Category: podcast

Digital Human Podcast

Digital Human Podcast:

Psst! Yeah you! If you missed Digital Human on Monday do not despair. We have podcasts. You can have a whole weekend Digihuman tech meets psychology binge!

People are using Siri as a therapist, so Apple…

People are using Siri as a therapist, so Apple is seeking engineers who understand psychology:

Perhaps you’ve stumped Siri before, asking Apple’s automated assistant things like, “What is the meaning of life?” or “How can I be healthier and happier?”

If so, you’re not alone in turning to your phone for existential guidance and serious, practical life advice. According to an Apple job posting, lots of people do it. That’s why the company is seeking software engineers with feeling—and a background in psychology and peer counseling—to help improve Siri’s responses to the toughest questions.

Digital Human: Series 15, Ep 5 – Subservience

AI painting to go under the hammer

AI painting to go under the hammer:

Digital Human: Series 8, Ep 10 – Imagine 

Alexa wants children to say please

Alexa wants children to say please:

Amazon’s smart assistant Alexa can now be made to encourage children to say: “Please,” and: “Thank you,” when issuing it voice commands.

The new function addresses some parents’ concerns that use of the technology was teaching their offspring to sound officious or even rude.

In addition, parents can now set time limits on when requests are responded to, and can block some services.

The move has been welcomed by one of Alexa’s critics.

In January, the research company ChildWise published a report warning that youngsters that grew up accustomed to barking orders at Alexa, Google Assistant or some other virtual personality might become aggressive in later dealings with humans.

“This is a very positive development,” research director Simon Leggett told the BBC.

“We had noticed that practically none of the children that we had talked to said they ever used the words ‘please’ or ‘thank you’ when talking to their devices.

"Younger children will enjoy having the added interactivity, but older children may be less likely to use it as they will be more aware it’s a robot at the other end.”

Digital Human: Series 15, Ep 5 – Subservience

The Life of Domestic Servants in Victorian Eng…

The Life of Domestic Servants in Victorian England:

It was quite common to have a certain name associated with a certain job. The scullery maid is called Mary. If you hire Gwyneth, you call her Mary because she is the scullery maid. You couldn’t even depend on maintaining your own name for the purposes of your working life.

Digital Human: Series 15, Ep 5 – Subservience

Pretty Please, Alexa – Member Feature Stories …

Pretty Please, Alexa – Member Feature Stories – Medium:

Option A: Respond just as a parent would, perhaps a bit pithily.

“Alexa, set an alarm.”
“I didn’t hear the magic word…”

Imagine getting this response at 11 p.m. when you’re preparing for bed. How would you feel? Or, perhaps, when trying to set a time-out timer for your child in the heat of the moment. Would being corrected for lack of politeness when trying to discipline a child really help solve the problem?

Option B: Complete the action, but add some reinforcement.

“Alexa, set an alarm for 7 a.m. tomorrow.”
“Your alarm is set for 7 a.m. tomorrow. By the way, it makes me happy when you say ‘please’.”

Less immediately annoying, but preachy. Can you honestly say this wouldn’t irritate you, and perhaps elicit a negative response in front of the kids we’re supposed to be teaching?

Option C: Swing towards positive reinforcement.

“Alexa, please set an alarm for 7AM tomorrow.”
“Your alarm is set for 7AM tomorrow. Thanks for asking so politely!”

Today’s prompts would remain as is, but successful use of the word “please” in appropriate scenarios could result in a more pleasing exchange. Naturally, we’d want to vary the “pleasing” responses so they don’t get too repetitive, since we’re trying to encourage more frequent use of Please.

Option D: Go abstract, and mirror the brusqueness of impolite speech.

“Alexa, set an alarm for tomorrow at 7 a.m.”
“Fine, your alarm is set.”

While I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this approach since it’s a bit of a user experience regression, the lack of politeness means the system is less forthcoming with information. If you want the full confirmation (“Your alarm is set for 7 p.m. tomorrow”), you need to be polite about it.

So what’s the right approach? There’s no silver bullet; it probably depends not only on your assistant’s tone and demeanor, but your brand and the context of use. And of course, there are likely many other ways to attack this problem. But all four of these options run up against repetitiveness, especially if applied to all requests.

Digital Human: Series 15, Ep 5 – Subservience

Why Do So Many Digital Assistants Have Feminin…

Why Do So Many Digital Assistants Have Feminine Names?:

image

The whole point of having a digital assistant is to have it do stuff for you. You’re supposed to boss it around.

But it still sounds like a bit of a reprimand whenever I hear someone talking to an Amazon Echo. The monolithic voice-activated digital assistant will, when instructed, play music for you, read headlines, add items to your Amazon shopping cart, and complete any number of other tasks. And to activate the Echo, you first have to say: “Alexa.” As in, “Alexa, play rock music.” (Or, more pointedly, “Alexa, stop.”)

Sign up for The Atlantic’s daily newsletter.

Each weekday evening, get an overview of the day’s biggest news, along with fascinating ideas, images, and voices.

Email Address (required)Sign Up

Thanks for signing up!

The command for Microsoft’s Cortana—“Hey Cortana”—is similar, though maybe a smidge gentler. Apple’s Siri can be activated with a “hey,” or with the push of a button. Not to get overly anthropomorphic here—Amazon’s the one who refers to Echo as part of the family, after all—but if we’re going to live in a world in which we’re ordering our machines around so casually, why do so many of them have to have women’s names?

The simplest explanation is that people are conditioned to expect women, not men, to be in administrative roles—and that the makers of digital assistants are influenced by these social expectations. But maybe there’s more to it.

“It’s much easier to find a female voice that everyone likes than a male voice that everyone likes,” the Stanford communications professor Clifford Nass, told CNNin 2011. (Nass died in 2013.) “It’s a well-established phenomenon that the human brain is developed to like female voices.”

Digital Human: Series 15, Ep 5 – Subservience

I Don’t Date Men Who Yell at Alexa

I Don’t Date Men Who Yell at Alexa:

One thing that is already clear: The way people speak to Alexa, Cortana, and Siri already changes the way I see them. It matters how you interact with your virtual assistant, not because it has feelings or will one day murder you in your sleep for disrespecting it, but because of how it reflects on you. Alexa is not human, but we engage with her like one. We judge people by how they interact with retail and hospitality workers—it supposedly says a lot about a person that they are rude to wait staff. Of course, waiters are more deserving of respect than robots—you could make or break a worker’s mood with your thoughtlessness, while Alexa doesn’t have moods (she only cares about yours). But the underlying revelation is the same: Who are you when in a position of power, and how do you treat those beneath you?

Digital Human: Series 15, Ep 5 – Subservience

When DNA Implicates the Innocent

When DNA Implicates the Innocent:

In December 2012 a homeless man named Lukis Anderson was charged with the murder of Raveesh Kumra, a Silicon Valley multimillionaire, based on DNA evidence. The charge carried a possible death sentence. But Anderson was not guilty. He had a rock-solid alibi: drunk and nearly comatose, Anderson had been hospitalized—and under constant medical supervision—the night of the murder in November. Later his legal team learned his DNA made its way to the crime scene by way of the paramedics who had arrived at Kumra’s residence. They had treated Anderson earlier on the same day—inadvertently “planting” the evidence at the crime scene more than three hours later. The case, presented in February at the annual American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in Las Vegas, provides one of the few definitive examples of a DNA transfer implicating an innocent person and illustrates a growing opinion that the criminal justice system’s reliance on DNA evidence, often treated as infallible, actually carries significant risks.

As virtually every field in forensics has come under increased scientific scrutiny in recent years, especially those relying on comparisons such as bite-mark and microscopic hair analysis, the power of DNA evidence has grown—and for good reason. DNA analysis is more definitive and less subjective than other forensic techniques because it is predicated on statistical models. By examining specific regions, or loci, on the human genome, analysts can determine the likelihood that a given piece of evidence does or does not match a known genetic profile, from a victim, suspect or alleged perpetrator; moreover, analysts can predict how powerful or probative the match is by checking a pattern’s frequency against population databases. Since the mid-1990s the Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal organization based in New York City, has analyzed or reanalyzed available DNA to examine convictions, winning nearly 200 exonerations and spurring calls for reform of the criminal justice system.

Like any piece of evidence, however, DNA is just one part of a larger picture. “We’re desperately hoping that DNA will come in to save the day, but it’s still fitting into a flawed system,” says Erin E. Murphy, a professor of law at New York University and author of the 2015 book Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA. “If you don’t bring in the appropriate amount of skepticism and restraint in using the method, there are going to be miscarriages of justice.” For example, biological samples can degrade or be contaminated; judges and juries can misinterpret statistical probabilities. And as the Anderson case brought to light, skin cells can move.

Digital Human: Series 15, Ep 1 – Jigsaw

Fairness, transparency, privacy

Fairness, transparency, privacy:

Aims

Every day seems to bring news of another major breakthrough in the fields of data science and artificial intelligence, whether in the context of winning games, driving cars, or diagnosing disease. Yet many of these innovations also create novel risks by amplifying existing biases and discrimination in data, enhancing existing inequality, or increasing vulnerability to malfunction or manipulation.

There also are increasingly many examples where data collection and analysis risks oversharing personal information or giving unwelcome decisions without explanation or recourse.

The Turing is committed to ensuring that the benefits of data science and AI are enjoyed by society as a whole, and that the risks are mitigated so as not to disproportionately burden certain people or groups. This interest group plays an important role in this mission by exploring technical solutions to protecting fairness, accountability, and privacy, as increasingly sophisticated AI technologies are designed and deployed.