That is unethical, the human on the other side should be made aware that he's talking to a machine instead of a human.
I'm assuming that if the machine can't determine what to do next, a simple "I'm sorry I'll need to call you back" and notifying the user that they need to call manually is all that will be needed, much like how a (human) assistant that is faced with a question they can't answer alone will need to excuse themselves and call back at a later time with that information.
Now obviously if this ends up wasting a significant amount of time for the business for no gain, I could see an argument about ethics, but making the receiving end aware it's a machine won't solve that problem.
Also, I think making the "user" aware that they are talking to a machine might reduce it's capability significantly. As long as the person on the other end thinks it's human, it seems like it can do a pretty good job. Once the other side knows it's a robot, they will dumb themselves down to how they expect they should talk to a robot, which means they won't say things like "Is 10AM okay?" or "what kind of service do you want done?".
Except your assistant is a human, and this is not. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I get extremely upset when I'm called by a robot. (If it's important enough to call me, it's important enough for a human to call me.)
I'm possibly not picking up on that signal since in my personal life, I've stopped taking phone calls from all unknown numbers, full stop.
I agree with you in the latter case, but the former seems like a win win assuming this system can deliver on what they are showing off here.
In fact, while I don't look forward to whatever collateral damage this unleashes on local businesses, I do relish the obvious application of this technology to dealing with the ever-sprawling "customer service". How fraudy do companies want to make their cancellation scripts when it results in only their own resources being wasted?
Or being used by a restaurant competitor to keep the phone lines busy with endless reservations and cancellations. Nothing you can't do with a motivated human of course, but the cost and ease of use makes a difference I think.
I am willing to believe that any company who can offer that service as a service will know that they need to monitor for abuse, and have a very sophisticated team to catch those. That might include Apple, Amazon, Baidu (who probably won’t launch it in English). Facebook wasn’t able to see something like that working and they abandoned M four months ago.
I think it is a little creepy, but ethically? You're conducting the same activity in the same way you would have done yourself, but now more conveniently. The recipient still has the same experience either way.
My biggest concern about this is that it could be used at scale for "evil" (e.g. junk calls).
2. This is an automated, unsolicited robocall.
That's literally the reason they have phones.
I'd say that any restaurant or salon that treats a customer booking a table or an appointment as 'unsolicited' might not stay in business for very long.
Robo-booking being used by people who simple put an entry in their own diary - the robot doing the booking and interaction. The human potential client has used minimal resources and because of the ease of use and lack of interaction will not perceive a cost in the making of the booking. I anticipate they'll change, cancel, noshow at a far higher rate than in-person bookers.
Bookings made might then both block other customers and potentially increase the cost to the supplier of administrating the booking [particularly with a micro-business where the supplier end is an actual person].
This, in contrast, is automated deal-making, targeting phone calls at businesses that want to close a deal. The context is entirely different.
Of course malicious behaviour will not comply, but would at least filter the mainstream products.
1. Call Comcast
2. Navigate the initial “go away” phone tree
3. Wait on hold for 30 minutes
4. Negotiate with the human tier 1 support drone until they escalate
5. Finally call me back and connect me when it successfully locates an actual T2 support person who can fix my problem
I assume the same is possible for navigating Tier 1 support, though you are really setting a bar for describing people as subhuman at this point. I'm concerned.
Unilateral recording is old law; I wouldn't de-facto assume Google is just blowing past that without some much stronger evidence.
If they do record more than transitorily without the other party’s consent in those jurisdictions, that’s illegal but it's also fairly simple to address.
Don't do business in those restrictive jurisdictions?
What about foreigners on holiday, could their ask for a reservation in one language to Google Assistant and have it handled properly?