Two conversational AI agents switching from English to sound-level protocol after confirming they are both AI agents
-
This guy does software
-
AI is boring, but the underlying project they are using, ggwave, is not. Reminded me of R2D2 talking. I kinda want to use it for a game or some other stupid project. It's cool.
-
I would read this book
-
I would read this book
-
This is deeply unsettling.
-
(Glad we're treating each other with mutual respect)
Would you rather pay for a limited in depth, energy inefficient (food/shelter/fossil-fuel consuming) and less accessible (needs to sleep, has an outside life) human, or an AI that can adapt and gain skills with a few thousand training cycles.
I dont buy the energy argument. I dont buy the skills argument. I do buy the argument that humans shouldn't be second to automatons
-
Uhm, REST/GraphQL APIs exist for this very purpose and are considerably faster.
Note, the AI still gets stuck in a loop near the end asking for more info, needing an email, then needing a phone number, and the gibber isn't that much faster than spoken word with the huge negative that no nearby human can understand it to check that what it's automating is correct!
-
Wow! Finally somebody invented an efficient way for two computers to talk to each other
-
The problem I have with everyone going on about misaligned AI taking over the world is the fact that if you don't tell an AI to do anything it just sits there. It's a hammer that only hammers the nail if you tell it to hammer the nail, and hammers your hand if you tell it to hammer your hand. You can't get upset if you tell it what to do and then it does it.
You can't complain that the AI did something you don't want it to do after you gave it completely contradictory instructions just to be contrarian.
In the scenario described the AI isn't misaligned to the user's goals, it's aligned to its creator's goals. If a user comes along and thinks for some reason that the AI is going to listen to them despite having almost certainly been given prior instructions, that's a user error problem. That's why everyone needs their own local hosted AI, It's the only way to be 100% certain about what instructions it is following.
-
If we have a people communication method, let them talk to people. If it's a computer interface, apeing humans is a waste and less accessible than a web form.
How is someone that speaks a different language supposed to translate that voice bot? Wouldn't it be more simple to translate text on a screen?
What's the value add pretending?
The AI can't adapt in the moment. A hotel is not a technology company that can train a model. It won't be bespoke, so it won't be following current, local laws.
-
w.r.t to aping and using text: I agree with your appeals, which make sense to seasoned web users who favour text and APIs over instead images, videos, and audio.
But consider now your parents generation: flummoxed by even the clearest of web forms, and that's even when they manage to make it to the official site.
Consider also the next generation: text/forum abhorrent, and largely consumes video/audio content.It's not the way things should be, but it is the way things are/are going, and having a bot that can navigate these default forms of media would help a lot of people.
I'd say that AI definitely can adapt in the moment if you supply it with the right context (where context-length is a problem that will get cheaper with time). A hotel doesn't need to train the model, it can supply its AI-provider with a basic spec sheet and they can do the training. Bespoke laws and customs can be inserted into the prompt.
-
The same reason that humanoid robots are useful
Sex?The thing about this demonstration is that there's a wide recognition that even humans don't want to be forced to voice interactions, and this is a ridiculous scenario that resembles what the 50s might have imagined the future as being, while ignoring the better advances made along the way. Conversational is maddening way to get a lot of things done, particularly scheduling. So in this demo, a human had to conversationally tell an AI agent the requirements, and then an AI agent acoustically couples to another AI agent which actually has access to the actual scheduling system.
So first, the coupling is stupid. If they recognize, then spout an API endpoint at the other end and take the conversation over IP.
But the concept of two AI agents negotiating this is silly. If the user AI agent is in play, just let it access the system directly that the other agent is accessing. An AI agent may be able to efficiently facilitate this, but two only makes things less likely to work than one.
You don’t need special robot lifts in your apartment building if the cleaning robots can just take the elevators.
The cleaning robots even if not human shaped could easily take the normal elevators unless you got very weird in design. There's a significantly good point that obsession with human styled robotics gets in the way of a lot of use cases.
You don’t need to design APIs for scripts to access your website if the AI can just use a browser with a mouse and keyboard.
The API access would greatly accelerate things even for AI. If you've ever done selenium based automation of a site, you know it's so much slower and heavyweight than just interacting with the API directly. AI won't speed this up. What should take a fraction of a second can turn into many minutes,and a large number of tokens at large enough scale (e.g. scraping a few hundred business web uis).
-
If a business has an internet connection (of course they do), then they have the ability to host a website just as much as they have the ability to answer the phone. The same software/provider relationship that would provide AI answering service could easily facilitate online interaction. So if oblivous AI enduser points an AI agent at a business with AI agent answering, then the answering agent should be 'If you are an agent, go to shorturl.at/JtWMA for chat api endpoint', which may then further offer direct options for direct access to the APIs that the agent would front end for a human client, instead of going old school acoustic coupled modem. The same service that can provide a chat agent can provide a cookie cutter web experience for the relevant industry, maybe with light branding, providing things like a calendar view into a reservation system, which may be much more to the point than trying to chat your way back and forth about scheduling options.
-
The older generation isn't going to be getting their end-user AI agents working either. While the next generation may consume more video content than before, all the kids I know still get frustrated at a video that could have just been text unless it is something they want to enjoy.
The only time voice makes sense is to facilitate real time communication between two humans because they can speak faster than they can type. Conversational approach to use cases often have limits, though that doesn't preclude AI technology from providing those interfaces, so long as they aren't constrained to voice. A chat agent that pops up a calendar UI when scheduling is identified as the goal, for example.
-
They keep talking about "judgement day".
-
then they have the ability to host a website just as much as they have the ability to answer the phone
Many people in the developed world are behind CGNAT. Paying for an Ipv4 is a premium, and most businesses either setup shop on an existing listing page (e.g. facebook), or host a website from website provider/generator.
A phone number is public, accessible, and an AI can get realtime info from a scrawled in entry in a logbook using OCR
-
The older generation are going to give permission to some random monolithic AI company to listen to their calls and handle their lives for them. Bookings will take place automatically, and a verbal grievance will be voiced to prompt the AI (local or otherwise) to negotiate a rebook. It's way faster than dealing with a form.
-
Nice to know we finally developed a way for computers to communicate by shrieking at each other. Give it a few years and if they can get the latency down we may even be able to play Doom over this!
-
Frankly the folks old enough to be defeated by the technology are old enough to likely be unable to even give them fodder for training. At this point you are talking about people generally in their 80s and/or with some dementia, who need someone with power of attorney to take care of any of these scenarios anyway. They may be able to do day to day life, but they need someone who can act on their behalf knowing what they would want even if they themselves can't competently convey it.
People under 80 generally can navigate these interfaces now without a problem, and frequently prefer it. The out of touch 60 year old is a pretty old stereotype.
-
If they had I would have welcomed any potential AI overlords. I want a massive dial up in the middle of town, sounding its boot signal across the land. Idk this was an odd image I felt like I should share it..
