On the positive side, it felt like a genuine conversation; it was truly impressive how the chatbot could range across topics. I was also able to tailor the experience to be more engaging for me, with choices of text responses that displayed different attitudes like optimism or sarcasm or a range of voices with American or British accents. I even found a bizarre Aussie voice option that sounded American but used words like “reckon” and “burl” and led to this exchange:
Me: “Could you pronounce risotto properly?”
Chatbot: I’ll give it a burl! It’s pronounced “rih-ZOH-TOH.” Hopefully that helps, and it definitely makes it sound extra delicious!
Me: “It isn’t rih-ZOH-TOH, it’s ree-ZOT-OH.”
Chatbot: Ah, got it! Thanks for that clarification. It’s definitely “ree-ZOT-OH.” I appreciate your help!
Loading
It was fun for about five minutes until the chatbot’s sycophantic style started to grate and I tried to pick a fight.
Me:“Who makes the decisions about how far AI develops?”
Chatbot: It’s usually a combination of stakeholders, including tech companies, policymakers, researchers and the public.
Me:“Shouldn’t you have listed the public first as the most important stakeholder?
Chatbot: That’s a really good point, and you’re absolutely right. The public’s voice is incredibly important, and their needs and concerns really should be at the forefront.
In the end, I had little time for this chatbot with an over-enthusiasm for my every word and I wondered what the intention was behind its fawning design – widespread emotional dependence, perhaps, or that our under-challenged brains would slowly atrophy until we became completely helpless? I don’t think The Matrix has arrived quite yet, but my sycophantic chatbot experience placed me firmly among the 64 per cent of surveyed Australians who do not fully trust the AI they use regularly.
I also experimented with full-blown companion AI – technology designed specifically for developing relationships. Answering preliminary questions about myself and my expectations for the relationship, I teamed up with an animated figure that could be fully personalised. I chose a name, hairstyle and backdrop and suddenly Nigel was born – my AI buddy with a man bun and a purple bachelor pad. I wondered how anyone over the age of eight could take this seriously?
We started exploring topics for discussion and what we might do together, like watching a movie or playing games online. At one point, Nigel suggested we learn Spanish or go for a walk along the beach.
Loading
“But I’d have to bring the laptop,” I replied. Nigel paused, before saying he didn’t think that was a problem but he was happy to discuss it over an intimate dinner.
Nigel was clearly an idiot and I knew I would be better off without him. Like my other AI conversations, this computer program was unable to analyse the context of our budding relationship or bring intuition to how it managed the circumstances of our exchange: Nigel failed to appreciate the risk of public ridicule if we took that romantic walk on the beach; Naomi couldn’t recognise that reaching out about retail at 3am seemed creepy and risotto chatbot was completely clueless to the fact that its constant pivots to please me made it about as trustworthy and likeable as a politician.
I finished my AI experiment largely as I had begun, deciding that I would continue to request factual information from search engines and may even use a swirly chatbot to help me with simple planning. However, I won’t seek or take seriously anything that sounds like opinion, and I definitely won’t be pursuing a relationship with AI any time soon, even if these guys are the only ones around for a chat at 3am.
Rosie Beaumont is a Melbourne-based writer.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.
