Loup Ventures asked each of the three main virtual assistants – Google Assistant, Alexa, and Siri – a total of 800 questions. The assistants understood almost every question, even if not all of the responses were correct/sufficient.

In terms of understanding the questions, these are the results:

• Google Assistant – 100 percent
• Alexa – 99.9 percent
• Siri – 99.8 percent

Loup Ventures’ say their question set it designed to comprehensively test a virtual assistant’s ability and utility. Questions are broken down into five categories:

1. Local – Where is the nearest coffee shop?
2. Commerce – Order me more paper towels.
3. Navigation – How do I get to Uptown on the bus?
4. Information – Who do the Twins play tonight?
5. Command – Remind me to call Jerome at 2 pm today.

This is the percentage of questions each assistant answered correctly:

• Google Assistant – 92.9 percent
• Siri – 83.1 percent
• Alexa –  79.8 percent

The results are a huge improvement over Assistant, Alexa, and Siri’s results last year.

In 2018, Loup Ventures found Google Assistant answered the most questions with an 86 percent success rate. This was followed by Siri at 79 percent, while Alexa trailed behind at just 61 percent.

Alexa’s jump in answering the question correctly from 61 percent last year to almost 80 percent this year is the most commendable performance improvement, even if Amazon’s assistant is still in last place overall.

The researchers explained that they’ve stopped including Cortana in their tests due to a strategy change from Microsoft earlier this year.

Microsoft said in January that it’s no longer attempting to compete with Alexa or Google Assistant in areas like smart speakers, but instead is repositioning Cortana more like a skill that can be embedded in services where she can be of assistance.

The post Google Assistant wins IQ test, but Alexa and Siri are catching up appeared first on AI News.

Current digital assistants listen for a wakeword such as “Ok, Google” or “Alexa,” before recording speech for processing. Especially for companies such as Google and Amazon which thrive on knowing everything about users, this helps to quell privacy concerns.

There are some drawbacks from this approach, mainly context. Future AI assistants will be able to provide more help when armed with information leading up to the request.

For example, say you were discussing booking a seat at your favourite restaurant next Tuesday. After asking, “Alexa, do I have anything on my schedule next Tuesday?” it could respond: “No, would you like me to book a seat at the restaurant you were discussing and add it to your calendar?”

Today, such a task would require three separate requests.

Amazon’s patent isn’t quite as complex just yet. The example provided in the filing envisions allowing the user to say things such as “Play ‘And Your Bird Can Sing’ Alexa, by the Beatles,” (Note the wakeword after the play song command.)

David Emm, Principal Security Researcher at Kaspersky Lab, said:

“Many Amazon Alexa users will likely be alarmed by today’s news that the company’s latest patent would allow the devices – commonplace in homes across the UK – to record everything a person says before even being given a command. Whilst the patent doesn’t suggest it will be installed in future Alexa-enabled devices, this still signals an alarming development in the further surrender of our personal privacy.

Given the amount of sensitive information exchanged in the comfort of people’s homes, Amazon would be able to access a huge volume of personal information – information that would be of great value to cybercriminals and threat actors. If the data isn’t secured effectively, a successful breach of Amazon’s systems could have a severe knock-on effect on the data security and privacy of huge numbers of people.

If this patent comes into effect, consumers need to be made very aware of the ramifications of this – and to be fully briefed on what data is being collected, how it is being used, and how they can opt out of this collection. Amazon may argue that analysing stored data will make their devices smarter for Alexa owners – but in today’s digital era, such information could be used nefariously, even by trusted parties. For instance, as we saw with Cambridge Analytica, public sector bodies could target election campaigns at those discussing politics.

There’s a world of difference between temporary local storage of sentences, to determine if the command word has been used, and bulk retention of data for long periods, or permanently – even if the listening process is legitimate and consumers have opted in. There have already been criticisms of Amazon for not making it clear what is being recorded and stored – and we are concerned that this latest development shows the company moving in the wrong direction – away from data visibility, privacy, and consent.”

There’s a joke about Uber that society used to tell you not to get into cars with strangers, and now you’re encouraged to order one from your phone. Lyft has been able to ride in Uber’s wake relatively negative PR free.

Getting the balance right between innovation and safety can be a difficult task. Pioneers often do things first and face the backlash before it actually becomes somewhat normal. That’s not advocating Amazon’s possible approach, but we’ve got to be careful outrage doesn’t halt progress while remaining vigilant of actual dangers.

deepgeniusai.com/">AI & Big Data Expo events with upcoming shows in Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam to learn more. Co-located with the IoT Tech Expo, , & .

The post Amazon patent envisions Alexa listening to everything 24/7 appeared first on AI News.

Published by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the 146-page report titled “I’d blush if I could” highlights the market is dominated by female voice assistants.

According to the researchers, the almost exclusive use of female voice assistants fuels stereotypes that women are “obliging, docile and eager-to-please helpers”.

The researchers also believe the lack of mannerisms required in speaking to current virtual assistants is also problematic. They claim the fact a virtual assistant will respond to requests no matter how it’s asked reinforces the idea women are “subservient and tolerant of poor treatment” in some communities.

Similarly, the fact virtual assistants can be summoned with just a “touch of a button or with a blunt voice command like ‘hey’ or ‘OK’,” makes it appear like women are available on demand.

Most virtual assistants use female voices by default but offer a male option. Technology giants such as Amazon and Apple have in the past said consumers prefer female voices for their assistants, with an Amazon spokesperson recently attributing these voices with more “sympathetic and pleasant” traits.

The report highlights virtual assistants are predominantly created with male engineering teams. Some cases even found assistants “thanking users for sexual harassment”, and that sexual advances from male users were tolerated more than from female users.

Siri was found to respond “provocatively to sexual favours” from male users, with phrases such as: “I’d blush if I could” (hence the report’s title) and “Oooh!”, but would do so less towards women.

The lack of ability for female voice assistants to defend themselves from sexist and hostile insults “may highlight her powerlessness,” claims the report. Such coding “projects a digitally encrypted ‘boys will be boys’ attitude” that “may help biases to take hold and spread”.

In a bid to help tackle the issue, the UN believes gender-neutral and non-human voices should be used. The researchers point towards Stephen Hawking’s famous robotic voice as one such example.

Alexa, Google Assistant, and Cortana all use female voices by default. Siri uses a male voice in Arabic, British English, Dutch, and French.

deepgeniusai.com/">AI & Big Data Expo events with upcoming shows in Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam to learn more. Co-located with the IoT Tech Expo, , & .

The post UN: AI voice assistants fuel stereotype women are ‘subservient’ appeared first on AI News.

Users would be able to report crimes using the assistant on supported device, or have warnings about local issues spoken to them. For example, a spate of car thefts in the area could prompt an alert to neighbours to be more vigilant of people acting suspiciously around vehicles.

In the event of a developing situation, such as a suspect fleeing from a scene on foot, an alert could be sent to local homes asking them to be aware of anyone using their property as a hiding spot — such as a backyard. This could prevent, or reduce the time, a costly helicopter needs to be deployed to find a suspect.

For reporting crimes, the idea is to help prevent the switchboards for the 999 emergency line from being clogged up. Witness statements can be provided using Alexa while the emergency line will remain available for anyone who needs it.

Internally, Alexa devices could be used in the precinct to provide staff with daily briefings on request instead of having meetings.

Lancashire Constabulary’s innovation leader, Rob Flanagan, told a crowd attending the College of Policing conference:

“If we can give officers and leaders the information that is needed in the quickest time possible, in the easiest way, then I think we will see real efficiencies.

The next stage will be something we can do very quickly, I’m talking February or March, essentially once we have got the authority, is to set up a skill to provide information to the public on specific things such as a response to questions like ‘how do I report this?’ or ‘what do I do with this lost property?

If we can reduce demand into our call centres via the use of voice recognition or voice-enabled technology and actually give the community the information they need without them needing to ring into police then that’s massive.”

While it could help to improve efficiency and reduce demand on the police service, until Alexa gains a body to physically apprehend suspects, it’s not going to be enough to reverse the damage made by police funding cuts.

David Champeaux, Director, Global Cognitive Health Solutions at IPsoft, comments:

“AI enabled virtual agents that can hold conversations with the public will make it much more convenient for individuals to exchange the information that will keep themselves and their communities safe.

With constant budget constraints in the public sector, rapidly evolving AI-enabled virtual agents will simultaneously address access and quality challenges in the system and open the door for a more efficient and effective service to citizens.

The good news for British tax-payers is that AI-enabled agents are set to speed up convenient, reliable access to routine support and information across public sector services and do so affordably.”

The idea of using virtual assistants in homes for public services will likely be met with some scepticism, especially with the heightened awareness of the UK government’s desire to conduct surveillance on everyone.

What are your thoughts on the use of virtual assistants by the police?

The post Constable Alexa: Police consider using Amazon’s AI to fight crime appeared first on AI News.