one might call search engine speak for better results. The obvious main issue was for years you had to guess how someone else would phrase something if using longer phrases, since the longer the query the less likely you'll find a matching result. If you didn't get the desired results you then would either re-phrase it to yet another natural sentence or (increasingly since it shortcuts the process) pare back the query to simpler keywords to have a better chance of success finding those same core keywords in sites. Eventually people got used to just entering keywords instead since it wasted time trying one's luck on more natural sentences for the reasons above. Obviously with better natural language tech (and with more user content generated and indexed) some queries became more successful but even today it can be a complete dice roll for many longer, naturally phrased queries whether anything useful is returned.
  - pavs 8y ago
    This might be true for a small subset or early or techie users, but from my experience watching some of my less tech-inclined friends and family using google search. I find it fascinating how much trouble they go through by typing a complete sentence with proper grammar and spelling. I honestly don't know which one is common, but I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of users type full sentences or long search queries.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  Name a search engine that's better than Google I never stated that Google isn't the best search engine out there. I stated that I hoped the natural language learning from Duplex would filter down to the Google search engine. But while we're on the topic, find a search query in which Google will return a list of movie reviewers in the city of Chicago. It can't. It is so focused on second-guessing search queries that it will only return lists of reviews of the film Chicago. I had this exact very frustrating experience once trying to find the name of a woman I met who publishes a popular movie review blog in Chicago. There's even a "guild" of sorts of movie reviewers in Chicago, but Google could only surface that as high as the 10th page of results. I know I'm not the only person frustrated with Google's desire to second-guess my searches because I heard a comedian on the radio last week who did a bit that lasted five whole minutes on Google second-guessing searches.
Ajedi32 8y ago
> Nobody types "I'd like to know what the best way is to braise pork with white wine" into Google No, but lots of people say stuff like that to Google Assistant all the time, and Google is tuning their search engine to accommodate queries like that: https://www.google.com/search?q=What's+the+best+way+to+braise+pork+with+white+wine%3F https://www.google.com/search?q=What's+the+best+way+to+brais... The above query results in a card displaying step-by-step directions on how to braise pork with white wine. Maybe Google's better at this than you thought?
saynay 8y ago
Basically everyone in my office types full sentences to Google, and it drives me crazy.
jacksmith21006 8y ago
Could not disagree more. I am consitently amazed by Google search results and most cases top couple results is what I am looking for. But the biggest difference is Google has things in the search engine much quicker than Bing. Next time big event happens in the world give it a try.
amygdyl 8y ago
they will use incorrect grammar, I am suggested by a flashback to being a English to English interpreter between a customer who learned English while a contractor in Dubai, and a friend who is from the same region of Pakistan, forty years before, and whose English is to my ears the most polished Received Pronunciation. I mean polished to convey being personally adopted and crafted to retain both the RP strict enunciation yet deliver a nuanced and individual sideband of the kind of emphasis and interpretative expression that relates the mind of the speaker, which I think RP unfortunately removed when it removed colloquial intonation and regional accents and idiom. I can only be impressionistic about how I hear my friend speak. But I knew his elegant Received Pronunciation English at first, and attuned to his individual sideband, rather later. Possibly the experience of first being a very young apprentice and later less familiar, might have emphasised my attention and consequent possible bias. However the speaker I am describing is a very successful individual in business and almost politics too. I know that I could not broach the subject easily, but I imagine that a considerable amount of pride and private sense of accomplishment is likely to be enclosed within this gentleman's appreciation for his voice. This gentleman almost invented the "bucket shop" discount airfare travel agency, knew Laker, and I think of him as English establishment by way of his work and private politics. This just now, without any sufficient thought I must say, makes me think that bringing back Received Pronunciation English could be a powerful unifying force. Most arguments against RP I have understood to be by proxy and often explicitly, about the sociopolitical emancipation of ethnicity and regionalism. If now we are able to accept our diversity, might we allow experiment with collective community in communication. If this could be a means to spur confluence of grammar and appreciative improvement of emotional and contextual communication synchronously in a common mode of speech, I hazard that the new kind of RP would not be seen as identity stripping. Possibly a powerful intercommunity and even intergenerational asset regardless of professional or official need. France legislates language detail and requires universal official compliance, with seemingly less aversion, at least my still frequent reading of French major newspapers has not been alerted, even when the last dictat occurred.
cbhl 8y ago
Did you actually try the former query? It works pretty darn well now -- for me, it brings up recipes (and your HN comment, of course). Disclaimer: My personal opinion, not that of my employer.

ragazzina 8y ago

You are comparing a generic computer to the best human conversation. But people make phone calls when driving, make phone calls with background noise, make phone calls while speaking to other people, make phone calls even if they don't know exactly what they want and waste the businesses time, all the time. They will hang up or be confused the first time. As soon as this becomes common, they will get used to it and actually waste way less time than with the usual human call and will look forward to the familiar efficient robotic voice instead of the third prank or drunk call of the night. >It needs to sound human so that humans will interact with it correctly. I disagree. It needs to sound understandable and easy to use so that humans will interact with it correctly. Making it more "human" is orthogonal to that. All the replies to my comments have something to do with interacting in a more human way. Does it ever provide value for simple use cases? I'm honestly asking. (If I am calling to book a table and the restaurant suggests me another day as in your example, I would be as stumped as the computer and would need to check my calendar and call them back, so your human sounding assistant is providing no value anyway. Is that even a real use case?) I don't know, maybe a understand-all-manages-everything computer would be used more happily by people, but I'm not convinced. For these simple use case, I still think a binary algorithm would be, on average, more efficient for both the caller and the business.

theptip 8y ago
You say > We have had this kind of technology for years. and > For these simple use case, I still think a binary algorithm would be, on average, more efficient for both the caller and the business. The fact that we have had this technology for years, and nobody has been able to make it work as you describe, suggests that it's not as simple as you think. My take: sometimes you can persuade users to learn a new UI, but consider the stereotypical grandparent that still can barely use email; teaching a new UI is hard, normal non-tech people don't like it, and it will take more than a generation to reach 100% penetration. The existing UI of using a telephone and conversing like a human is probably not at 100% penetration either (e.g. considering deaf individuals), but I'd wager it's as close as any one UI is going to get.

3131s 8y ago

> Because people will hang up on it like they do all other robocalls A business that is essentially closing a sale with customers? No way, the call might not be from a real human but the money that the reservation will bring in is no different than any other.