So. Why don't people talk to invisible robots in public?

Some questions just answer themselves


Wilson: Who's Harvey?
Miss Kelly: A white rabbit, six feet tall
Wilson: Six feet?
Elwood P. Dowd: Six feet three and a half inches. Now let's stick to the facts

A shock survey that nobody could possibly have anticipated reveals that people don’t want to talk to an invisible rabbit robot when they’re out in public.

The survey quizzed two sets of over 1,000 early technology adopters in the UK and the USA over their use of imaginary friends – aka voice-activated personal digital assistants – including Siri, Cortana and Google Now. The survey shows high awareness of the assistants and high takeup when in a car, but only six per cent use them at work, and only 1.3 per cent use them in public.

A fifth of non-users cited embarrassment as their prime reason for not quizzing a disembodied voice.

The shock is really no shock at all, of course. Academic research into the topic by psychologists has confirmed as much. And embarrassment may not even be the biggest inhibition.

Research published in 2014 and co-authored by a Samsung researcher now at Google and Microsoft's Kim-Phuong Vu, showed that users needed to feel their environment was private before using a “VAPDA” such as Siri. It gets more interesting.

Even then, privacy concerns were paramount. Yet there is no more or less privacy talking to a VAPDA than there is typing into Google. To the user, however, the voice assistant "feels" less private. By talking, the user is bringing with them the context of a social situation, where people can eavesdrop, or get annoyed.

Practical considerations also come into play: the quality of speech recognition falls dramatically in a noisy public environment. At one time any one-sided conversation was considered intrusive, but is now generally socially acceptable. However, the declarative speech required using a Siri or Google Now may never cross that threshold.

Which means that all that money being poured into AI-powered speech recognition may not get the return on investments its backers hope.

More here. ®

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022