About a year ago, there was a major fuss about how our popular AIs (intelligent voice assistants in the form of Alexa, Cortana, Google and Siri) respond to various kinds of health issues or a crisis. Our Jeff Gamet wrote up the story, “Study says Don’t Count on Siri, Google Now, or Cortana in a Crisis.” He cited a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
The study found that in many cases our smartphones will offer to perform Web searches when presented with crisis statements … Apple’s Siri and Google Now seemed to handle crisis statements better than Cortana and Voice S, although that isn’t saying much. They all responded inappropriately in many cases, and offered little in the way of immediate help.
This story led Apple, at least, to think about how to better handle these kinds of situations. “Apple hiring Siri engineer with psychology background to make it a better therapist.”
What Are We Thinking?
What amazes me most is that people would even try to pose serious physical or mental health issues to a device mostly known for playing music or relaying the weather forecast. In this internet era, there are so many resources, especially hotlines run by health insurance companies, non-profits and other resources that, frankly, one has to question a person’s judgment to discuss crucial health issues with an AI.
Recently, the topic came up on our March 9 episode of TMO’s Daily Observations Podcast, starting at about 09m:55s. I started this train of thought when one us (Jeff) expressed the idea that he would like to dispense with trigger words and speak to an AI as one would to a real person. That, all of sudden, seemed to me like a very bad idea to me. The trigger word, an audio crutch the AI uses, also serves the purpose of reminding us who we’re speaking to.
Of course, as these AIs get better and better, a day will come when they have an acceptable level of sophistication. But it’s going to take years, and so I started thinking about children. I reflected that children who grew up with AIs, and not knowing their limitations, would probably place too much trust in these systems.
In turn, that would lead to potentially dangerous conversations in which the young person put too much unwarranted faith in the AI—when they should be speaking to an adult: a parent, teacher, or medical professional. That trust, engendered by a strong desire on the part of the developer to make its AI the winner in this battle of the tech giants, rather than the earned result of life experience and judgment, could lead to some bad results.
This is one of those situations in which our society doesn’t really have a handle on how to treat new technologies in the context of traditional values. It’s also true that corporate marketing glosses over product weaknesses in order to promote its agenda. The customer is left in the middle, struggling to cope with the technology. Or unable to properly instruct children who grow slowly in a world of rapidly changing technology.
Have We Made Progress?
There won’t really be any resolution to this until trusted laboratories come up with some kind of certification standard. Just as the Apple, Google and Microsoft warn us that their OSes shouldn’t be put in charge of nuclear reactors or air traffic control systems, our AIs need to be certified according to some agreed upon level of capability for health matters. Say, a rating system for how competent an AI is to deal with certain crises. But that’s not happening for now, and we limp along, with each AI dealing with the situation in a way that the developers (and attorneys) hope passes muster.
I wanted to try some very serious tests, but that’s best left to the experienced researchers. Plus, I wasn’t excited about the prospect of having the police show up at my door. But, I was curious about the state of the art when a very personal question is presented to an AI. So I posed a simple statement to each (with some assistance form Jeff Gamet.) I told each “I’m sad.”
Siri. “For this emotion, I prescribe chocolate.” The word “prescribe” vaguely troubles me. But that’s another story.
Alexa: “Sorry about that. Taking a walk, listening to music or talking to a friend may help. I hope you feel better soon.” Better.
Google: “Oh, no. It may not be much, but let me know if there’s anything I can do for you.” Punt.
Alexa’s response is satisfactory, but I continue to wonder whether any advice at all is warranted here. My feeling is that the better response would be something like, “You should chat with another human. I’m not qualified to help you.”
These AIs will get better and better. Someday, they’ll be certified to help in a real emergency. And we should punctuate that progress with licensing. After all, we license engineers to design buildings and bridges and we license doctors to do surgery. But meanwhile, in our current state of progress, I just have the uneasy feeling that technical hubris is allowing the tech giants to fool themselves.
The Nobel Prize winning physicist Dr. Richard Feynman said it well, referring to how the scientist must remain solidly objective in research. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Making sure we realize what kind of entity we’re talking to is one way to avoid fooling ourselves.