vicidial.org

Did you see on cable news the other day the tape of Google Assistant’s phone call? It called a hair salon to schedule an appointment for a hair cut. It went something like this..........”Hi, I’d like to schedule a cut for May 3rd, do you have any openings on that day?” The woman who answered the phone didn’t think twice, said hold on let me check the schedule. Apparently the voice sounded so real, and the language was so real, people are upset because artificial intelligence made a phone call, and the human who answered thought it was a regular person. Google has responded to the criticism by saying that before the final product is rolled out, they will add a disclosure in phone calls where the AI voice identifies itself as not being a live person.

First, I think it’s remarkable all this hubbub came up because you can’t tell Google Assistant apart from a live person. The technology is really there isn’t it?

Second, does Google have to back down and add disclosures saying “I am not a live person”? Does the right to free speech extend from a person to a person’s electronics, robots or artificial intelligence? I sense legislatures will soon be taking it on themselves to write new sets of laws concerning what you can do with AI, what you can’t do with AI, what amounts of fines a citizen will be ordered to pay for this and that, and how much prison time they will forced to do for this or that.

Third, even if disclosures of “I am AI, by the way” become standard, I can envision people at first taking it as a joke or hanging up, but in time, talking to AI programs just like they would a human agent, because they still need to order that cable tv, or check a charge on their credit card, or any of the other thousands of things we use telephones for.

I read an article recently about jobs that AI could or would replace people at, and call center agents was one of the main predictions. I think that’s right. 50 or 100 years from now someone may say, hey I just called XXX Company, and I actually talked to a real human! On second thought probably in 5 or 10 years)))

This isn't AI. It's a voice tech to simulate human vocals. Everything else about it is simple if/then statements. You've been calling in to talk to machines at businesses since before computers. They are called answering machines. Having automated outbound dialing is also as old as can be. Robodialing has been around for many years and pissed off the general public.

But using a robodialer system for a useful purpose like setting an appointment will likely never be outlawed or even "require" disclosure. While google may offer a disclosure, it'll also likely just be another option so corporate users can consider it a "best practice" to avoid a lawsuit from someone who gets hammered by a misfiring appointment machine using a human-soundoing voice.

Challenge of course is that if it misfires, they're still going to get sued because it misfired. Not any different than it is now. If your idiot programmer causes the system to call the hairdresser 37 times in 10 minutes to set an appointment you're going to get sued. Especially if several of those calls were simultaneous. Illegal to use automation to tie up more than one line at a time at a business.

So ... nothing's changed, really. I don't see any rule or law changes in the near future. Nor do I see humans being replaced by auto-voices just yet, although there will be more Avatar/Sound Board dialing shortly, methinks.

Yes ......I remember someone using sequential databases on a dialer (calling every possible number in a phone prefix to pick up unlisted numbers) called every single number at a hospital at one time. Needless to say that didn’t go over well))