Transcriber: Jenny (El) Tayar Reviewer: Anna Sobota
Some time ago, I found myself saying “Goodbye” and “Thank you”
to my voice assistant
and I was like, “Okay, why are you saying ‘Thank you’ to your assistant?
That’s just a piece of art and software.”
Well, it turns out I'm not alone.
Actually, half of the USC users say “Please” and “Thank you.”
(Laughter)
Millions say, “I love you”, propose to “her daily”,
and some even want to have sex with her.
(Audience) Oh!
(Laughs)
Well, but think about it.
Just because people say they love their voice assistant,
does that necessarily mean that they are actually in love
with their device as they would be with other humans?
If not, how do people actually relate to these systems that talk back to them,
almost like real humans?
And that’s what we wanted to find out.
We studied around 1000 conversational AI users
by using a relationship theory from psychology.
And here we found that people relate to their AI systems in three ways.
First, the traditional master-servant relationship,
then a non-hierarchical rational relationship
and a friend-like relationship.
Now, first we found that only few actually see their AI system as a friend.
That's not surprising because after all, they are marketed as digital assistants.
So it’s not surprising that most of the people see their relationship
as the actual master-servant relationship.
What we found interesting was that
the rational, non-hierarchical relationship
was almost as popular as the traditional master-servant relationship.
In that relationship, people believe
that they are somewhat on eye level with their AI system
and they share control or power with the system.
Now, this finding could be interesting for developers
because how people relate to their systems may influence how they use it.
So, consider a simple tasks such as setting the alarm.
You know, not much interaction required: short, simple interaction.
But, consider complex tasks
such as online shopping with a voice assistant only.
It requires more engagement,
multi-term dialogues, potential data sharing,
more financial risks.
In other words, they share more responsibility.
So, if we want to use these systems for more complex tasks,
it might make sense
that we see them or design them more as partners in decision making
rather than those mere order takers.
So, we wonder whether the role of the digital assistant
as our servants will somehow go out of fashion.
And we investigated this question by looking at voice shopping decisions.
Specifically, we ask whether the way I relate to my voice assistant
will influence what kind of products I buy.
And here we differentiate cheap and simple products
and complex and expensive products.
And now, hang with me - this needs your full attention.
We made two assumptions.
First, we thought that people who would relate to the system as friend or servant
would be more likely to buy those cheap and simple products,
like toilet paper.
You don't have to think about a lot, you know,
and you can easily delegate this decision to your voice assistant
because you trust it like a friend,
or the task is so simple that you can easily delegate it to a simple servant.
Second, we thought it was different for the complex, expensive products,
like buying a laptop.
This needs a lot of decision making
about the quality, the functions, and so on.
And people might even need a sales agent to get advice.
So we thought that for these complex products
that people who see their assistant more as rational and, you know,
attributes some agency to the system
would be more likely to buy those expensive products.
Well, it turns out we were right, but also wrong in our assumptions.
The first assumption was right.
People who see their device as a friend or a servant
are more likely to buy cheap products.
Second assumption, wrong.
When it comes to the complex, expensive products,
it was not the rational, non-hierarchical relationship perception
that mattered most.
Even here it was the perception of the assistant as a friend
that mattered, that predicted voice shopping.
In other words, friendship sells.
Even the expensive stuff.
(Laughter)
So, what now?
Are we done with the era of digital assistants as our servants?
And would I go out and recommend everyone to design for AI friends?
I would,
if I had no moral compass.
(Laughter)
(Laughs)
I do believe that humanizing machines is a blessing.
It helps us dealing with them and it’s really also much more fun.
But it also comes with a curse.
It makes us vulnerable.
It may lead to oversharing personal data
or voice assistance can be used to influence us
to make decisions that, you know, buy things we don’t want or don’t need.
And, on top of that, some have even found that people get addicted to AI friends.
So what do we do when the attachment to these technologies
turn into unhealthy addiction or any other unhealthy behaviors?
I don't think that we're anywhere near ready to deal with this.
And this is why I strongly believe
that we must better understand Human-AI relationships,
of course, to build better systems, but also to protect the users,
because these psychological relationship mechanisms
they can be exploited so easily in many ways
that may be very difficult to control.
So please, think about that the next time
you say “Thank you” to your voice assistant.
(Laughter)
(Applause)