SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Google's Duplex AI could kill the call center
Google is reportedly shopping its Duplex AI system around as a tool for call centers, according to The Information, including a large insurance company.
Duplex would handle simple calls for the insurance company, and if the customer started asking complex questions the bot can't handle a human would step in, according to the report. However, it's unlikely that AI research will cease after mastering simple conversations, meaning call centers could one day be largely automated using this technology.
[...] Update: A Google spokesperson reiterated that Duplex is only being tested as a consumer technology for now, and that the company isn't testing it for enterprise. The entire statement is below:
We're currently focused on consumer use cases for the Duplex technology and we aren't testing Duplex with any enterprise clients. As we shared last week, Duplex is designed to operate in very specific use cases, and currently we're focused on testing with restaurant reservations, hair salon booking, and holiday hours with a limited set of trusted testers. It's important that we get the experience right and we're taking a slow and measured approach as we incorporate learnings and feedback from our tests.
Previously: Google Duplex: an AI that Can Make Phone Calls on Your Behalf
Google Starts "Limited Testing" of Google Duplex AI System
(Score: 2) by jcross on Sunday July 08 2018, @03:59PM (3 children)
As a society, do we really want people working in call centers? I mean the kind where they follow a script, which is all Duplex is intended to do. It seems like a terrible waste of human life and the potential of the mind to me, to treat a person like a machine for talking. Of course it would be bad if we can't find something better for them to do, but somehow I feel more optimistic about a world that doesn't subsist on making people behave like machines.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday July 08 2018, @04:16PM (2 children)
As a society, do we want people working at all? When people can't get jobs [nytimes.com], are we willing to assume responsibility for their continued existence? Or will we watch as they tear the society apart?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 08 2018, @04:40PM
Richard Stallman doesn't want people to work unless they're working on Free Software for free. People who can't get jobs should just get jobs as sales clerks in retail shops that don't exist anymore since Amazon took GNU/Linux and used it to drive retail out of business.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Sunday July 08 2018, @11:56PM
I think we'll have to take responsibility for a large portion of them at least. Or else who's buying and wearing the clothes the machines design and perhaps someday fabricate, pack, and ship? Sure it's possible in theory for the mega-rich to build robotic factories solely for their own needs, cutting everyone else out, but consider how vulnerable our technical infrastructure is to disruption. It's so intricate, spread out, and tightly coupled that a disgruntled populace could stop it without much trouble. Consider how poorly secured an oil pipeline is and you get some idea; the fact that they stay working at all is a testament to how many of us want to keep that oil flowing.
But aside from that, I suspect we'll find new things for people to do, things that would currently cost too much if the customer had to pay for a person's livelihood, but might be thinkable if that livelihood were cheaper. The fashion example in the article you linked is a great example, because clothing is absurdly cheap now compared to any other time in history, but it can still get cheaper. Further agricultural automation won't actually cost many jobs because there are so few to take, but it could make labor-intensive fresh vegetables as cheap as grain, and with lab-grown meat could put a delicious and healthy diet within the reach of billions. Printed buildings could make housing cheaper, automated vehicles drop the cost of transit, and so on. I'm not saying it can't all go wrong, but based on our past experience as a species it certainly doesn't have to.