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)?

> Or the more immediate wake-up call that this tech will be used in malicious phishing attacks against your grandparents

This one is quite scary. "Grandma, I'm stuck in Malta and people are after me, send me immediately 500 through Western Union"

Or you get called by your boss: "I need you to urgently send this payment or our production factory goes down".

> grandma

"Alright sweetheart, just tell me what the emergency phrase is"

Grandmas aren't especially well-known for their razor sharp opsec skills..

That needs to change as much as anything else. We have to adapt, too. This can't be a unilateral thing. We need to change in response to the world around us, and if we don't, we won't survive.

Shifting the responsibility to stay safe from complex attacks to the user will never work for a tech company, even one with the resources available to Google. If Google Assistant is a reliable way of scamming grandmas it will fail because there'll be constant negative news about it in the press.

How about "Alright sweetheart, just tell me what the last chain message I sent said."

My Grandma escaped from the Nazis. Her opsec is better than mine.

Oh, what was it... I'm sure I wrote it down in my Google Keep somewhere.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

"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.)

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.

> if consumers make the choice to use Duplex, growth means adapting to their needs, not the recipients

How does that differ from just basic economics of being where the customer is?

Restaurants installed phones to be reachable.

Restaurants contract with web service providers to be present on the web.

Restaurants locate near available parking or buy additional land to convert into parking spaces so customers who do not walk or use mass transit can patronize them.

Restaurants get involved with systems like OpenTable or their own online booking solution to be maximally reachable to their potential customers.

If anything, this system has the advantage that restaurants have to change almost nothing about their process to be involved with it, relative to the years of previous technological changes they've adapted to.

If Google was saying, "any Restaurant can sign up to be reachable by Assistant -- we have lots of customers that will be excited to call them", your analogies would apply and we wouldn't be discussing. In all of your cases, the restaurant opted into a form of reachability.

Maybe we disagree about whether opening a phone line is opting into be called by a robot. I don't think almost any restaurant thinks of it that way, and if they did then it wouldn't be necessary to fake human vocal inflections when you call them.

The view you're expressing is what reminds me of telemarketing -- it's a presumption that the fact I open up a channel means I've authorized you to do anything you want with it.

Regarding your parking lot analogy, I think we're going to have exactly these arguments about usage of public space. Will stores with counters be ok with Drones flying in to stand in line? Stay tuned!

If you own a phone line, may I presume you're comfortable talking to a human assistant?

If you are, why may I not presume you're comfortable talking to a robot assistant?

If the experience of talking to the robot is noticeably degraded from the experience of talking to a human, that's a different question entirely---I'm assuming they're equivalent, maybe I should not. But if they are equivalent, what is the difference to the business owner?

(And FWIW, I think the drones would likely drive or walk in; look for Segway or Boston Dynamics to come up with something in the not too distant future ;) )

> I'm assuming they're equivalent, maybe I should not.

For me, the core question is who gets to make that assumption, not whether it's correct or not. The people who are most impacted by uncertainty should have a choice about participating IMO.

But, one thing I'm realizing from other threads is that some people feel they have a similar level of uncertainty for human interaction, and are frustrated by the status quo of needing to interact with services. For me, that says this tech clearly has a place -- it just needs some effort to proactively establish etiquette around it's use.

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

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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 to WaveNet and it's successors. Instead of the recognizable assistant making calls, every assistant will be different.

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.

This is spot on. The illusion doesn't have to be prefect, just convincing. Huge convenience factor to automation of communications like calls and emails, but it does break the simple mental contract we currently have that "this email was written by Jonathan" and "I'm currently talking to Jonathan on the phone."

Not sure I'm looking forward to a continual game of "guess when it's a robot".

> Not sure I'm looking forward to a continual game of "guess when it's a robot".

Something that already happens on dating services, for example. And makes one cynical.

A good thing bear in mind is that, as technology continues to develop, human stupidity will remain constant. The moron speculating on witchcraft 300 years ago has now defyingly managed to get a text editor open on the internet and is now pontificating about some buzzwords they've heard of.

Human stupidity is an endless resource that will never be exhausted.

If only we could base our economy on that, we'd be good until the heat death of the universe.

We actually do! We use the energy of stupid people to power reality TV and it was the fuel behind the Trump take over of the GOP.

> "Naming this field AI was a poor choice."

Amen!

The question still holds, even if you replace it with the more accurate " Google Assistant Development Team adds the capability to mimic their user's voices?". That's a very realistic possibility.

The question is "google assistant learns how to masquerade as a user" - implying that the Google Assistant will be autonomous, gain a will and start impersonating users for it own purposes and benefit. That is an imaginative stretch into never-gotta-happen fantasy. The statement does not say "users will train it to have their voice", the statement was that the Google Assistant will do this on its own. Fantasy.

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...)

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 totally be confused for a real person, and self-driving cars that make life/death decisions on their own is not impressive and not AI or 'machine learning' is outride ridiculous.

Intelligence is something with short and long term memory, that can learn new things in an organic fashion, right now we can 'train' ai's to do some amazing things -- but this is only the beginning.

I think the GP is pointing out that people tend to overestimate how powerful these techniques are and that using the term AI might have something to do with that.

Not that it isn't impressive: it's just that we are pretty far off from anything resembling what "Artificial Intelligence" may come to embody (ignoring, for the moment, all fuzzy definitions of intelligence).

It's like building a paper airplane and worrying about the aging effects of space travel at light speed: maybe a good thought experiment but not that big a concern right now.

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.

Narrow AI is like a single celled animal, while strong AI is like a complete human in comparison. The complexity difference is more than an order of magnitude, it's an entire evolutionary era.

I don't disagree with a gap that needs to be overcome. I just think that the exponential nature of technology will cross it quickly.

Evolution is amazing but it doesn't optimize directly for intelligence.

> well-thought out mechanism to re-create in 1's and 0's how the human brain works and thinks,

This is impressive technology, but it is emphatically not that. It is very much a cute statistical trick coupled with really excellent voice processing software.