Who or what would be liable for a death resulting from a suicidal person calling up and killing themselves?
Obviously someone is at fault, because we all instinctively realize that such a setup is monstrous and horrific. I hope.
Seems straightforward, right?
See e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Melchert-Din... (law found unconstitutional in part, convicted of assisting)
While there are certainly free speech protections for discussing suicide, there is a pretty solid line between that and using something billed as a crisis resource to directly encourage suicide.
But what about a search that didn't return it, or returned it in a way that's not really obvious (ie. google's answer panels for questions)? Should we report google and/or the computer manufacturer to the CSPC?
On the other hand, the status quo is kinda funny: https://i.imgur.com/ux42v8p.png
That seems like a pointless distinction. Do you think kids even know what a search engine is? I'm sure some do, but are the ones who don't out of luck? I'll even say that a significant chunk of adults think that the content in google info boxes comes from google, rather than from the site itself.
That's exactly why I consider those info boxes potentially problematic. If people trust Google and don't understand how the info box is formed, they will take it for an authoritative source which is exactly the problem with it. Google perhaps should not show those info boxes if they cannot stand behind the information presented within. Same thing with Alexa, if kids blindly trust it instead of treating it like snippets of text that happened to match on some page.. that's concerning.
> That seems like a pointless distinction. Do you think kids even know what a search engine is?
I don't know exactly how a kid views Alexa and how they view search engines. To them, is Alexa just a toy, just another way to look things up on the net, or is it something more? I certainly knew what search is, at the age of 10 (come on, searching is pretty much the first thing you learn to do online), but there was nothing like Alexa in my life.
The question is not do they know exactly what a search engine is, but how much do they "trust" (or what kind of authority do they attribute to) Alexa vs how much they trust the list of results in search. I think Alexa is more opaque than a list of search results and there's a real possibility that kids would "trust" it (and also Google's info boxes etc.) more than they trust the obvious list of snippets of matching text on web sites. Obviously, there's no way to click Alexa for more context, or is there? It just blurts out "facts", not entirely unlike Google does with their info boxes. You don't get to judge whether these "facts" come from a sketchy site or forum or whatever else. Is "here's something I found on the web" sufficient to clue the kid on that it's just a search result and information taken out of context? I think there's some subtlety that might be harder to comprehend than in a list of clickable links with bolded snippets of text.
I get the impression people are arguing against the idea of customer protection reviewing Google Search/Alexa out of fear for the continued existence of computers, computing, free speech, and open access to information. What do you believe is at stake here? Do you believe they're going to shut down the internet?
A voice assistant can be reasonably expected to be operated by a very young child, who would be responsive and trusting to verbal commands in an adult-like voice from it.
A keyboard computer with a search engine in a browser cannot reasonably be expected to be operated by a very young child, and would not be reasonably expected to issue spoken-verbal commands in response to queries.
The information content is a relevant factor in the former case but not the latter; keyboard use of search engines is not in-scope for evaluating the child safety risk of voice assistants, though it is certainly an interesting topic as well.
They are separate concerns and considering the browser case does not nullify the necessity of considering the voice assistant case.
For example, replace “10-year-old” with “3-year-old” (a simple and effective safety test for potential threat to children) and apply that test to both devices:
A) Could a 3-year-old child be reasonably expected to operate a keyboard-browser search and result interface? Could they be placed into danger by doing so?
B) Could a 3-year-old child be reasonably expected operate a voice assistant search and result interface? Could they be placed into danger by doing so?
The answers to A and B are not the same, because the threat models (to the child) are very different when “can read and type” is not taken for granted, as is implied for a 10-year-old. This is why the US has a safety commission to consider these things: common sense can hide critical threats to children that are invisible and unrecognized by well-meaning adults.
Oh, wait.
“In what ways do they restrict the available voice commands and results to protect children?”
And I bet it will be found that their interface allows never-reviewed-by-Amazon content to be read out loud to children, because Amazon loves to externalize human costs.
Humans created and manage the behavior of the automaton.
I brought it up because in your comment you quoted the following
>> There are no human beings involved
to which you replied
>Humans created and manage the behavior of the automaton.
The no human beings involved is an explanation why the scenario of Alexa telling a child to do something dangerous is not the same as a human on the phone doing it, because there are no humans involved at the time that Alexa says this. This was considered an important distinction to make because if it were like a human being talking on the phone and saying do this dangerous thing the phone would not be considered a dangerous product and only the person would be considered dangerous.
Thus when you say "Humans created and manage the behavior of the automaton." this in context must function as a saying the use of Alexa is equivalent to the use of a phone and therefore Alexa cannot be considered a dangerous product, however the humans involved in Alexa are removed in time and do not take part in the actual dangerous action (in opposition to the example given of a bad actor on a phone call) and thus that a human created and managed the behavior of the automaton is analogous to the fact that humans created the lawn darts.
If the lawn darts are negligent product design then it at least leaves the question open as to whether or not Alexa is as well.
You mean that the person on the other end of the phone would be considered the risk, right?
There is no person inside of an Amazon Echo. Your question does not go to a call center where someone decides how to answer it. There are no human beings involved, it's all automated.