This is how it starts, people. First we get our chatbots to sound and act realistic — and then we get them to convince everyone they’re actually human. Listen to this crazy conversation between Time’s Michael Scherer and a telemarketing robot who refuses to admit her true artificial nature.

Recently, Time Washington Bureau Chief Michael Scherer received a phone call from an apparently bright and engaging woman asking him if he wanted a deal on his health insurance. But he soon got the feeling something wasn’t quite right.

After asking the telemarketer point blank if she was a real person or a computer-operated robot, she chuckled charmingly and insisted she was real. Looking to press the issue, Scherer asked her a series of questions, which she promptly failed. Such as, “What vegetable is found in tomato soup?” To which she responded by saying she didn’t understand the question. When asked what day of the week it was yesterday, she complained of a bad connection (ah, the oldest trick in the book).

Here, listen for yourself:

https://soundcloud.com/zekejmiller/new-recording-24

http://io9.com/freakishly-realistic-telemarketing-robots-are-denying-t-1481050295?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

>“What vegetable is found in tomato soup?”

Onion, usually (tomato is a fruit).

Sorry, couldn’t resist :)

“Her” initial response to the robot accusation was quite convincing.

Although to add realism they should have had her speaking in a barely intelligible Indian accent.

Bubblecar said:

“Her” initial response to the robot accusation was quite convincing.

Maybe it was a real person pretending to be a robot pretending to be a real person.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

“Her” initial response to the robot accusation was quite convincing.

Maybe it was a real person pretending to be a robot pretending to be a real person.

That would be clever and a cheap way to get a lot of publicity.

Bubblecar said:

Although to add realism they should have had her speaking in a barely intelligible Indian accent.

They also need to work on some ums and errs and hesitations, rather than just total silence while she has a think, then an unhesitating reply.

I don’t know what this one is all about, I haven’t the time or the inclination to follow the links but I’ll make one observation, a general observation.

The younger generations seem particularly gullible, easily lead and lacking in common dog fuck.

Trick question.. A tomato is a vegetable but you actually eat the fruit?

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t know what this one is all about, I haven’t the time or the inclination to follow the links but I’ll make one observation, a general observation.

The younger generations seem particularly gullible, easily lead and lacking in common dog fuck.

Leads = led?

Tomato is a vegetable and a fruit.

ARNIE VOICE
BUY INSURANCE IF YOU WANT TO LIVE…

Skeptic Pete said:

Tomato is a vegetable and a fruit.

So too are all fruits of vegetables but many others also allow you to eat the leaves.

• Maybe it was a real person pretending to be a robot pretending to be a real person.

I think I saw a report of a study, or some such, where they did that…

You can lead a horse to Flemington, but a Waterhouse must be bent.

furious said:

• Maybe it was a real person pretending to be a robot pretending to be a real person.

I think I saw a report of a study, or some such, where they did that…

It is a scientific avenue.

• It is a scientific avenue.

I am not sure what that means…

However, where I read this thing may have actually been on this very site…

furious said:

• It is a scientific avenue.

I am not sure what that means…

any avenue of investigation may yield credible results.

It wasn’t an actual study, it was a suggested avenue of study…

AI modified Turing test?

“I think all parents know that occasionally the best thing that we can give a kid is a smack, but it can never be something that hurts them.”

roughbarked said:

“I think all parents know that occasionally the best thing that we can give a kid is a smack, but it can never be something that hurts them.”

I’ve thought about it long and hard and tend to think that any circumstance that ‘requires a smack’ is usually an area that the adult is initially at fault in some manner but the child deals with the consequence, ie, when a parent takes a child to a high distraction environment without having prepared a way to keep the childs attention. Repeated warnings are not a fair tool if you don’t provide alternatives.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

“I think all parents know that occasionally the best thing that we can give a kid is a smack, but it can never be something that hurts them.”

I’ve thought about it long and hard and tend to think that any circumstance that ‘requires a smack’ is usually an area that the adult is initially at fault in some manner but the child deals with the consequence, ie, when a parent takes a child to a high distraction environment without having prepared a way to keep the childs attention. Repeated warnings are not a fair tool if you don’t provide alternatives.

This may be why the court would allow you guardianship.

telemarketing robot smackers?

we’re rooned.

Dropbear said:

telemarketing robot smackers?

we’re rooned.

sed ‘anrhan

Those are quite good.